Becker v. City of La Crosse

• Decision Date: 03 May 1898
• Citation: 99 Wis. 414,75 N.W. 84
• Parties: BECKER v. CITY OF LA CROSSE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

99 Wis. 414

75 N.W. 84

BECKER

v.CITY OF LA CROSSE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 3, 1898.

Appeal from circuit court, La Crosse county; O. B. Wyman, Judge.

Action by Anna Becker against the city of La Crosse. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Chapter 37, Laws 1889, authorizes the city of La Crosse to construct a bridge across the Mississippi river from some point in the corporatelimits to some point in the county of Houston, in the state of Minnesota, opposite the city, with all necessary approaches thereto, and to charge and collect a reasonable rate of toll. By chapter 325 of the Special Laws of Minnesota for the year 1889, the city of La Crosse was authorized to construct and maintain a wagon road commencing at any point on a lawful highway in the said county of Houston north of the south line of the Pine Creek road, and extending thence, by the most feasible route, to the boundary line between Minnesota and Wisconsin, opposite the corporate limits of the city, and to charge a reasonable rate of toll for travelers thereon. By section 5 of said act it was also provided that the city should be liable for all damages sustained by any person traveling upon said road caused by the improper construction of said road or want of reasonable diligence in keeping the same in repair. The city accepted the provisions of the act, and built a road, with the necessary bridges, from a point within its corporate limits westward to a point in Minnesota, a distance of about 2 1/2 miles. The road runs across the Mississippi river bottom lands, and is built on a grade from 8 to 16 feet above the adjoining land. At the point where the accident to plaintiff is alleged to have occurred, which is about 85 feet west of the main bridge, the roadway is on a grade 16 feet above the adjoining land, 20 feet wide on the top, with a descending slope of about 1 foot perpendicular to 1 1/2 feet horizontal, and without any rail or guard at the sides. On March 23, 1896, the plaintiff and her husband passed over this road from La Crescent to La Crosse, driving a single horse and buggy. Upon their return, the plaintiff was driving, seated on the left side of the buggy. Near the place of the accident they met two teams loaded with what is known as “Minnesota fencing.” The first team was passed in safety, but, as they met the second team, the horse shied at a man wearing a fur overcoat, walking immediately in the rear of the wagon, cramped the buggy suddenly, and backed off the embankment. In attempting to jump out, the plaintiff was caught in the buggy in some way, and was dragged down the embankment, and injured. Notice was duly given to the city, and this action was commenced in the circuit court of La Crosse county, to recover damages for the injury sustained. The place of the accident is admitted to have been outside the corporate limits of the city, and within the boundaries of the state of Minnesota. The liability of the city is based upon the manner in which the road was constructed and maintained, there being no railing or barriers along the sides thereof. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for $1,000. From a judgment entered thereon, the defendant appeals.

Martin Bergh, City Atty., for appellant.

Higbee & Bunge, for respondent.

BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).

From the statement of the facts involved in this litigation, it will be observed that the accident to plaintiff happened on an embankment, some little distance west of the west end of the bridge across the Mississippi river, outside of the corporate limits of the city of La Crosse, and beyond the limits of this state; and it is insisted that the city of La Crosse built and maintained the road in question without any charter or legislative authority from the legislature of this state. It is not claimed that the charter gives the city any authority or power in the premises. The only power granted by the legislature is such as is contained in chapter 37, Laws 1889. Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th Ed. § 89) says: “It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation,--not simply convenient, but indispensable.” This declaration of the law meets with express approval in Trester v. City of Sheboygan, 87 Wis. 496, 58 N. W. 747. It is also a rule of law as universal in its application that the agents, officers, or even the city council of a municipal corporation cannot bind the corporation by the assumption of powers beyond those granted by the sovereign authority, except within the limitations above stated. It would seem like a truism to state that the legislature cannot grant authority to a municipal corporation to assume obligations or to charge itself with permanent duties to be performed outside of the state limits. Section 1, art. 9, Const. Wis., declares that “the state shall have concurrent jurisdiction on all rivers and lakes bordering on this state, so far as such rivers or lakes shall form a common boundary to the state, or any other state or territory now or hereafter to be formed and to be bounded by the same.” The boundary line between this state and Minnesota is the main channel of the Mississippi river. Const. art. 2, § 1. In the exercise of its “concurrent jurisdiction” over the Mississippi river, this state saw fit, by chapter 37, before mentioned, to grant to the city of La Crosse the right to construct a bridge across the river to some point in Minnesota with all necessary approaches thereto. Admitting that this authority was properly conferred, for the purposes of this suit, the act referred to did not and could not grant the right to the city to build and maintain a highway 2 1/2 miles...