Blute v. Scribner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
EBBOB to the Circuit Court for Fond dw Lao County. Trespass qua/re clausum, for the removal of a fence. Answer, highway. The case is stated in the opinion. The action below was brought by Scribner cmd another against Blute and others. Verdict and judgment against the defendants below, and they bring this suit to reverse the judgment.
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
The question in controversy in this case wás, whether the locus itb quo was a public highway. On the part of the defense it appeared, that the pathmaster had permitted some of the defendants to work out their road tax upon the road at various times, extending back more than ten years before the alleged trespass in removing the fence. The court instructed the jury, in view of this evidence, that “ the action of the pathmaster in allowing the defendants to work a part of their taxes on this road, unless such permission was known to and approved of by the supervisors of the town, is not such an…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. JoyceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hart v. Town of Red CedarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Ruchti v. MonroeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Scribner v. BluteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Rhodes v. HalvorsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903