Sharpe v. Hasey

• Decision Date: 07 December 1909
• Citation: 141 Wis. 76,123 N.W. 647
• Parties: SHARPE v. HASEY ET AL., TOWN SUP'RS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

141 Wis. 76

123 N.W. 647

SHARPE

v.HASEY ET AL., TOWN SUP'RS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 7, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County; Chester A. Fowler, Judge.

Action by A. C. Sharpe against James H. Hasey and others, Supervisors of the Town of Hampden. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant supervisors on January 5, 1908, determined to lay out a highway across the lands of the plaintiff. At a meeting of the board, called for the purpose of acting upon the application to lay out the highway, prior to any action being taken, and prior to the determination of the board to lay out the same, Supervisor Ott, after consulting with Supervisor Schultz, asked one Boyum whether, if the board determined to lay out the highway, said Boyum would haul material for the bridges free of charge. Boyum, with some reluctance, and after it was suggested that his neighbors would help him to do the hauling, replied that he would, whereupon a vote was taken upon the proposition, and it was determined by the town board to lay out the highway. The plaintiff, being the owner of the lands through which it was proposed to lay out said highway, brought this action to enjoin and restrain the defendants from entering upon his lands or taking any steps to carry out the building of the highway described in the order of the supervisors. The ground upon which the plaintiff sought relief in the original complaint was that the order was made as the result of a corrupt bargain between the defendant supervisors and Boyum, which was contrary to public policy, and that, therefore, the order was void. At the close of the testimony, plaintiff asked leave to amend his complaint so as to allege that the order laying out the highway was not made or signed on June 5th, but that, on the contrary, the supervisors separated on that day, and later the attorney for one of the parties interested in having the highway laid out drafted the order laying out the road, and that such order was signed on the following Monday by the supervisors without holding any meeting; one of them signing in the city of Columbus, and the others signing at another place in the absence of the chairman. The court refused to permit the amendment. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.Richmond, Jackman & Swansen, for appellant.

Henry A. Gunderson, for respondents.

BARNES, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The trial court found as facts that the proposed road was 1 1/2 miles in length; that the value of the land which would necessarily be appropriated for its use was $700; that such highway would require the construction of two bridges and two culverts and the building of a grade and the filling in of a roadbed over about 160 rods of marsh; that, at the time Boyum promised to haul the bridge material free of charge, it was not contemplated that the value of such work would exceed $15 or $20; that such work would be reasonably worth from $30 to $40; and that the supervisors were not in any way induced to lay out such highway because of the promise made to haul the material free of charge, but were actuated by a desire to promote the public interest of the people of the town, and that they laid out the highway because of the public necessity therefor. There is sufficient testimony in the record to support each of the facts so found. As a conclusion of law, the court found that no cause of action was established. The conclusion so drawn was correct. Considering the expense of the proposed highway, the offered aid was so trifling and inconsequential that it could hardly be an inducement to the board to arrive at the determination thereafter made. We have no intention to depart from the doctrine of the cases which hold, in substance, that, where the contribution or offer of pecuniary aid is of such a character or is made under such circumstances as would be likely to swerve the town board from its duties, it is against public policy, and vitiates official action. State ex rel. v. Geneva, 107 Wis. 1, 8, 82 N. W. 550;Town of Shelby v. Miller, 114 Wis. 660, 663, 91 N. W. 86;State ex rel. v. Ryan, 127 Wis. 599, ...