More v. Urbano
| Decision Date | 18 February 1964 |
| Citation | 198 A.2d 211,151 Conn. 381 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alice M. MORE v. Steve URBANO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Robert L. Fay, Wallingford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Milton G. Harrison, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant by mandatory injunction to remove a retaining wall and a portion of a building from the land in dispute at the northeast corner of a lot situated on the north side of Hall Avenue in Wallingford. She also sought an injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing on her land. The plaintiff acquired this lot by quitclaim deed from her mother on July 18, 1952. The deed gave the dimensions of the lot as 63 feet, more or less, for the front and rear lines, and 155 feet, more or less, for the side lines. The defendant owns two lots, one adjoining the east side of the plaintiff's property and the other adjoining the north side, or rear, of the plaintiff's property. The land in dispute is a small triangle at the northeast corner of the plaintiff's lot. At this point and elsewhere along the northerly and easterly boundaries of the plaintiff's property, the defendant's property is much lower than the plaintiff's, the difference in elevation being as much as ten feet. To prevent erosion of the higher land, the plaintiff's father, who had owned the plaintiff's lot before his death in 1933, had erected a retaining wall at the rear of the lot. The wall began at the westerly boundary line and extended easterly about thirty feet; it ended about thirty-three feet from the northeast corner. Many years ago, bushes had been planted and a wire fence erected on the plaintiff's land to prevent children from falling down the slope, but in the course of time the fence disintegrated and largely disappeared.
In March, 1953, a young niece of the plaintiff fell down the slope at the northeast corner and broke her leg. Thereafter, the defendant built the retaining wall which is involved in the present dispute. It commences about five feet south of the northerly boundary line claimed by the plaintiff and runs in a northwesterly direction for about twenty feet until it meets that line. The defendant has also erected an addition to an existing building. The addition extends into the triangle. The plaintiff claims therefore that this addition constitutes an encroachment on her land. The area of the alleged encroachment is about twelve square feet.
The court rendered judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish either her title to the disputed area or her possession thereof.
The plaintiff is seeking an injunction and damages for an alleged trespass. In her complaint she claims title and possession to the triangle. The defendant in his answer denied that the plaintiff had either title or possession. Under these circumstances, both are placed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koennicke v. Maiorano
...actual or constructive, to prevail. Wadsworth Realty Co. v. Sundberg, 165 Conn. 457, 461, 338 A.2d 470 (1973); More v. Urbano, 151 Conn. 381, 383, 198 A.2d 211 (1964). This, the plaintiff has done. "To escape the imposition of treble damages, it was incumbent upon [the defendant] to prove n......
-
Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue
...of trespass, see Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Elliott & Watrous Engineering Co., 137 Conn. 562, 570, 79 A.2d 591 (1951); More v. Urbano, 151 Conn. 381, 383, 198 A.2d 211 (1964), if not also its claim of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the clientele who have a constitutional right to rec......
-
McCullough v. Waterfront Park Ass'n, Inc.
...sought, both title to and possession of the disputed area must be proved; Wadsworth Realty Co. v. Sundberg, supra; More v. Urbano, 151 Conn. 381, 383, 198 A.2d 211 (1964); and the burden of proving them is on the plaintiff. More v. Urbano, supra. Possession may be actual or constructive. Wa......
-
Attorney General v. Dime Sav. Bank of New York, FSB
...by an owner of property actually possessed by another. See Frost v. Johnson, 256 Ala. 383, 54 So.2d 897 (1951); More v. Urbano, 151 Conn. 381, 198 A.2d 211 (1964); McCausland v. York, 133 Me. 115, 174 A. 383 (1934); Jaycox v. E.M. Harris Bldg. Co., 754 S.W.2d 931 (Mo.Ct.App.1988); Green v. ......