Town of Ottawa v. Reid

• Decision Date: 12 April 1892
• Citation: 82 Wis. 96,51 N.W. 1089
• Parties: JOINT SCHOOL-DIST. NO. 17 OF TOWNS OF OTTAWA AND SUMMIT v. REID.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

82 Wis. 96

51 N.W. 1089

JOINT SCHOOL-DIST. NO. 17 OF TOWNS OF OTTAWA AND SUMMIT

v.REID.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 12, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county; A. SCOTT SLOAN, Judge.

Action by joint school district No. 17 of the towns of Ottawa and Summit against George T. Reid. From an order dissolving an interlocutory injunction against defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by WINSLOW, J.:

This is an appeal from an order dated August 25, 1891, dissolving an interlocutory injunctional order restraining the defendant from constructing a schoolhouse upon certain real estate. The injunctional order was founded upon the affidavit of O. H. Neff, director of the plaintiff district. The complaint does not appear in the record. The motion to dissolve was founded on the affidavits of defendant and of Ira Campbell, treasurer of the district; and upon the hearing further proofs were introduced by the plaintiff, consisting of another affidavit by Neff and certified copies of certain of the school-district records. It appears that the defendant, on the 6th of July, 1891, acting by its board of directors, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff district to erect a schoolhouse for the contract price of $1,000, upon land which the district had previously contracted to purchase. After the execution of the contract with defendant, and on the evening of the same day, at a district meeting, a new director and clerk were elected; and upon July 16, 1891, the new district board resolved to notify Reid not to proceed with his alleged contract, for reasons not necessary to be stated at length. This notice seems to have been served on the following day. The defendant proceeded to haul material for the construction of the schoolhouse, and on the 8th day of August, by direction of the board, this action was commenced by the issuance and service of a summons and the injunctional order, with accompanying papers. It appears, further, that in December, 1890, at a district meeting, it was voted that the district board be empowered to borrow not exceeding $1,000 for purchase of a site and erection of a schoolhouse, and that said sum was actually borrowed. The grounds upon which plaintiff claims the injunction should be continued in force are stated in the opinion.D. J. Hemlock, for appellant.

Ryan & Merton, for respondent.

WINSLOW, J., ( after stating the facts.)

The facts which ...