22 N.W. 519 (Wis. 1885), Quackenbush v. Wisconsin & Minnesota Railroad Co.
|Citation:||22 N.W. 519, 62 Wis. 411|
|Opinion Judge:||COLE, C. J.|
|Party Name:||QUACKENBUSH, Administratrix, etc. v. WISCONSIN & MINNESOTA RAILROAD COMPANY|
|Attorney:||For the appellant there was a brief by Edwin H. Abbot, attorney, and Howard Morris, of counsel, and the cause was argued orally by Mr. Morris H. H. Hayden, for the respondent.|
|Case Date:||March 03, 1885|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Wisconsin|
Argued February 4, 1885.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Chippewa County.
Action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused by the failure of the defendant to fence its line of railroad as required by law. The facts alleged in the complaint will sufficiently appear from the opinion. The defendant appealed from an order overruling its general demurrer to the complaint.
Order overruling demurrer affirmed.
47 id. 198, 201. From these cases the following propositions of law are logically derived: (1) Sec. 9, art. I, Const. of Wis., guaranties to every citizen of the state, natural or artificial, every substantial right which, at the time the constitution was adopted, was recognized and protected by and formed part of the "law of the land," or was incident to "due process of law." (2) Substantial rights under the "law of the land," or incident to "due process of law," are those which existed at the common law as adopted and applied in this country prior to the formation of the several constitutions containing the guaranties relied upon. (3) Legislative enactments destructive of such substantial rights are neither "law of the land" nor "due process of law." The law in question is also void because it denies the "right of trial by jury" guarantied by sec. 5, art. I, Const. of Wis. That guaranty must be interpreted to mean that parties litigant are entitled to have...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP