State ex rel. City of New Richmond v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 07 January 1902
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CITY OF NEW RICHMOND v. DAVIDSON, STATE TREASURER.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

114 Wis. 563

88 N.W. 596

STATE EX REL. CITY OF NEW RICHMOND

v.DAVIDSON, STATE TREASURER.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 7, 1902.

Application by the state, on relation of the city of New Richmond, against James O. Davidson, state treasurer, for an alternative writ of mandamus. Application granted.

Application for original alternative writ of mandamus to command the respondent, as state treasurer, to act in obedience to chapter 286 of the Laws of 1901. The material parts of the petition are to the effect that the relator, by reason of distress to its citizens as the result of a violent cyclone, borrowed from the trust funds of the state, in 1899, $21,400, for which it is indebted; that by the act of legislature aforesaid there was appropriated $21,400 out of any moneys in the state treasury for the relief of the city of New Richmond; and the state treasurer was commanded to transfer to the trust fund account the amount appropriated by that act, whereupon a corresponding amount of such indebtedness was commanded to be canceled. The treasurer refused to make such transfer, on the ground of alleged unconstitutionality of the act.L. K. Luse, for relator.

E. R. Hicks, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DODGE, J.

The merits of the controversy have not been at all considered upon the application for this alternative writ, merely the propriety of this court assuming original jurisdiction to issue it. The policy and practice of this court on the subject of the exercise of its original jurisdiction have been so recently re-enunciated in Re Court of Honor of Illinois, 109 Wis. 625, 85 N. W. 497, that reference to that case will suffice to define that policy in the main, and to indicate that several prior aberrations from the rule must not be considered as changing it. That jurisdiction will generally be made to depend upon the question, “Does the wrong to be redressed affect the sovereignty of the state, its franchises or prerogatives, or the liberties of its people?” In that case it was held that an application by a corporation to compel a state officer to issue to it a franchise, although it involved the granting of a right by the state and construction of general laws, did not fall within the rule, for the reason that “the wrong to be redressed” was that of an individual, and the effect upon the public generally was secondary only. In another late case, where the subject was carefully considered, to wit, In re Town of Holland, 107 Wis. 178, 83 N. W. 319, it was decided that the wrong sought to be redressed did not become public and general so as to justify this court in exercising its original jurisdiction,...