Faville v. Greene
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court of Jefferson County. This was an action under wbat is commonly called tbe “ Mill Dam Act,” commenced in 1859. Tbe complaint alleges that tbe plaintiff is, and ever since tbe 4th of June, 1855, has been, tbe owner in fee, and actually possessed of certain land therein described, and, during all that time, has bad tbe right to tbe use and profits of said land; that tbe defendant, for more than three years last past, has kept up and maintained,…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court of Jefferson County. This was an action under wbat is commonly called tbe “ Mill Dam Act,” commenced in 1859. Tbe complaint alleges that tbe plaintiff is, and ever since tbe 4th of June, 1855, has been, tbe owner in fee, and actually possessed of certain land therein described, and, during all that time, has bad tbe right to tbe use and profits of said land; that tbe defendant, for more than three years last past, has kept up and maintained, across a stream (not navigable,) a mill dam, to raise tbe water for working a grist mill, &c., by means whereof tbe water…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Cole, J.
This was an action commenced under chapter 56, R. S., for damages sustained by the flowing of the lands of the respondent. The appellant demurred to the complaint, assigning several grounds of demurrer, which we do not deem it necessary to notice in detail. It appears to us that all the serious objections taken to the complaint, are substantially embraced in the position, that it is not alleged that the respondent was the owner of the land overflowed when the dam was erected, or that no compensation has been made for the injury caused by the flowing. An examination of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Newell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Pick v. Rubicon Hydraulic Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Mead v. HeinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871