Thurs Box Co. v. Marathon County
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
The defendant contends that question 1 of the special verdict was improperly framed. It is the contention of the defendant that the defendant’s request that the following question be submitted should have been complied with and that failure to- do so was error:
“Was the capacity as a multiple-opening drain sufficient to provide for the drainage of surface water reasonably to be expected?”
We can see no material difference between question 1 as submitted and the question requested by the defendant. Each question inquires as to the sufficiency of the multiple-opening drain “to take care of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barney v. LathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Huffman v. HatcherCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917