Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1884-02-28
Archbishop Heiss Us. Vosburg, ct al.

In the appeal cases OF Michael Heiss,
archbishop, ETC., appellant, vs.. Joseph
j. Vosburg, ct al, respondents, the
Supreme Court, last week, affirmed the
judgment on the first appeal, and on the
second appeal affirmed the order of the
Circuit Court for this county. The
action from which these appeals arose
was commenced by the archbishop to
recover damages for the destruction of
the Catholic church building, on plain
tifiHs lands at Sinsinawa Mounds. The
church building had been in bad con-
dition for some time and the congrega-
ton concluding to build new one,
there was q diversity of opinion as to
where the new church should be located.
Some were in favor of the old site, while
others desired the building put on a
new site. In June. 1881, the archbish-
OPP, Michael Heiss, decided to erect the
new house on the old site, but after
wards changed his mind and favored
the new site side of the question. That
portion of the congregation who were
for building ON the old site, proceeded
to raise contribution therefor, and
elected building committee. The de-
PENDANTS, Joseph j. Vosburg, ct al, I'M
der the direction of the building COM
mittee, removed the old building in
order to make room for the new one.
The plaintiff claimed $4,000 damages
on account of the wrongful acts of the
defendants, and applied for temporary
injunction to restrain them from further
interfering with his possession. The
INDUCTION was granted by the Circuit
Court, but was afterwards dissolved.
AS result of the trial in the Circuit
Court, the plaintiff obtained judgment
for 5000 damages. The plaintiff APP
pealed from the order vacating the in
junction; and the defendants appealed
from the judgment.
The opinion of the Supreme Court,
rendered by Chief Justice Cole, declares
that the Court fails TO find evidence in
the case, which sustains the claim of the
defendants, that the members of st.
Dominic church are the equitable or
beneficial owners OF this property. The
Court holds that the church property.
when conveyed by the Sinsinawa
Mounds college to John Martin Henri,
was the absolute property of the college,
and states that in this case it is not
called upon to determine whether the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
property, subject to no trusts, SO that
he can sell and dispose of it as his own.
The Court say that it may be assumed
that he could not do this; that he holds
the property for the Catholic church,
though the title is apparently absolute
in him by the conveyance. The Court
cannot see any principal of law or equity
upon which the defendants, whether
representing the majority or acting in
behalf OF the entire congregation of St
Dominic's church can base right to
enter upon the premises and destroy
the church building against the plain
| tiffs' protest, and remain innocent of
trespass. The Court finally says that
in any view which they have been able
to take of the case the acts of the de-
PENDANTS were unlawful. The legal
title is in the plaintiff, and the defend
ants, when they interfered with the
church property, were guilty of trespass.
The continuance of the injunction the
Court hold to have been discretionary
with the Circuit Court, and there was
no abuse of discretion in dissolving it.