DeByle v. Roberts
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.
We agree with the trial court that Eugene Olszewski, by selling with reference to maps and drawings *652and by reason of the representations he made that parcel C was and would remain a road, had evidenced an intention to dedicate the same for public use as a road and that it was accepted by public user thereof. Under these findings there was a common-law dedication and acceptance of parcel C as a roadway. See Lake Beulah Protective & Imp. Asso. v. Christenson, 272 Wis. 493, 76 N. W. (2d) 276, 77 N. W. (2d) 514; Galewski v. Noe, 266 Wis. 7, 62 N. W. (2d) 703, and earlier cases therein referred to.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McDermott v. JacksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Galewski v. NoeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Voell v. KleinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Lake Beulah Protective & Improvement Ass'n v. ChristensonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Renn v. ChikowskeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
3Cited by6 opinions
- Builder's Lumber Co. v. StuartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Smart v. Estate of FordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Kadlec v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- DeByle v. RobertsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Kadlec v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.