McMahon v. Town of Stratford

• Decision Date: 12 July 1910
• Citation: 83 Conn. 386,76 A. 983
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: McMAHON et al. v. TOWN OF STRATFORD et al.

76 A. 983

83 Conn. 386

McMAHON et al.

v. TOWN OF STRATFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 12, 1910.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.

Action by John H. McMahon and others against the Town of Stratford and others to quiet title to certain land on Long Beach. Facts found and judgment rendered against plaintiffs, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Robert E. De Forest, for appellants.

Stiles Judson and John S. Pullman, for appellees.

RORABACK, J. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are the owners in fee of, and claim title to, a certain parcel of real estate situated in the town of Stratford, in the county of Fairfield, bounded on the north by the "Gut," so called, on the east by land formerly of David and Ira Curtis, south on Long Island Sound, and west by other land of the plaintiffs.

The defendants denied the plaintiffs' allegations as to the latter's title and waived any right to an adjudication of their own title to the land. The court made no finding as to the rights of the defendants, and found that the plaintiffs have no claim, right, or title, legal or equitable, in or to the premises described in the complaint.

An application sworn to as required by section 14 of the rules of this court (Practice Book 1908, p. 270) to rectify the appeal was made by the plaintiffs; and the defendants' counsel answered under oath. Depositions in support of and against this application were offered. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the application are admitted by the defendants. The facts set forth in these paragraphs, so far as they have any bearing upon the issues presented by the appeal, have been used to supplement the finding of the trial court. The matters of alleged fact set forth in the application, which were denied by the defendants, appear to have been the subject of opposing and conflicting evidence. Upon such matters the finding of the trial court is conclusive, and there is nothing left which this court can review.

The principal error assigned is that the court erred in its conclusion from the facts detailed in the finding, that the plaintiffs have no claim, right, or title In, or to, the premises described in the complaint. Such a conclusion is reviewable when it appears that the trial court in drawing its inferences of fact 'from conceded evidential facts has violated the plain rules of reason, or when one or more of the facts found are legally inconsistent with the decision rendered. Nolan v. Railroad, 70 Conn. 159, 183, 192, 39 Atl. 115, 43 L. R. A. 305.

It appears from the finding that the land within the township of Stratford, including the premises in question, was included in deeds from the Indians; some being made to the inhabitants of the township, and others to the "townsmen" or their successors. Grants of this land were made to the proprietors of the town by the General Court in 1685 and 1703. In 1741 the proprietor's committee allotted to Zachariah Curtis, Jr., and Timothy Beach in 1741, three parcels of sedge on the Long Beach which is the foundation of the plaintiffs' claim. It may be assumed in favor of the plaintiffs' contention that Curtis and Beach acquired title to these three parcels which were contiguous to each other, and together contained 4 1/2 acres. They were thereafter conveyed to successive grantees as one parcel, and described as a sedge marsh. These parcels were not upon the beach proper, but were located between the beach and Mud creek which is a continuation of the Gut at its east end, and which penetrates extensive salt meadows, and a marsh connecting with the Housatonic river. These parcels were a mile east of the land now in dispute. No evidence of the Timothy Beach interest in this land thereafter is disclosed by the land records. The interest of Zachariah Curtis, Jr., passed by descent, devise, and conveyance by a description of a most general character, to one Jonas Hinman, who in 1797 conveyed his holding to Jonas McKinzee, describing it as 4 1/2 acres of land or sedge marsh, Which deed referred to the original survey of Zachariah Curtis and Timothy Beach. In 1800 McKinzee conveyed the same parcel to Eli Tongue. No conveyance from Tongue appears of record, and the 4 1/2 acres in question were not made the subject of any subsequent conveyance of record, from the heirs, devisees, or representatives of Tongue. In 1835 one Abijah Ufford placed upon the land records of Stratford a deed, in which he purported to convey to one Timothy Risley a certain parcel of land or sand beach known as Long Beach Point, in Bridgeport Harbor at the mouth of the Gut, containing 10 acres, and bounded north on the Gut, east on land of David and Ira Curtis, south on Long Island Sound, and west on Bridgeport Harbor, "being property that I purchased of Eli Tongue, who purchased the same from James McKinzee." The grantor then refers by volume and page to the deed of McKinzee to Tongue, and further reference is made to deed of Jonas...