Habenicht v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: A. J. Viuje, Circuit Judge. This action was brought to recover for the value of a horse alleged to have been killed by going upon defendant’s road where the same runs through the N. W. J of section 20, town 47, range 12, in Douglas county, Wisconsin, on account of failure to fence as required by sec. 1810, Stats.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: A. J. Viuje, Circuit Judge. This action was brought to recover for the value of a horse alleged to have been killed by going upon defendant’s road where the same runs through the N. W. J of section 20, town 47, range 12, in Douglas county, Wisconsin, on account of failure to fence as required by sec. 1810, Stats. (1898). The defense was that the place where the horse entered was depot grounds, and therefore defendant was not required to fence tinder the provisions of the statute. The jury returned the following verdict: “(1) Was…
1Opinion of the CourtHeRwiit, J.
The main contention here is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the finding, of the jury on the first question of the special verdict to the effect that the place where the plaintiff’s horse entered upon the defendant’s property was not within the limits of the defendant’s depot grounds. The case was here on former appeal (Habenicht v. C., St. P., M. & O. R. Co. 126 Wis. 521, 105 N. W. 910), where this court held that the question of whether the place where plaintiff’s horse entered upon the track was depot grounds was a question for the jury. The evidence upon the second trial,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Klatt v. N. C. Foster Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Zimmer v. Fox River Valley Electric Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Darcey v. Farmers' Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Habenicht v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hart v. City of NeillsvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Lang v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1951