Williams v. Town of Yorkville
| Decision Date | 11 December 1883 |
| Citation | 17 N.W. 546,59 Wis. 119 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. TOWN OF YORKVILLE, IMPLEADED, ETC. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Racine county.Williams & Elliott, for appellant, Thomas L. Williams.
H. A. Cooper and Quarles & Winslow, for respondent, the town of Yorkville, impleaded, etc.
In the case of Donnelly v. Decker, ante, 389, recently decided, the question of the constitutionality of several provisions of chapter 54, Rev. St.--known as the drainage law--was considered, and their validity was sustained. The case, however, did not call for a decision of the question whether the supervisors, in exercising the authority conferred upon them by this statute, acted as town officers, strictly speaking, so as to render the town responsible for their acts performed in good faith, with an honest view to secure for the public some benefit or advantage. In support of the demurrer to the complaint, which was filed by the town, the point is made that the supervisors act as agents of the state in laying out and constructing a drain or ditch, and do not in any proper sense represent the town in the matter. If, in the discharge of those duties, the supervisors do truly act for the state, or independently of the town, then it is obvious the town, under no circumstances, can be made liable for their acts. But whether that position is correct or not we shall not attempt to decide; for, according to the view which the majority of the court take of the allegations of the complaint, that question does not arise, because it does not appear that the co-defendants of the town were proceeding under chapter 54, as town supervisors, in opening the ditch or drain which is described therein.
The complaint, among other things, in effect charges that the defendants, wrongfully and unlawfully intending to injure the plaintiff in the use and enjoyment of his property, and to wrongfully take from him a considerable portion of his land, threaten to construct the ditch in question; that the construction of such ditch upon and across his lands will injure and destroy his crops, produce great and irreparable loss and damage; that the construction of the proposed ditch upon his lands is not necessary for any public purpose whatever, nor can it be used for any public use; that “the laying out of any such ditch or drain is not demanded by, nor will the same in any way conduce to, the public health or welfare.” It is also alleged that the defendants threaten and are about to proceed with the excavation and construction of said ditch, only for the purpose of benefiting the defendant A. B. Hayes individually, and to increase the value of the lands owned by him at the expense of the plaintiff and others, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Madison St. Ry. Co.
...not a corporate, duty. Schultz v. Milwaukee, 49 Wis. 259, 5 N. W. Rep. 342;Little v. Madison, 49 Wis. 605, 6 N. W. Rep. 249;Williams v. Yorkville, 59 Wis. 119, 17 N. W. Rep. 546. Public streets are for the public use, and the use is not the less for the public at large, as distinguished fro......
-
State ex rel. Kulike v. Town Clerk of Lebanon
...to the supervisors, and bases his contention mainly upon Milwaukee I. Co. et al. v. Schubel, 29 Wis. 444, 9 Am. Rep. 591;Williams v. Yorkville, 59 Wis. 119, 17 N. W. 546;State ex rel. Gordon v. McNay et al., 90 Wis. 106, 62 N. W. 917;State ex rel. Hewitt v. Graves, 120 Wis. 607, 98 N. W. 51......
-
State ex rel. Gordon v. McNay
...for the acts of its officers while engaged in the exercise of a police power, is equally well settled. Williams v. Town of Yorkville, 59 Wis. 119, 17 N. W. 546 (opinion of Lyon, J.), and cases cited therein. It follows that it was error to modify the judgment as was done by the court. Order ...