State ex rel. Hathaway v. Mirlach
| Decision Date | 05 April 1921 |
| Citation | 182 N.W. 331,174 Wis. 11 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. HATHAWAY ET AL., LOCAL BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION OF BEAVER DAM, v. MIRLACH, MAYOR, ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dodge County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.
Mandamus by the State on the relation of Warner Hathaway and others, Local Board of Industrial Education of Beaver Dam, against Frank J. Mirlach, Mayor and others, Aldermen of Beaver Dam. From order quashing alternative writ, plaintiffs appeal. Order reversed.
The plaintiffs in this action constitute the local board of industrial education of the city of Beaver Dam, Wis. Upon verified petition an alternative writ of mandamus was issued commanding the defendants, the mayor and city council of Beaver Dam, to levy and collect a tax of 1.5 mills. The defendants moved to quash the writ, and upon motion the plaintiffs were allowed to amend the petition and writ, setting forth, among other things, that prior to the filing of their report and requisition with the proper officers of the city of Beaver Dam they had, at the regular meeting of the board, determined the requirements of the vocational school for the city of Beaver Dam for the fiscal year at the sum of $14,361.66; that this sum was and is required for the support of the school established in the city of Beaver Dam under sections 41.13 to 41.21; that the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the city was $8,806,020; that the requested levy of 1.5 mills is less than the requirements of the schools, but is the maximum amount allowed by law; that the sum levied by the defendants, $5,724, together with other funds provided by law and placed at the disposition of the city, is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the plaintiffs for the purposes mentioned, and that, if this levy is allowed to stand, the plaintiffs will not have sufficient funds to carry on the vocational school and that it will be necessary to close the same before the end of the year; that the proper tax which should have been levied amounts to $13,209.03. It is further alleged that the common council acted upon the report and requisition thus made, and made an allowance and levy of $5,724; that this amount is insufficient; that the tax roll had not been delivered to the treasurer of the city of Beaver Dam for the collection of taxes for the year 1920; and that the same might be corrected so as to include the proper amount of tax as required by the local board.
The defendants moved to quash the petition and writ as amended, which motion was granted and an order entered thereon. At the time of the entry of said order the tax roll had not been delivered to the city treasurer. Appeal is taken from the order quashing the writ and from the whole thereof.Clark & Lueck and Royal F. Clark, both of Beaver Dam (William J. Morgan, Atty. Gen., and E. E. Brossard, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellants.
John C. Healy and Healy & Healy, all of Beaver Dam, for respondents.
SIEBECKER, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).
Did the circuit court err in quashing the writ of mandamus? The petition alleges that the relators are the board of industrial education for the city of Beaver Dam and that this board under the provisions of Stats. §§ 41.13 to 41.21, at a regular meeting determined what amount the vocational school of the city of Beaver Dam required for the fiscal school year of 1920-21 to support and maintain it. The board reported to the common council of the city that the sum of $14,361.66 would be required for this purposeand for the purchase of necessary additions to school sites, building operations, fixtures, and supplies. They therefore requested the common council to levy a tax of 1.5 mills to raise this fund for such uses for the fiscal year specified in their report and requisition. It also appears that the common council levied a tax to raise the sum of $5,724 for these purposes, which could be applied in addition to other funds provided for by law and placed at the disposition of the city. It is alleged that such levy is much...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. City of Whitewater
...Hammel, 1907, 134 Wis. 61, 114 N.W. 97;State ex rel. Conlin v. City of Wausau, 1908, 137 Wis. 311, 118 N.W. 810;State ex rel. Hathaway v. Mirlach, 1921, 174 Wis. 11, 182 N.W. 331. No question of costs in the trial court was involved in Lamoreux v. Williams, 1905, 125 Wis. 543, 104 N.W. 813,......
-
State ex rel. Strike v. Common Council of Racine
...ex rel. Treat v. Hammel, 134 Wis. 61, 114 N. W. 97;State ex rel. Conlin v. Wausau, 137 Wis. 311, 118 N. W. 810;State ex rel. Hathaway v. Mirlach, 174 Wis. 11, 182 N. W. 331. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions to enter judgment for costs in favor of the relator and appe......
-
State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. of City of Racine v. City of Racine
...taxpayer, as was the practice followed in State ex rel. Harbach v. City of Milwaukee, 189 Wis. 84, 206 N. W. 210;State ex rel. Hathaway v. Mirlach, 174 Wis. 11, 182 N. W. 331;State ex rel. Jones v. Burke, 140 Wis. 524, 123 N. W. 110. But we can discover no authority for the maintenance of t......
-
H. Schmitt & Son, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
...Prairie, 134 Wis. 593, 115 N. W. 111;Free High School Dist. v. Town of Fountain Prairie, 154 Wis. 564, 143 N. W. 657;Hathaway v. Mirlach, 174 Wis. 11, 182 N. W. 331. It follows from what has been said that the demurrer to the complaint should have been overruled for the reason that the ordi......