Templeton v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1908
• Citation: 114 N.W. 808,134 Wis. 377
• Parties: TEMPLETON v. MILWAUKEE LIGHT, HEAT & TRACTION CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

134 Wis. 377

114 N.W. 808

TEMPLETON

v.MILWAUKEE LIGHT, HEAT & TRACTION CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 28, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Waukesha County; James J. Dick, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Company against Andrew Templeton. From a judgment of the circuit court for Templeton on appeal from the award of the commissioners, Templeton appeals. Reversed, and remanded for a new trial.

The respondent filed its petition March 3, 1904, for the appointment of commissioners. The commissioners awarded the plaintiff $206 damages, and to his grantor, Mary E. Peffer, 6 cents damages. The plaintiff bought the property in question from Mary E. Peffer on May 28, 1904, together with the right to have and recover damages for the taking of this property by defendant company. The commissioners' award of damages was filed September 19, 1904. The respondent appealed from the award made to the plaintiff and plaintiff's wife, but did not appeal from the award made to Mary E. Peffer. The plaintiff, appellant in this court, moved in the circuit court to dismiss the appeal from the award of commissioners to that court, which motion was denied. The land in question abuts on Lincoln avenue. The corporate charter, the grant from the city of Waukesha to use the streets, the scope of the condemnation proceedings as shown in the petition for the appointment of commissioners, and the use of the street, are all as shown in Gosa v. Milwaukee L., H. & T. Co., 114 N. W. 815, and Marsh v. Milwaukee L., H. & T. Co., 114 N. W. 804, herewith decided.

Among other references cited upon the part of the appellant were the following: Section 1849, St. 1898; Watson v. M. & M. Ry. Co., 57 Wis. 332, 15 N. W. 468;Spaulding v. M., L. S. & W. Ry., 57 Wis. 304, 14 N. W. 368, 15 N. W. 482;Washburn v. M. & L. Ry. Co., 59 Wis. 379, 18 N. W. 431;Larson v. S. S. L. Ry. Co., 64 Wis. 59, 24 N. W. 487; 2 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 425; Wilt v. Neenah Cold Storage Co., 130 Wis. 398, 110 N. W. 177;Morris v. Brewster, 60 Wis. 229, 19 N. W. 50; 2 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 213; Chinnock v. Stevens, 23 Wis. 396;Widner v. Wood, 19 Wis. 190;Sharp v. Appleton, 113 N. W. 1090;Sayles v. Davis, 20 Wis. 302;Van Slyk v. Fire Ins. Co., 39 Wis. 390, 20 Am. Rep. 50;Hays v. Lewis, 21 Wis. 663;Abbott v. Mil. L., H. & T. Co., 126 Wis. 634, 106 N. W. 523, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 202;Murray Hill L. Co. v. Mil. L., H. & T. Co., 126 Wis. 14, 104 N. W. 1003; L. & M. R. R. Co. v. Seeger, 4 Wis. 268;Campbell v. Dick, 80 Wis. 42, 49 N. W. 120;Sailer v. Barnousky, 60 Wis. 169, 18 N. W. 763;Borchardt v. Wausau Boom Co., 54 Wis. 107, 11 N. W. 440, 41 Am. Rep. 12.

Among other references cited upon the part of the respondent were the following: Blesch v. Railway Co., 44 Wis. 593;Eau Claire F. & S. Co. v. Laycock, 92 Wis. 81, 65 N. W. 732;Atty. Gen. v. West W. R. Co., 36 Wis. 466;Wright v. Mil. E. R. & L. Co., 95 Wis. 29, 69 N. W. 791, 36 L. R. A. 47, 60 Am. St. Rep. 74;Richardson v. Babcock, 119 Wis. 141, 96 N. W. 554;Lowe v. Ring, 123 Wis. 370, 101 N. W. 698.Tullar & Lockney, for appellant.

Ryan, Merton & Newbury (Clarke M. Rosecrantz, of counsel), for respondent.

TIMLIN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The appellant assigns error because the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the respondent's appeal to the circuit court from the award of commissioners, based on the ground that such appeal did not include the award of nominal damages to Mary E. Peffer. This objection cannot prevail under the rule of Brickles v. Milwaukee L., H. & T. Co. (decided...