State ex rel. Carlson v. Kingston
| Decision Date | 10 January 1933 |
| Citation | 210 Wis. 301,246 N.W. 426 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. CARLSON, TREASURER OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 8, v. KINGSTON, TOWN TREASURER, ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Marinette County; Arold F. Murphy, Circuit Judge.
Action in mandamus by the state, on the relation of Enok Carlson, treasurer of School District No. 8 of the town of Porterfield, against Lewin Kingston, as treasurer of the town of Porterfield, and others. From the judgment rendered after a demurrer to defendant's return to the alternative writ was sustained, the defendants appeal.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed.
Action begun November 11, 1930; judgment entered January 23, 1932. Mandamus. This action was commenced by service of a copy of the petition and alternative writ of mandamus on the defendants. The defendants filed their return to the alternative writ. To this the petitioner demurred. Upon argument the demurrer was sustained, and, from a judgment entered accordingly, the defendants appeal.Miller, Kuchenberg & Krueger, of Marinette, for appellants.
John B. Chase, of Oconto, for respondent.
The plaintiff is treasurer of school district No. 8 of the town of Porterfield, Marinette county. The Wisconsin Public Service Corporation owns and operates a power plant in the town of Porterfield, Marinette county, and 94 per cent. of said properties are located within the confines of school district No. 8. In the year 1928, the town of Porterfield received the sum of $3,566.35 from the state treasurer on account of assessment made on property of the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation in said town. The defendants, who are the officers of the town of Porterfield, refused to apportion any part of said sum to the plaintiff district, for the reason that the said district already had on hand a sum which far exceeded the cost of operation and maintenance of the plaintiff district for the school year of 1927-28.
It is the contention of the defendants that the district being required by section 20.245, relating to state aid, to raise a sum of money which with other available funds is sufficient to meet the cost of operating and maintaining the school in that district, it was not entitled to any part of the sum received by the town on account of the assessment against the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. The plaintiff claims that under the provisions of section 76.28(3) it is entitled to its proportionate share of the fund irrespective of what other funds may be available for the cost of operating and maintaining its school.
Section 76.28(3) provides: “In all counties having a population of fifty thousand or less, fifty per cent of the amount of taxes received by any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Journal Printing Co. v. City of Racine
... ... engaged another to perform services and that he performed them would state a cause of action for recovery of their reasonable value. Many Wisconsin ... ...
-
City of Marshfield v. Towns of Cameron, etc.
...the wisdom of legislative enactments. Appleton v. Outagamie County (1928), 197 Wis. 4, 220 N.W. 393. In State ex rel. Carlson v. Kingston (1933), 210 Wis. 301, 304, 246 N.W. 426, 428, the court noted with reference to sec. 76.28, Stats. (prior to the 1939 and 1947 amendments): 'If the statu......