Palms v. Shawano Co.

• Decision Date: 14 October 1884
• Citation: 21 N.W. 77,61 Wis. 211
• Parties: PALMS AND ANOTHER v. SHAWANO CO. AND OTHERS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

61 Wis. 211

21 N.W. 77

PALMS AND ANOTHER

v.SHAWANO CO. AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed October 14, 1884.

Appeal from circuit court, Langlade county.

Finch & Barber, for respondent.

N. C. Finch and Gabe Bouck, for appellants.

TAYLOR, J.

This is an action brought to set aside the taxes of 1879, levied upon certain lands now in Langlade county, by the authority of the county board of supervisors of Shawano county. The learned counsel for the respondents claim that the county board of Shawano county had no authority to levy the taxes in question. The authority for levying the same by the county of Shawano depends upon the construction and validity of sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, c. 114, Laws 1879. Section 12 of said chapter reads as follows: “All the remaining portion of the county of Oconto included within the following boundaries,--to-wit, commencing on the township line between townships thirty and thirty-one, where the range line between the ranges ten and eleven south intersect said township line; thence east along the same to the same range line north; thence north along said range line to its intersection with the boundary line between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan; thence southerly along said boundary line to the range line between ranges fourteen and fifteen; thence south on said range line to the township line between townships forty and forty-one; thence east on said township line to the range line between ranges fourteen and fifteen; thence south on said range line to the north-west corner of section nineteen, in township thirty north, of range fifteen east; thence east along section lines to the north-east corner of section twenty, in the same townsip and range; thence south to the township line between townships thirty and thirty-one; thence west to the place of beginning,--shall constitute and be known as the county of New.”

It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the territory attempted to be described in said section is so indefinite and uncertain that it is impossible to determine what the boundaries are, and that it is void for that reason. Upon a careful reading of the section, and tracing the lines as described in the section on the map of the state, we find no difficulty in following them on the west, north, and east boundaries until we come down “to the north-west corner of section nineteen, in township thirty north, of range fifteen east; thence east along section lines to the north-east corner of section twenty, in the same township and range.” To this point there can be no reasonable doubt as to the line intended by the legislature. The boundary of the territory described commences on the west side, where the range line between ranges 10 and 11 E. crosses the township line between townships 30 and 31 N.; thence north on said range line to the northern boundary of the state; thence along said northern boundary of the state in a southerly direction to the range line between ranges 14 and 15 E.; thence south on said range line to the north-west corner of section 19, etc., as above quoted. It is true, there is another line stated in the act, viz.: Immediately after the words “thence south on the range line between ranges fourteen and fifteen,” is the following: “To the township line between townships forty and forty-one; thence east on said township line to the range line between ranges fourteen and fifteen.” It will be seen that this course does not add any force to the description of the eastern boundary of the testimony, as the line described as running east on township line between townships 40 and 41, does not pass the range line between ranges 14 and 15 E., and that range line forms the eastern boundary down to the north-west corner of section 19, in township No. 30.

That description was inserted because the range line between ranges 14 and 15 is corrected where it crosses the township line between townships 40 and 41, and is shifted a short distance to the east. But the eastern boundary of the territory would have been just as certain had this east course been entirely omitted from the description, and the boundary in the act been as we have stated it above; starting from the point where the north boundary of the state crosses the range line between ranges 14 and 15, and thence south on the range line between ranges 14 and 15 to the north-west corner of section 19, in township 30, etc. That the legislature have inserted this unnecessary description of the line in the east boundary of the territory can have little or no significance from the fact that in the same section, in describing the west boundary of the territory, it was not deemed necessary to take notice that the range line between ranges 10 and 11 had the same divergence to the east at the township line between townships 40 and 41 N. as the range line between townships 14 and 15. It will be seen by an examination of the Revised Statutes that, in describing the boundaries of counties by range lines, no attention is given to the fact that these range lines diverge either to the east or west where they cross the correction lines on the government surveys. When the legislature describes a line as following a range line either north or south, it follows that line between the same ranges whether it diverges east or west at the correction lines. The description in the act in question as the east boundary of the territory being south on the range line between ranges 14 and 15 to the north-west corner of section 19, in township 30, of range 15 E., is in no respect indefinite or uncertain because the range line is further west after it crosses the township line between townships 30 and 31, in going south; and the range line in its course south comes to the north-west corner of said section 19.

The only trouble in the description is the course given after the line reaches the “north-east corner of section twenty, in township thirty, range fifteen east.” In the section the description is, “thence south to the township line between townships thirty and thirty-one, and thence west to the place of beginning.” It is evident that a line running south from the point indicated would never reach the township line between 30 and 31. We think it is clearly apparent that the word “south” was a mere clerical error, and was intended to be “north.” The word “south” destroys all sense in the description; the word “north” makes it sensible and makes the boundary complete. With the word “north” inserted the line would reach the township line between townships30 and 31, and the last course would reach the place of beginning and make the boundary complete.

The learned counsel for the respondents state the true rule for construing a statute of this kind: “The court will inspect the whole act, and, if the true intention of the legislature can be reached, the false description will be rejected as surplusage, or words substituted, in the place of those wrongly used, which will give effect to the...