Rasch v. Noth
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Calumet •county: Geo. W. BueNell, Circuit Judge. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion. To the point that ejectment would lie for the projection of one person’s eaves over another’s land, they cited Cilliam v. Bird, 8 Ired. Law, 28Ó; Huggins v. Ketchum, 4 Dev. & B. Law, 415; Childs v. Nelson, 69 Wis. 125; Stedman v. Smith, 92 Eng. C. L. 1, and other cases noted by the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Oassoday, O. J.
This is an action of ejectment. The defendant answered by way of a general denial and adverse possession. A trial by jury being waived, the cause was tried by the court, and the findings of the court are to the effect that block i of the village, now city, of Chilton, was platted in 1852, and consisted of lots 1, 2, and 3 lying in the extreme northern portion of the block, which was of irregular shape, and another large and irregular lot, called the “ Mill Lot,” adjoining them upon the south; that the plaintiff owns the west one-half of the mill lot, which is immediately south…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Aiken v. BenedictNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Leprell v. . KleinschmidtNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- McCourt v. EcksteinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1867
- Murphy v. BolgerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888
- Harrington v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Butler v. . Frontier Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Huber v. StarkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Ogden v. Straus Building Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Rahn v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Fisher v. GoodmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.