Legal Opinion

Riley v. Hammel

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided October 15, 1871PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Trespass qu. el. fregit ; brought to the Court of Common Pleas, and tried on the general issue closed to the jury, ( Willey, J.S) with notice that the locus in quo was a highway. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial for error in the charge of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

From the manner in which this motion has been argued by the defendant’s counsel, we are not certain that the question he wishes to have decided is really before us. Taking the record, as we must, precisely as it stands, it shows that:

“ The defendant claimed and asked the court to charge the jury: (1.) That there may be a dedication of an easement over lands without express grant in writing, but by parol and by other acts of the owner. (2.) That when the owner of city property, who has laid it off into lots with streets, avenues and alleys intersecting the same, sells his lots, or any of them,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

Sherwood v. Town of WestonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846

3Cited by7 opinions

Reinhardt v. ChalfantCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1920
City of Hartford v. New York & New England RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
Shell v. PoulsonWashington Supreme Court · 1900
Town of Stratford v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
Wade v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929

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