Noonan v. Orton
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Racine County. ' Plaintiffs filed a bill in equity in tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county, in January, 1855, by wbicb as subsequently amended, they alleged in substance as follows : In 1850, Wol-cott, Dousman, and Zelotes A. and Sanford D. Cotton, being then owners of certain lands on both, sides of the Milwaukee river, at the village of Humboldt, in Milwaukee county, and of a dam across the river, and the water power created thereby,…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Racine County. ' Plaintiffs filed a bill in equity in tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county, in January, 1855, by wbicb as subsequently amended, they alleged in substance as follows : In 1850, Wol-cott, Dousman, and Zelotes A. and Sanford D. Cotton, being then owners of certain lands on both, sides of the Milwaukee river, at the village of Humboldt, in Milwaukee county, and of a dam across the river, and the water power created thereby, entered into an agreement, under seal, with the plaintiff McNah and one Cameron, to sell and convey to them, said McNah and…
1Opinion of the Court
*289The following opinion was filed at the June term, 1865 :
Dixon, C. J.
"We think that the demurrer must be sustained. The alleged supplemental matter is not material to the relief sought by the original complaint. It does not go to strengthen or prove the allegations of the original complaint, or show more conclusively that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief there prayed. Such, we understand, must be the character and tendency of a supplemental complaint, whether the facts alleged be such as have occurred after the former complaint, or such as the party was ignorant of at the time his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Harrigan v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Orton v. NoonanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872