Twining v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 01 November 1910
• Citation: 77 A. 953,83 Conn. 600
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: TWINING v. GOODWIN et al.

77 A. 953

83 Conn. 600

TWINING

v. GOODWIN et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 1, 1910.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Litchfield County; Gideon H. Welch, Judge.

Action by Margaret Twining against Hubbard L. Goodwin and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Homer R. Scoville, for appellants.

Smith & Munn, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. This is an action to restrain the defendants from entering upon the plaintiff's premises, and from interfering with the peaceable possession of her property. The defendants answer, and contend that they are justified in using the plaintiff's land as complained of by reason of their ownership of a certain right of way which they have acquired by adverse user. It appears that after the finding in this case had been made the defendants filed a motion for the correction of the same, which motion was denied. Exceptions to certain portions of the finding were also made, but these exceptions were unaccompanied by the evidence as required by section 795 of the General Statutes of 1902. It therefore follows that the first 12 assignments of error, complaining of the action of the trial court because it refused to find as requested, are not properly before this court for consideration. Greist v. Amrhyn, 80 Conn. 280, 285, 68 Atl. 521.

Counsel for the defendants assert that the finding as it stands shows that the use of the alleged passway for more than 15 years by the Goodwins has been such as to establish their title by adverse possession. On the contrary, it appears that the trial court has found that the crossing of the plaintiff's land by the defendants was not adverse, but by permission and license. "Adverse possession is a question of fact, and, when found by the trial court, will not be reviewed by this court as a conclusion from evidential facts unless it appears that these facts, or some of them, are legally or logically inconsistent with that conclusion." Layton v. Bailey, 77 Conn. 22, 28, 58 Atl. 355, 357.

There is nothing to show that the court below violated any rule of law in reaching five conclusions of fact which are assigned as error. Neither does it appear that the subordinate or evidential facts stated in this branch of the finding are logically or legally inconsistent with the ultimate facts upon which the court predicated its judgment. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the reasons of appeal based upon the conclusions of the court just stated. Three rulings as to evidence were made reasons of appeal, and but one question of...