Kreidler v. Cecio Brothers, Inc.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Kreidler v. Cecio Brothers, Inc.

19 Conn. Supp. 477, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 115

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

DecidedOctober 19, 1955

DocketFile No. 63118

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Conn. Supp. 477 (Kreidler v. Cecio Brothers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kreidler v. Cecio Brothers, Inc., 19 Conn. Supp. 477, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

FitzGerald, J.

The Connecticut rule is that a right

of action against the highway commissioner is maintainable, if at all, only under the statute (General Statutes § 2201; as amended, Cum. Sup. 1953, § 964c) and that no right exists in the domain of an alleged nuisance. Hillen v. Macdonald, 7 Conn. Sup. 95, 96; Harrison & Sons Co. v. Fresh Fish Carrier’s, Inc., 12 Conn. Sup. 14, 17. The rule that liability of a municipality apart from statute may exist for a nuisance created by a positive act (Bacon v. Rocky Hill, 126 Conn. 402, 407, to cite but a single ease), has never been adopted in Connecticut as against the state or an official thereof.

The case of Hay v. Hill, 137 Conn. 285, cited by the plaintiff in resisting the interposed demurrer, does not advantage him. An examination of the record of that case on appeal discloses that the trial judge did not submit to the jury the second count of the plaintiff’s complaint sounding in nuisance against the defendant highway commissioner. A-277 Bees. & Briefs 339. The opinion of the Supreme Court therein is confined solely to the liability of the highway commissioner under the statute.

The demurrer of the defendant highway commissioner, one of three defendants, to the seventh count of the complaint directed against him on the ground of alleged nuisance resulting in damage to the plaintiff’s property caused by an excavation along a state highway is required to be sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FitzGerald, J.

The Connecticut rule is that a right

of action against the highway commissioner is maintainable, if at all, only under the statute (General Statutes § 2201; as amended, Cum. Sup. 1953, § 964c) and that no right exists in the domain of an alleged nuisance. Hillen v. Macdonald, 7 Conn. Sup. 95, 96; Harrison & Sons Co. v. Fresh Fish Carrier’s, Inc., 12 Conn. Sup. 14, 17. The rule that liability of a municipality apart from statute may exist for a nuisance created by a positive act (Bacon v. Rocky Hill, 126 Conn. 402, 407, to cite but a single ease), has never been adopted in Connecticut as against the state or an official thereof.

The case of Hay v. Hill, 137 Conn. 285, cited by the plaintiff in resisting the interposed demurrer, does not advantage him. An examination of the record of that case on appeal discloses that the trial judge did not submit to the jury the second count of the plaintiff’s complaint sounding in nuisance against the defendant highway commissioner. A-277 Bees. & Briefs 339. The opinion of the Supreme Court therein is confined solely to the liability of the highway commissioner under the statute.

The demurrer of the defendant highway commissioner, one of three defendants, to the seventh count of the complaint directed against him on the ground of alleged nuisance resulting in damage to the plaintiff’s property caused by an excavation along a state highway is required to be sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Conn. Supp. 477, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreidler-v-cecio-brothers-inc-pactcompl-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack