Dawson v. Davis
| Decision Date | 05 April 1939 |
| Citation | 5 A.2d 703,125 Conn. 330 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAWSON v. DAVIS.[*] |
Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Robert L. Munger, Judge.
Action by Charles L. Dawson against Emory R. Davis to recover damages for the cutting of trees on the land of the plaintiff. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
No error.
Charles V. James and Arthur M. Brown, both of Norwich, for appellant.
Edward L. Dennis, of Scotland, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.
This statutory action (General Statutes, § 5992) was brought in two counts. In the first the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had cut trees on his land without license. In the second the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had cut trees on land belonging to his wife without license and that she had assigned her claim to him. The answer was, in effect, a general denial. After judgment for the plaintiff the defendant appealed on the basic ground that the evidence by which the plaintiff established his title and possession was improperly admitted and that the finding as corrected proved neither actual nor constructive possession in the plaintiff and his wife.
The plaintiff had spent the summer months of his boyhood on his mother's farm in Canterbury, which is adjacent to the two parcels in question. In 1895 he acquired the farm described in the first count of the complaint and in 1897 his wife acquired her piece. There is nothing in the deeds themselves from which the boundaries can be ascertained. The south boundary of the first piece is on a highway but all the other boundaries of both pieces are on adjoining proprietors. The plaintiff occupied this farm with his family from 1894 to 1899. During his occupancy he fenced the lot purchased by his wife and pastured his cattle therein. He had trimmed and cut wood on the property now in dispute, knew of the existence of the stone and wire fences marking the boundaries, had repaired some of them and was familiar with the boundaries of his land. While some of these monuments have fallen away, sufficient of them remain unchanged, to indicate their existnece and position.
In 1899 the plaintiff moved to Jersey City with his family and rented the farm for three years. Thereafter for about twenty years the premises were unoccupied except that the plaintiff's family spent the summers there. During the last sixteen years he has visited the premises only once a year, spending two or three days working around the place. For the past eight or ten years a neighbor has acted as caretaker. In the winter of 1935-36, the defendant cut a large number of trees on the two parcels of land owned and in the possession of the plaintiff and his wife without securing a license from either. He had purchased the right to cut trees from Herbert Dawson, a nephew of the plaintiff, who owned adjoining property. Herbert Dawson pointed out to the defendant the land on which he was to cut. The land so indicated was no part of the property owned by the plaintiff and his wife. Herbert Dawson was not produced as a witness although he was, as far as appeared, available.
By stipulation it was agreed ‘ that references in the testimony of the plaintiff to his lot, his land, his boundaries or the like may be taken to include within their meaning the premises described in the second court,’ that is, those of the wife.
The defendant sought in effect to strike out practically all of this finding and to substitute his deaft-finding. The determination of the question thus arising depends on the correctness of the rulings on evidence since, if the evidence objected to is in the case, the finding has ample support.
A sketch of the property in dispute was offered by the plaintiff and admitted over the objection of the defendant that it was a self-serving declaration. An examination of the sketch discloses that it was apparently not drawn by an engineer but at least showed the relative position of the land claimed by the plaintiff and his wife to that of the surrounding proprietors. Under the limitation placed on it by the ruling it was clearly admissible. The court said: ‘ It is not admitted for the purpose of showing the boundaries of any particular area of land shown on the map-the sketch-but just as a photograph might be admitted for the purpose to enable the court to visualize the general situation there.’ Petroman v. Anderson, 105 Conn. 366, 370, 135 A. 391.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Piskorski
...of aiding the [177 Conn. 728] trier in understanding the evidence. Zaist v. Olson, 154 Conn. 563, 579, 227 A.2d 552; Dawson v. Davis, 125 Conn. 330, 332, 5 A.2d 703. Under the circumstances, "(t)he accuracy of the (maps) was a proper subject for cross-examination and the fact that . . . (th......
-
Zaist v. Olson
...on the map where he says he worked.' The maps were admissible to enable the court to visualize the general situation. Dawson v. Davis, 125 Conn. 330, 332, 5 A.2d 703. The referee placed no such limitation, however, in admitting the maps in evidence. The defendants now argue that the maps we......
-
Jordan v. Ingram
...as to his own property lines, and such testimony is adequate to support a ruling concerning the location of that line. Dawson v. Davis, 125 Conn. 330, 5 A.2d 703 (1939); State v. Hooper, 3 Conn.Cir. 143, 209 A.2d 539 (1965); Nabours v. Whiteley, 466 S.W.2d 62 (Tex.Civ.App.1971). Therefore, ......
-
Fontaine v. Coyle
...e. g., Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 676, 142 A. 461 (a defendant's son who was driving the defendant's automobile); Dawson v. Davis, 125 Conn. 330, 332, 5 A.2d 703 (a plaintiff's nephew who had charge of land involved in a dispute); Lemmon v. Paterson Construction Co., 137 Conn. 158, 16......
-
Nonproduction of Witnesses as Deliberative Evidence
...is related to both parties. E.g., Knoots v. Sentinel Life Ins. Co., 228 Mo. App. 353, 67 S.W.2d 798 (1934). 129. E.g., Dawson v. Davis, 125 Conn. 330, 334, 5 A.2d 703, 705 (1939). 130. E.g., A.B.C. Storage and Moving Co., Inc. v. Herron, 138 S.W.2d 211, 215-16 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940) (dictum)......