Jones v. La Vigne (In re Cranberry Creek Drainage Dist.)

Citation202 Wis. 64,231 N.W. 588
PartiesIN RE CRANBERRY CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. JONES ET AL. v. LA VIGNE, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL.
Decision Date11 June 1930
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Wood County, sustaining a demurrer to the petition. Byron B. Park, Circuit Judge.

In the matter of the Cranberry Creek Drainage District. Petition by Burr W. Jones and others against James A. La Vigne, County Treasurer of Wood County, and others. From an order sustaining defendants' demurrer to the petition, petitioners appeal.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

The petition was served on February 12, 1930. Petitioners appeal from an order entered April 29, 1930, which sustains respondents' demurrer to the petition.Goggins, Brazeau & Graves, of Wisconsin Rapids, for appellants.

B. M. Vaughan and Marvin S. King, both of Wisconsin Rapids, for respondents.

FAIRCHILD, J.

[1] The petition, to which a general demurrer was interposed, challenges the constitutionality of section 89.376 passed in 1927, and which reads:

“89.376.-- Assessments paid in district securities. Any landowner in a drainage district owning a bond, note or past-due interest coupon of said district, may offer the same to the town or county treasurer in payment of drainage taxes on specified lands in said district, and said town or county treasurer shall accept such bond, note or past-due coupon at its face value, plus accrued interest at the time of presentation in payment of such taxes. Such bonds, notes or coupons shall be received by the drainage district treasurer from the town or county treasurer as cash, and the drainage district treasurer shall credit the specified lands with the same. The excess, if there be any, of the bond, note or coupon over the amount of due and past-due drainage taxes on such lands shall be credited against future assessments against said lands.”

The petitioners are the owners of eight negotiable coupon bonds of the Cranberry creek drainage district. Each is one of a large serial first issue of bonds duly issued April 1, 1907, by this drainage district to provide funds for the construction of a drainage system therein in anticipation of the collection of the several installments of a special assessment against the benefited lands within said district.

The petition alleges that the bonds are past-due and unpaid; that there are delinquent assessments outstanding in said district; that the petitioners are not landholders in the district; that there are other bonds to a large amount outstanding and unpaid; that the lands in the said district vary in quality and value; that there are assessments for benefits still in force in said district in excess of the assessments for construction. Each bond contains among other provisions, the following:

“Both principal and interest hereof being payable in lawful money of the United States of America.”

“Issued by said drainage district to provide funds for the construction. * * * In anticipation of collection of several installments of special assessments against the lands lying within said district.”

“* * * And that said series of bonds do not exceed in the aggregate the amount of said special assessments remaining uncollected and unpaid at the time of the issue thereof, and for prompt collection of the several installments of said special assessments, and for the proper disbursement of the proceeds thereof to the payment of said bonds and the interest thereon, the full faith and credit of said district is herby irrevocably pledged.”

The question arises whether, under section 89.376 Stats., the town treasurers in the towns in which the drainage district is located, and the county treasurers of Juneau and Wood counties, have any authority in law to accept such bonds, notes, or coupons in payment of drainage taxes on specified lands in said district.

The respondents admit that the district's financial condition is bad, as is shown by the petition, and will continue to grow worse by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Rorick v. Board of Com'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • April 13, 1932
    ...Ct. 1042, 41 L. Ed. 93; Moore v. Gas Securities Co. (C. C. A.) 278 F. 111; Moore v. Otis (C. C. A.) 275 F. 747; In re Cranberry Creek Drainage Dist., 202 Wis. 64, 231 N. W. 588. Section 67 of the 1931 act is also assailed by the supplemental bill, but, as that section depends for its operat......
  • State ex rel. Murphy v. Cherry
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1934
    ... ... within the limits of Big Creek Drainage District No. 15 of ... Craighead ... district and its bondholders. In re Cranberry Creek ... Drain. Dist., 202 Wis. 64, 231 N.W ... ...
  • Straus v. Ketchen
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1933
    ... ... DRAINAGE ... DISTRICTS-IMPROVEMENT ... 785; In ... re Drainage Dist. No. 1, 29 Idaho 377, 161 P. 315; ... Burt v ... In the ... case of In re Cranberry Creek Drainage Dist., 202 ... Wis. 64, 231 N.W ... ...
  • State ex rel. Bldg. Owners & Managers Ass'n of Milwaukee, Inc. v. Adamany
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1974
    ...12, of the Wisconsin Constitution. 2 Applying these constitutional provisions, this court said in In re Cranberry Creek Drainage District v. La Vigne (1930), 202 Wis. 64, 68, 231 N.W. 588, 589: "(A)n act which in any degree, no matter how slightly, modifies the obligation of the contract by......
  • 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