Dodge County v. Kaiser

11 N.W.2d 348, 243 Wis. 551, 1943 Wisc. LEXIS 149
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 16, 1943
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 11 N.W.2d 348 (Dodge County v. Kaiser) 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
Dodge County v. Kaiser, 11 N.W.2d 348, 243 Wis. 551, 1943 Wisc. LEXIS 149 (Wis. 1943).

Opinion

Martin, J.

Defendant contends that the payment of expenses incurred by him in attending conventions of the National Educational Association is authorized by sec. 39.01 (3), Stats., which, so far as here material, provides :

“The county superintendent shall be allowed and shall receive (in addition to his salary) his reasonable, actual and necessary expenses for travel, stationery, postage and printing incurred in or necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the office.”

The only statutory provision requiring county superintendents to attend fconventions is sec. 39.04, Stats., which provides:

“The county superintendent shall annually attend at least one conventioh called by the state superintendent for the purpose of consultation, advice and instruction pertaining to the public schools. His necessary and actual expenses for such attendance at the most accessible convention shall be paid by the county upón allowance by the county board of proper bills for such expefise with the certificate of the state superintendent *556 attached, showing that the claimant attended such convention for the number of days specified in the bill.”

The trial court held that the right to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending' the convention of the National Educational Association is not expressly granted by statute, and if such were the intention of the legislature it must arise by implication. The court further held that sec. 39.04, Stats.., which specifically provides for reimbursing the superintendent of schools for expenses incurred while attending conventions, negatives any such right to payment by implication under the provisions of sec. 39.01 (3).

Defendant argues that the travel expense of a county supe* - intendent, as in the instant case, to attend national conventions of the National Educational Association, is covered entirely by sec. 39.01 (3), Stats., and that the legislature by the enactment of sec. 39.04 did not intend any limitation on the expense of a county superintendent attending national conventions other than that the expense must be reasonable, actual, and necessary, and be incurred in and necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the office; that there is no limitation on the place or scope of the travel.

The law imposes no duty on the county superintendent to attend any convention in his official capacity, except conventions called by the state superintendent pursuant to sec. 39.04, Stats. It should be noted that the attendance of the county superintendent at conventions called by the state superintendent shall be at the most accessible convention, obviously for the purpose of curtailing the expense of the county superintendent’s attendance at such conventions. In view of the provisions of sec. 39.04 we think it clear that the legislature intended that the reimbursement for travel expense provided for in sec. 39.01 (3) is for the expense incurred by a county superintendent in visiting the schools within his jurisdiction and for routine travel in connection with the discharge of the ordinary duties imposed upon him by law.

*557 The county board has only such powers as are expressly conferred upon it or necessarily implied from those expressly given. 14 Am. Jur. p. 200, sec. 28; 15 C. J. p. 457, sec. 103; 1 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (5th ed.) p. 67, sec. 37; Spaulding v. Wood County, 218 Wis. 224, 228, 260 N. W. 473. In Spaulding v. Wood County, supra, page 229, the court said:

“It has been held that if there be a fair and reasonable doubt as to an implied power [of a county board] it is fatal to its being.”

Then, quoting hora Blades v. Hawkins, 240 Mo. 187, 195, 112 S. W. 979, 981, 141 S. W. 1198, the court said:

“The courts are conservative in implying powers not expressly given.”

Defendant refers to the fact that sec. 39.01 (3), Stats., was amended by ch. 392, Laws of 1943, to provide that the county superintendent be allowed, in addition to his salary, his reasonable, actual, and necessary expenses for travel, including travel outside the county when necessary in the performance of his duties, meals, and room rent while on travel duty; also providing that “the county board may authorize the county superintendent to travel outside of the state at county- expense.” Defendant makes no claim that the amendment of 1943 is retroactive, but argues that the court should construe sec. 39.01 (3) in accord with the statute as it now exists. The power conferred upon the county board by ch. 392, Laws of 1943, can have no weight in a construction of the statute as it existed before the amendment. The conclusion is inescapable that had the legislature intended to allow reimbursement to the county superintendent for expenses in attending other conventions than those called by the state superintendent pursuant to sec. 39.04, it would have done so by express language. Plaintiff is entitled to recover all sums of money paid to the defendant to reimburse him for expenses incurred *558 in attending conventions of the National Educational Association within the period of six years immediately preceding the commencement of this action.

The next items involved are those paid to defendant as salary for acting as secretary of the rural normal school board. Sec. 41.36, Stats., provides for the organization, equipment, and maintenance of a normal school, to be known as a “County Normal School” for teachers of the common schools, and for the erection of suitable school buildings and dormitories, or for purchasing and remodeling suitable buildings therefor. Sec. 41.37 provides:

“A ‘County Normal School Board’ is created, which shall have charge and control of all matters pertaining to the organization, equipment and maintenance of such schools. Said board shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be the county superintendent of schools. The other members shall be elected by the county board at an annual meeting for the term of three years from January first following their election, and shall within ten days after the notice of such election take and file the official oath and execute and file an official bond in such sum as may be fixed by the county board. The members thereof shall meet and elect one of their number president. The county superintendent of schools shall be secretary of the said boa/rd, and the county treasurer of the county in which the school is located shall be treasurer of said board, but not a member thereof. The said board shall prescribe the duties of its officers.”

It is obvious that defendant’s services as secretary of the county normal school board are by statute made a part of his duties as county superintendent. It is also stipulated “that the county superintendent, by virtue of said office, became the secretary of the Dodge county rural normal school board.” It is not claimed that the county board, by resolution or otherwise, fixed a salary for the defendant for acting as secretary of the county.normal school board. Sec. 41.37, Stats., does not *559

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

Related

Opinion No. Oag 16-87, (1987)
76 Op. Att'y Gen. 69 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1987)
Opinion No. Oag 31-85, (1985)
74 Op. Att'y Gen. 164 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1985)
Opinion No. Oag 36-84, (1984)
73 Op. Att'y Gen. 115 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1984)
Opinion No. Oag 18-81, (1981)
70 Op. Att'y Gen. 64 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1981)
Town of Vernon v. Waukesha County
299 N.W.2d 593 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1980)
Opinion No. Oag 21-80, (1980)
69 Op. Att'y Gen. 92 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1980)
Opinion No. Oag 74-79, (1979)
68 Op. Att'y Gen. 223 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1979)
Opinion No. Oag 48-79, (1979)
68 Op. Att'y Gen. 130 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1979)
Opinion No. Oag 30-79, (1979)
68 Op. Att'y Gen. 81 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1979)
Opinion No. Oag 37-78, (1978)
67 Op. Att'y Gen. 153 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1978)
Opinion No. Oag 111-77, (1977)
66 Op. Att'y Gen. 358 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1977)
Opinion No. Oag 20-77, (1977)
66 Op. Att'y Gen. 72 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1977)
Opinion No. Oag 69-75, (1975)
64 Op. Att'y Gen. 208 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1975)
Yanta v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
224 N.W.2d 389 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1974)
(1974)
63 Op. Att'y Gen. 213 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1974)
(1973)
62 Op. Att'y Gen. 91 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1973)
(1972)
61 Op. Att'y Gen. 371 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1972)
(1971)
60 Op. Att'y Gen. 158 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1971)
Geyso v. City of Cudahy
149 N.W.2d 611 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1967)
Maier v. Racine County
84 N.W.2d 76 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 N.W.2d 348, 243 Wis. 551, 1943 Wisc. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodge-county-v-kaiser-wis-1943.