Pennoyer v. Allen
| Decision Date | 12 October 1880 |
| Parties | PENNOYER AND ANOTHER v. ALLEN AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from ciruit court, Kenosha county.
J. V. Quarles and John T. Fish, for respondents.
James Cavanaugh and Jenkins, Elliott & Winkler, for appellants.
This suit is brought to recover damages for injury to the premises of the plaintiff, and to their use and enjoyment of the same, caused by the manner in which the business of the defendants has been carried on, in and about a tannery situated upon the premises of the defendants. The defendants set up, in substance, by answer in defence of the action, and in justification of such pretended nuisance, that they and those under whom they claim have carried on such business in the manner complained of for more than 20 years, and expended large sums of money in constructions necessary for said business, under the license and consent of the plaintiffs and those under whom they claim, and with their acquiescence. They answer also, as a counter claim setting up substantially the same facts, and pray for judgment establishing their right to carry on said business in the manner complained of under such license, consent, and acquiescence, and that the plaintiffs be enjoined from prosecuting this suit and another suit pending, brought by them against these defendants and one Nathan R. Allen, Jr., and from commencing any future actions against them, or either of them, or their heirs or assigns, for damages occasioned by the manner in which such business is carried on by these defendants and the said Nathan R. Allen, Jr. The matter and prayer of this counter claim would constitute a complaint in equity in the nature of a bill of peace or of quia timet--interest reipublicaœ ut sit finis litium--to quiet the rights of the parties and put an end to further litigation upon the same subject. A demurrer to this counter claim was sustained by the circuit court. On this appeal, supposing that the question arose, the whole subject of equity jurisdiction in such a case, including the rights of the parties in respect to an executed parol license and the large expenditure of moneys under it, and by consent and acquiescence, was fully and very ably discussed by the learned counsel on both sides, in the light of the authorities of this and other states.
It is to be regretted that this case is not in the condition in which this able discussion could be made available in the final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humphreys County v. Cashin
... ... Ch. 636; ... Normandin v. Mackey, 38 Mo. 417, 37 N.W. 954; ... Commercial Bank v. Fire Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 12, 54 ... N.W. 110; Pennoyer v. Allen, 50 Wis. 308, 6 N.W ... 887; Sheldon v. Mayers, 81 Wis. 627, 51 N.W. 1082; ... Moss Mercantile Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 82 P. 8, 2 ... ...
-
Taylor v. Matteson
...because they could not be litigated without the presence of a new and necessary party. McConihe v. Hollister, 19 Wis. 287;Pennoyer v. Allen, 50 Wis. 308, 310, 6 N. W. Rep. 887. As the plaintiff has brought a legal action, and seeks nothing but a money judgment, he cannot be compelled to bri......
-
Weld v. Johnson Manuf'g Co.
...cannot be amended so as to bring in other parties. Call v. Chase, 21 Wis. 518; McConihe v. Hollister, 19 Wis. 287; Pennoyer v. Allen, 50 Wis. 308, 6 N. W. 887. The demurrer is therefore fatal to the counterclaim. But by the above authorities the answer may be good as a defense to the action......
-
Pennoyer v. Allen
...arising from the operation of such tannery. The plaintiffs demurred to the counter-claim, and the same was sustained by this court, 50 Wis. 308, [S. C. 6 N. W. REP. 887,] whereupon the cause was tried by the court and a jury, who at the close of the trial, under the instructions of the cour......