Stephens v. Marshall
Wisconsin Supreme Court
EEEOE to tbe County Court for Sauk County. Action on tbe case for flowing certain lands owned by the plaintiff through which there passed a running stream, by means of a mill dam erected thereon by the defendant. Plea not guilty.
Read the full summary
EEEOE to tbe County Court for Sauk County. Action on tbe case for flowing certain lands owned by the plaintiff through which there passed a running stream, by means of a mill dam erected thereon by the defendant. Plea not guilty. At the trial before the court without a jury, it appeared that about twenty-five acres of plaintiff’s lands were overflowed by means of the dam in question, and that the damages were from $25 to $500. The dam was erected under what was known as tbe “ mill dam act ” of 1840, and was afterwards swept out by flood and immediately rebuilt by defendant, and it was claimed…
1Opinion of the CourtHubbell, C. J.
The constitutionality of the mill dam law of 1840 was established by this court in Newcomb v. Smith, 2 Pin., 131. The law, however, was repealed by an act which took effect on the 2d day of January, 1850; and the present case presents a question growing out of the repeal. For reasons unexplained, the legislature, on abrogating that important and peculiar statute, made no provision for the rights of persons whose property had been taken or invested in pursuance of its authority. To the general saving clause found in the revised statutes (sec. 2, p. 757), or to the provision in the constitution…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People ex rel. Fountain v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Newcomb v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1849
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pratt v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1854
- Fisher v. Horicon Iron & Man. Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Harding v. FunkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871