Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1913-07-17
JUDGE PARKS
DECISION, CITY
LOSES CASE
Assessment of Benefits and
Damages in Widening of Oak
Street by City Not Sustained
s,ase Historical Society

State of Wisconsin, in Circuit Court
Wood County.
Frank X. PomainvilIe and Caroline
PomainviIle as Executors and Trus-
tees Of the Estate Of Frank Pomain-
vile, deceased, and Caroline Pomain-
vile, Plaintiffs VS.. City of Grand
Rapids, Defendant.
DECISION.
The defendants motion to amend
their answer, made ten days after
the verdict, by striking out the word
special" where it occurs in the
fifth paragraph Of the answer, is
granted But if there was any con
fusion at the trial caused by the use
Of the word special, this amend
ment made after hearing will not re-
ieve it Of its responsibility in part
at least for such situation.
The above entitled action is one Of
twenty seven cases arising out of the
assessment of damages and benefits
in the Matter of the Widening of
Oak Street in the City of Grand Rap
ids. The entire .twenty4seVe cases
were on the calendar for the March
1913, Term. L was announced ON
the calling of the calendar at the
opening Of court that two cases only
of the q would be tried; one pre-
santing questions involved where the
property affected was on the widen
ed street or in the very immediate
vicinity of the widened street some
eighteen descriptions; and another
ease presenting questions involved
where the property was within the
500 It. or 900 it. circle and assess
ed fer benefits at IL or 6 per cent
of its assessed valuation.
The above case is in the latter
class and was presented as a test
case. The quetion of law presented
by the issues made by the pleadings
were to Se determined in this case
ultimately by the supreme court, and
Ehe other cases of the same class
were to abide by the decision thus
obtained Unexpectedly, at least to
the court, there was presented by
tic defendant as to these plaintiffs
t.. queA.,y4 c9 ezs.lasszI L tav 1e
fendant should prevail in this action
because the plaintiffs are estopped
to maintain this action, then possibly
the object and purpose of making
this a test case would be lost.
Recognizing. however, that the de
fendant is entitled to a decision of
this question of estoppel, regardless
Of the fact that if this question is
decided in its favor it might possi-
bly, mean the trial of another case as
a test case, l have, to refresh my
memory, had the Reporter read to
me all the testimony bearing upon
that proposition, to the end that l
might now determine that proposition
on the evidence produced at the trial
AS to the estoppel I find that OBJ
jeeticn was made before the Board
of Public Works, ON the part of DR..
Pomainyille, to the assessment for
benefits Of lot ? of block of the O.
riginal plat of CentraHa This is
the property on the west side of the
river. It was assessed for benefits,
bua the jury found by their answer
to question 3 of the special verdict
that the lot was not specially bene-
fitted So in view of the fact that
the Doctor appeared and objected to
the assessment of this property it
appears to me that the estoppel cam
not in any event apply to this descrip
tion.
As to the other descriptions.
which are found in questions l, 4,
: and 10 Of the special verdict, |
should, if the questions involved Were
no more than the one question whe-
ther the lots were in fact specially
benefited, hold that the plaintiff
made hereon. But the attack is made