Puroto v. Chieppa

• Decision Date: 15 December 1905
• Citation: 78 Conn. 401,62 A. 664
• Parties: PUROTO et al. v. CHIEPPA et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

62 A. 664

78 Conn. 401

PUROTO et al.

v. CHIEPPA et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 15, 1905.

Appeal from Superior Court New Haven County; William S. Case, Judge.

Action by Alfonso Puroto and another against Salvino Chieppa and another, in the nature of trespass quare clausum fregit. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

George E. Beers and Carl A. Mears, for appellants. Philip Pond and Paul Russo, for appellees.

HALL, J. The complaint alleges that on December 10, 1903, the defendants wrongfully entered upon the plaintiffs' land on Grand avenue in the city of New Haven, and cut off a portion of the eaves and cornice of the plaintiffs' house, and erected and maintained a building projecting over the plaintiffs' land, constituting a trespass thereon, and by building the wall of their house interfered with the plaintiffs' right to have unobstructed light and air through the windows of their house over the defendants' land. These averments were denied by the answer. The material facts found are these: The plaintiffs and defendants own adjoining lots on the south side of a business street in New Haven; the plaintiffs' premises being west of those of the defendants. Both tracts belonged to one Nicholson, who on September 23, 1851, conveyed to one Gunn that now owned by the plaintiffs, and on the 31st of October, 1851, to certain McCuens that now owned by the defendants. Through several mesne conveyances the defendants acquired their title in October, 1898, and the plaintiffs their title in October, 1900; all the conveyances being by warranty deed, and none of them containing any reference to any easement of light or air. Before said Nicholson conveyed said land, as above stated, and until December 10, 1903, there was upon the land now owned by the plaintiffs a two-story wooden building, the east side of which was about a foot west of the divisional line between said two tracts, upon the west side of each of the two floors of which were two windows with swinging blinds, one room upon each of said floors receiving all its light from a window or windows upon said east side; and upon the land now owned by the defendants there was a wooden building, the west side of which was 8 or 10 feet east of said divisional line. On or about December 10, 1903, the defendants built a three-story brick addition to their house, occupying the 8 or 10 feet between their old house and the divisional line, and extending about 12 feet above the plaintiffs' house, and having no windows upon its west side. At the front of the building the base of the wall of the addition is upon the divisional line, and elsewhere a little east of the divisional line. The lower floors of both of said buildings are used for stores, and the upper floors as tenements. The erection of said brick addition diminished the light and air, which had always before passed unobstructed over the portion of defendants' land occupied by it through said east windows of the plaintiffs' house. There still remains an open space, varying from 12 to 18 inches, between the brick addition and the plaintiffs' house, which space is darkened by the projecting eaves of the plaintiffs' house, which at nearly all points touch the wall of the defendants' addition. The erection of said addition also prevents the swinging of the blinds upon said east windows as they had before been swung; 2 or 3 inches more space being required...