Truesdale v. Town of Greenwich
| Decision Date | 21 March 1933 |
| Citation | 165 A. 201,116 Conn. 426 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | TRUESDALE et al. v. TOWN OF GREENWICH. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Action by William H. Truesdale and others against the town of Greenwich for an injunction and other equitable relief. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals.
Error in part, and case remanded, with direction.
Wilbur S. Wright of Greenwich (John R. Deming, of Greenwich, on the brief), for appellant.
Harold L. Knapp, of Greenwich, for appellees.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
By this complaint dated June 25, 1931, the plaintiffs sought an injunction and other equitable relief against the defendant upon substantially the following allegations: That theretofore the defendant town had received by gift from Robert M. Bruce, now deceased, a certain park known as " Bruce Memorial Park," on certain conditions recited in the deed of gift, to wit: (1) That, except for the fourth tract, the land " shall be forever used for the purposes of a public park, to be known as the ‘ Bruce Memorial Park,’ and shall be devoted to no other use or purpose except that the building on the second tract may be leased for proper purposes, and the rentals therefrom applied to the care, preservation, and maintenance of said park" ; (2) " that no building or other structure shall be erected on any part of the fourth tract hereinbefore described, but said tract shall be used for park purposes in connection with the first tract, or for the purpose of a public highway " (3) " that the grantee, from its own funds, and from the aforesaid rentals, so long as said rentals may exist, shall forever keep and maintain said park premises in a good state of preservation for the use of the public, and shall keep all of the buildings on said premises properly insured and in good repair; " (4) " that my dwelling house, located on the first *** tract shall so long as the same is proper and adequate for such purposes, be used as a Natural History, Historical, and Art Museum, for the use and benefit of the public, in such manner and under such rules as may be prescribed by the Selectmen of the Town, and the Trustees, (and their successors,) appointed in and by a certain trust agreement of even date herewith; and after the trust fund which I have created by said agreement shall have been spent by said Trustees, then said Trustees shall, at its own expense, keep and maintain said museum for the use of the public, either in said building or in another proper building on said park premises to be provided for that purpose."
It was alleged that the defendant was violating these terms and conditions by maintaining on tracts 1 and 2, as described in the deed, a public dog pound, gasoline tanks, a repair shop for town road equipment in which noisy engines are operated, public playgrounds, where, among other things, athletics of a professional character are conducted, and at the present time is extending the use of the park for playground purposes by constructing public tennis courts in a portion thereof never devoted to such purposes, recognizing no limitations as to the extent and uses to which said part may be put.
It was further alleged that the plaintiffs were resident citizens and taxpayers and owners of property adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the park, and have expended large sums in building their homes there, because of the natural beauty of the park, and in reliance upon its being maintained and preserved as required by the deed of gift, for park purposes only.
They claimed that, by the use of the park for business and playground purposes in the manner alleged, the natural beauty of the park is defaced and noises and disturbances arise therefrom which are not in keeping with the use of the park in accordance with the terms of the gift; that by reason of these things the public in general and the plaintiffs in particular cannot repair to and enjoy the park for strictly park purposes, and that such uses constitute nuisances.
They alleged special injury because of the damage to their property by such improper use of the park by reason of their proximity to it; that the preservation of the natural beauty of the park is of great value to their properties, affording a wide and pleasant prospect; and that the marketability of their properties is lessened by the defacement of the park and the nuisances complained of. So they say they will be irreparably injured, and, unless the defendant is restrained, they will suffer irreparable loss for which they have no adequate remedy at law.
By an amended prayer for relief the plaintiffs sought an injunction in accordance with the following specifications: (1) From using or permitting the use of the park for business purposes and a public playground; or (2) for permitting the park to be used for professional or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andross v. Town of West Hartford
...on other grounds by Manchester Environmental Coalition v. Stockton, 184 Conn. 51, 73 n. 7, 441 A.2d 68 (1981); Truesdale v. Greenwich, 116 Conn. 426, 431, 165 A. 201 (1933) (public nuisance); Taylor v. Cooke, 113 Conn. 162, 165-66, 154 A. 349 (1931) (same); Cole v. Austin, 107 Conn. 252, 26......
-
Burton v. Dominion Nuclear Conn. Inc.
...v. EAPWJP, LLC, 123 Conn.App. 316, 327–28, 1 A.3d 1171, cert. granted, 298 Conn. 930, 5 A.3d 489 (2010); see also Truesdale v. Greenwich, 116 Conn. 426, 431, 165 A. 201 (1933) (Right of private persons to injunctive relief cannot be maintained in absence of proof that they have “suffered su......
-
Housatonic River v. General Elec. Co.
...because the plaintiffs had not alleged a special injury separate from that suffered by the public at large. See Truesdale v. Town of Greenwich, 116 Conn. 426, 165 A. 201 (1933). In addition, the legislative history makes clear that the General Assembly did not intend to alter the common law......
-
Belford v. City of New Haven
...damage distinct from that sustained in common by the public generally, and special and peculiar to themselves. Citing Truesdale v. Greenwich, 116 Conn. 426, 165 A. 201, the trial court held that the plaintiffs are not the proper parties to challenge the alleged diversion of the park from pa......