In re Town of Holland
| Decision Date | 02 June 1900 |
| Citation | 107 Wis. 178,83 N.W. 319 |
| Parties | IN RE TOWN OF HOLLAND ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original application of the town of Holland and another to proceed by quo warranto to test the validity of the proceedings for the incorporation of the village of Cedar Grove. Denied.W. H. Timlin, for petitioners.
Simon Gillen, for respondent.
The town of Holland, in Sheboygan county, and C. J. Huenink, a taxpayer of said town, ask leave to begin and prosecute an action in this court to test the validity of the organization and incorporation of the village of Cedar Grove. The attorney general was requested to bring such an action, but, after a hearing, declined so to do. It appears from the petition that the village of Cedar Grove, consisting of a tract of land in the town of Holland containing two square miles, all in Sheboygan county, was incorporated by an order of the circuit court on November 14, 1899. The validity of such incorporation is attacked on the ground that the territory incorporated did not contain the requisite population per square mile, and that a majority of the ballots cast at the meeting of the election to determine upon incorporation was not in favor of the proposition. The officers of the village who appear to oppose this application insist that the facts set forth in the petition are not sufficient to warrant the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this court. In Attorney General v. Railroad Co., 35 Wis. 425, this court announced the rule that, in all cases in which the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this court is sought, leave must be obtained of the court upon a prima facie showing that the case is a proper one for its cognizance. In a later consideration of the same question the conclusion arrived at was that it was not enough to put in motion the original jurisdiction of this court that the question was publici juris, but it should also be one “affecting the sovereignty of the state, its franchises or prerogatives, or the liberties of its people,” and one, also, in which the interest of the state is primary and proximate, not secondary or remote. Attorney General v. City of Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400. The rules so established have been frequently reiterated, and the limits under which the original jurisdiction of this court will be exercised so carefully defined that nothing new can be said on the question. State v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71; Same v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 45 Wis. 579;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Bolens v. Frear
...ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. M. L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 45 Wis. 579;State ex rel. v. Shaughnessey, 86 Wis. 647, 57 N. W. 1105;In re Town of Holland, 107 Wis. 178, 83 N. W. 319. The first of these cases was brought to try the title to the office of county clerk, and it was held that contests concerning......
-
State ex rel. Rinder v. Goff
...38 Wis. 71; State ex rel. Cash v. Supervisors, Id. 554; State ex rel. Radl v. Shaughnessey, 86 Wis. 646, 57 N. W. 1105;In re Town of Holland, 107 Wis. 178, 83 N. W. 319. The ordinary jurisdiction of the circuit court is ample for such cases. It did not seem that any exceptionally important ......
-
State ex rel. City of New Richmond v. Davidson
...upon the public generally was secondary only. In another late case, where the subject was carefully considered, to wit, In re Town of Holland, 107 Wis. 178, 83 N. W. 319, it was decided that the wrong sought to be redressed did not become public and general so as to justify this court in ex......
- Roberts v. Roberts