Bettys v. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co.

37 Wis. 323
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 37 Wis. 323 (Bettys v. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bettys v. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co., 37 Wis. 323 (Wis. 1875).

Opinion

Ryan, 0. J.

I. The first count of the complaint is plainly framed under the statute of Iowa pleaded. It recites the statute, and avers all the facts necessary under it to the recovery of the double damages which the statute gives, and prays judgment for them. It is strictly an action under the statute. Chipman v. Emeric, 5 Cal., 239. No such action is known to our law. And, for reasons assigned in Anderson v. M. & St. P. R’y Co., ante, p. 321, the action cannot be maintained here.

There is another reason applicable to this case, not to that. The double damages of the Iowa statute are given by way of penalty. Newcomb v. Butterfield, 8 Johns., 342. And for that reason, the action could not be maintained here. Brigham v. Claflin, 31 Wis., 607.

The count is so plainly under the Iowa statute that, though we came to the conclusion with some reluctance, we cannot [327]*327think that it would he fair or safe to reject the averment of the Iowa statute and the averments under it, as surplusage, and hold it a transitory action for single damages, under the cases in this court, with too large a prayer for judgment. See Graham v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall., 704.

II. The second count is for injury to the realty in Iowa, plainly a local action under all the authorities, which cannot be maintained here. Co. Litt., 282 a; Bacon’s Abr., Action, A.; Comyn’s Dig., Action N., 4, 5; Doulson v. Matthews, 4 Term, 508; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis., 656.

By the Court. — The order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller v. Mun. Court of L. A.
142 P.2d 297 (California Supreme Court, 1943)
Eskovitz v. Berger
268 N.W. 883 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Taylor v. Sommers Bros. Match
204 P. 472 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1922)
Symmes v. Sierra Nevada Mining Co.
153 P. 710 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Brisbane v. . Pennsylvania R.R. Co.
98 N.E. 752 (New York Court of Appeals, 1912)
Rick v. Saginaw Bay Towing Co.
93 N.W. 632 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)
MacCarthy v. Whitcomb
85 N.W. 707 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1901)
Little v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
67 N.W. 846 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)
Burns v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad
15 N.E. 230 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1888)
Herrick v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
16 N.W. 413 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Wis. 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bettys-v-milwaukee-saint-paul-railway-co-wis-1875.