State ex rel. Gordon v. McNay
| Decision Date | 03 April 1895 |
| Citation | 90 Wis. 104,62 N.W. 917 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. GORDON v. MCNAY ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Pepin county; E. B. Bundy, Judge.
Action by the state of Wisconsin ex rel. William J. Gordon against James B. McNay and others to compel defendants to act on a petition praying for the laying out of a ditch. From an order modifying a judgment against some of the defendants, plaintiff appeals. Order reversed.
Mandamus. The defendants McNay, Ingram, and Rand were the supervisors of the town of Waubeek, Pepin county, in February, 1893; and their codefendants, Hoffman and two others, were at the same time supervisors of the adjoining town of Waterville, in said county. February 21, 1893, a petition, under the provisions of section 1365, Sanb. & B. Ann. St., was presented in duplicate to the supervisors of both towns, praying for the laying out of a ditch, partly in each of said towns, for the drainage of overflowed lands in the town of Waubeek. No action was taken on this petition, although the same was sufficient in form and substance, whereupon the relator, Gordon, who was one of the petitioners, commenced this action by suing out an alternative writ of mandamus, directed to the supervisors of both towns, and returnable April 17, 1893. The relation and writ were served on all the defendants early in April, and on the 4th day of April an entirely new board of supervisors was elected in each of said towns. The respondents McNay, Ingram, and Rand never made return to the writ. Upon the return day of the writ the newly-elected supervisors of the town of Waterville made a return admitting the allegations of the petition, and setting forth the fact of their election and qualification as supervisors on the 4th of April, and that on said last-named date they acted on the petition, in conjunction with the respondents, and fixed the 6th of June as the day upon which they would meet and consider the petition. They also alleged that they had at all times been ready and willing to act upon the petition, but that the respondents had at all times refused to act thereon, until required so to do by the writ. Upon the filing of this return a further return was ordered by the court to be made by the supervisors of both towns, showing fully their execution of the writ, which return was directed to be made on the 16th day of October, 1893. This order was served on the newly-elected supervisors of both towns April 25, 1893; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGowan v. Paul
...such contracts, therefore the costs should go against such officers, not against the town. Counsel relies upon State ex rel. Gordon v. McNay et al., 90 Wis. 104, 62 N. W. 917, in which case the distinction is drawn between a case where the supervisors act on behalf of the town and a case wh......
-
State ex rel. Kulike v. Town Clerk of Lebanon
...Milwaukee I. Co. et al. v. Schubel, 29 Wis. 444, 9 Am. Rep. 591;Williams v. Yorkville, 59 Wis. 119, 17 N. W. 546;State ex rel. Gordon v. McNay et al., 90 Wis. 106, 62 N. W. 917;State ex rel. Hewitt v. Graves, 120 Wis. 607, 98 N. W. 516; and Rude v. St. Marie, 121 Wis. 634, 99 N. W. 460. In ......
-
Joannes v. Millerd
... ... No doubt, the requested instructions state a correct principle of law, which should be given, when requested, in a ... ...