Pinkum v. City of Eau Claire
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County. Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint states that on the 16th day of January, 18'IT, Ira Mead and Charles Bolles owned in fee lot 2, in section 18, township 21, range 9 west, and on that day made and delivered to the defendant city a deed, duly executed and acknowledged, which was accepted by the city, which is set forth at length, and which, after certain recitals, proceeds as follows:…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County. Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint states that on the 16th day of January, 18'IT, Ira Mead and Charles Bolles owned in fee lot 2, in section 18, township 21, range 9 west, and on that day made and delivered to the defendant city a deed, duly executed and acknowledged, which was accepted by the city, which is set forth at length, and which, after certain recitals, proceeds as follows: “ Said parties of the first part, in consideration of one dollar and other valuable considerations received, to the…
1Opinion of the CourtWiNslow, J.
The deed set forth in the complaint undoubtedly granted to the city an easement over, the lands described in the deed for the purposes set forth therein. It was an easement in gross, because it does not appear to be appurtenant to any estate in the land, and it was upon condition. Whether the condition was precedent or subsequent is not necessary to be decided upon this appeal, and is not decided. The easement was also in perpetuity.
*308That an easement may be created in fee is well settled. Tbe fee of land may be in one person, and the fee of an easement upon such land in another. 2 Bl. Comm.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Nicoll v. . the New-York and Erie Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Nellis v. . MunsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Child v. . ChappellNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Arimond v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Davis v. RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Davis v. . RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Los Angeles Brick & Clay Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Hoyt Metal Co. v. AtwoodCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1923
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.