Ferch v. Schroedel
| Decision Date | 10 November 1942 |
| Citation | 6 N.W.2d 176,241 Wis. 457 |
| Parties | FERCH v. SCHROEDEL et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Gustave G. Gehrz, Judge.
Action by Bertha M. Ferch against Francis J. Schroedel and another to enjoin defendants from violating certain building restrictions on described lots in City of Milwaukee and from violating zoning ordinances of the city and for a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to remove from such lots any building or portion thereof erected or commenced as contrary to building restrictions and zoning ordinances. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Judgment affirmed.
Action commenced by plaintiff-appellant April 22, 1942, against defendants Francis J. Schroedel and Anita Schroedel, his wife, to enjoin defendants, their employees and agents from violating certain building restrictions on lots 1 to 8, inclusive, excepting lot 6, in block 2, in Sheritol subdivision in the city of Milwaukee; to enjoin said defendants from proceeding with or acting under any building permit issued by the building inspector of the city of Milwaukee in the erecting and construction of a four-family apartment building on any lot or part of any lot in said block 2; to enjoin said defendants from alleged violations of the terms and provisions of the zoning ordinances of the city of Milwaukee as affecting all real estate located in zone “D”; and for a mandatory injunction requiring said defendants to remove from said lots or any part of same any building or portion thereof erected or commenced, especially the four-family apartment building erected or commenced on any lot or any portion thereof as contrary to the building restrictions and the zoning ordinances of the city of Milwaukee; and for such other and further order, judgment or relief as may be just, proper and equitable.
The case was tried to the court and on June 4, 1942, the court made and filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which the court ordered judgment dismissingthe complaint upon the merits, with costs. From a judgment so dismissing said action, entered June 11, 1942, the plaintiff appeals. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.
W. O. Thomas, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Norman B. Silver, of Milwaukee, for respondents.
Plaintiff is the owner of an unimproved vacant lot in the city of Milwaukee, described as follows: Lot 6 in block 2 in Sheritol, a subdivision in the southeast quarter of section two, township seven north, of range twenty-one east. The defendants Schroedel are the owners of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, in block 2, same subdivision. The eight lots were originally part of a six-acre tract of land purchased in 1914 by defendant Charles Merz, when same were still vacant, unimproved and situated in the town of Wauwatosa. In March, 1928, while said property was still in the town of Wauwatosa, defendant Merz entered into a land contract with the plaintiff for a sale of the property now described as lot 6 above, same being described in the land contract by metes and bounds. In 1928 Merz platted the six-acre tract into lots. This plat was recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Milwaukee county on June 4, 1929. The plat contained no general restrictions upon the use of said land or any covenants pertaining to such use.
The land contract aforementioned contained certain restrictions as to buildings and the location thereof on lot 6. The restrictions are not material in this case. By 1940 plaintiff had paid the full purchase price specified in her land contract, and on April 1, 1940, she received a warranty deed from defendant Merz. In the meantime the property so platted had become a part of the city of Milwaukee. There were certain building restrictions in said warranty deed, which are likewise not here material.
On February 28, 1942, Merz conveyed by warranty deed lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, in block 2 in Sheritol subdivision to the defendants Francis J. Schroedel and Anita Schroedel, his wife. The deed contained no restrictions as to buildings or other use of said lots. The lots were still vacant and unimproved. At this time defendants Schroedel had no knowledge or notice of the restrictions contained in plaintiff's deed of lot 6.
All of the property herein mentioned is located in zone “D,” according to the zoning ordinances of the city of Milwaukee. In “D” districts any type of residence dwelling may be erected with the following limitation by sec. 9-21 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Szleszinski v. Lirc
...65 Wis.2d 624, 635-37, 223 N.W.2d 543 (1974); Jefferson County v. Timmel, 261 Wis. 39, 63, 51 N.W.2d 518 (1952); Ferch v. Schroedel, 241 Wis. 457, 461, 6 N.W.2d 176 (1942). IV ¶ 48 In sum, we conclude that a driver need not seek a determination of medical qualification from the DOT prior to......
-
Nodell Inv. Corp. v. City of Glendale, Milwaukee County, 75-506
...of the administrative decision, such remedy is exclusive and must be employed before other remedies are used. In Ferch v. Schroedel, 241 Wis. 457, 461, 6 N.W.2d 176 (1942), this court refused to allow a lot owner to enjoin the holders of a building permit, holding that the remedy was to fol......
-
Sohns v. Jensen
...made by an administrative officer from which the plaintiffs were required to appeal. The defendant relies on Ferch v. Schroedel, 1942, 241 Wis. 457, 6 N.W.2d 176; State ex rel. Morehouse v. Hunt, 1940, 235 Wis. 358, 291 N.W. 745; and other cases. These cases are not in point. An adjoining o......
-
Jackson County Iron Co. v. Musolf
...added); Accord Nodell Investment Corp. v. Glendale, 78 Wis.2d 416, 422-24, 254 N.W.2d 310 (1977). According to Ferch v. Schroedel, 241 Wis. 457, 461, 6 N.W.2d 176 (1942), where the plaintiff fails to follow the required statutory procedure, the court has no jurisdiction to hear a request fo......