Trepanier v. Hujber

• Citation: 134 Conn. 24,54 A.2d 275
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 09 July 1947
• Parties: TREPANIER v. HUJBER et al.

134 Conn. 24

54 A.2d 275

TREPANIER

v.HUJBER et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 9, 1947.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Devlin, Judge.

Action by Ivan Trepanier against Louis Hujber and others to recover damages for alleged illegally depriving the plaintiff of occupancy of premises owned by defendants. Defendants filed a cross-complaint and the issues were tried before the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff on the complaint and cross-complaint and defendants appeal.

Error and new trial ordered.

Joseph N. Perelmutter, of Seymour, and Charles G. Albom, of New Haven, for appellants.

Louis Feinmark, of New Haven, and Herman D. Silberberg, of Ansonia (Mitchell W. Garber, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

JENNINGS, Judge.

This is a suit for damages for unlawful eviction and is based on fraud and deceit. The plaintiff treats the case as consisting of two causes of action combined in one count. The jury were charged that under the circumstances of this case the damages for unlawful eviction, without proof of fraud, would be nominal. Mathews v. Livingston, 86 Conn. 263, 270, 85 A. 529, Ann.Cas.1914A, 195. They brought in a verdict for substantial damages of $750. It follows that they must have found fraud and that the case should be considered on that basis. The plaintiff's claim as to the effect of a general verdict is untenable in any event. The rule applies only where the damages recoverable would be the same under either course of action. Maggay v. Nikitko, 117 Conn. 206, 210, 167 A. 816. The assignments of error are directed to the charge only.

The plaintiff offered evidence to prove and claimed to have proved the following facts: In June, 1944, Ansonia was a defense rental area under the jurisdiction of the office of price administration. Rental conditions were very difficult, expecially for families like that of the plaintiff which consisted of himself, his wife and four small children. On June 19, 1944, the defendants, who owned the four-room apartment in which the plaintiff was living, served him with a notice to quit asking him to move on or before June 30, 1944, because they as owners wanted the apartment for themselves. The plaintiff suffered much distress in his mind since he was advised that there was no defense to such a notice; he had to consult a doctor and incurred special damages of over $100; but he finally succeeded in finding a six-room apartment at $40 per month to which he moved on July 15, 1944, and which he had occupied for thirty months at the time of trial. It was the only apartment available and was no more desirable than his former apartment, which cost him $25 per month. The defendants rented the plaintiff's apartment to another.

The defendants' claims of proof did not differ materially from those of the plaintiff on the single issue which will be considered, except that they offered evidence to prove that the plaintiff and his wife were not satisfied with the defendants' apartment because it was too distant from their children's school and that the advertisement inserted in a newspaper by the plaintiff called for...