Dunn v. Santino
| Decision Date | 23 December 1952 |
| Citation | 93 A.2d 726,139 Conn. 352 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DUNN et al. v. SANTINO et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
George R. Tiernan, New Haven, for appellants.
William T. Holleran, New Haven, Leonard J. Gilhuly, New Haven, for appellees.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.
This action was brought to restrain the defendants from crossing land owned by the plaintiffs. The court issued a permanent injunction, as sought by the plaintiffs, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed.
The court found the following facts: The plaintiffs are husband and wife. On March 3, 1947, they bought a house and lot fronting on the north shore of a lake in West Haven and, since July of the same year, have occupied the premises as their home. The defendants are likewise husband and wife. In 1932, the defendant John Santino acquired title to land lying to the west of the plaintiffs' property. He built a house upon his land in 1933 and ever since then has occupied it. In 1939 he married the other defendant and they now have two children. Between the properties in question is a fifty-foot strip of unimproved land owned by a stranger to this action.
Shortly after the plaintiffs moved into their house, Mrs. Santino called and introduced herself. In the course of the conversation which ensued, she said that she had been accustomed to crossing the plaintiffs' land, and she asked whether they would mind if members of her family continued to do so. She was told that there was no objection to the use of the back yard but that the plaintiffs did not relish the idea of having others walk over their front lawn. Thereafter, the defendants and their children made use of the back yard as a way to and from their house, and on rare occasions, until the fall of 1950, they as well as other neighbors of the plaintiffs crossed the front lawn at night and during stormy weather.
Beginning in the fall of 1950, Mrs. Santino began to use the front lawn as a short cut on her way to work. The plaintiffs, as a gesture of courtesy to a neighbor with whom they were, at the time, on friendly terms, raised no objection. When, however, in the spring of 1951 the Santino children commenced to cross the lawn, the plaintiff Philip Dunn spoke to Mr. Santino, telling him that, while he did not mind Mrs. Santino's walking over the front lawn in the morning as a convenience to her, the children should use only the back yard. Mr. Santino replied that the plaintiffs could not interfere because he and his family had a right of way over the land. This was the first time that the defendants had ever made this claim to the plaintiffs. As the defendants continued to cross over both the front and the rear of the property, the plaintiffs brought this action seeking injunctive relief. The defendants alleged in their answer that they had a right of way by prescription. This was denied, and the court resolved the issue in the plaintiffs' favor. The decisive question on this appeal is whether the court erred in holding that the defendants had not acquired a right of way by prescription over the plaintiffs' land.
The defendants, in their assault upon the finding, assign thirty-three errors. Such a wholesale onslaught has been frequently criticized by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goold v. Goold
...the trial court was not reasonable and logical. See Leabo v. Leninski, 182 Conn. 611, 615-16, 438 A.2d 1153 (1981); Dunn v. Santino, 139 Conn. 352, 355, 93 A.2d 726 (1952). In reaching this conclusion, we note that the actual portion of that sum which was the defendant's income was a fact w......
-
Swenson v. Dittner
...175 Conn. 535, 541, 400 A.2d 270 (1978); Wadsworth Realty Co. v. Sundberg, 165 Conn. 457, 463, 338 A.2d 470 (1973); Dunn v. Santino, 139 Conn. 352, 355, 93 A.2d 726 (1952). Whether the requirements for such a right have been met in a particular case presents a question of fact for the trier......
-
Benassi v. Harris
...corporation. There was adequate evidence to support these findings and they cannot be disturbed. Practice Book § 396; Dunn v. Santino, 139 Conn. 352, 355, 93 A.2d 726. The defendants claim that the equitable relief given to the plaintiff was not warranted by the circumstances of this case--......
-
Mihalczo v. Borough of Woodmont
...must stand since they find reasonable support in the evidence or in reasonable inferences drawn from the facts proven. Dunn v. Santino, 139 Conn. 352, 355, 93 A.2d 726. We cannot say as a matter of law that the court was required to find that the claim of an easement by prescription was aff......