Scott v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 20 July 1909 |
| Citation | 82 Conn. 289,73 A. 781 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCOTT v. WILSON et ux. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.
Action by Sarah J. Scott against Thomas K. Wilson and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Bernard E. Lynch, for appellants.
Fitzgerald & Walsh, for appellee.
The parties own and occupy adjacent lots on the north side of Willis street in the city of New Haven. Willis street is a short street in a residential section, having on its north side 19 one-family dwelling houses, all similar in appearance and construction with well-kept lawns extending from the houses to the sidewalk. The plaintiff's and defendants' lots each have a frontage of 33 feet and are about 100 feet in depth. Shortly before the commencement of this action the defendants, without consulting or obtaining the consent of the plaintiff, erected a tight-board fence about 6 feet high on the boundary line between the plaintiff's and defendants' lots. The fence extends northerly a distance of about 20 feet, from the sidewalk to a point nearly in line with the front of the plaintiff's and defendants' houses. Prior to the erection of this fence there was no fence or other structure between any of said lots from the front line of said houses to the sidewalk. It also appears that this structure is unsightly, unnecessary, cuts off the view from the plaintiff's premises, interferes with the circulation of air, and that the defendants are not on speaking terms with the plaintiff.
Section 1107 of the General Statutes of 1902, provides that "an action may be maintained by the proprietor of any land against the owner or lessee of land adjacent, who shall maliciously erect any structure thereon, with intent to annoy or Injure the plaintiff in his use or disposition of his land," and section 1013, Gen. St. 1902, provides that "an injunction may be granted against the malicious erection by or with the consent of an owner, or lessee, or person entitled to the possession of land, of any structure upon it, intended to annoy and injure any owner or lessee of adjacent land in respect to his use or disposition of the same." The gist of this action consists in the fact that the fence was maliciously erected for the purpose of annoyance and injury to the plaintiff. The trial court reached the following conclusions: "That the fence in question serves, and was erected to serve, no useful purpose in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeCecco v. Beach
...from malicious motives, with a design to injure the plaintiff unnecessarily in the use and enjoyment of her property. Scott v. Wilson, 82 Conn. 289, 291, 73 A. 781, citing Whitlock v. Uhle, The defendant has also assigned as error the trial court's refusal to find certain facts, the alleged......
-
Errichetti v. Botoff
... ... stockade-style fence that obstructed the plaintiff's view ... of the Saugatuck River was maliciously erected); Scott v ... Wilson , 82 Conn. 289, 290, 73 A. 781 (1909) (" ... Prior to the erection of this fence there was no fence or ... other ... ...
-
Rutka v. Rzegocki
...General Statutes. Gallagher v. Dodge, 48 Conn. 387, 394, 40 Am.Rep. 182; Whitlock v. Uhle, 75 Conn. 423, 428, 53 A. 891; Scott v. Wilson, 82 Conn. 289, 290, 73 A. 781. The court further found that no change made by the defendant upon her land, nor all of the changes together, had the effect......
-
Blennerhassett v. Conn. Co.
...by the trial court. As stated above, the decisive conclusion reached from the facts found was reasonable and must stand. Scott v. Wilson, 82 Conn. 289, 291, 73 A. 781, 782. The plaintiff's brief contains many citations of unexceptionable rules of law but, in general, the cases cited go no f......