## Facts

- Manchester residents appealed a zoning board of appeals decision to the Connecticut Superior Court.
- To show they were entitled to bring the statutory appeal, the plaintiffs testified under oath that they were taxpayers, landowners, and electors of the town.
- The plaintiffs did not introduce deeds, tax records, or other documents to prove land ownership.
- The zoning board argued that the best evidence rule required documentary proof of title and that oral testimony was insufficient.
- The trial court accepted the testimony as sufficient proof of the plaintiffs’ status, sustained the appeal, and ruled for the plaintiffs.

## Issues

1. Whether the best evidence rule required the plaintiffs to produce deeds or other title documents to prove landowner status (and thus standing) in a zoning appeal, rather than proving that status through oral testimony.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The trial court did not commit reversible error by allowing the plaintiffs to prove taxpayer, landowner, and elector status through oral testimony.
- The best evidence rule did not require production of deeds because the contents of any deed were not in dispute.

## Legal Principles

- The best evidence rule applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of a writing; it does not require production of a writing merely because a writing exists that relates to a fact being proved.
- Ownership or status as a landowner may be established by competent oral testimony when the litigation does not require determining the specific terms, boundaries, or other contents of a deed.
- For standing in a statutory zoning appeal, a plaintiff may prove membership in the qualifying class (e.g., taxpayer, landowner, elector) through sworn testimony subject to cross-examination.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiffs were proving the fact of ownership and related status—not the contents of a deed—the best evidence rule did not bar their sworn testimony, and the judgment sustaining their zoning appeal was affirmed.


Farr v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 95 A.2d 792 (Conn. 1953)