Wentworth v. Racine Cnty.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1898
• Parties: WENTWORTH v. RACINE COUNTY.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

99 Wis. 26

74 N.W. 551

WENTWORTH

v.RACINE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 22, 1898.

Syllabus by the Judge.

1. An act of the legislature cannot properly be judicially declared void for uncertainty if it will admit of any reasonable construction that will support it.

2. The mere wisdom or reasonableness of a law is not a matter for judicial determination, but is exclusively within the domain of legislative power.

3. Chapter 250, Laws 1895, delegating to county boards power to legislate in regard to officers' fees in certain cases, is constitutional under the rule in Ryan v. Outagamie Co., 50 N. W. 340, 80 Wis. 336.

4. The constitutional and statutory requirement for the publication of laws as a prerequisite to their validity does not extend to the publication of mere ordinances, resolutions, and proceedings of local governing bodies, pursuant to a valid grant, to such bodies, of power to legislate in regard to such matters.

5. The general statute, requiring the publication of the proceedings of county boards, is directory, and a failure to comply therewith does not invalidate such proceedings.

6. The rule that a judgment in bar, or as evidence in estoppel, is binding not only as to every question actually presented and considered and upon which the court rested its decision, but every question that might have been presented and decided, as well, does not apply to a different cause of action between the same parties, except as to questions shown to have been actually decided in the former action.

Appeal from circuit court, Racine county; Frank M. Fish, Judge.

John T. Wentworth filed a bill against the county of Racine for services. From a disallowance thereof he appealed to the circuit court, and from judgment for plaintiff the defendant county appeals. Reversed.

Plaintiff filed a bill for services as justice of the peace, for allowance by the defendant county, made out in accordance with the general statute on the subject. Such board, having previous to the performance of the services made a regulation in regard to officers' fees in certain cases, pursuant to chapter 250, Laws 1895, determined that plaintiff was only entitled to recover in accordance with such regulations, and accordingly allowed his bill in part and disallowed it in part. From such determination an appeal was duly taken by the plaintiff to the circuit court, and such proceedings were there duly had that it was determined that the county board, November 18, 1895, pretending to act under chapter 250, Laws 1895, aforesaid, by resolution, established the fees for services of justices of the peace in the cases covered by the plaintiff's bill, and that the allowance made by such board on such bill was strictly in accordance with such resolution; that no certified copy of such resolution was ever published, bence that it never became valid, even if the statute attempting to authorize it were valid; that such statute is void for uncertainty and is improper and unconstitutional, hence that the general statutes of the state, in accordance with which plaintiff's bill was made out as presented to the county board, governed the subject. Judgment was therefore ordered in plaintiff's favor for the amount of the claim disallowed by the county board. Judgment was entered accordingly, from which this appeal was taken. On the trial the record of a former case between the same parties, for the recovery of fees, was introduced in evidence, but there was no evidence to show that the validity of the resolution in question was there determined.

Peter B. Nelson, for appellant.

John T. Wentworth, in pro. per.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

The questions for consideration on this appeal are: (1) Is chapter 250, Laws 1895, void for uncertainty? (2) Is such chapter improper or unconstitutional? (3) Is it requisite to the validity of a regulation fixing officers' fees under such chapter that it be published, as laws are required to be published under the constitution and statutes of this state? (4) Was the question of the legality of plaintiff's claim res adjudicata by reason of the court having, in a previous action between the same parties, allowed a recovery of fees in accordance with the general statutes? These questions will be briefly considered in their order.

1. The title of the act of 1895 is in the following language: “An act relating to the punishment of vagrancy, drunkenness, and similar offenses, and the fees of officers in prosecution therefor.” The body of the act, in section 1, provides for the manner of punishing offenders of the classes mentioned, and section 2 provides that county boards of supervisors may, from time to time, fix and regulate the fees or compensation of officers and magistrates for services performed in all prosecutions for any of such offenses, except when such prosecutions shall be under a city or village charter or ordinance. Wherein there is any indefiniteness in either the title or the body of the act is not pointed out in the findings of the trial court, or suggested by respondent. If uncertainty exists so as to warrant the court in saying that the...