Maire v. Kruse
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Grant County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. to the point that sec. 1294 applies to a fart of a highway, cited Witter v. JDamitz., 81 Wis. 385; Horey v. Haver sir am:, 124 N. Y. 213.
1Opinion of the CourtOetoN, J.
The statement of the facts of this case is not long or complicated. Section 10 of township 1, range 2, in Grant county, lies west of and adjacent to section 11, and section 14 lies south of and adjacent to section 11, and section 15 lies south of and adjacent to section 10. The plaintiff’s land lies in the southwestern central corner of these sections, and the defendant’s lands lie in the three other *303corners. There was formerly a highway on the east and west section line between the sections, and a highway on the north and south section line between sections 10 and 11, coming down to said…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Reilly v. City of RacineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Childs v. NelsohWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Witter v. DamitzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by13 opinions
- Quinn v. BaageSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Purvis v. BuseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1954
- City of Madison v. MayersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Town of Randall v. RovelstadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- McCarl v. Clarke CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.