Scovill v. Seeley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. The declaration alleged, That on the 31st of January, 1838, the plaintiff owned and possessed a certain tract of land, [describing it,] and while he owned and possessed the same, at Stam- ■ ford, on said 31st day of January, the defendant, with forcé and arms, unlawfully broke into and upon said tract, and then and there, with like force and arms, did cut down and destroy 200 trees then and there standing and belonging to…
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. The declaration alleged, That on the 31st of January, 1838, the plaintiff owned and possessed a certain tract of land, [describing it,] and while he owned and possessed the same, at Stam- ■ ford, on said 31st day of January, the defendant, with forcé and arms, unlawfully broke into and upon said tract, and then and there, with like force and arms, did cut down and destroy 200 trees then and there standing and belonging to the plaintiff, of the value of 50 dollars, with other enormities; to the damage of the plaintiff the sum of seventy…
1Opinion of the CourtChurch, J.
The matter in demand, in this action, does not exceed seventy dollars ; and, by the general provision of the statute concerning civil actions, sect. 61. is not appealable. To make it so, the title of the land must have been drawn in question and determined ; and this can only appear to have been done, either by the pleadings in the case, or by the certificate of the county court. There was no certificate, in this case ; nor can it be inferred from the record, that the title of the land was either drawn in question, or determined *240demurrer to the declaration placed nothing in question the legal…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dunton v. MeadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
3Cited by2 opinions
- Walkinshaw v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- White v. FullerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869