Raffel v. Brodman

Connecticut Superior Court

Raffel v. Brodman

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 442

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1939

DocketFile No. 57193

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 442 (Raffel v. Brodman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raffel v. Brodman, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 442 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff in his amended complaint makes two distinct claims: (1) that his title to his land is disputed by the defendants; (2) that he is being disturbed by the defendants in the quiet and peaceful occupation and enjoyment of his land. He asks the court to quiet his title as a remedy for the first complaint and to grant an injunction against the defendants as a remedy for the second complaint. Different defenses might be presented to the different complaints. It is better pleading to set forth the causes of action in two separate counts. The motion to separate is granted. *Page 443

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

The plaintiff in his amended complaint makes two distinct claims: (1) that his title to his land is disputed by the defendants; (2) that he is being disturbed by the defendants in the quiet and peaceful occupation and enjoyment of his land. He asks the court to quiet his title as a remedy for the first complaint and to grant an injunction against the defendants as a remedy for the second complaint. Different defenses might be presented to the different complaints. It is better pleading to set forth the causes of action in two separate counts. The motion to separate is granted. *Page 443

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raffel-v-brodman-connsuperct-1939.