Forest Cnty. v. Langlade Cnty.

• Decision Date: 20 June 1895
• Citation: 91 Wis. 543,63 N.W. 760
• Parties: FOREST COUNTY v. LANGLADE COUNTY.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

91 Wis. 543

63 N.W. 760

FOREST COUNTY

v.LANGLADE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 20, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Langlade county; George N. Meyers, Judge.

Action by Forest county against Langlade county for a settlement of accounts. From the judgment rendered, both parties appeal. Affirmed on appeal of defendant, and reversed on plaintiff's appeal.

This was originally a proceeding before commissioners, appointed under chapter 537 of the Laws of 1887 “to adjust and settle all matters of property, debts, credits, assets, and liabilities of Langlade county,” as they were on the 14th day of April, 1885, according to the provisions of section 10 of chapter 436 of the Laws of 1885, by which Forest county was created from territory detached from Langlade and Oconto counties. It was taken by appeal to the circuit court. From the judgment of the circuit court both parties appeal to this court.

There is little dispute about the facts. Nearly all the facts upon which the judgment is based are agreed. But the agreed facts are not in all respects so clearly stated as to make it clear what the ultimate determination should be. On Langlade county's appeal is presented the question of the correctness of the judgment in disallowing to Langlade county items amounting to $12,715.72. These are all of one character. They are all for uncollected delinquent taxes returned by towns, now in Forest county, before the division, to the county treasurers of Langlade county, which were claimed to be uncollectible by reason of infirmities going to the groundwork of the tax, and which were compromised by Langlade county with the owners of the land taxed. The whole sum remitted Langlade now claims to charge back upon Forest county in the settlement, together with the cost of advertising the lands for sale. These claims were not allowed. On Forest county's appeal four principal items are controverted: (1) The judgment of the circuit court permitted Langlade county to retain the sum of $3,232.45, which appeared by the records of Langlade county to be due to the several towns whose territory had been detached to make Forest county. (2) It excluded from the present assets of Langlade county, which should be divided between the two counties, the sum of $312.30, which Langlade county had received, by the redemption of lands sold for taxes, of the fees for advertising the redemption list. (3) In the adjustment the court charged to Forest county, at their face value and interest, tax certificates to the amount of $371.81, which, before the division of the county, had been rendered nearly or quite worthless, by the action of the county treasurer of Langlade county in selling junior certificates contrary to law, while the county held under older certificates. This loss, it is claimed, should be apportioned. (4) In the adjustment the court charged to Forest county, at their face value and interest, tax certificates to the amount of $460.13, which, after the division, had been rendered nearly or quite worthless by the action of the county treasurer of Langlade county in selling junior certificates contrary to law, while the county held older certificates. This loss, it is claimed, should be borne by Langlade county. It is the correctness of the decision of these several matters which is involved upon these appeals.F. J. & C. F. Lamb, for plaintiff.

Thomas W. Hogan, for defendant.

NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).

No doubt it was the intention of the legislature that “all matters of property, debts, credits, assets, and liabilities” of Langlade county, as they existed at the time of the division of its territory, should be adjusted between Langlade county and the new county, formed, in the main, from its territory, upon principles of justice and equity, rather than by any technical rules of strict law. Strict rules of law are difficult of application to such matters, and often produce unfair results. Between Langlade county and the towns which were detached to form the new county were no relations of debtor and creditor in any strict sense. Nor is there any such relation, strictly, between the old county and the new one. So, in the adjustment of rights between them, what is just and fair between them is more to be regarded than the application of strict rules of law, which, at best, are of uncertain application to such matters. Towns and counties are to be considered mainly as governmental agencies, rather than as business concerns. And the bookkeeping between them is more in the nature of a history of the collection of the public revenues than of accounts between creditor and debtor.

Whether the amount of uncollected taxes, which were compromised by Langlade county, should be charged, in this adjustment, against Forest county, is mainly a question of what is fair and just, under all the circumstances, rather than a question of strict law. If in fact the tax proceedings were invalid, for some reason “affecting the groundwork of the tax and affecting all the property in any town,” then the tax should have been reassessed, under section 1210b, Sanb. & B. Ann. St., and should not have been compromised and reduced. Probably the only course properly open to the county was to have the tax reassessed according to law. The town had no control of that matter. It was in the hands of the county. The right to have such reassessment made was waived by the county by the compromise which...