Corrao v. Mortier

Decision Date02 June 1959
Citation7 Wis.2d 494,96 N.W.2d 851
PartiesVincent J. CORRAO, Appellant, v. James J. MORTIER et al, comprising The Common Council of the City of Milwaukee, et al., Respondents.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

Wiernick & Zurlo, Milwaukee, Clinton A. Boone, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.

Walter J. Mattison, City Atty., Ewald L. Moerke, Jr., Harvey G. Odenbrett, Asst. City Attys., Milwaukee, for respondents.

CURRIE, Justice.

The question on this appeal is whether the applicant for a permit or license can recover damages in a mandamus proceeding against the mayor and members of a city council who illegally denied such application. There is no contention made that the defendants acted fraudulently or corruptly in refusing to grant the plaintiff's application for a renewal of his taxicab permit. It is apparent from the record before us on the prior appeal that such refusal was the result of a mistaken interpretation by the defendants of the applicable city taxicab licensing ordinance.

Sec. 293.04, Stats., provides that, if the judgment in a mandamus proceeding be for the plaintiff, 'he shall recover his damages and costs.' We are satisfied that this statute is procedural and not substantive in character. Without it, the successful plaintiff in a mandamus proceeding would be obliged to institute a separate action for his damages. The statute does not create a right to damages which were not recoverable by separate action prior to the enactment of the statute.

In State ex rel. Bautz v. Harper, 1917, 166 Wis. 303, 313, 165 N.W. 281, 284, this court held that sec. 3453, Stats., 1 now sec. 293.04, as it then read did not create an absolute liability for damages on the part of the defendant in a mandamus proceeding in the event the plaintiff prevailed. However, there is language in the later case of State ex rel. Lathers v. Smith, 1943, 242 Wis. 512, 515, 8 N.W.2d 345, which may be interpreted as holding that the change in wording, which was made in sec. 293.04 as a result of a revisor's bill enacted by the 1935 legislature, did create an absolute liability for damages if the plaintiff was successful in the mandamus proceeding. We repudiate such interpretation. We are satisfied that the change wrought in sec. 293.04 by the 1935 revision was to eliminate the requirement that the successful plaintiff's right to damages was limited to the situation where a cause of action existed for a false return. For the nature of such common-law action for false return, see 35 Am.Jur., Mandamus, p. 100, sec. 359, and cases cited in footnote 10. The rationale for the result reached in State ex rel. Lathers v. Smith, supra, appears in the last paragraph of the opinion wherein it was held that the defendant state treasurer did not act in a quasi-judicial capacity. In other words, the act required of him was purely ministerial in character.

The plaintiff attempts to bring himself within the rule, that a public officer who knowingly or negligently refuses to do a ministerial act, which the law absolutely requires him to do, may be compelled to respond in damages to one to whom the performance was owing. 43 Am.Jur., Public Officers, p. 90, sec. 278. However, 9 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3d Ed., p. 205, sec. 26.98, lays down the principle that the power to grant a permit or license conferred upon a public officer or board imposes a governmental function which does not permit of such officer being held liable in damages because of the granting or refusal of the permit or license applied for.

The case of Paoli v. Mason, 1945, 325 Ill.App. 197, 59 N.E.2d 499, holds that the power to issue a license or permit on the part of a public officer is a quasi-judicial function, and that such an officer is exempt from liability for error or mistake of judgment in the absence of a corrupt or malicious motive. We deem that the power to grant or refuse a permit or license always constitutes the exercise of a quasi-judicial function and that this precludes holding the public officer exercising such power from liability in damages for failure to issue the same in the absence of a corrupt or malicious motive. This is true even though in a particular situation the officer has no discretion to deny the permit or license, and mandamus will lie to compel its issuance. As this court stated in State ex rel. Lathers v. Smith, supra, 242 Wis. at page 514, 8 N.W.2d at page 346, 'Acts of legislative or quasi judicial nature by a public official are distinguished from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ford v. Kenosha County
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1991
    ...when acting with malice or for an improper purpose. This split in decisions stemmed from the court's reliance on Corrao v. Mortier, 7 Wis.2d 494, 96 N.W.2d 851 (1959). Corrao held that the power to issue a license or permit is quasi-judicial, and "an officer performing such a function is ex......
  • Scarpaci v. Milwaukee County
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1980
    ...the officer is qualified, that is, he is personally liable if he errs and acts with a malicious motive. See, e. g., Corrao v. Mortier, 7 Wis.2d 494, 499, 96 N.W.2d 851 (1959); Bendorf v. Darlington, 31 Wis.2d 570, 578, 143 N.W.2d 449 (1966); Allstate Ins. v. Metropolitan Sewerage Comm., 80 ......
  • River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 7, 1996
    ...immune for discretionary acts, provided they conduct themselves in good faith, without malice or corruption); Corrao v. Mortier, 7 Wis.2d 494, 498-99, 96 N.W.2d 851, 853 (1959) (public officers refusing to renew taxicab permit are not liable for refusal in the absence of malicious or corrup......
  • Eliason v. Funk
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1964
    ...position is found in Bedrock Foundations, Inc., v. Geo. H. Brewster & Son, Inc., 31 N.J. 124, 155 A.2d 536, 545. See also Corrao v. Mortier, 7 Wis.2d 494, 96 N.W.2d 851; Peterson v. George, 168 Neb. 571, 96 N.W.2d 627; List v. O'Connor, 21 Ill.App.2d 399, 158 N.E.2d 103, aff'd on other grou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT