Clark v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, J.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that under the doctrine laid down in Donaldson v. Buhlman, 134 Wis. 117, 113 N. W. 638, 114 N. W. 431, the award of the commissioners in the condemnation proceedings as affirmed by the court is subject to collateral attack. In this respect we are of the opinion that the plaintiff misinterprets the *382decision in Donaldson v. Buhlman, supra. That was a common-law arbitration,, and the court held that.the arbitrators had gone outside of and had misconceived their jurisdiction, that their decision was arbitrary and oppressive, and .for. those reasons set it.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Donaldson v. BuhlmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Dodge v. BurnsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
- Brasch v. Rothschild Water Power, Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
3Cited by1 opinion
- Benka v. Consolidated Water Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1929