32 N.W. 681 (Wis. 1887), Arpin v. Burch

Citation:32 N.W. 681, 68 Wis. 619
Opinion Judge:HARLOW S. ORTON, J.
Party Name:ARPIN, Appellant, v. BURCH, Respondent. ARPIN, Respondent, v. BURCH, Appellant
Attorney:For the plaintiff there was a brief by Cate, Jones & Sanborn, and oral argument by Mr. Jones. G. C. Prentiss and F. Winsor, for the defendant,
Case Date:April 12, 1887
Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 681

32 N.W. 681 (Wis. 1887)

68 Wis. 619

ARPIN, Appellant,

v.

BURCH, Respondent.

ARPIN, Respondent,

v.

BURCH, Appellant

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

April 12, 1887

Argued March 24, 1887.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Juneau County.

This action was commenced in 1882 to recover damages for the wrongful conversion in 1868 and 1869 of pine logs belonging to the plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

For the plaintiff there was a brief by Cate, Jones & Sanborn, and oral argument by Mr. Jones. They contended, inter alia, that the defendant could not, by taking forcible possession of the logs innocently cut upon his land by the plaintiff, deprive the latter of the enhanced value created by his labor. The defendant was entitled only to the value of the stumpage. Single v. Schneider, 30 Wis. 570; Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311.

G. C. Prentiss and F. Winsor, for the defendant, argued, among other things, that in a tort action, if the plaintiff has been guilty of laches in the prosecution of his claim, interest should be withheld. Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co. 110 U.S. 174; Bann v. Dalzell, 3 Carr. & P. 376; Newell v. Keith's Ex'rs, 11 Vt. 214; Adams Exp. Co. v. Milton, 11 Bush, 49. And where there is a bona fide dispute as to the right to recover, and also as to the amount recoverable, interest should be allowed only from the date of the verdict. Marsh v. Fraser, 37 Wis. 150; Shipman v. State, 44 id. 458.

OPINION

[68 Wis. 620] HARLOW S. ORTON, J.

In this case there are cross-appeals, both parties being dissatisfied with the judgment. The facts are substantially and briefly as follows: In 1868 the plaintiff had afloat in Yellow river a large number of pine logs, intended to be manufactured into lumber near the mouth of said river, and the defendant diverted a large portion of them into the boom belonging to the firm of which he was a member, near the town of Necedah, and converted the same to his own use or to the use of said firm; and it is alleged in the complaint, as another and separate cause of action against the defendant, that in 1869 the defendant obtained possession and converted in a similar way ninety-nine other logs of the plaintiff. A part of the logs so diverted [68 Wis. 621] and converted in 1868 was cut, by a mistake of lines and boundaries, by the plaintiff, upon the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP