Cardinal Publishing Co. v. City of Madison

243 N.W. 325, 208 Wis. 517, 1932 Wisc. LEXIS 372
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 20, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 243 N.W. 325 (Cardinal Publishing Co. v. City of Madison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cardinal Publishing Co. v. City of Madison, 243 N.W. 325, 208 Wis. 517, 1932 Wisc. LEXIS 372 (Wis. 1932).

Opinion

RosenberRY, C. J.

It appears from the findings of the court that twenty per cent, of the printing income of the plaintiff in the year 1928 was derived from printing the East Side News and the West Side News. For the year 1929 the plaintiff’s printing income from the same sources was 7.5 per cent, of its gross income, to which might be added the printing of the Central High School Mirror, 3.2 per cent., which would make its income from activities not' associated with the University equal to 10.7 per cent, of its total income.

It is not considered necessary to again review the law which was declared when the matter was here on the former appeal. It is evident that the use made by the plaintiff of its property for non-exempt purposes cannot be claimed as incidental, negligible, or inconsequential. It is clearly substantial. ;

It is sought here to justify the plaintiff’s position upon the theory ;thát the property used for the non-exempt pur[520]*520poses was property which was necessarily employed by the plaintiff for purposes which are exempt and that the use of the property when not employed for purposes which are exempt should not destroy the exemption. This construction would create an entirely new exemption statute. If the plaintiff wishes to claim the benefit of the exemption it should keep itself within the field prescribed by the legislature. Whether it goes out of that field or not is a matter of choice. It may stay in and receive the exemption. It may depart from it and pay its taxes. It has chosen to depart, therefore its property is subject to taxation.

By the Court. — Judgment in each case is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Central United Methodist Church v. City of Milwaukee
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2020
Deutsches Land, Inc. v. City of Glendale
591 N.W.2d 583 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1999)
Engineers & Scientists of Milwaukee, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
157 N.W.2d 572 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1968)
Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Shawano County
40 N.W.2d 590 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1949)
Welfare Federation v. Glander
64 N.E.2d 813 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1945)
Madison Particular Council v. Dane County
16 N.W.2d 811 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1944)
In Re Complaint of Taxpayers
34 N.E.2d 748 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1941)
Hazen v. National Rifle Ass'n of America
101 F.2d 432 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 N.W. 325, 208 Wis. 517, 1932 Wisc. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardinal-publishing-co-v-city-of-madison-wis-1932.