Vill. of Prairie v. Wis. Power & Light Co.

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FOWLER
• Citation: Vill. of Prairie v. Wis. Power & Light Co., 213 Wis. 277, 251 N.W. 605 (Wis. 1933)
• Decision Date: 05 December 1933
• Parties: VILLAGE OF SUN PRAIRIE v. WISCONSIN POWER & LIGHT CO.

213 Wis. 277

251 N.W. 605

VILLAGE OF SUN PRAIRIE

v.WISCONSIN POWER & LIGHT CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 5, 1933.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County; August C. Hoppmann, Circuit Judge.

Action by the Village of Sun Prairie against the Wisconsin Power & Light Company. From an order overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Reversed and remanded.

The action, commenced October 19, 1932, is for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, section 269.56, Stats. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, entered June 15, 1933, the defendant appeals.

Schubring, Ryan & Petersen, of Madison, for appellant.

Field & Field, of Madison (Hill, Beckwith & Harrington, of Madison, of counsel), for respondent.

FOWLER, Justice.

The appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The complaint states that in 1919 the village owned and operated a distribution system for furnishing electric current to the inhabitants of the village for light and power and in that year entered into a contract with the Badger Electric Service Company for compensation fixed by the contract to furnish electric current to the village for the operation of its distribution system for the period of twenty years, and the village was by the contract obligated to take from the Badger Company all current required for that purpose; that the defendant acquired the ownership of said company and succeeded to its rights and obligations under said contract; and that the said contract is void for want of power of the village to contract for the purchase of current to supply its patrons and for the reason that it covers an unreasonably long period. It is further alleged that in 1927 the parties modified the contract; that the modified contract is in effect a new contract; and that it is void for want of power of the village to make it and because it covers a period of twelve years contrary to a statute enacted since the original contract was executed. Copies of the two contracts are attached to the complaint. The prayer of the complaint is that the contracts be declared void.

[1][2][3][4] The above constitutes the whole picture portrayed by the complaint. There is no allegation that any controversy exists between the parties. No facts are stated showing that a controversy exists or any reason for invoking the jurisdiction of the court.

It is fundamental that “courts will not...