Patzloff v. Kasperovich

• Decision Date: 28 March 1933
• Citation: 165 A. 349,116 Conn. 440
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PATZLOFF et al. v. KASPEROVICH et al.

165 A. 349

116 Conn. 440

PATZLOFF et al. v. KASPEROVICH et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 28, 1933

Appeal from City Court of Meriden; William C. Mueller, Judge.

Action by Edward Patzioff and others against Mary Kasperovich and others, to quiet and settle the title to real estate and for other relief. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

No error.

Frederick S. Harris, of Meriden, for appellants.

William M. Luby, of Meriden, for appellees.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

While this action is in form one to settle the title to a tract of land described in the complaint which the plaintiffs claimed to own, the issue tried and determined by the trial court and argued before us is restricted to the determination of the true boundary between the lands of the parties. They own adjoining lots upon the east side of Warren Street in Meriden. Both acquired their lots from Edward J O'Brien, who in turn had acquired them from the estate of Thomas J. Maloney. The defendants' deed, dated July 29, 1927, describes their lot as bounded on the north by land of O'Brien and land of another, on the west by Warren street about eighty-five feet, and the description concludes, " the northerly line being one hundred and thirty-five feet south from the southerly line of Maloney Avenue." The plaintiffs' deed, dated November 12, 1927, describes their lot as bounded south on the land of the defendants and on the west by Warren street forty-five feet, and the description concludes, " the north line being ninety feet southerly from the south line of Maloney Avenue." Maloney avenue is a private street, and the trial court has found that at the time O'Brien acquired the lots and when he deeded them to the parties to this action there was an iron pin which marked its southerly boundary at Warren street. While the finding that this pin marked the boundary of the way is attacked by the defendants, it is supported by the evidence certified to us. The trial court found that there was a fence running easterly from Warren street about one hundred and thirty feet southerly from the south boundary of Maloney avenue. The defendants requested the trial court to make certain additions and alterations in the finding and, upon the basis of the finding as corrected, claimed that the intention of the parties was to convey to the defendants all land southerly of this fence and to the plaintiffs a lot extending only to it.

In determining the effect of a deed, as of a written contract the inquiry must be, not what the parties intended, but what is the intent which is expressed in it, and, if the description it contains as applied to the property is clear and unambiguous, that description must be given effect. Botsford v. Wallace, 69 Conn. 263, 37 A....