Tucker v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeals from judgments of tbe circuit court for Ashland ■county: JohN E. PARISH, Circuit Judge. These cases were proceedings upon behalf of the respective plaintiffs to ascertain and determine the amount of compensation to which they claim to be entitled by reason of the taking and occupation of certain lands by the defendant ■company for railroad purposes, and were instituted under •sec. 1852, E. S. Ey stipulation they were tried and decided •upon the same evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeals from judgments of tbe circuit court for Ashland ■county: JohN E. PARISH, Circuit Judge. These cases were proceedings upon behalf of the respective plaintiffs to ascertain and determine the amount of compensation to which they claim to be entitled by reason of the taking and occupation of certain lands by the defendant ■company for railroad purposes, and were instituted under •sec. 1852, E. S. Ey stipulation they were tried and decided •upon the same evidence. Separate verdicts having been found for the plaintiffs in each case, from each judgment rendered thereon the defendant company…
1Opinion of the CourtPiNNey, J.
1. The effect of the' patent to the county judge and his déed of'conveyance to Asaph Whittlesey and Charles 0. Tucker, since deceased, was to vest the legal title of the premises in question in said Whittlesey and Tucker, as tenants in common. ’ The decree in the partition suit of Tucker v. Whittlesey, 74 Wis. 74, set off and vested the legal title to the entirety of the premises iii Lela M., Charles.C., and Jack Z. Tucker, heirs at law of said Charles C.' Tucker,
*581deceased, as tenants in common. Each of said heirs thus became the owner in fee of the undivided one-third of each of said lots.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Smelting Co. v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Moffat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Murray v. HobsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
- Cofield v. McClellandSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Whittlesey v. HoppenyanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kuhl v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Benton v. Georgia Marble Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1988
- Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Oregon Short Line R.Utah Supreme Court · 1914
- Johnston v. SmithArizona Supreme Court · 1931