The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1920-10-14
COMMON COUNCIL
OFFICIAL JOURNAL
JOHN SCHROEDER, Mayor.
ARTHUR II. LANDER,
City Clerk.
Monday. October 4, 1920.

Board met in regular session, Mayor
presiding, all members present except
Reyolinsky, Drumm and lsselmann'
Minutes approved.
Clerk reported receipt of the follow
ing applications for ianitor of the City
Hall, which were referred to the Com
mttee on Public Welfare.
A. NJ. Hoyer, John Harlow and
John II. Ryan.
Communication from Miss Dueno,
Visiting Nurse Withdrawing her resig-
nation as City Nurse, was referred to
the Public Welfare Committee.
Report of City Attorney showing the
amount of S33I0 due Sheriff Thomas
Brennan for services rendered during
the condemnation proceedings for
cemetery ground, was referred to the
Finance Committee.
Clerk reported receipt of blank con-
tracts of f. a. Gushing Smith, for
work proposed to be done in the City
Parks, which were referred to the Park
Committee.
Communication from Mr., Rizzer,
Agent for Mr.. Maxcey asking that the
matter of the disposition of the Eighth
Street Bridge gates be held open until
Mr.. Maxcey returns from the East,
sometime after October LIST, was re-
ferred to the Bridge Committee.
Clerk reported receipt Of the follow
ing tenders for perpetual care, which
were referred to the Cemetery Com
mittee
Joseph Rankin, $4,000; Lots l and 2,
Block 32, Section a."
+. l.. Luecke, $4,000; Lots and 4,
Block 3, Section 90"
Joseph WiIlot Jr., $4,000; Lots 3 and
4, Block III, Section "WR,"
J. b. Miller, $4,000; Lots and T.,
Block 32, Section "a"
NJ II. Dempsey, 10000; Lot 3, Block
/ W, section II e..
The following opinion of the City
Attorney was read and referred to the
Street Committees
Has the City the Right to Enter into
Contract or Agreement with a
Private Individual or Corporation,
Permitting the Erection of a Fence
with Gates Across the Street by
Such Other Party so as to Forbid
the Use of said Street Without the
Consent of the Builder of the Fence,
the Private Person or Corporation
Compensating therefor by the Doing
Of Certain Public Work?
| TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MANITOWOC:
| have been asked TO render an opin-
ion upon the question which is set
forth above and which substantially
states situation that calls for this
opinion
1t is the undisputed law Of this State
that the public acquires merely an ease
mrnt or right of passage in a street
or highway and that ownership Of the
soil and the right Of possession and
use, subject to the public easement, is
in the owners Of the adjoining lands
| Neither the public nor the municipality
in its corporate right has, in any SENSE
any ownership Of or fee in the streets
! The private owner may maintain ac-
ton against a permanent cncum-
brancer or for any injury to his free
! hold in the portion of the street adj
! joining his land When a street is va
Gated the municipality merely surren-
| ders its easement and all the use of
the land reycrts to the owner on each
side Of the street The city has no
power to sell its easement in q street,
however acquired. The use Of the City
in said easement is given very wide in
depreciation. That easement and the
| rights hereunder the city hold in trust
for proper street uses. The foregoing
well established principles Of law are
stated TO give light to other principles
hereinafter stated and to correct err
ronc0us impressions, and the false de
auctions made thcrcfrom that have
been circulated in relation to the sub
icct matter of this opinion All the
foregoing propositions are 50 elemen-
tary that citation Of authority thereto
is not required or made.
The use Of the street, generally
speaking, in the public Is one Of great
importance and any unauthorized oh
struction Of the public enjoyment Of
such use is a nuisance The city can
not license the erection or commits
sion Of nuisance by any inherent or
general powers.
Eau Clair y. Matzke, SO Wis, Of.
Wauwautosa Y, Dreulzcr, ZIG Wis.
III.
In Eau Clair v Matzkc, It was held
that the city may maintain an action
in equity against lot owner to oh
tain a mandatory injunction to compel
the removal or an unlawful obstruc-
ton or encroachmcnt on a street. In
Wauwautosa VS.. Druetzcr 1t was held
that such action could be maintained
without FIRST giving the wrong-docr an
opportunity 10 remove il without suit