Kyncl v. Kenosha County
Decision Date | 30 January 1968 |
Citation | 155 N.W.2d 583,37 Wis.2d 547 |
Parties | Carl KYNCL et al., Appellants, v. KENOSHA COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Respondent. John HANSCHE, Administrator of the Estate of John W. Hansche, Deceased, John Hansche and Mary Hansche, his wife, Edna Ward, Charles W. Hansche and Ruth Hansche, his wife, and Grace Knipp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KENOSHA COUNTY, a Municipal corporation, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Phillips & Richards, Antaramian & Antaramian, Kenosha, for appellants.
Heide, Sheldon, Hartley & Thom, W. A. Sheldon, Kenosha, for respondent.
The issue is whether Kenosha County was a party to the condemnation award within the meaning of sec. 32.05(9), Stats., so that service on the county was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the necessary parties.
When land is needed for state trunk highway improvement the state highway commission may provide for its acquisition under sec. 84.09, Stats. Sub. (1) provides that the commission may take the necessary action to acquire the land and, if it does, title to the land shall be taken in the name of the state. By virtue of sub. (3)(a) the commission may order that all or part of the land be acquired by the county highway committee and, if so, title is taken in the name of the county. Under sub. (3m) the commission may order a board commission or department of a city to acquire lands located within the city and in those instances title is taken in the name of the state.
As the trial court noted in its memorandum opinion, a copy of the relocation order of the state highway commission and copies of the awards were not presented to the court. Consequently, these documents are not of record on appeal. The plaintiffs' petitions before the trial court stated, however, that the county highway committee of Kenosha county, acting pursuant to authority vested in it by the state highway commission of Wisconsin and pursuant to statute, condemned the properties of the plaintiffs for state trunk highway purposes. We, therefore, assume the state highway commission ordered the county highway committee of Kenosha county to acquire the land of the appellants.
Sec. 84.09(3)(a), Stats., provides:
The plaintiffs' appeals from the awards were taken directly to the circuit court for Kenosha county in accordance with the provisions of sec. 32.05(11), Stats.: 1
. (Emphasis supplied)
As the statute provides, to commence such an action a notice of appeal must be served as provided in sec. 32.05(9)(a), Stats.:
'Any party having an interest in the property condemned may, within 2 years after the date of taking, appeal the award * * * Such application shall contain a description of the property condemned and the names and last known addresses of all parties in interest * * * Notice of such application shall be given to the clerk of the court and to all other persons other than the applicant who were parties to the award. * * *'
Sec. 32.05(11), Stats., expressly makes the 'condemnor' the defendant. As such, the condemnor is clearly entitled to notice under sec. 32.05(9)(a), being both a party to the award and an 'interested party.'
The last sentence of sec. 84.09(3)(a), Stats., provides: 'If the needed lands or interests therein cannot be purchased expeditiously within the appraised price, the county highway committee may acquire them by condemnation under chapter 32.' Respondent urges the county highway committee, not the county, is the 'condemnor'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jeanine B. By Blondis v. Thompson
...the state, "not by virtue of its own will or consent, but as a result of the superimposed will of the state." Kyncl v. Kenosha County, 37 Wis.2d 547, 554, 155 N.W.2d 583 (1968) (contrasting cities, which are created for the local convenience of the inhabitants) (quoting State v. Schinz, 194......
-
Jackson County v. State, D.N.R.
...of the legislature, and its powers must be exercised within the scope of authority ceded to it by the state"); Kyncl v. Kenosha County, 37 Wis.2d 547, 555, 155 N.W.2d 583 (1968) (citation omitted) (explaining that a county "exists not by virtue of its own will or consent, but as a result of......
-
All Star Rent a Car v. Wi Dept. of Transp.
...who is to be served with notice, `an ambiguity exists.'" Peterson, 226 Wis.2d at 633, 594 N.W.2d 765 (quoting Kyncl v. Kenosha County, 37 Wis.2d 547, 555, 155 N.W.2d 583 (1968)). Ambiguity in a procedural statute requires the statute to be liberally construed so as to permit a determination......
-
City of Madison v. Hyland, Hall & Co.
...city, is a body politic. Douglas County v. Industrial Comm. (1957), 275 Wis. 309, 81 N.W.2d 807; Columbia, supra; Kyncl v. Kenosha County (1968), 37 Wis.2d 547, 155 N.W.2d 583. There is, then, no contradiction between secs. 133.04 and 990.01(26), Stats. Reading these two sections together, ......