The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1891-11-21
An Important Case Decided.

at Madison handed down several de-
cisionS last Wednesday of interest 10
cally, the most important being in the
J. F. Ill s Land case with the \ Northern
Pacific Railroad company. This Sc
has been in the courts some two years,
and is better known "a the Roberts
land case. The suit was brought in
the name OF J. f. Ellis of Eau Claire,
against the company, and this is the
second time it has been to the Supreme
court, in the first instance the compa
ny appealed from an order overrullng
its demurrer TO the complaint, but the
ju lgment of the lower court was at
frmed. Briefly stated the point at is
sue is thus set forth:
Douglas county offered and agree
to convey to the defendant railroad
company all lots and lands belonging
to it, which had been acquired by deed
and to which the county had held un-
disputed title for two years, upon con
dition that the company, by January
lst, 1852, would complete and equip 4
railroad from the Northern Pacific
Junction, entering this state and run
ming therein down the st. Louis and
NeInaGii rivers to the Bay of Superior
at OF near the mouth of the \ emadii
1lver: thence to Connor,S Point along
or near the westerly side of said bay,
with a depot and convenient connec-
tionS with depotS and piers. The Lands
were conveyed in pursuance OF this
agreement, and it is claimed that the
transaction was in effect, but d0na-
ton 10y the county of<the property in
question to secure the branch of the
railroad designated.
The question was: Could the county
board dispose Of the property i'll this
way by donating it to the road? Sub
Sequent to the commencement of this
action, the railroad company brought
action in the United States court for
the Western District of Wisconsin
against J. f. Ellis, David +. Roberts
and Euclid l.. Johnson, to quiet title
TO this same property, which IS now es-
timated to be worth about $500, 900.
In the United States court the railroad
company won and was granted title to
the land, the decision holding that the
! deed 10 the plaintiff in this case, Ellis,
of part Of the property to be invalid.
action in the state court, refusing to
abide by the decision of the federal
court, asserting that the state court
had acquired jurisdiction of The mat
ter. and had already passed upon one
phase OF 1.-THE demurTer-tilat the
question rests wholly upon state st,:t-
utory enactments. and that the SUI
prene court passed upon tie Jaw gov
crninm the case before the United
States cCalt WAS asked to consider it.
The court sustained the objections OF
the plaintiff TO the entertaining in the
circuit court of the decree Of the fed
eral tribunal, and the railroad compa-
nv appealed. Here is a direct conflict
OF the state ana federal courts. 1t has
/ occurred in Wisconsin before, but
nevertheless the question is highly int
ereStlng, especially on account OF The
large amount involved. The supreme
court has placed itself on record as co
NEEDING with the ground taken 10y Mr..
Ellis, rendering decision affirming
the ruling Of the lower court, and this
| decision is final.
1t is easy to understand why the
Decor uIscrgdit The alleged cure" OF
drunkenness by DR.. keely and why
they regard, with 50 much satisfaction
! the bacholiGing Of Col. Mines. 1t is
because kecly has violated the code
ot ,,rofrs.,ion,1 o,bfcs lie has not i,
1 is trua. been gully of The leadIy sin Of
advertising MS remeJy-t!lat is, he has
not advertised It directly; but he has
,aono ,,,,,+ !, t,,o,, o,.os i o,,,o.. >,