Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co. v. City of Milwaukee

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtKERWIN
Citation167 N.W. 428,167 Wis. 384
Decision Date30 April 1918
PartiesMILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO. v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE.

167 Wis. 384
167 N.W. 428

MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO.
v.
CITY OF MILWAUKEE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 30, 1918.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.

Action by the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company against the City of Milwaukee. Judgment for plaintiff, and the city appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant money paid under protest claimed by the defendant city under a license fee of $15 a car per year for 872 cars.

The only allegations of the complaint put in issue by the answer are the following:

“Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that said ordinance, at the time of the enactment thereof, was, and ever since has been and now is, illegal and unjust and without authority of law and not in the exercise of any authority conferred upon said city of Milwaukee, and contrary to the laws of the state of Wisconsin; and that at the time of the enactment of said ordinance said city of Milwaukee was, and ever since has been and now is, without right or authority to impose or collect such license fees, and that at the time of the enactment of said ordinance there was not, and ever since there has not been and is not now, in existence any requirements of law compelling the payment of any such license fee as aforesaid; and that the amount of license fee required by this ordinance, to wit, the sum of $15 for each car or other vehicle operated by a street railway company upon the tracks of said company, excepting vehicles or cars used in the operation of sprinkling the streets of the city, was and is unreasonable, excessive, and extortionate, and that such license fee did and does greatly exceed the expense of issuing such license and the reasonable cost of inspection and supervision of street railway companies, and the cars and vehicles and operations of street railway companies.”

The court below made the following findings:

“(1) That the amount of license fee required by the ordinance mentioned and referred to in the complaint, to wit, the sum of $15 for each car or other vehicle operated by a street railway company upon the tracks of said company (excepting vehicles or cars used in the operation of sprinkling the streets of the city), was and is unreasonable, excessive, and extortionate, and did at the times in said complaint mentioned, and does now, greatly exceed the expense of issuing the license referred to in said complaint and the reasonable cost of inspection and supervision of street railway companies and of the cars and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Wis. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 12, 1932
    ...of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 147 Wis. 458, 133 N. W. 593;Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. v. Milwaukee, 167 Wis. 384, 167 N. W. 428. This is the theory upon which a license fee is exacted of pawnbrokers, peddlers, and other businesses requiring police and ot......
  • City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 3, 1959
    ...and regulation of the street railway business.' In another such case, Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 1918, 167 Wis. 384, 387, 167 N.W. 428, 429, where the city again attempted to impose the $15 fee, it was 'Under the ordinance in question, the fee exacted was a rev......
  • City of Oshkosh v. E. Wis. Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 23, 1920
    ...to the license fees involved in the cases of Milwaukee v. M. E. R. & L. Co., 147 Wis. 458, 133 N. W. 593;M. E. R. & L. Co. v. Milwaukee, 167 Wis. 384, 167 N. W. 428. [3] Upon its second proposition defendant strongly urges that, having duly surrendered all the rights and privileges it acqui......
  • Pawlak v. Pelkey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 30, 1918
    ...for appellant under this head, but we are convinced that there is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict, and that the [167 N.W. 428]court below committed no error in overruling the above motions. [1] 2. Error is assigned in allowing the plaintiff to testify on the ground that......
4 cases
  • Wis. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 12, 1932
    ...of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 147 Wis. 458, 133 N. W. 593;Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. v. Milwaukee, 167 Wis. 384, 167 N. W. 428. This is the theory upon which a license fee is exacted of pawnbrokers, peddlers, and other businesses requiring police and ot......
  • City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 3, 1959
    ...and regulation of the street railway business.' In another such case, Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 1918, 167 Wis. 384, 387, 167 N.W. 428, 429, where the city again attempted to impose the $15 fee, it was 'Under the ordinance in question, the fee exacted was a rev......
  • City of Oshkosh v. E. Wis. Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 23, 1920
    ...to the license fees involved in the cases of Milwaukee v. M. E. R. & L. Co., 147 Wis. 458, 133 N. W. 593;M. E. R. & L. Co. v. Milwaukee, 167 Wis. 384, 167 N. W. 428. [3] Upon its second proposition defendant strongly urges that, having duly surrendered all the rights and privileges it acqui......
  • Pawlak v. Pelkey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 30, 1918
    ...for appellant under this head, but we are convinced that there is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict, and that the [167 N.W. 428]court below committed no error in overruling the above motions. [1] 2. Error is assigned in allowing the plaintiff to testify on the ground that......

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