State ex rel. City of Madison v. Village of Monona
| Decision Date | 28 June 1960 |
| Citation | 104 N.W.2d 158,11 Wis.2d 93 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CITY OF MADISON, and Clarence E. Olson, et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF MONONA, a municipal corporation, Appellant. STATE ex rel. CITY OF MADISON, and Richard Marble, et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF MONONA, a municipal corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
R. C. Buehner, Madison, Immell, Herro, Buehner & DeWitt, Madison, of counsel, for appellant.
Harold E. Hanson, City Atty., Orr, Isaksen, Werner & Lathrop, Sp. Attys., Madison, for respondents.
While other issues are raised in the briefs of counsel, we find it only necessary to consider the single issue of preemption.
In the pending litigation initiated by the town of Blooming Grove, in which it seeks a declaratory judgment that will adjudicate the city of Madison's annexation ordinance of September 21, 1954, to be invalid, the town does not raise the issue of whether such ordinance is void because of jurisdictional defects. Instead, the attack made on such ordinance is that it is voidable because the petition lacked sufficient signatures of electors and property owners at the time of adoption of the ordinance. Town of Blooming Grove v. Madison, 1960, 9 Wis.2d 443, 101 N.W.2d 809. Neither does the village of Monona, in its answer to the complaints in the instant quo warranto proceedings, attack such annexation ordinance of September 21, 1954, on jurisdictional grounds. 1
In re Incorporation of Village of St. Francis, 1932, 208 Wis. 431, 243 N.W. 315, 317, held that a pending proceeding for annexation of an area to a city 'not void on its face' preempts the field and prevents a proceeding from being initiated for incorporating the same area along with other lands as a village, notwithstanding an action was then pending which attacked the validity of the annexation. Later in In re Town of Preble, 1952, 261 Wis. 459, 464, 53 N.W.2d 187, 189, it was stated that it would be preferable to substitute the words 'valid on its face' for the words 'not void on its face' appearing in such holding in the St. Francis case. The rule of preemption laid down in the St. Francis case applies to a situation where competing annexation proceedings are initiated to annex the same territory to two different municipalities. Town of Greenfield v. Milwaukee, 1951, 259 Wis. 77, 47 N.W.2d 291. This is the situation here confronting us.
An annexation ordinance, which at most is voidable and not void, continues in effect until declared invalid by proper court determination. Until such time as such ordinance is invalidated, it is effective to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Lyons v. City of Lake Geneva
... ... Milwaukee (1956), 272 Wis. 388, 75 N.W.2d 434; State ex rel. Madison v. Monona ... (1960), 11 Wis.2d 93, 104 ... Territory contiguous to any city or village may be annexed thereto in the following ways: ... (a) ... ...
-
Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac
...legislature is presumed to use terminology consistent with terminology used by the courts and, in State ex rel. City of Madison v. Village of Monona, 11 Wis.2d 93, 104 N.W.2d 158 (1960), prior to the enactment of § 66.0217(11)(c), the supreme court used the term "validity" to refer to wheth......
-
Town of Windsor v. Village of DeForest
...LLC v. Town of Windsor, 2003 WI App 9, ¶ 22, 259 Wis. 2d 357, 656 N.W.2d 752; see also State ex rel. City of Madison v. Village of Monona, 11 Wis. 2d 93, 96, 104 N.W.2d 158, 160 (1960) ("An annexation ordinance, which at most is voidable and not void, continues in effect until declared inva......
-
Simonson's Estate, In re
... ... STATE of Wisconsin, Appellant, ... Frank HOBBS et al., ... Williams, Inherintance Tax Counsel, Madison, for appellant ... E. Nelton, ... ...