Weise v. Cnty. Bd. of Sup'rs Milwaukee Co.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1881 |
| Citation | 51 Wis. 564,8 N.W. 295 |
| Parties | WEISE v. COUNTY BOARD OF SUP'RS MILWAUKEE CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county.
M. N. Laulo, for appellant.
W. C. Williams and J. C. McKenney, for respondent.
It appears in this case that the plaintiff, for one year prior to December 31, 1878, was the county physician for the south side of the city and county of Milwaukee, rendering services for a fixed salary, which was agreed upon between him and the county board. At the termination of his engagement no qualified physician was appointed by the board, and the plaintiff continued to act right along from the first of January, 1879, to March 5th following, when his successor was appointed or duly qualified, and commenced discharging the duties of this employment. There was no new arrangement made by the board with the plaintiff as to compensation for services rendered after January 1, 1879, and the question presented is, was the plaintiff entitled to recover the usual professional charges for his services, or only a pro rata amount of his salary? The learned circuit court held that, as he continued to act after his engagement had expired, without any new arrangement with the board, the presumption was that he was rendering services under the rate of compensation of the prior year, and was entitled to recover only a proportional part of the salary.
We are inclined to agree with the court below in this view of the case. Doubtless the plaintiff might have declined to act as physician for the county after the termination of his contract, but this he did not see fit to do. He states in substance that he was the physician of the county for the south side up to the thirty-first of December, 1878, and, as there was no qualified physician appointed to discharge his duties, he continued “right along” under his employment. Under such circumstances the presumption must be that he was rendering the services for the salary stipulated for in his contract. Had he notified the board that he should claim the regular professional charges for any services which he might render after the termination of his contract, the board might have declined to employ him. But as he gave no such notice, but continued right along, the board might well have supposed he would only claim the stipulated salary while he served. It is analogous in principle to the case of an officer holding over until his successor is chosen and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hessey v. Daniels
...the assessment provided for, as well as persons selected to review it, are not officers. Hall v. State, 39 Wis. 79;Weise v. Board of Supervisors, 51 Wis. 564, 8 N. W. 295;State v. Myers, 52 Wis. 628, 632, 9 N. W. 777;In re Revisor, 141 Wis. 592, 124 N. W. 670. The appointees are selected me......
-
State ex rel. Wis. Dev. Auth. v. Dammann
...182;United States ex rel. Boyd v. Lockwood, 1 Pin. 359;Butler v. Regents of the University, 32 Wis. 124;Weise v. Board of Supervisors of Milwaukee County, 51 Wis. 564, 8 N.W. 295;State ex rel. Brown County v. Myers, 52 Wis. 628, 9 N.W. 777;Sieb v. Racine, 176 Wis. 617, 187 N.W. 989. Those c......
-
State ex rel. Brown Cnty. v. Myers
...There is a distinction between an office and a mere service or employment, as is pointed out in Hall v. State, 39 Wis. 79;Weise v. Board of Sup'rs, 51 Wis. 564. The commissioners come within the latter category. A further objection is taken to the law, which is that the commissioners, when ......
-
Oil v. Gilbert
...29 Pa. St. 184; Ranck v. Albright, 36 Pa. St. 367; Nicholson v. Patchin, 5 Cal. 474; Vail v. Manufacturing Co., 32 Barb. 564; Weise v. Board, 51 Wis. 564, 8 N. W. Rep. 295. And, where the term of employment does not, exceed one year, the authorities seem to us decisive that the prior contra......