Town of Emery v. Town of Worcester
| Citation | 137 Wis. 281,118 N.W. 807 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1908 |
| Parties | TOWN OF EMERY v. TOWN OF WORCESTER. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Price County; John K. Parish, Judge.
Action by the Town of Emery against the Town of Worcester. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Reversed and remitted, with directions to sustain the demurrer.
The complaint alleges that November 12, 1903, the county board of Price county by adoption of an ordinance to be in full force and effect after April 1, 1904, did change the boundary line between plaintiff and defendant towns by detaching certain territory from the defendant and annexing it to the plaintiff, which ordinance directed that the boards of supervisors of the respective towns shall meet as soon as convenient after the next annual meeting and apportion between the towns the resources and liabilities arising by reason of this change of boundaries, as provided by section 672, St. 1898; that such town boards have refused to make any such apportionment, and that none has been made, either by the county board or by the town boards or any other tribunal; that the town of Worcester at the time of such change had certain specified assets and liabilities which, being offset, resulted in a total of credits held by the town of Worcester of $28,775; that upon apportionment upon the ratio of the assessed value of the detached and remaining portions plaintiff was and is entitled to receive from the defendant the sum of $4,842.86, which has been demanded and bill therefor duly filed with the town of Worcester and neglected to be allowed, wherefore recovery of that amount is prayed. Upon general demurrer by the defendant, the court entered order overruling same, from which the defendant appeals.Wickham & Farr and Asa K. Owen, for appellant.
W. K. Parkinson, for respondent.
DODGE, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The action of the county board in dividing the town of Worcester was by authority of section 671, St. 1898. By section 672, St. 1898, it is provided that, whenever territory shall be detached from any town and annexed to another town, the town to which it is attached shall receive from the town from which detachment was made its just share of credits, “which shall be apportionedin the manner herein provided.” An earlier part of the section provides for the apportionment of indebtedness when a new town is created out of part of an old one, and commands that such apportionment be made by the county board by their ordinance of division, and that the apportionment shall be in the ratio of the last assessed value of the two portions. It is contended by the defendant that this statute, and especially the quoted words therein, must be construed to require the apportionment of the assets or credits between the two towns by the county board in and by their ordinance of division and in the ratio above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buskirk v. Red Buttes Land and Live Stock Company
...was applied in Wisconsin under a statute empowering the county board to change town boundaries and to apportion indebtedness, etc. (Town v. Town, 137 Wis. 281.) has been observed with respect to state land boards in Wyoming; (Cooper v. McCormick, 10 Wyo. 379, 410; Baker v. Brown, 12 Wyo. 19......
-
Houston Nat. Exch. Bank v. Chapman
...v. Smith, supra. "No one but the commissioner has the right to bring the action. 20 Ruling Case Law, p. 664, section 4; Emery v. Worcester, 137 Wis. 284, 118 N. W. 807; Harrigan v. Gilchrist, 121 Wis. 127, 99 N. W. "Being expressly authorized by statute, he needs no title under the substant......
-
Town of Greenfield v. Village of West Milwaukee
...method of ascertaining the liabilities of the respective municipalities, the remedy under sec. 66.03 is 'exclusive.' Town of Emery v. Worcester, 137 Wis. 281, 118 N.W. 807; City of Wauwatosa v. Union Free High School District, 250 Wis. 266, 271, 26 N.W.2d The village of West Milwaukee being......
-
Waisbren v. Blink
...that prescribed by the statute.” Hall v. Hinckley, 32 Wis. 362, 368;Saxville v. Bartlett, 126 Wis. 655, 105 N. W. 1052;Emery v. Worcester, 137 Wis. 281, 118 N. W. 807. Consequently, because of plaintiff's failure to vindicate his right by an action commenced within three years after the sal......