Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Dancy Drainage District

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1926Published

1DissentRosenberry, J.

I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the court in this case, and briefly indicate the grounds of my dissent.

A drainage district is but an arm of the state, created for the purpose of performing a single function, and is a gmsi-municipal corporation with limited powers. McMahon v. Lower Baraboo River D. Dist. 184 Wis. 611, 200 N. W. 366; Harkins v. Smith, 204 Ala. 417, 85 South. 812. It being a g«m’-public corporation, the commissioners could exercise only those powers which were conferred upon them by statute. Qííím'-corporations are of the lowest rank and their authority must…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Pritchard v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Dixon County v. FieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Board of Education v. BlodgettIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Wurts v. HoaglandSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  5. Eingartner v. Illinois Steel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API