Maire v. Kruse
| Decision Date | 23 May 1893 |
| Citation | 55 N.W. 389,85 Wis. 302 |
| Parties | MAIRE v. KRUSE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Grant county; George Clementson, Judge.
Action by Michael Maire to enjoin August Kruse from obstructing a highway. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.T. D. Cleary, for appellant.
Carter & Burns, for respondent.
The statement of the facts of the case is not long or complicated. Section 10 of township 1, range 2, in Grant county, lies west of and adjacent to section 11, and section 14 lies south of and adjacent to section 11, and section 15 lies south of and adjacent to section 10. The plaintiff's land lies in the northwestern central corner of these sections, and the defendant's lands lie in the three other corners. There was formerly a highway on the east and west section line between the sections, and a highway on the north and south section line between sections 10 and 11, coming down to said center corner of the sections, and there forming a junction with said east and west highway. A short distance above this junction of the two highways, at the central corners, there was an uneven elevation, or side hill, difficult to work or travel on, and the line of travel diverged to the east of the central section line north and south, and formed a junction with said east and west highway about six rods east of the section corners, and made a hypotenuse of a triangle, which was worked and used as the highway; and the other two sides of the triangle were fenced up by the defendant when he became the owner of this small corner of land, which adjoined his lands in the other two corners as above. The said east and west highway was vacated by the supervisors of the town from the center of the sections west on the section line between section 15 and section 10. This left the plaintiff's land without any connection with a highway that was opened for travel, and he has been compelled to find an irregular way by permission across the corner of the defendant's land on the east, until he could strike the highway eastwardly. The plaintiff, it will be seen, has been thus cut off from any connection with either the north and south or the east and west highways. The plaintiff complains that the defendant, without right, keeps the highway obstructed by his fences, and will not allow him to have access to it in either direction. The defendant claims that such parts of the highway north and east from the section corner that he has so obstructed were abandoned and have been discontinued by nonuser of over five years, and that such parts thereof have ceased to be any parts of the said highways. The plaintiff prays that the court may ascertain and determine whether these parts of the two highways are still lawfully so, and, if they are, that the defendant be enjoined from obstructing them; and, if they are not, then that he may have a way over the defendant's land to some highway from necessity. This is an action in equity, and the jurisdiction seems not to have been questioned by the defendant, and therefore this case will not form a precedent. There is really only one question to be determined, and that is a question of law,--whether those parts of the highways which the defendant has obstructed are yet lawfully parts thereof. The circuit court decided this question in the affirmative, and, in effect, adjudged that the highway from the east line of section 15 on the east and west section line, or from the center corner of said sections east to the east line of the town, remains and exists as a public highway, and every part thereof; and that all persons have the right to travel thereon, without any let or hindrance whatever, from the east line of said town of Jamestown across section 14 to the east line of section 15 in said town, four rods wide; and that defendant be enjoined from obstructing it, and esspecially the north and south highway, in any manner whatever; and that the plaintiff recover his costs and disbursements. This is an abbreviation of the judgment, and perhaps not critically correct, but this is the substance of it. This triangle or corner contains only about half an acre of land, and the two pieces or parts of the highways cut off by it are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Madison v. Mayers
...of Racine, 51 Wis. 526, 8 N. W. 417;State v. Leaver, 62 Wis. 387, 22 N. W. 576;Childs v. Nelson, 69 Wis. 125, 33 N. W. 587;Maire v. Kruse, 85 Wis. 302, 55 N. W. 389;Nicolai v. Davis, 91 Wis. 370, 64 N. W. 1001. In this last case it was held that “the mere fact that the plaintiff had for man......
-
Purvis v. Busey, 1 Div. 548
...of the county authorities to keep the road in repair necessarily work an abandonment. Sterlane v. Fleming, supra; Maire v. Kruse, 85 Wis. 302, 55 N.W. 389, 26 L.R.A. 449; Spradley v. Hall, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d The fact that the part of the eliminated curve immediately south of respondent......
-
Town of Randall v. Rovelstad
...Also, that deviation of travel from the laid-out course of a highway has no effect to change it. State v. Wertzel, supra; Maire v. Kruse, 85 Wis. 302, 55 N. W. 389. We find no sufficient evidence in this case to establish persistent and customary adverse use or occupation, as a highway, of ......
-
State ex rel. King v. Mccurdy
...Quinn v. Baage, 138 Iowa, 426, 432, 114 N.W. 205, and other cases. ¶16 A case closely in point on the facts is Maire v. Kruse, 85 Wis. 302, 55 N.W. 389, 26 L. R. A. 449, in which the syllabus reads:"Owing to a hill at the point where two roads came together at right angles along section lin......