Battles v. Doll

• Decision Date: 18 February 1902
• Citation: 89 N.W. 187,113 Wis. 357
• Parties: BATTLES, COUNTY TREASURER, v. DOLL ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

113 Wis. 357

89 N.W. 187

BATTLES, COUNTY TREASURER,

v.DOLL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 18, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Sauk county; Robert G. Siebecker, Judge.

Suit by E. J. Battles, county treasurer, against John P. Doll and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified.

The plaintiff is county treasurer of Sauk county. Prairie du Sac is a regularly incorporated village in said county, and has no bridges within its corporate limits. The defendant Doll is the village treasurer, and the other defendants are his sureties. At its annual meeting in 1900 the county board of Sauk county raised the sum of $4,000 to assist certain towns in building bridges pursuant to the provisions of section 1319, Rev. St. 1898. A portion of said bridge tax was levied upon the taxable property of said village, amounting to $155. Doll, as village treasurer, collected said sum, but refused to pay it over to the county treasurer, as required by his warrant, by direction of the village board. The plaintiff brings this action to recover said sum against the treasurer and his bondsmen. On the trial the facts were stipulated, and the following questions were submitted to the trial judge: “First. Did the county board have any authority, under said section 1319, to levy the bridge tax in question against said village? Second. Does the defendant Doll, as village treasurer, have the right to withhold said sum from the county treasurer? Third. In case both the above points be decided in favor of either party, the winning party shall be entitled to judgment. Fourth. In case the second point be decided in the negative, plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment for costs.” The court decided the first question in the affirmative and second in the negative, and gave judgment for plaintiff. The defendants appeal.Grotophorst, Evans & Thomas, for appellants.

James L. Bonham, Dist. Atty., and Jones & Stevens, for respondent.

BARDEEN, J.

The village of Prairie du Sac was incorporated under the general law of the state in 1885. It had the powers and assumed the obligations granted and imposed by chapter 40 of the General Statutes. In 1900 the county board of Sauk county voted to raise a sum of money by taxation to aid certain towns in the building of bridges, as provided for in section 1319, Rev. St. 1898. This section requires the sum so raised to be levied upon the taxable property of the county, and then says: “Provided, that nothing herein contained shall authorize the levy of any tax upon the property of any city or incorporated village that maintains its own bridges, and as to any such city or village this section shall not apply.” Under the resolution of the county board a tax amounting to $155 was levied upon the taxable property of the village of Prairie du Sac upon the theory that it did not have any bridges to maintain. By stipulation of the parties two questions are presented for consideration and decision: First. Did the county board have authority, under section 1319, to levy the bridge tax in question upon the taxable property of the village? Second. Has the defendant Doll, as village treasurer, the right to withhold the tax he has collected, from the county treasurer?

The first question involves the proper construction to be given to that portion of section 1319 which says that nothing therein contained shall authorize a levy of the tax upon the property of any incorporated village “that maintains its own bridges.” The validity of section 1319 came up for consideration and was first questioned in State v. Supervisors of Sauk Co., 70 Wis. 485, 36 N. W. 396, on the ground that it violated the provisions of section 1, art. 8, of the constitution, that “the rule of taxation shall be uniform.” After most careful consideration, this court upheld the act, and the position there taken has been reaffirmed in several subsequent cases. State v. Supervisors of Sauk Co., 70 Wis. 491, 36 N. W. 398;State v. Supervisors of Racine Co., 70 Wis. 543, 36 N. W. 399;State v. Supervisors of Pierce Co., 71 Wis. 321, 37 N. W. 231. The ground upon which these decisions are based is that it has been the policy of the state since its organization to impose upon towns, cities, and incorporated villages the burden of building and keeping in repair the bridges and highways within their respective limits. This policy operates with more or less hardship. Towns sparsely settled, whose territory is traversed by many streams or a large river, are sometimes overburdened. The law in question was intended to meet such cases, and equalize, to some extent, the public burden. Cities and villages, which ordinarily have to maintain a great number and more expensive bridges than towns, were exempted from contributing to county aid, in consideration of the fact that they had to maintain their own bridges, and that it would be unjust to require them to do so and also require them to aid in erecting those outside their limits. For these reasons it was held that the constitutional provision referred to should not be so considered as to prevent a proper equalization of exceptional tax burdens by distributing them over a larger taxing district, or to prevent the exemption of cities and villages, charged by law with the duty of maintaining their own buildings, from the burdens thus imposed. The exemption thus made becomes more significant when we consider that the right to apply to the county for aid under section...