Leihy v. Ashland Lumber Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ashland County. The questions in this 'case arose upon demurrer to the complaint. The substance of the complaint is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “ The complaint alleges, in substance, that on the first of May, 1877, and from thence to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff was the owner of forty acres of land described as the N. W. £ of N. E. \ of section 36, town 47, range 3 east, situated in Ashland county, and of a dam…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ashland County. The questions in this 'case arose upon demurrer to the complaint. The substance of the complaint is thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “ The complaint alleges, in substance, that on the first of May, 1877, and from thence to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff was the owner of forty acres of land described as the N. W. £ of N. E. \ of section 36, town 47, range 3 east, situated in Ashland county, and of a dam situated on said land across a stream known as Bad river; that he built said dam in 1850, and had ever since used the same…
1Opinion of the CourtTatlob, J.
The first objection made to the complaint by the learned counsel for the respondent, is that it does not allege that the plaintiff owned the land or dam at the time of the alleged trespass. The point of this objection is, that as the complaint alleges that plaintiff was the owner on the first of May, 1877, and from that time forward, and then alleges that the trespass was committed on or about the first of May, 1877, the trespass might have been committed before 'the plaintiff became the owner. We think this objection is quite too technical and refined. The allegation is substantially that,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cowenhoven v. City of BrooklynNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Wals v. GrosvenorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
- Sheldon v. HoyNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by2 opinions
- Burns v. HorkanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Minter v. GoseWyoming Supreme Court · 1904