Hathaway v. City of Milwaukee
| Decision Date | 20 June 1907 |
| Citation | 132 Wis. 249,112 N.W. 455 |
| Parties | HATHAWAY ET AL. v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE ET AL. (TWO CASES). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
The grounds for the motion for a rehearing present no new questions for consideration, and we do not find it necessary to further consider them, aside from the points that the city is said to have disclaimed any rights to or interest in the strip of land owned by Ida S. Ott, and as to the costs awarded against her. The court incorporated a statement in the record to the effect that counsel for the city led the court to understand that the city made no claim to any interest in the premises at the foot of Terrace avenue extended. The court states this was so stated in court in a conversation which occurred between the court and counsel, of which no record was preserved; that the city's claim to any interest therein was thereafter treated by the court as abandoned, and was given no further consideration. We are satisfied from the record that this statement of the court must be treated as an explanation of the omission of an adjudication of the question of the city's right to an easement; but it is not sufficient to sustain the claim that there was a waiver by the city of any right or interest in the extension of Terrace avenue over the accretion. This oral statement, of which there is no record, and imperfectly remembered, is not sufficient to sustain a waiver of the city's rights under the deed from Lydia W. Payne. Especially is this true, in view of the city's present claim that it in no respect waived any such interest in the premises. Under the evidence and the deed conveying to the city the right to the street, we must adhere to our conclusion, declared in our former opinion, namely, that the city has an easement over the premises.
The judgment of the lower court was necessarily reversed on the appeal, and it was directed that judgment be rendered awarding the city an easement under the grant of Lydia W. Payne, and that the city of Milwaukee have its costs. It is urged that the city should not, under the circumstances, be permitted to recover such costs on this appeal. We find no ground for modifying our determination of this question, and find the city is justly entitled to recover such costs.
The motion for a rehearing is denied.
On motion to vacate the judgment awarding costs. Granted, and judgment modified.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kimes v. U.S., 86-1267.
-
Angelo v. R.R. Comm'n
...arising only when physical changes have been made by natural causes. Such other rule was recognized without question in Hathaway v. Milwaukee, 132 Wis. 249, 111 N. W. 570, 112 N. W. 455, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 778, 122 Am. St. Rep. 975, to which suit, however, the state was not a party, involvi......
-
Perpignani v. Vonasek
...points or lines necessary to apportion relicted land are the original shoreline and the new shoreline. See, e.g., Hathaway v. Milwaukee, 132 Wis. 249, 111 N.W. 570 (1970); Jansky v. Two Rivers, 227 Wis. 228, 278 N.W. 527 (1938); Rondesvedt v. Running, 19 Wis.2d 614, 121 N.W.2d 1 (1963); DeS......
- Burke v. Commonwealth