Nearing v. City of Bridgeport
| Decision Date | 08 August 1950 |
| Citation | 75 A.2d 505,137 Conn. 205 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEARING et al. v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Frank L. Wilder, Bridgeport, for appellants.
John V. Donnelly, Bridgeport, Harry Schwartz, Bridgeport, for appellee.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and MELLITZ, 1 JJ.
The plaintiffs, in effect, seek to regain title to a tract of land which, they insist, has reverted to them for breach of condition. They made other claims in their complaint and brief but their basic contention as set forth in the finding was that 'this is an action of reverter based on the provisions of the deed.' The trial court was justified in deciding the case on the theory on which it was tried. O'Neil v. Larkin-Carey Co., 106 Conn. 153, 157, 137 A. 721.
The following facts are undisputed: On November 10, 1927, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title deeded the tract in question to the defendant's predecessor in title. The land lay on the west side of the Housatonic River. The grantee purchased it for use as a seaplane base. The deed contained a provision that if the grantee failed to perform certain conditions the land should revert to the grantor and her heirs. There is no finding that the defendant assumed the obligations imposed on the original grantee in the deed. The conditions were not performed. This action was brought August 12, 1946.
The court found that three years was a reasonable time within which the predecessor in title of the defendant or the defendant could have performed the conditions laid down in the deed and that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor in title ever entered upon the land for breach of conditions. These findings are attacked. One of the plaintiffs was the only witness and she described the use of the property in considerable detail. It would serve no useful purpose to rehearse this evidence. The findings are amply supported thereby.
The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations for entry on land as a special defense. General Statutes, § 8314. The plaintiffs joined issue thereon. Since the validity of the deed, its conditions and their breach were admitted, the decisive question on the trial was that raised by the special defense.
The deed in question vested title in fee, subject to reverter for breach of conditions subsequent. Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468, 475; Restatement, 1 Property §§ 24, 45. The breach did not in itself cause a forfeiture of the estate. Chalker v. Chalker, 1 Conn. 79, 86, 6 Am.Dec. 206. An actual entry for breach of conditions was necessary. Bowen v. Bowen, 18 Conn. 535, 540; Lewis v. Lewis, 74 Conn. 630, 635, 51 A. 854, 92 Am.St.Rep. 240. The deed specifies no time within which the conditions shall be performed. Under these circumstances they must be performed within a reasonable time. Soper v. Tyler, 73 Conn. 660, 661, 49 A. 18; Renoud v. Daskam, 34 Conn. 512, 516; Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 525, 529. In Scovill v. McMahon, 62 Conn. 378, at page 387, 26 A. 479, 21 L.R.A. 58, 36 Am.St.Rep. 350, it was stated that the time for re-entry for the breach of the particular condition subsequent there involved began to run from the date of the deed. See Restatement, 2 Property § 222, comment e. What is a reasonable time is a question of fact. Soper v. Tyler, supra, 73 Conn. 662, 49 A. 18; McKee v. Club-View Heights, 230 Ala. 652, 665, 162 So. 671.
The court had the power to fix the time when the right to enter for conditions broken started to run. As stated above, the finding as a fact that three years from the date of the conveyance was reasonable must stand. The three years expired November 10, 1930. On that date the right of the plaintiffs' predecessor in title to enter for breach of conditions accrued. Under § 8314 the right of entry was barred after fifteen years. No entry was made within that time. As the trial court remarked in its memorandum of decision, even if entry had been made, it would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mariano
...Barber v. Baldwin, 135 Conn. 558, 565, 67 A.2d 1; Housing Authority v. Pezenik, 137 Conn. 442, 448, 78 A.2d 546; Nearing v. Bridgeport, 137 Conn. 205, 206, 75 A.2d 505; Maltbie, Conn. App.Proc. § The defendant had a full hearing on her motion to suppress, lasting an entire day, during which......
-
Roche v. Town of Fairfield
...States, or by a state, a county, city or other governmental entity." 3 Am.Jur.2d, Adverse Possession § 139; see Nearing v. Bridgeport, 137 Conn. 205, 75 A.2d 505 (1950); annot., 18 A.L.R.3d The plaintiffs also claim that the defendant's use of the beach property was not "exclusive" because ......
-
Wright v. Wright, No. 4000024 (CT 5/27/2005)
...for each of the thirteen months she has occupied the house since her mother's death, for a total of $12,776. See Nearing v. Bridgeport, 137 Conn. 205, 206, 75 A.2d 505 (1950) ("The trial court [is] justified in deciding the case on the theory on which it was tried."). VI The third count of ......
-
Tomasso Bros., Inc. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc.
...A.2d 374 (1991); Simone Corporation v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 187 Conn. 487, 490, 446 A.2d 1071 (1982); Nearing v. Bridgeport, 137 Conn. 205, 209, 75 A.2d 505 (1950); Stranahan v. East Haddam, 11 Conn. 507, 512-19 (1836); Hartford Bridge Co. v. Granger, 4 Conn. 142, 148 (1822). An o......