Bishop v. Seeley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought originally to the superior court; to which the general issue was pleaded.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought originally to the superior court; to which the general issue was pleaded. The cause was tried at Fairfield, at an adjourned term in April 1847, before Hinman, J. The plaintiff claimed title to the land described in his declaration, as the grantee of Alf red Bishop, who, it was agreed, derived all his title thereto, by a deed from Abraham Davenport, dated December 10th, 1833, in which the premises were described as follows: A certain tract of land,lying in Stamford, in quantity half an acre, more or less, occupied as a canal, and is…
1Opinion of the CourtHinmas, J.
The property mentioned in the declaration, is land occupied as a canal, between the village of Stamford and Stamford harbour. The plaintiff’s title to it was by deed from Abraham Davenport to Alfred Bishop, and a subsequent deed from Bishop to the plaintiff. Davenport, at the time he executed his deed, owned the land now claimed by both parties, who are adjoining proprietors ; and the question in the superior court, was, whether a wall, erected by the defendant, as he claimed, within the line of his own land, or, at any rate, on the line between him and the plaintiff, was in fact an…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Tagliaferri v. GrandeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1911
- Forest v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- White v. FullerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Winnebago Paper Mills v. Kimberly-Clark Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Yellin v. Quinebaug Partnership, No. Cv 95 0050039 S (Nov. 19, 1998)Connecticut Superior Court · 1998