Mari v. Lankowicz, No. 1381.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the CourtCONDON, Justice.
Citation200 A. 953
PartiesMARI et ux. v. LANKOWICZ et ux.
Decision Date16 July 1938
Docket NumberNo. 1381.
200 A. 953

MARI et ux.
v.
LANKOWICZ et ux.

No. 1381.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 16, 1938.


Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Alexander L. Churchill, Judge.

Suit in equity by Guiseppe Mari and wife against Basil Lankowicz and wife to settle the boundary line between the parties' adjacent lots. From a decree in favor of the complainants, the respondents appeal.

Appeal sustained, decree reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill.

Benjamin Cianciarulo, of Providence, for complainants. William S. Flynn, of Providence, for respondents.

CONDON, Justice.

&gt

This is a bill in equity brought for the purpose substantially of settling the boundary line between complainants' and respondents' adjacent lots of land situated on McDonough street in the city of Providence. The cause was heard in the superior court on bill, answer, replication and proof and resulted in a decision for the complainants and the entry of a decree thereon granting them the relief which they prayed for. From this decree respondents appealed and have duly prosecuted their reasons of appeal to this court.

Respondents rely on the following reasons in their claim of appeal, namely, that the decision of the trial justice is against the evidence and the weight thereof and that the decree entered on such decision is not based on the findings therein and is therefore erroneous.

The complainants, in reply, contend that the findings of the trial justice are reasonably supported by the evidence and that therefore his decision should not be disturbed unless it is clearly wrong. They also argue that, on the facts brought out in evidence, they were clearly entitled to a decision in their favor, as the law applicable thereto has been clearly laid down by this court in what, they assert, were identical situations in the following cases: O'Donnell v. Penney, 17 R.I. 164, 20 A. 308; Faulkner v. Rocket, 33 R.I. 152, 80 A. 380; Aldrich v. Brownell, 45 R.I. 142, 120 A. 582; Doyle v. Ralph, 49 R.I. 155, 141 A. 180; Di Santo v. De Bellis, 55 R.I. 433, 182 A. 488. The respondents do not question the law of these cases but they do dispute the complainants' claim that the facts in any of them are like those of the instant case.

The undisputed facts in this case appear to be these: On March 28, 1925, the complainants became the owners in fee of certain real estate situated on McDonough street in the city of Providence and described as Lot No. 64 on the "Plat of the Eagle Steam Mill Estate in Olneyville". Their immediate predecessor in title was Antonio Papa, who had owned the lot from September 27, 1923 until he conveyed it to the complainants. The respondents bought the adjacent lot on the east from a man named F. Boule in the year 1925. This grantor had owned it a number of years before selling to the respondents, having bought it from his nephew, Simon Boule, who testified in this case for the respondents that his father owned it before him since the year 1910. Simon Boule also testified that he lived on the premises from 1910, at first with his father, later as owner and finally as agent for his uncle, F. Boule, until 1925 when his uncle sold to the respondents, Basil and Stephanie Lankowicz.

On the respondents' premises there were two houses, one in the front of the lot near

200 A. 954

McDonough street and the other in the rear near Willow street. This latter house was built close to the east boundary line of the complainants' lot, as shown by the plat. Each of these adjoining lots was bounded on the north by McDonough street and on the south by Willow street. That part of the boundary line from McDonough street southerly to or nearly to the northerly line of the rear house was marked by a picket fence that was built by Simon Boule some time before either of the parties to the present controversy had become owners of their respective lots. This fence, it is admitted, does not stand altogether on the true...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Rosa v. Oliveira, No. 74-100-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 30, 1975
    ...Malone v. O'Connell, 86 R.I. 167, 133 A.2d 756 (1957); Ungaro v. Mete, 68 R.I. 419, 27 A.2d 826 (1942); Mari v. Lankowicz, 61 R.I. 296, 200 A. 953 (1938); Di Santo v. De Bellis, 55 R.I. 433, 182 A. 488 (1935); Di Maio v. Ranaldi,49 R.I. 204, 142 A. 145 (1928); Doyle v. Ralph, 49 R.I. 155, 1......
  • Ungaro v. Mete, No. 1605.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • August 6, 1942
    ...141 A. 180; Di Maio v. Ranaldi, 49 R.I. 204, 142 A. 145; Di Santo v. De Bellis, 55 R.I. 433, 182 A. 488; Mari v. Lankowicz, 61 R.I. 296, 200 A. 953. In the last-cited case the decision turned on a disputed question of fact as to whether a fence had actually stood on the line in question for......
  • Chagnon v. United Elect. Rys. Co., No. 7979.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 30, 1938
    ...to cross the track and at what speed it was then moving. In the instant case the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff was such that we 200 A. 953 were and remain of the opinion that it did not show that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In arriving at our deci......
3 cases
  • Rosa v. Oliveira, No. 74-100-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 30, 1975
    ...Malone v. O'Connell, 86 R.I. 167, 133 A.2d 756 (1957); Ungaro v. Mete, 68 R.I. 419, 27 A.2d 826 (1942); Mari v. Lankowicz, 61 R.I. 296, 200 A. 953 (1938); Di Santo v. De Bellis, 55 R.I. 433, 182 A. 488 (1935); Di Maio v. Ranaldi,49 R.I. 204, 142 A. 145 (1928); Doyle v. Ralph, 49 R.I. 155, 1......
  • Ungaro v. Mete, No. 1605.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • August 6, 1942
    ...141 A. 180; Di Maio v. Ranaldi, 49 R.I. 204, 142 A. 145; Di Santo v. De Bellis, 55 R.I. 433, 182 A. 488; Mari v. Lankowicz, 61 R.I. 296, 200 A. 953. In the last-cited case the decision turned on a disputed question of fact as to whether a fence had actually stood on the line in question for......
  • Chagnon v. United Elect. Rys. Co., No. 7979.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 30, 1938
    ...to cross the track and at what speed it was then moving. In the instant case the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff was such that we 200 A. 953 were and remain of the opinion that it did not show that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In arriving at our deci......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT