Carroll v. Cooney
| Decision Date | 03 January 1933 |
| Citation | 116 Conn. 112,163 A. 599 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CARROLL v. COONEY et al. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Walter M Pickett, Judge.
Action in replevin by Elizabeth S. Carroll against Thomas F. Cooney and others to recover possession of household goods and personal effects. The case was tried to the court. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Franklin Coeller, of New Haven, for appellant.
A Frederick Mignone and Thomas R. Robinson, both of New Haven for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
The plaintiff replevied certain household goods and personal effects from the defendants, alleging in her complaint that they had wrongfully taken them into their possession and detained them from her. In their answer the defendants alleged that they were the proprietors of a lodging house in which the plaintiff was received as a lodger, that she was indebted to them for lodging, and that the property replevied was brought by her to their house during her stay there, and was retained by them by virtue of their lien as lodging house keepers. Section 5134 of the General Statutes gives to the keeper of a boarding or lodging house a lien upon the effects kept by a boarder or lodger in such house, for any sums due for board or lodging, when a special agreement has been made regarding the price to be paid for such board or lodging. The principal question involved is whether, as claimed by the defendants and ruled by the trial court, they kept a lodging house in which the plaintiff was a lodger, in which event they were entitled to possession of the property replevied by virtue of their statutory lien, or, as claimed by the plaintiff, the relation between them was that of landlord and tenant.
The court found the following facts: The house conducted by the defendants contained twenty-two rooms completely furnished, including bed linen and bed clothing. There were common bathrooms and toilets on the several floors, but no baths connected directly with any of the rooms. The arrangement of the building was such that it was possible to group two or three rooms as a suite, or use them singly. Some of the rooms were furnished as kitchenettes in which " light housekeeping" was permitted, and some of the lodgers did their own chamber work, but, when desired, this service was furnished by the defendants. The defendants retained keys to all the rooms and the right to enter for purposes of inspection, general supervision, and the care of the furnishings and equipment. They supplied stoves and a had of coal per day to each lodger in the hearing season. The plaintiff rented three connecting furnished rooms on a weekly basis, one of them being a kitchenette.
A number of the paragraphs of the finding are attacked, but there was evidence in support of all of the facts found. The discussion in plaintiff's brief of the assignments of error claiming corrections in the finding is confined to the claim that many of the occupants of the defendants' house took the exclusive care of their respective apartments, which is substantially found by the court.
Both parties cite Mathews v. Livingston, 86 Conn. 263...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Wright, No. 4000024 (CT 5/27/2005)
...306, 122 A.2d 25 (1956) (lessee who lived in apartment with her three children was in exclusive possession); see also Carroll v. Cooney, 116 Conn. 112, 163 A. 599 (1933); Milardo v. Banciforte, 109 Conn. 693, 698, 145 A. 573 (1929); Gura v. Scotnickie, 102 Conn. 83, 87-88, 92, 128 A. 22 (19......
-
Marden v. Radford
... ... plaintiff and defendant; and, in the character of this ... relationship, the case was one for the jury. [ Carroll v ... Cooney, 163 A. 599; Roberts v. Case Hotel Co., ... 175 N.Y.S. 123; Fox v. Windemere Hotel Co., 30 ... Cal.App. 162, 157 P. 820; ... ...
-
Marden v. Radford
...relationship between plaintiff and defendant; and, in the character of this relationship, the case was one for the jury. Carroll v. Cooney, 116 Conn. 112, 163 A. 599; Roberts v. Case Hotel Co., 106 Misc. 481, 175 N. Y. S. 123; Fox v. Windemere Hotel Co., 30 Cal. App. 162, 157 P. 820; Messer......
-
Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. v. Prezioso
...acquires an interest in the real estate giving him the right to maintain ejectment or trespass against the landlord. Carroll v. Cooney, 116 Conn. 112, 115, 163 A. 599. And where the entire premises are leased, in the absence of any agreement, either expressed or implied or by covenant to th......