Morgan v. Town Clerk

Supreme Court

Morgan v. Town Clerk

74 U.S. 610, 19 L. Ed. 202, 7 Wall. 610, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1043

DecidedMarch 22, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 74 U.S. 610 (Morgan v. Town Clerk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. Town Clerk, 74 U.S. 610, 19 L. Ed. 202, 7 Wall. 610, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1043 (1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice S WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the coui't. ■

On the 9th of January, 1861, the plaintiff in error recovered a judgment against the defendant in error for $1540. damages, and for costs. The cause of action was overdue interest coupons attached to bonds issued by the town of Beloit' in payment of its subscription to the stock of the Hacine, Janesville, and Mississippi Railroad Company, pursuant.to chapter 12 'of the local and private laws of Wisconsin, passed in 1853. The plaintiff in error instituted the proceedings in the court below to- obtain a writ of mandamus, directed to the town clerk of .the defendant, commanding him to assess the amount necessary to pay the judgnqent and interest, upon the taxable property of the town, and to place the assessment .upon the .next assessment and tax roll for collection. A,statute of Wisconsin * forbids the issuing of an execution against a town, and expressly prescribes this mode of procedure,.

Ample authority to issue the writ is given by the statute. The proceedings on the part of the plaintiff in error are in all/things in strict conformity to its requirements. The power of the Circuit Court to issue writs of mandamus to State officers in proper cases is no longer an open question in this court; and it has been repeatedly held to be an appropriate remedy in the class of cases, to which the one lying at the *613 foundation of this proceeding belongs. * We learn from the record that the court below denied the writ upon the ground ' that the statute under which the bonds were issued, provided .that the requisite tax should be levied by the supervisors of the town, and that this remedy was exclusive of. al-1 others. 'There' are several.obvious answers to this view of the subject. > We deem it sufficient to advert to one of . them. In the case of Bushnell v. Gates, † this precise ques-. tion, arising under the same circumstances, came before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. It was held thát the objection was untenable, that the statute authorizing the. writ to go against the town clerk applied to the casé, and that it was conclusive. If there could otherwise have been any doubt, upon the question, this determination by the highest court. . of the State giving a construction to the statute under consideration, is unanswerable. We need not further consider the subject.

' The judgment below is reversed. A mandate will be sent to the Circuit Court, directing that an order be entered in the case

In conformity with this opinion.

*

Ch. 15, § 77, Revised Statutes of 1858, p. 186.

*

The Commissioners of Knox Co. v. Aspinwall, 24 Howard, 376; Von Hoffman v. The City of Quincy, 4 Wallace, 535; Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Id. 166.

†

Not yet reported.

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

Mr. Justice S WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the coui't. ■

On the 9th of January, 1861, the plaintiff in error recovered a judgment against the defendant in error for $1540. damages, and for costs. The cause of action was overdue interest coupons attached to bonds issued by the town of Beloit' in payment of its subscription to the stock of the Hacine, Janesville, and Mississippi Railroad Company, pursuant.to chapter 12 'of the local and private laws of Wisconsin, passed in 1853. The plaintiff in error instituted the proceedings in the court below to- obtain a writ of mandamus, directed to the town clerk of .the defendant, commanding him to assess the amount necessary to pay the judgnqent and interest, upon the taxable property of the town, and to place the assessment .upon the .next assessment and tax roll for collection. A,statute of Wisconsin * forbids the issuing of an execution against a town, and expressly prescribes this mode of procedure,.

Ample authority to issue the writ is given by the statute. The proceedings on the part of the plaintiff in error are in all/things in strict conformity to its requirements. The power of the Circuit Court to issue writs of mandamus to State officers in proper cases is no longer an open question in this court; and it has been repeatedly held to be an appropriate remedy in the class of cases, to which the one lying at the *613 foundation of this proceeding belongs. * We learn from the record that the court below denied the writ upon the ground ' that the statute under which the bonds were issued, provided .that the requisite tax should be levied by the supervisors of the town, and that this remedy was exclusive of. al-1 others. 'There' are several.obvious answers to this view of the subject. > We deem it sufficient to advert to one of . them. In the case of Bushnell v. Gates, † this precise ques-. tion, arising under the same circumstances, came before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. It was held thát the objection was untenable, that the statute authorizing the. writ to go against the town clerk applied to the casé, and that it was conclusive. If there could otherwise have been any doubt, upon the question, this determination by the highest court. . of the State giving a construction to the statute under consideration, is unanswerable. We need not further consider the subject.

' The judgment below is reversed. A mandate will be sent to the Circuit Court, directing that an order be entered in the case

In conformity with this opinion.

*

Ch. 15, § 77, Revised Statutes of 1858, p. 186.

*

The Commissioners of Knox Co. v. Aspinwall, 24 Howard, 376; Von Hoffman v. The City of Quincy, 4 Wallace, 535; Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Id. 166.

†

Not yet reported.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 U.S. 610, 19 L. Ed. 202, 7 Wall. 610, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-town-clerk-scotus-1869.