Case ID: wis_56/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ortoh, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bastian vs. The City of Eau Claire.
    
      November 4
    
    
      November 21, 1882
    
    
      Pleading.
    
    A complaint alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of lands, describing them, with certain exceptions both of the body of the lands and certain appurtenant rights, and thereafter alleging injuries to “the said premises,” is held, on demurrer, to be neither uncertain nor defective.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Eau Clavre County.
    Action for injuries to lands and crops by flowage resulting from the obstruction of the Chippewa river by means of a dam erected and maintained by the defendant city. It is further alleged that grain and hay in the plaintiff’s granary and barn, and provisions in his cellar, were destroyed, and that' he incurred expense in removing hay and grain from the submerged buildings and in replacing the same. The defendant demurred to the complaint generally and upon the ground that several causes of action were improperly united, and appealed from an order overruling the demurrer.
    
      The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of Henry H. Hayden.
    
    Eor the respondent there was a brief by Frawley, Hendrix & Brooks, and oral argument by Mr. Frawley.
    
   Ortoh, J.

The complaint, in describing the premises, makes certain exceptions, both of the body of the lands and certain appurtenant rights, and thereafter refers to them as “ said premises,” or “ the premises aforesaid,” without noticing the exceptions. This is the only ground of general demurrer. This is strictly the correct manner of pleading, and no more uncertain or defective than such a description with exceptions in a deed, in which all subsequent references are to “said premises,” without noticing the exceptions. Besides, in this complaint there are damages to personal property of the plaintiff charged, which in itself constitutes a good cause of action.

By the Oourt.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.