Chippewa Cnty. v. Outagamie Cnty. (In re Jeness)
| Decision Date | 04 June 1935 |
| Citation | 261 N.W. 415,218 Wis. 447 |
| Parties | IN RE JENESS. CHIPPEWA COUNTY v. OUTAGAMIE COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the County Judge of Brown County; Carlton Merrill, County Judge.
Proceeding by Brown County to determine whether such county, Chippewa County, or Outagamie County, is responsible for the support of Mrs. Hazel Jeness, an indigent person, in which the Village of Black Creek subsequently became a party. From an order determining the indigent person's legal settlement and directing that she be returned to Chippewa County, the latter appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Appeal dismissed.
This is an appeal from an order made and entered by the county judge of Brown county on July 12, 1934, under section 49.03(9), Stats., determining the legal settlement of Mrs. Hazel Jeness and directing that she be returned to the place of her legal settlement, to wit, Chippewa county, Wis., from which order Chippewa county appealed.
The material facts will be stated in the opinion.
Robert L. Wiley, Dist. Atty., of Chippewa Falls (Henry Christoffersen, of Chippewa Falls, of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel Sigman, Dist. Atty., of Appleton, for respondent Outagamie County.
Clarence J. Dorschel, Dist. Atty., and Charles K. Bong, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Green Bay, for respondent Brown County.
Frank F. Wheeler, of Appleton (James I. McFadden, of Appleton, of counsel), for respondent Village of Black Creek.
This proceeding was instituted on the petition of the district attorney of Brown county, pursuant to section 49.03(9), Stats., for the purpose of determining what municipality is responsible for the support of Mrs. Hazel Jeness, indigent. The petition alleges that Brown county has paid to the city of Green Bay the sum of $87.14 for the relief of said indigent; that such sum has been charged to Chippewa county; that Chippewa county, Outagamie county, and Brown county dispute the legal settlement of said indigent. The village of Black Creek, an incorporated village located in Outagamie, Wis., was not a party to the proceedings originally, but has become a necessary and interested party by reason of the facts.
The statute under consideration, section 49.03(9), provides:
The matter came on for hearing before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yanta v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
...19 N.W.2d 884. Where the law gives a new remedy to meet a new situation, the remedy provided by the law is exclusive. In re Jeness (1935), 218 Wis. 447, 450, 261 N.W. 415. '. . . Investigation, publicity, and a commission recommendation are what the statute provides in consequence of racial......
-
State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Fasekas
...of review is prescribed by the act creating the right or conferring the power, that method of review must be pursued. In re Jeness (1935) 218 Wis. 447, 261 N.W. 415. [7] While no separate tribunal is created by statute with power to review the order of the Governor, the Governor may review ......
-
Trembath v. St. Regis Paper Co.
... ... In re Jeness, 218 Wis. 447, 261 N.W. 415, 416 ... (1935); Ross v ... ...
-
Ross v. Ebert
...161 A.L.R. 342. Where the law gives a new remedy to meet a new situation, the remedy provided by the law is exclusive. In re Jeness, 1935, 218 Wis. 447, 450, 261 N.W. 415. So looking, we discover that one believing that he is the victim of racial discrimination in matters affecting his empl......