Joint School District No. 1 v. Joint City School District of City of Rice Lake

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Joint School District No. 1 v. Joint City School District of City of Rice Lake

109 N.W.2d 658, 14 Wis. 2d 182, 1961 Wisc. LEXIS 256

DecidedJune 27, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 109 N.W.2d 658 (Joint School District No. 1 v. Joint City School District of City of Rice Lake) 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

Joint School District No. 1 v. Joint City School District of City of Rice Lake, 109 N.W.2d 658, 14 Wis. 2d 182, 1961 Wisc. LEXIS 256 (Wis. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Broadfoot, J.

This is an action for money had and received because the defendant school district was unjustly enriched due to error. Such an action is one at law though ruled by equitable principles. Trempealeau County v. State, 260 Wis. 602, 51 N. W. (2d) 499.

In the order of attachment the words “portions of the territory thereof” referred only to territory of Joint School District No. 7. The joint school committee could not, in the proceeding for which it convened, deal with any other territory. The superintendent of the defendant school district testified that he had knowledge of the error but continued to take advantage of it because it was not the error of himself or of his district. No children of school age resided in the western portion of said section 2 during any of the years involved so the defendant district had no additional expense because it erroneously claimed the territory for tax purposes.

In this action there has been no attack on the legality of the formation of the defendant district, either before or after the dissolution of Joint School District No. 7, and sec. 40.18, Stats., is not applicable.

The order of attachment purported only to attach to the defendant school district territory formerly in Joint School District No. 7. By describing other territory the best, or perhaps the worst, we can say about it is that the order was ambiguous and subject to construction. In construing the order we determine that the portion of said section 2 west of Long lake was not included therein and was not made a part of the defendant district. Therefore the defendant district received money to which it was not entitled and was [186]*186unjustly enriched. An action for money had and received is proper under such circumstances.

The defendant makes two other points in its brief which were not argued orally nor were they pleaded or proven in the trial court. Under the circumstances we have not considered them here.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed. Cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for the plaintiff for the amount stipulated, with costs.

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

Broadfoot, J.

This is an action for money had and received because the defendant school district was unjustly enriched due to error. Such an action is one at law though ruled by equitable principles. Trempealeau County v. State, 260 Wis. 602, 51 N. W. (2d) 499.

In the order of attachment the words “portions of the territory thereof” referred only to territory of Joint School District No. 7. The joint school committee could not, in the proceeding for which it convened, deal with any other territory. The superintendent of the defendant school district testified that he had knowledge of the error but continued to take advantage of it because it was not the error of himself or of his district. No children of school age resided in the western portion of said section 2 during any of the years involved so the defendant district had no additional expense because it erroneously claimed the territory for tax purposes.

In this action there has been no attack on the legality of the formation of the defendant district, either before or after the dissolution of Joint School District No. 7, and sec. 40.18, Stats., is not applicable.

The order of attachment purported only to attach to the defendant school district territory formerly in Joint School District No. 7. By describing other territory the best, or perhaps the worst, we can say about it is that the order was ambiguous and subject to construction. In construing the order we determine that the portion of said section 2 west of Long lake was not included therein and was not made a part of the defendant district. Therefore the defendant district received money to which it was not entitled and was [186]*186unjustly enriched. An action for money had and received is proper under such circumstances.

The defendant makes two other points in its brief which were not argued orally nor were they pleaded or proven in the trial court. Under the circumstances we have not considered them here.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed. Cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for the plaintiff for the amount stipulated, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.W.2d 658, 14 Wis. 2d 182, 1961 Wisc. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joint-school-district-no-1-v-joint-city-school-district-of-city-of-rice-wis-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack