Chippewa Valley & Superior Railway Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: The amended complaint, in effect, alleges the incorporation and organization of the plaintiff, usually called! the ■“ Chippewa Cornpomy,” on June 15, 1881. That thereupon. ' the work of locating and constructing its railway was commenced and prosecuted until the fall of 1882, when the same was completed from the Mississippi to Eau Claire, with a branch…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County. The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday: The amended complaint, in effect, alleges the incorporation and organization of the plaintiff, usually called! the ■“ Chippewa Cornpomy,” on June 15, 1881. That thereupon. ' the work of locating and constructing its railway was commenced and prosecuted until the fall of 1882, when the same was completed from the Mississippi to Eau Claire, with a branch from near the mouth of the Eed Cedar river by way of Menominee to Cedar Falls, and from that time the same has been…
1Opinion of the CourtCassoday, J.
This action is brought to enforce the specific performance of the contract or contracts set forth in the foregoing statement. By virtue of those contracts the *239plaintiff claims the right to the equal undivided one-fourth of all the lands 'and the avails thereof granted to the state for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad from Superior to the junction near Veazie,— a distance of about sixty-two miles, — and said to contain 400,000 acres of land, of the value of $2,000,000. The state granted all of those lands to the Portage. & Superior Company in 1874, for the purpose named…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Market Co. v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Trist v. ChildSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tool Co. v. NorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Chesebrough v. . ConoverNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Amarillo Oil Co. v. Ranch Creek Oil & Gas Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. Portage City Water Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Houlton v. NicholWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Spaulding v. MailletMontana Supreme Court · 1920
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.