State ex rel. Owen v. Reisen
| Decision Date | 03 November 1916 |
| Citation | 159 N.W. 747,164 Wis. 123 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. OWEN, ATTY. GEN., v. REISEN. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Iowa County Court; Aldro Jenks, Judge.
Action by the State of Wisconsin, on the relation of Walter C. Owen, Attorney General, against Christ Reisen. From order granting temporary injunction, defendant appeals. Reversed.Richmond, Jackman & Swansen, of Madison, and McGeever & McGeever, of Dodgeville, for appellant.
Crownhart & Wylie, of Madison, and Fiedler & Fiedler, of Mineral Point, for respondent.
In this case a preliminary question is raised as to the jurisdiction of the court, which, if resolved in favor of the appellant, disposes of the case.
This action was brought to abate a nuisance under section 3180a, Stats. The action was originally commenced in the circuit court, and on affidavit of prejudice was changed to the county court of Iowa county. It is contended that the county court of Iowa county has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The statute conferring jurisdiction upon said county court (chapter 339, Laws of 1915) reads:
“There is hereby conferred on the county court of Iowa county, jurisdiction in all civil actions and proceedings in law and in equity, concurrent with and equal with the jurisdiction of the circuit court in said county, for all claims, demands and sums and to and concerning all property, not exceeding the sum or value of twenty-five thousand dollars; provided, that said county court shall have jurisdiction in all actions in said county for the foreclosure of mortgages and mechanics' liens, in which the amount claimed does not exceed the sum above mentioned, although the property to be affected by the judgment exceeds the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars in value; and of all actions for divorce or for affirmance or annulment of marriage contracts; and all actions for removing clouds and quieting title to real estate and all actions for partition of real estate; and in all bastardy actions and in all criminal cases except murder, manslaughter and homicide; and to the amount and within the limits aforesaid the said county court shall be a court of general jurisdiction, with the same power and jurisdiction in all civil and criminal actions and proceedings, and including the power of review of records on certiorari, discharging mortgages of records, and such other special powers as are now or may hereafter be conferred by the statutes upon the circuit court, coming within the above limitations, as belong to and are exercised by the circuit court in and for said county.”
The question presented is whether this act gives the court jurisdiction of the instant action. This statute seems to provide for five classes of cases: First, jurisdiction in civil actions and proceedings in law and equity concurrent with the circuit court “for all claims, demands and sums and to and concerning all property, not exceeding the sum or value of twenty-five thousand dollars”; second, actions for the foreclosure of mortgages and mechanics' liens in which the amount claimed does not exceed $25,000, although the property to be affected exceeds that sum; third, actions for divorce, or for annulment or affirmance of marriage contracts; fourth, all actions to remove clouds and quiet title to real estate and for partition of real estate; fifth, bastardy and criminal cases, except murder, manslaughter, and homicide. After reciting the foregoing jurisdiction the act provides:
“And to the amount and within the limits aforesaid the said county court shall be a court of general jurisdiction. * * *”
It will be seen from the foregoing classification that the Legislature specified with particularity the jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wis. Tel. Co. v. Wis. Emp't Relations Bd.
...considered to imply its intent to withhold jurisdiction in cases which are not enumerated. As the court said in State ex rel. Owen v. Reisen, 164 Wis. 123, 126, 159 N.W. 747, 748: ‘The particular specification of jurisdiction in certain cases excludes the idea that the Legislature intended ......
-
Payne v. Meisser
...Waste may be either permissive or commissive, and in both instances constitutes an action sounding in tort. In State ex rel. Owen v. Reisen, 164 Wis. 123, 159 N. W. 747, it was held that the words “claims, demands and sums,” in section 1 of chapter 339 of the Laws of 1915, relate to claims ......
-
City of West Allis v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
...253 Wis. at page 589, 34 N.W.2d at page 846.9 Id. at page 589, 34 N.W.2d at page 846, citing and quoting State ex rel. Owen v. Reisen (1916), 164 Wis. 123, 126, 159 N.W. 747, 748, where this court held: 'The particular specification of jurisdiction conferred in certain cases excludes the id......
-
Dring v. Mainwaring
...the county court for Iowa county has jurisdiction under the statute creating it, as was determined in the recent case of State v. Riesen, 164 Wis. 123, 159 N. W. 747. This being so, the county court had no jurisdiction to enter any judgment or to take any proceedings other than those author......