Orth v. City of Milwaukee

• Decision Date: 28 January 1896
• Citation: 92 Wis. 230,65 N.W. 1029
• Parties: ORTH v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

92 Wis. 230

65 N.W. 1029

ORTH

v.CITY OF MILWAUKEE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 28, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county; D. H. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Daniel C. Orth against the city of Milwaukee for damages to his lands, resulting from the erection of a bridge. From the judgment rendered, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an appeal from an assessment of damages in condemnation proceedings. It appeared that the plaintiff, in August, 1892, owned several contiguous lots in the Sixth ward of the city of Milwaukee, lying between Commerce street and Milwaukee river. Commerce street runs nearly parallel with the river. At that time Holton street ran nearly at right angles with Commerce street, but ended at Commerce street. If continued to the river, it would cross plaintiff's lots. Commerce street and plaintiff's lots lie in the valley, while Holton street, as then existing and used, was upon the bluff, 68 feet higher than Commerce street; the end of Holton street, as laid, being upon a steep descent from the bluff to the level of Commerce street, and being unused. Upon the other side of the river, almost opposite the end of Holton street, lay Van Buren street. By chapters 223, 411, Laws 1891, the city of Milwaukee was authorized to issue bonds for the building of a bridge and approaches from the Sixth to the Eighteenth wards. On the 22d day of August, 1892, the common council passed a resolution that it was necessary to extend Holton street from Commerce street to the river, and to take land for that purpose; also, that the reason why it is necessary to open and extend said street is “that there are no facilities for building a bridge at said place of extension to connect the Sixth ward to the Eighteenth ward, as ordered by chapter 411 of the Local Laws of 1891.” In pursuance of this resolution, due proceedings were taken to condemn one of plaintiff's lots for the extension of Holton street, and the plaintiff's damages were assessed by the board of public works at $8,500, from which assessment he appealed. Upon the trial in the circuit court it appeared, under objection, that, before the condemnation proceedings were taken, plans had been prepared by the city engineer, under instructions from the proper city authorities, for the proposed bridge, which plans provided for a viaduct 60 feet high across the plaintiff's lot (which was afterwards condemned), and over Commerce street, to the high part of Holton street. The viaduct was to consist of an iron framework resting...