Hogan v. City of La Crosse

• Decision Date: 26 September 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 105,104 Wis. 106
• Parties: HOGAN v. CITY OF LA CROSSE ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

104 Wis. 106

80 N.W. 105

HOGAN

v.CITY OF LA CROSSE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Sept. 26, 1899.

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

Suit by James J. Hogan against the city of La Crosse and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Dismissed.

This was a suit in equity to cancel and enjoin enforcement of special assessment certificates for the building of sewers in the city of La Crosse, under the same proceeding which was involved in the recent case of State ex rel. Schintgen v. City of La Crosse, 101 Wis. 208, 77 N. W. 167. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, holding the special assessments void. After the decision in the Schintgen Case, and before any appeal from the judgment had been perfected, the plaintiff and respondent served upon the defendants' attorneys, and filed with the clerk of the court, a consent that that judgment be vacated and set aside, and that judgment be entered dismissing the complaint, or affirming and holding valid the proceedings set forth in the complaint and the tax and special assessments based thereon, with costs in the usual manner. Notwithstanding this tender or consent, the defendants perfected their appeal to this court. A motion is now made to dismiss, on the ground that no controversy exists.Ray S. Reid and Martin Bergh, for appellants.

Higbee & Bunge and McConnell & Schweizer, for respondent.

DODGE, J. (after stating the facts).

It is a fundamental principle at the foundation of our judiciary system that courts sit only to decide actual controversies, and not to answer moot questions of law or fact, nor to declare abstract principles or rules of law not applicable to issues or controversies actually before them. 2 Enc. Pl. & Prac. p. 342 et seq.; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 10 Sup. Ct. 620;Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia, 137 U. S. 62, 11 Sup. Ct. 4;Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 12 Sup. Ct. 103;California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 13 Sup. Ct. 876;Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 16 Sup. Ct. 132;Town of Plainfield v. Village of Plainfield, 67 Wis. 525, 30 N. W. 673. No less thoroughly established is it that the appellate jurisdiction of this court cannot be successfully invoked unless rights of the appellant are substantially prejudiced by the act appealed from. Benson v. President, etc., 74 Wis. 31, 41 N. W. 1017;White v. Sherry, 37 Wis. 225;McGregor v. Pearson, 51 Wis. 122. 8 N. W. 101. Further, it has often been held in Wisconsin that an error in the court below will receive no attention on appeal where it has been corrected by the voluntary act of the favored party before the appeal was perfected. Duffy v. Hickey, 68 Wis. 380, 32 N. W. 54;Reinig v....