Prichard v. Bixby
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County. This action was brought to recover certain witness fees, the claim for which arose out of the following facts: In September, 1886, the defendant Bixby and other citizens of the town of Rutland, having the qualifications prescribed by statute, made application in writing to the supervisors of that town pursuant to sec. 1359, R. S., to lay out therein a certain ditch or drain described in the application.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County. This action was brought to recover certain witness fees, the claim for which arose out of the following facts: In September, 1886, the defendant Bixby and other citizens of the town of Rutland, having the qualifications prescribed by statute, made application in writing to the supervisors of that town pursuant to sec. 1359, R. S., to lay out therein a certain ditch or drain described in the application. Proceedings were thereupon had pursuant to the statute, which resulted in the making and filing by such supervisors of an order denying the…
1Opinion of the CourtLvorr, J.
On the authority of State ex rel. Luderman, v. Findley, 67 Wis. 86, it must be held that the decision and order of the four commissioners, in the absence of the fifth who did not appear, is void. It is quite immaterial that the supervisors and the defendant Bixby consented that the four might thus act. In the absence of the fifth commissioner there was no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and consent could not confer jurisdiction. This is elementary. Hence the case stands as though the commissioners had made no order, and the decision of .the supervisors has beep neither affirmed nor…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cairns v. O'BlenessWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- State ex rel. Luderman v. FindleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Columbus v. Town of Fountain PrairieWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908