GREEN TREE ESTATES, INC. v. Furstenberg

The plaintiff insists that the defendants should pay for the curb, gutter, and street improvements, just as they are now paying (or have paid) for sewer, water, and sidewalk improvements. The difference is that the latter were installed by the city of Madison and the former by the plaintiff.

Two principal arguments are advanced in support of the plaintiffs position. The first is that it should stand in the shoes of the city of Madison by way of subrogation; the second is that the plaintiff should recover under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

I. Subrogation to the City’s Rights.

It is conceded…