Union Mill Co. v. Shores

• Decision Date: 21 September 1886
• Citation: 29 N.W. 243,66 Wis. 476
• Parties: UNION MILL CO. v. SHORES.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

66 Wis. 476

29 N.W. 243

UNION MILL CO.

v.SHORES.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

September 21, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Ashland county.

Tomkins & Merrill, for respondent, Union Mill Co.

Knight & Hayes and Ramsdell & Benedict, for appellant, Eugene A. Shores.

ORTON, J.

The town of Ashland was laid out on government land, under the act of congress, along the south shore of the bay of Ashland, in Lake Superior. The last street towards the lake is Front street, and between that street and the shore there are blocks laid out, and between the blocks, and about the center, there was left an open space undesignated. On the west side of this space there is a street running towards the shore, called “Wisconsin Street,” 60 feet wide, and on the west side of this street, next to the shore, is block 101, of six lots, owned by the plaintiff. About five years ago, the plaintiff, being a mill-owner and manufacturer of lumber to be shipped away by boats or vessels on the lake, built a dock, opposite lots 1, 2, and 3 of said block, into the bay, about 1,000 feet, and at the end an L of 200 feet, the east side of which extended about eight feet into the space opposite the north end of Wisconsin street, eastwardly. This dock is well and permanently built, and is suitable for the shipment or landing of lumber or other freight on or from the boats and vessels of the lake, and had been used for such purpose with advantage to the plaintiff and others interested in the navigation of the lake, and it was necessary to enable boats and vessels to approach the shore of the lake at that point, and was an improvement of navigation. This dock unquestionably facilitated and is in the general interest of navigation. There was a question whether Wisconsin street extended to the lake shore, as to the right of the plaintiff to build said L eight feet opposite the end of it. But the dock proper was opposite to the plaintiff's lots alone, and the obstruction to the use of the east side of it would as much entitle the plaintiff to a recovery; and, in our view of the case, it is not necessary to determine that question at this time, and we will leave it an open one.

One John Canfield owned said open space, and blocks 99 and 100, east of it; and about two years ago, through the agency of the defendant, he constructed and established a permanent boom, about 1,000 feet from the shore, opposite said open space and said blocks, and the ends of the intervening streets, with piles driven at each end, and between the sections of it, the western end of which came within about eight feet of the intersection of the main dock and said L. This boom was built and has been used by the defendant exclusively for the storage of logs run into it from various points along the shore of the lake, and kept there to be sawed into lumber. The eastern end of said boom is within a few feet of the railroad dock extending from the shore a considerable distance beyond that point, so that when said boom is closed, as it must be to protect the logs within it, that part of the lake inclosed by it is inaccessible to boats, vessels, and all other craft navigating said lake. The defendant's logs inclosed in it lie along the side of plaintiff's dock, and bump and jostle it as the water...