Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1891-05-07

slve, or IN subordlnatlon to that
right, but it was not permissive so
far as the defendant, or the persons
under whom she claims title, were
concerned. They might have con-
tested the right Of the various
owners to maintain this dam upon
their lands, before the right to
maintain it had been acquired by |
prescription; but they did not do |
so, within the requisite period to
save their rights, and before the
bar of the statute of limitations
had become complete.
There was an attempt made to
show that, in 1865 or 1866, there
was a verbal agreement entered |
into between John Rablin and
Orestes Garrison, that the former
might abut the dam on Nine-Acre
island, in consideration of certain
rights and privileges which he gave
Garrison to main tain booms and |
piers at the head of Big Island" |
so called. But the evidence, as to
any such agreement having been
made, was conflicting, and the
court negatived the fact that it was
ever made, if not distinctly, infer
entially, by other findings. This
is conclusive upon the point in this
court, and disposes of the claim
that Rablin occupied under a Ii
cense or permission from Garrison.
1t is further said the interference
Of the Wisconsin River Improve
ment Company exercised control
over the dam, and interrupted the
continuity Of the possession. The
evidence shows that, in 1868 and
1869, and also in 1881, there was
change made in the slide Of the
dam, so as to secure greater safety |
in running lumber, but this work |
was done with the consent of Rab-
lin, or by parties then in possession,
and in subordinatiOn to their title.
The Improvement company did
not assume control over the dam,
nor did Rablin abandon the pos
session thereof. He continued his
occupancy of the dam and water
power upon this occasion, as upon
all others, (until his interest IN the
mill property was sold upon the
execution issued on the Judgment
against him, always asserting his
ownership, and those claims of
title were not questioned BY the
Improvement company, or by any
one interested in the islands or
property on the banks OF the river.
So, it is a mistake to say that there
was an interruption in the adverse
use and enjoyment Of the dam and
easement, which would affect the
running Of the statute of limita-
tons. Iaag V, DeIorme, 80 Wis.
| sol. 1t seems unnecessary to
point out the distinction between
this case and Graeven V. Dievcs,
6S Wis. $40, 81 n. w. Rep. Ola;
Childs V. Nelson, 90 Wis. l25, 33I
N. w. rep. $50; and Fairfield v.Bar-
rette, Is Wis. 464, Al n. w. Rep.
624,-where parties attempt to
claim the benefit of adverse pos
session in lands outside the limits
conveyed in deeds. 1t was held
that the extent Of adverse possess
sion, under the conveyances, was
measured by the premises actually
conveyed, and should not operate
beyond these limits. So, in any
view which we have been able to
take of this case, we think the
plaintiffs right to maintain the dam
is clearly established by prescrip-
ton. The judgement Of the Cir
cult court is affirmed.
Nothing docs druggist so much good as to
have medicine that he guarantee every
bottle to give satisfaction. Beggs Family
Medicines are fully guaranteed, so you cannot
fail to get satisfaction when you call for them,
Sold by H. II. Voss & Co. SIN
Eag@ Call on Geo \. Wood for Fire,
Life or Accident Insurance. If
LEGALS.