Feiten v. City of Milwaukee
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County. The complaint is sufficiently stated in the brief of counsel for plaintiff, as follows: “ The complaint is in trespass on the case. Plaintiff is the owner of a certain lot in the twelfth ward of the city, and on the lot there are valuable improvements, among which is a large two-story frame building used for business and dwelling purposes.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County. The complaint is sufficiently stated in the brief of counsel for plaintiff, as follows: “ The complaint is in trespass on the case. Plaintiff is the owner of a certain lot in the twelfth ward of the city, and on the lot there are valuable improvements, among which is a large two-story frame building used for business and dwelling purposes. On April 26, 1875, the city concluded that that part of said premises on which the house is situated became necessary for opening a street. Upon its application, a jury was appointed May 8, 1875, to…
1Opinion of the Court
Lyoít, J.
The right of the common council to discontinue and abandon the condemnation proceedings which it had instituted, is not denied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He also concedes that the law governing the case is correctly stated by Judge Dillon in his treatise on municipal corporations, as follows: “ "Where proceedings are riglitfnlly discontinued, the land owner cannot have a mandamus to collect, nor recover by action the sum that may have been estimated by commissioners; yet he may have a special action for damages for any wrongful and injurious acts of the corporation in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Driver v. Western Union RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
- Van Valkenburgh v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- In re Anthony-streetNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Akerly v. VilasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by18 opinions
- Smith v. Erie Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
- Winkelman v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- Eckhoff v. Forest Preserve DistrictIllinois Supreme Court · 1941
- Moyle v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1947
- Uniacke v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.