Brooks v. Allen

1 Wis. 127
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Wis. 127 (Brooks v. Allen) 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
Brooks v. Allen, 1 Wis. 127 (Wis. 1853).

Opinion

By the Court,

Smith, J.

The County Court was doubtless led into error in this case, by supposing that the subject matter of the action fell within, and was to be controlled by chapter 14, of the Revised Statutes, concerning fences and fence viewers. The design of that chapter of the statutes, is to regulate and provide for the building and keeping in repair of division fences, and for the settlement of disputes in regard to the same. The fences contemplated by the statute, are the ordinary fences of the country, built upon agricultural lands ; not those whose character and fashion are suggested by the taste of the owners of town, village or city lots. It is possible, [130]*130indeed, that a division fence "between town lots may fall within the purview of the statute ; but to do so, it must be a fence of the kind and description contemplated by the statute.

On the trial of this cause, in the County Court, the plaintiff below offered to prove a contract between himself and the defendant below, by which the defendant employed the plaintiff to build twelve rods of partition gravel fence on the line of lot number 82, in Hackett’s Addition to Beloit, and agreed to pay him a reasonable compensation therefor, and that the plaintiff did build the gravel fence according to the contract.

There could be no legal objection to the introduction of this evidence. The parties having voluntarily entered into the contract, and that contract, not being repugnant to the statute, nor incompatible with public policy, should be sustained by the court.

Chapter 14 of the Revised Statutes, does not apply to such a case.

The judgment of the County Court must therefore be reversed with costs.

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

Related

White v. City of Watertown
2017 WI App 78 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Wis. 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-allen-wis-1853.