State ex rel. City of Shawano v. Engel
| Decision Date | 06 April 1920 |
| Citation | 171 Wis. 299,177 N.W. 33 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. CITY OF SHAWANO v. ENGEL ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shawano County; A. H. Reid, Judge.
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the City of Shawano, against August Engel and others, Supervisors of the Town of Richmond. Judgment quashing the writ, and relator appeals. Affirmed.
The relator and appellant, city of Shawano, a city of the fourth class under the general charter law, sought to compel the defendants, supervisors of the town of Richmond, to meet its city council to provide a method of apportioning the assets and liabilities of the said town to the said city under the provisions of chapter 516 of the Laws of 1919, by which act it was alleged a certain portion of said town had become annexed to said city. The respondents moved to quash such proceedings, on the ground that said chapter 516 is unconstitutional and void. The trial court granted said motion and directed the entry of a judgment quashing the writ, and from the judgment entered thereon the relator has appealed.P. J. Winter, of Shawano, for appellant.
Goggins, Brazeau & Goggins, of Grand Rapids, and M. G. Eberlein, of Shawano, for respondents.
ESCHWEILER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Chapter 516, Laws of 1919, is entitled:
“An act to detach a portion of the town of Richmond and add such detached portion to the city of Shawano, all in Shawano county.”
By section 1 of that chapter it was provided that all that portion of section 36 in the said town of Richmond not then included within the corporate limits of the city of Shawano “is hereby detached from the said town of Richmond and attached to and made a part of the said city of Shawano.” By section 2 provision was made for apportioning to the city of Shawano the assets and liabilities of the town of Richmond. Section 3 provided for a meeting of the supervisors of the town of Richmond and of the city council of the city of Shawano for the purpose of making a settlement between the city and town according to the provisions of the act. The supervisors of the town refusing to meet with the common council, these proceedings were instituted.
The trial court sustained the contention of the respondents, supervisors of the town, that said chapter 516 was void, in that it was a special act, and in effect amended the charter of said city, and was within the inhibition of article 4, § 31, Const. Wis., which, so far as material here, now provides as follows:
“The Legislature is prohibited from enacting any special or private law in the following cases: * * * (9) For incorporating any city, town or village, or to amend the charter thereof.”
The appellant city contends:
(1) That, not being under a special charter, but having come under the provisions of the general chapter, being chapter 45t, §§ 925--1 to 925--169, Stats., it receives its power by virtue of the general law, and not by virtue of any grant to it by any “charter,” as the term is used in the constitutional provision. Article 4, § 31 (9), supra.
(2) That in any event the act in question, merely providing for the annexation of territory, is not in the nature of an amendment to any charter, if there be one, of the city of Shawano, and is therefore not within the prohibition of the Constitution above quoted.
(3) And, lastly, that the act in question is a proper exercise of legislative power as an expression of the judgment of the Legislature that the objects of the corporate powers of appellant city cannot be attained under the general laws providing for the annexation of territory in the manner prescribed in chapter 45t, and that therefore it is valid under a reasonable construction of the legislative powers and duties found in the three following provisions of the Constitution, viz.:
Article 4, § 32: “The Legislature shall provide general laws for the transaction of any business that may be prohibited by section 31 of this article, and all such laws shall be uniform in their operation throughout the state.”
Article 11, § 1: and
Article 11, § 3, which, so far as material here, is as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Legislature, and they are hereby empowered, to provide for the organization of cities and incorporated villages. * * *”
[1] On the first point it is clear that the city of Shawano is in existence under the general charter law (chapter 45t) as a municipal corporation, functioning as such under the powers conferred on it by a “charter,” in the ordinary meaning of that term, and within the meaning of the same term as used in the constitutional provision in question, as much so as though it were under the old form of a special charter or one given by legislative act to it in particular. Platt v. City, 158 Cal. 74, 95, 110 Pac. 304;State ex rel. v. Ehrmantraut, 63 Minn. 104, 107, 65 N. W. 251.
We can see no valid reason for not applying the same rule to a municipality obtaining its charter under a general law that is applicable to a private corporation obtaining a charter under a general incorporation law, and such rule is well recognized as to private corporations. L. & P. Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 136, 20 Sup. Ct. 325, 44 L. Ed. 400;Attorney Gen. v. Perkins, 73 Mich. 303, 41 N. W. 426;State ex rel. v. Anderson, 31 Ind. App. 34, 67 N. E. 207;Baker v. Smith, 41 R. I. 17, 26, 102 Atl. 721; 1 Words and Phrases, Second Series, p. 651. The city of Shawano, therefore, is existing and operating under a “charter,” as the term is used in article 4, § 31 (9), Wis. Const., supra.
[2] On the second point, as to whether or not the description of the territory included within the corporate limits of such a chartered corporation as is the appellant is a part of its charter, we have no difficulty in holding that the description of the territory included within its corporate limits is as an essential part of its charter as any other provision therein contained.
While it is true that under section 925--5, Stats., as now amended by chapter 183 of the Laws of 1917, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Madison v. Hyland, Hall & Co.
...200 N.W.2d 580. Sec. 59.01(1), Stats., refers to counties as bodies corporate, and this court has so held in State ex rel. City of Shawano v. Engel (1920), 171 Wis. 299, 177 N.W. 33. While a county is not, strictly speaking, a municipal corporation, this court has held that it is a 'quasi-m......
-
State v. City of St. Petersburg
...the territory included became an essential part of the city's charter. Cooke v. City of Portland, 69 Or. 572, 139 P. 1095; State v. Engel, 171 Wis. 299, 177 N.W. 33; 43 C.J. The charter of a municipality is not a contract between the state and the people of the municipal corporation or the ......
-
Davidson Baking Co. v. Jenkins
...contained in a general statute. That it is not inappropriate to refer to such a statute as a charter, see State ex rel. City of Shawano v. Engel, 171 Wis. 299, 302-303, 177 N.W. 33. Plaintiff bases his argument upon the proposition '* * * that unless there can be found in the charter of the......
-
Zweifel v. City of Milwaukee
...city. The annexation of territory to a city, thereby enlarging its boundaries, is an amendment to its charter. State ex rel. Shawano v. Engel, 171 Wis. 299, 305, 177 N. W. 33;Wauwatosa v. Milwaukee, 180 Wis. 310, 192 N. W. 982. In all other instances than the present one it has been held th......