Case Name: Ruhland and others, imp., vs. Jones and others, Supervisors
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1882-10-31
Citations: 55 Wis. 673
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ruhland and others, imp., vs. Jones and others, Supervisors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
Ruhland and others, imp., vs. Jones and others, Supervisors.
October 13
October 31, 1882.
Injunction: Void highway proceedings: Complaint held sufficient.
1. Proceedings oí a town hoard of supervisors laying out a highway, which are void because of failure to comply with statutory requirements, constitute no justification to such supervisors for a threatened occupation by them of lands for the purposes of such highway.
2. Under the decision in Church v. Joint School District, ante, p. 399, the complaint in this case states facts sufficient to justify the granting of an injunction.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Grant County.
The cáse is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taxloe:
“ This action was brought to enjoin the defendants from opening a highway through the lands of the plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that the defendants are supervisors of the town of Hazel Green; that they claim that they have legally laid out a highway in said town through the lands of the plaintiffs, and have given the plaintiffs notice to remove their fences out of said highway, and threaten that in case said fences are not removed, they, the supervisors, will enter upon their lands and remove the same, and permanently occupy said lands as a public highway in said town. The complaint sets out the proceedings taken by said supervisors, under and by virtue of which it is alleged they claim to have laid out said highway, which are the same proceedings to reverse which a -writ of certiorari was issued out of the circuit court of the county of Grant to the said supervisors, and from the judgment of said circuit court affirming which proceedings the plaintiffs Ruhlcmd and Kovnhle, appealed to this court.”
[The defendants moved, upon the pleadings, for a dissolution of the temporary injunction which had been granted. The motion was granted, and from the order dissolving' the temporary injunction as to them, the plaintiffs Ruhlamd, Kounlde and Lebben, appealed.]
Geo. Olementson, for the appellants.
For the respondents there was a brief by Carter c& Cleary, and oral argument by Mr. Carrier.

Opinion:
Tatloe, J.
For the reasons stated in the opinion now filed in the case of Ruhland and another v. The Supervisors of the Town of Hazel Green, ante, p. 664:, this court holds that the proceedings of said board of supervisors in laying out said highway are irregular and void. We therefore hold that the proceedings of the board of supervisors set out in the complaint in this action are no justification to said board for their threatened invasion of the lands and premises of the plaintiffs, and, upon the authority of the decision of this court in the case of Church v. Joint School District, ante, p. 399, decided at this term, and the cases cited in the opinion of Justice OktoN in that case, we also hold that the complaint states facts sufficient to justify the court in granting the injunction prayed for in such complaint. The circuit court should have continued the temporary injunction issued therein in favor of the appellants, and the order of said court dissolving the same is erroneous, and must be reversed.
By the Court. — So much of the order of the circuit court as dissolved the temporary injunction as to the appellants is reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.