Fritz v. Southern Wisconsin Power Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtEscitweiler, J.
The appellant now contends that plaintiffs’ lands are not, under the evidence as presented in court, affected by the dam, and for that reason judgment should be ordered for the defendant.
There is in our judgment sufficient evidence in the record to support the answer by the jury to the first question of the special verdict whereby they found that the setting back of the water of the river by defendant’s dam did cause injury to the plaintiffs’ lowlands adjoining the river.
Furthermore, it being in effect conceded by the stipulation signed by defendant at the time of the hearing of plaintiffs’…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jeffery v. OsborneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Jeffery v. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- In re GehrkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
3Cited by4 opinions
- Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Grant CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Benka v. Consolidated Water Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Smith v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
- Rocheleau v. Consolidated Water Power & Paper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926