Ricci v. Matteodo

• Decision Date: 05 July 1933
• Docket Number: No. 7329.,7329.
• Citation: 167 A. 125
• Parties: RICCI v. MATTEODO et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

167 A. 125

RICCI

v. MATTEODO et al.

No. 7329.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 5, 1933.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Leonidas Pouliot, Jr., Judge.

Action by Nicandro Ricci against Eugenia Matteodo and others. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions.

Exceptions overruled, and case remitted for entry of judgment on verdict.

Judah C. Semonoff, of Providence, for plaintiff.

Charles R, Easton, of Providence, for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action of ejectment brought to recover possession of a parcel of land 11.78 feet wide by 143.28 feet long, adjoining the defendants' premises. The defendants pleaded the general issue, title by adverse possession, and an easement by adverse user. The defendants had previously brought a bill in equity to establish title in themselves to the land in dispute. One of the issues of the equity cause was whether the Matteodos had obtained title by adverse possession. They having failed to prove title in themselves acquired by adverse possession or otherwise, the bill was dismissed. See Matteodo v. Ricci (R I.) 148 A. 33. It was admitted that the record title was in the plaintiff. The trial justice ruled that the question of title by adverse possession having been determined in the equity cause adversely to the Matteodos, the question was res judicata. Said justice further ruled that an easement could not be shown in defense to an action in ejectment, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The case is before us on defendants' exceptions.

In the equity suit the parties and the subject-matter were the same, and the issue was the same, viz., Had the Matteodos acquired title by adverse possession? The ruling that it was res judicata that these defendants had not acquired title by adverse possession was correct. Mills v. Allen, 26 R. I. 177, 58 A. 622;. Schaeffer v. Brown, 23 R. I. 364, 50 A. 640; Almy v. Daniels, 15 R. I. 312, 4 A. 753, 10 A. 654; Bottomly v. Parmenter, 85 N. H. 322, 159 A. 302.

The defendants fenced the locus in quo, and have used it as a way of ingress and egress for several tenements, as a place in which to dry clothes and in which children might play. Defendants apparently admit that an easement consisting of a mere right of way is insufficient as a defense to this action. They contend, however, that they have a prescriptive easement sufficiently coextensive to virtually deprive the plaintiff, the owner in fee, of all beneficial use of the land.

How much use the defendants have made of the land does not precisely appear, but their plea setting up an easement, by prescription, is insufficient as a...