Brandt v. City of Milwaukee
| Decision Date | 11 October 1887 |
| Citation | 34 N.W. 246,69 Wis. 386 |
| Parties | IN RE PETITION OF BRANDT AND OTHERS, ADM'RS, ETC., v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county.
Petition to vacate an alley in the city of Milwaukee.Finches, Lynde & Miller, for appellants.
E. S. Elliott, for respondent.
The city attorney correctly says the only question to be considered on this appeal is whether or not the common council of Milwaukee have the exclusive power to vacate streets and alleys within the city limits, under the restrictions prescribed in the city charter. By sections 2265, 2266, Rev. St., as amended by chapter 60, Laws 1885, the circuit court have authority, on a proper application, to vacate any recorded plat of a city or village, or part thereof, and to vest the title of the streets vacated in the owners of the abutting lots. The jurisdiction of the courts in the matter is purely statutory. Warren v. City of Wausau, 66 Wis. 206, 28 N. W. Rep. 187. The question then is, do these general provisions apply to the city of Milwaukee, or is the power of the common council in the matter of vacating streets exclusive? In this case the application was to vacate an alley, made by the owners of the abutting lots. The learned circuit court found all the facts in favor of the petitioners; that the proper notices of the application to vacate the alley had been given; and that the alley was of no public utility; yet the court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. Was this view of the law correct? We think it was. Section 3, c. 4, of the charter, (see chapter 184, Laws 1874,) gives the common council of the city certain police powers which they may exercise, “anything in any general law of the state to the contrary notwithstanding,” among which is the power to vacate streets and alleys (subdivision 32) by ordinances or resolutions, etc. Section 23, c. 6, of the charter, contains restrictions on the exercise of this power to vacate a street or alley in providing that the necessity for vacating the same must be first established by a verdict or report of a jury, in like manner as where a street is laid out under the charter. The manner of proceeding for taking land for the use of a street is clearly prescribed, and seems to afford ample and sufficient protection against all abuse of the power. The rights of the public, as well as of all parties interested, either in laying out streets, or in vacating the same,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v. Lonstorf
...with the general provisions of the statute mentioned. In support of such contention counsel seem to rely upon Brandt v. City of Milwaukee, 69 Wis. 386, 388, 34 N. W. 246. That was “an application to the circuit court by the owners of all lands on both sides of an alley * * * to vacate the s......
-
State ex rel. Allis v. Wiesner
...to it was held that the particular proceedings attacked were for one reason or another unconstitutional and void. In Brandt v. City of Milwaukee, 69 Wis. 386, 34 N. W. 246, the court held that by chapter 184 of the Laws of 1874 there was vested in the common council of the city of Milwaukee......
-
In re Hayes
...of streets. Section 35, c. 124, p. 791, Laws 1891, being charter of the city of Superior (sections 904, 927, St.). Brandt et al. v. Milwaukee, 69 Wis. 386, 34 N. W. 246. Counsel seeks to distinguish the Brandt Case under the language of the Milwaukee charter provision that the common counci......
-
Town of Mt. Morris v. Hill
...this court that the stipulation and judgment narrowing the highway to three rods are void. We agree with this contention. Brandt v. Milwaukee, 69 Wis. 386, 34 N. W. 246;Warren v. Wausau, 66 Wis. 206, 28 N. W. 187. But this does not call for a reversal of the judgment appealed from. That sim......