City of Ashland v. Maciejewski

Wisconsin Supreme Court

City of Ashland v. Maciejewski

123 N.W. 130, 140 Wis. 642, 1909 Wisc. LEXIS 311

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 12, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 N.W. 130 (City of Ashland v. Maciejewski) 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

City of Ashland v. Maciejewski, 123 N.W. 130, 140 Wis. 642, 1909 Wisc. LEXIS 311 (Wis. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, C. J.

The respondent was convicted of the violation of a municipal ordinance in the municipal court for Ashland county and appealed to the circuit court, the recognizance upon the appeal being signed by one Erickson (a city officer) as surety. The judgment of conviction was, after trial, reversed in the circuit court, and the city appeals to this court. The only contention made by the city is that the recognizance was void, and hence that-the circuit court acquired no jurisdiction of the case.

Sec. o of subch. XXI of appellant’s charter (ch. 27, Laws of 1889) contains this provision: “No city officer shall be accepted as surety on any bond, contract or other obligation made by the city.” It is contended that the insertion of the [643]*643word “by” in tbis sentence is a palpable error, and tbat the eonrt should in effect insert the word “to” in its place, and apply the provision as so amended to the recognizance. This we cannot do. When the words of a legislative act are plain in meaning and lead to no absurd result, there is neither room for construction nor justification for the elimination or change of words. Courts cannot legislate. Their business is only to enforce a plain statute as it reads, providing it be not unconstitutional or absurd upon its face. Gilbert v. Dutruit, 91 Wis. 661, 65 N. W. 511; Rossmiller v. State, 114 Wis. 169, 89 N. W. 839. The provision that a city officer shall not become a surety on any bond, contract, or obligation given by the city is not absurd, even though its necessity or wisdom may be open to doubt.

It may be a grave question whether the words “bond, contract or other obligation” can properly be construed to apply to a recognizance such as the present, but our conclusion on the first proposition renders it unnecessary to consider this question.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Winslow, C. J.

The respondent was convicted of the violation of a municipal ordinance in the municipal court for Ashland county and appealed to the circuit court, the recognizance upon the appeal being signed by one Erickson (a city officer) as surety. The judgment of conviction was, after trial, reversed in the circuit court, and the city appeals to this court. The only contention made by the city is that the recognizance was void, and hence that-the circuit court acquired no jurisdiction of the case.

Sec. o of subch. XXI of appellant’s charter (ch. 27, Laws of 1889) contains this provision: “No city officer shall be accepted as surety on any bond, contract or other obligation made by the city.” It is contended that the insertion of the [643]*643word “by” in tbis sentence is a palpable error, and tbat the eonrt should in effect insert the word “to” in its place, and apply the provision as so amended to the recognizance. This we cannot do. When the words of a legislative act are plain in meaning and lead to no absurd result, there is neither room for construction nor justification for the elimination or change of words. Courts cannot legislate. Their business is only to enforce a plain statute as it reads, providing it be not unconstitutional or absurd upon its face. Gilbert v. Dutruit, 91 Wis. 661, 65 N. W. 511; Rossmiller v. State, 114 Wis. 169, 89 N. W. 839. The provision that a city officer shall not become a surety on any bond, contract, or obligation given by the city is not absurd, even though its necessity or wisdom may be open to doubt.

It may be a grave question whether the words “bond, contract or other obligation” can properly be construed to apply to a recognizance such as the present, but our conclusion on the first proposition renders it unnecessary to consider this question.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.W. 130, 140 Wis. 642, 1909 Wisc. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-ashland-v-maciejewski-wis-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack