Triano v. Brodowy
| Decision Date | 03 March 1964 |
| Citation | 151 Conn. 445,199 A.2d 164 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | James TRIANO v. Susan BRODOWY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Frederic E. Mascolo, Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, were Robert L. Brooks, Hartford, and Stephen K. Elliott, Southington, for appellant (plaintiff).
Joseph H. Thalberg, Southington, with whom, on the brief was Thomas J. Galick, Southington, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
The plaintiff seeks an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his use, as a part of his driveway, of a small, triangular strip of land located between their adjoining lots on South Main Street in Southington. The plaintiff claims more than an easement by prescription; he asserts full title by adverse possession.
The court found that the plaintiff's user of the strip as part of his driveway did not commence until 1947 and that the user terminated in 1958, when the defendant erected a fence across the strip. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff had not established adverse possession for the requisite period of fifteen years. The plaintiff attacks this finding and calls attention to evidence offered by him that his user has been continuous since 1929. This evidence was in direct conflict with the evidence offered by the defendant which fully supports the court's finding. We cannot retry the facts or pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Zeller v. Kugell, 145 Conn. 729, 730, 141 A.2d 240; Bridgeport-City Trust Co. v. Buchtenkirk, 143 Conn. 531, 537, 124 A.2d 231. Since no correction of the finding can be made, the plaintiff's appeal must fail.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...is not subject to any material correction. This court does not retry facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. Triano v. Brodowy, 151 Conn. 445, 446, 199 A.2d 164; Practice Book § 628(a). The finding relating to the jury trial is merely a narrative of facts claimed to have been proved,......
- Sarner v. Fox Hill, Inc.
-
Cappiello v. Haselman
...province of the court, as the trier, to do so. Setaro Motors, Inc. v. Intelisano, 151 Conn. 590, 592, 200 A.2d 728; Triano v. Brodowy, 151 Conn. 445, 446, 199 A.2d 164. The fact that after the collision the plaintiff was found lying diagonally on the shoulder with his feet three feet and hi......
-
Marquis v. Drost
...should be added as admitted or undisputed facts. We cannot retry the facts or pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Triano v. Brodowy, 151 Conn. 445, 446, 199 A.2d 164; Zeller v. Kugell, 145 Conn. 729, 730, 141 A.2d From the evidence, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to ......