Legal Opinion

Bowne v. Ide

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 13, 1929PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

Defendants’ appeal assigns as error the overruling of their claim that the present action is not maintainable under § 5113 of the General Statutes. Their claim is that the only appropriate remedy to redress the grievance which constitutes the plaintiffs’ real cause of action—an unlawful entry and occupation of land—was an action of ejectment or trespass. Defendants’ answer to the complaint, without raising this point, was a waiver of their right to contest it. But had they duly made the point it must have been overruled. The action under the statute is one to determine conflicting claims as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Baxter v. CampSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
  2. Gaul v. BakerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  3. Bissell v. BeckwithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1865
  4. Emery v. CooleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
  5. McClure v. Middletown Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Gulack v. GulackConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
  2. Town of Wethersfield v. National Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
  3. Dinan v. MarchandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  4. Pigeon v. HathewaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
  5. Anderson v. YaworskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API