Lee v. Stiles
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. The original suit was a complaint for a forcible entry and detainer, made by Stiles against the plaintiffs in error.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The original suit was a complaint for a forcible entry and detainer, made by Stiles against the plaintiffs in error. It was alleged in the complaint, that the defendants did, with force and arms, and with a strong hand, unlawfully and forcibly enter into and upon a certain tract of land, belonging to the plaintiff, (describing it,) and into and upon a certain tenement or dwelling-house, standing on said tract, and in certain mines then and there being; and did him, the complainant, with force and strong hand, expel and put out of the possession of said land, tenement, and mines; and…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
It is claimed, by the plaintiffs in error, that the original complaint against them, is insufficient, for want of an averment, that the complainant was in the actual possession of the premises, at the time of the alleged forcible entry.
It is true, there is no direct averment to that effect; but such possession must necessarily be implied from the other allegations in the complaint. Thus, it is averred, that the defendants entered upon the land, belonging to the complainant, and put him out of possession of the same. Now, if the defendants actually put the complainant out of the possession, it…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Tuite v. TuiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Boyle v. BoyleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Curtis v. FrancisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1852
- Hotchkiss v. DaltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878