Trichka v. Trichka

17 Conn. Super. Ct. 18, 17 Conn. Supp. 18, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 44
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMay 4, 1950
DocketFile 81681
StatusPublished

This text of 17 Conn. Super. Ct. 18 (Trichka v. Trichka) 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
Trichka v. Trichka, 17 Conn. Super. Ct. 18, 17 Conn. Supp. 18, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 1950).

Opinion

KING, J.

This was an action of peaceable entry and forcible detainer brought under the provisions of § 8198 of the General Statutes.

The plaintiff and defendant were, respectively, husband and wife, and occupied, as a home, the apartment on the third floor of 250 Sheridan Street, Bridgeport.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the defendant moved for a nonsuit and after some discussion the plaintiff was allowed to, and did, open his case and offer further evidence. Thereafter the defendant rested without offering any evidence.

The plaintiff proved that on April 22, 1950, while he was away at work, the defendant put his clothes out in the hall and locked the door of their apartment, the O.P.A. registration of which was in the name of the husband, alone, as tenant.

The husband and wife had been quarreling for some time and she had frequently told him to get out, and in one of these quarrels the defendant’s brother had used physical violence on the plaintiff in the defendant’s presence. However, he had continued to live in the apartment. It did not appear that the plaintiff saw, or talked with, the defendant or anyone else, at the time of his exclusion or that he had anticipated it.

Although the plaintiff proved that the locking out effectually excluded him from the apartment, he failed to prove that the detainer was accompanied by the force or threat of force required for relief under the law governing this extraordinary proceeding. Gray v. Finch, 23 Conn. 495, 515; Carrier v. Carrier, 85 Conn. 203, 206; Hartford Realization Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 117 Conn. 218, 224; Hjorth v. Clark., 13 Conn. Sup. 409, 411.

Judgment may enter in favor of the defendant.

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

Related

Hartford Realization Co. v. Travelers Insurance
167 A. 728 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1933)
Carrier v. Carrier
82 A. 187 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1912)
Hjorth v. Clark
13 Conn. Super. Ct. 409 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1945)
Gray v. Finch
23 Conn. 495 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1855)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Conn. Super. Ct. 18, 17 Conn. Supp. 18, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trichka-v-trichka-connsuperct-1950.