Sauk Cnty. v. City of Baraboo

• Decision Date: 09 May 1933
• Citation: Sauk Cnty. v. City of Baraboo, 211 Wis. 428, 248 N.W. 418 (Wis. 1933)
• Parties: SAUK COUNTY v. CITY OF BARABOO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

211 Wis. 428

248 N.W. 418

SAUK COUNTY

v.CITY OF BARABOO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 9, 1933.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sauk County; A. G. Zimmerman, Circuit Judge.

Action by Sauk County against City of Baraboo. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Reversed, and remanded with directions.

Action to recover the cost of constructing a portion of a bridge. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant appealed.R. H. Gollmar, of Baraboo, for appellant.

C. M. LaMar, Dist. Atty., of Baraboo (Hill, Beckwith & Harrington, of Madison, of counsel), for respondent.

FRITZ, Justice.

Plaintiff recovered judgment in this action for a balance claimed to be owing by the defendant, city of Baraboo, to plaintiff on account of the construction by plaintiff of a bridge on a state trunk highway within the defendant city. The construction of the bridge, which, at the formal request of the common council of the city, exceeded in width the standard prescribed for bridges by the county board of Sauk county, was undertaken and completed by the county, in connection with the reconstruction of the highway, under the provisions of chapters 83 and 87, Stats. 1923. After the bridge was completed, the county in writing demanded that defendant pay the claim, but no claim or demand, verified as prescribed by Section 62.12 (8) (a), Stats., was ever filed. Based upon the failure of plaintiff to first file and present a verified claim, the defendant, in connection with other defenses, filed a plea in abatement, and contended that this action cannot be maintained in view of section 62.25 (1) (a), Stats., which is as follows: “No action shall be maintained against a city upon a claim of any kind until the claimant shall first present his claim to the council and it is disallowed in whole or in part. * * *”

There are no exceptions or limitations in that statute. Its language is clear and unambiguous, and includes all claims and demands against a city, without regard to the nature of the claim, or the character of the claimant. The provisions are similar to sections 59.76 (1) and 59.77 (1) (a) and (b), Stats., relating to counties; sections 60.36 and 60.33 (2), Stats., relating to towns; and section 61.51, Stats., relating to villages.

The salutary purposes of the rule prescribed by those statutes have been discussed in a number of decisions, and the reasons stated in justification thereof in Northern Trust Company v. Snyder, 113 Wis. 516, 536, 89 N. W. 460, 90 Am. St. Rep. 867,Read v. Madison, 162 Wis. 94, 97, 155 N. W. 954, and Joyce v. Sauk County, 206 Wis. 202, 208, 239 N. W. 439, are also applicable when a county is the claimant on a demand against another political subdivision. The only instance in which it was held unnecessary for a county to first file its verified claim was in Lincoln County v. Oneida County, 80 Wis. 267, 50 N. W. 344. However, in that case, the court found in the circumstances that the liability was created by the Legislature, and was fixed and certain, and admitted of no defense, a legislative intent to modify the provisions of section 59.76, Stats. Joyce v....