Schatzman v. Town of Greenfield
| Decision Date | 05 June 1956 |
| Parties | Marvin N. SCHATZMAN, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF GREENFIELD, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent, City of Milwaukee, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Walter J. Mattison, City Atty., Richard F. Maruszewski and John F. Cook, Asst. City Attys., Milwaukee, for appellant.
Paul Gauer and Robert J. Buer, Milwaukee, of counsel, for Town of Greenfield.
Schroeder, Sheets & Schroeder, Robert W. Schroeder and Clyde E. Sheets, Milwaukee, appearing specially for plaintiff.
The statute from which the City claims its right to be interpleaded is:
The City submits that it has such an interest in the subject matter of the controversy that it must be made a party for its own protection; also that a complete determination of the controversy cannot be had unless it is a party. Therefore, it contends that it was error as a matter of law and also an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to deny its application for intervention and interpleader.
The controversy in which the City wishes to intervene is stated by plaintiff's amended complaint which alleges that the Town is not urban in character; that the resolution of the Town board providing for referendum and the petition for referendum are defective and legally insufficient in specified particulars; and that certain areas of the Town are already in various stages of annexation to the City of Milwaukee. It is self-evident that these issues do not require participation by the City for a complete determination.
The City's avowed interests in the subject matter of the controversy rest on its allegations that at the time the Town began incorporation proceedings the City had already started proceedings to annex certain Town areas; that the City is already servicing those areas to some extent; that if the Town succeeds in its purpose to become a city the necessary and proper expansion of the City of Milwaukee into the Town of Greenfield will be thwarted; that the City owns property in the area whose incorporation is sought.
The Town's incorporation proceedings carefully and expressly exclude from the territory to be incorporated all areas in which valid annexation proceedings were under way when the present incorporation proceedings were begun; but the Town's incorporation proceedings include any Town areas in which the City's pending annexation proceedings shall be unsuccessful. We express no opinion concerning the efficacy of such a contingent description in an incorporation proceeding. Whether this would bring such a tract into the area to be incorporated or not, in the event that the City's effort to annex the territory should fail, is immaterial for the Town's procedure does not interfere in the slightest with the right of the City to go on with annexations already commenced, to which the Town concedes priority. The controversy between Schatzman and the Town makes no attack on the annexation procedure,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities
...without demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the application for intervention. Schatzman v. Greenfield (1956), 273 Wis. 277, 281, 77 N.W.2d 511; Fish Creek Park Co. v. Bayside (1956), 273 Wis. 89, 93, 76 N.W.2d 557; and Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden-Allen Co. (......
-
Town of Blooming Grove v. City of Madison
...any of such residents as parties. Fish Creek Park Co. v. Village of Bayside, 273 Wis. 89, 76 N.W.2d 557, and Schatzman v. Town of Greenfield, 273 Wis. 277, 77 N.W.2d 511, cited by the city, hold that residents in the annexed area may maintain an action to challenge the validity of the annex......
-
City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg
...a city cannot maintain an action to prevent the electors of an adjacent town from choosing to incorporate. In Schatzman v. Greenfield, 273 Wis. 277, 77 N.W.2d 511 (1956), the plaintiff brought an action seeking to enjoin an incorporation referendum by the town of Greenfield. The city of Mil......
-
City of Pascagoula v. Scheffler
...water districts, county services, etc.; the impairment of an immediate right vested in an adjoining city, See Schatzman v. Town of Greenfield, 273 Wis. 277, 77 N.W.2d 511 (1956) (city proper party to object only where showing of impairment of immediate right); the substantial or obvious nee......