Beduhn v. Kolar
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, C. J.
As is usual, boundary disputes are generally between friends who become enemies and the facts are detailed and somewhat confusing, all of which give rise to the conflicting principles of law. The difficulty in this case arises because the Kolars give to the words “south,” “east,” and “west,” the exactness which would be required by the use of the terms “due south,” “due east,” and “due west,” rather than taking such directions less literally so the description of the land fits its topography and the natural monuments, as the trial court found to be the intent of the parties.
The disputed…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Illinois Steel Co. v. BilotWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Buza v. WojtalewiczWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- E. E. McCalla Co. v. SleeperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Pickett v. NelsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gilbert v. GeigerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2008
- Northrop v. OppermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 2011
- Opinion No. Oag 74-77, (1977), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1977