State Ex Rel. McCormack v. Foley

118 N.W.2d 211, 18 Wis. 2d 274
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 27, 1962
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 118 N.W.2d 211 (State Ex Rel. McCormack v. Foley) 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
State Ex Rel. McCormack v. Foley, 118 N.W.2d 211, 18 Wis. 2d 274 (Wis. 1962).

Opinion

Dieterich, J.

The pertinent allegations of the complaint-petition in the instant proceeding before the supreme court are: That Francis X. McCormack is the duly elected, qualified, and acting clerk of the circuit court for Milwaukee county; that Helen F. Venzl is a resident and property owner of the city and county of Milwaukee; that on the 6th day of June, 1961, Milwaukee county expressway commission made an award of damages for the taking of certain *276 property owned by the petitioner, Helen F. Venzl, but subject to a first mortgage, leasehold interests, and other liens.

That pursuant to the provisions of sec. 32.05 (7) (d), Stats., 1 Milwaukee county expressway commission on the 13th day of June, 1961, deposited with the clerk of the circuit court a check in the amount of $21,654.22. On the 14th day of June, 1961, Heimie H. Coren, the owner of a leasehold interest in the property taken, filed a petition with the circuit court for Milwaukee county asking for a hearing to determine the rights of the various interested parties and their shares in the award of damages. On August 2, 1962, Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company filed a petition for allocation of its share of the award for damages. On August 7, 1962, Helen F. Venzl filed a reply and counterpetition requesting that the petition of Heimie H. Coren be dismissed upon its merits, and that petitioner be awarded a proper share of the proceeds of the award. On July 26, 1962, the circuit judge to whom the case had been assigned requested, pursuant to the provisions of sec. 253.19, a judge from the Milwaukee county court to act temporarily as circuit judge and try the case. The county judge accepted in writing. A pretrial conference was held and the case was scheduled for trial. The petitioners pray for a writ of prohibition on the ground that sec. 253.19 is invalid because it violates the provisions of secs. 2 and 11, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution.

The issue is whether sec. 253.19, Stats., violates any provisions of the Wisconsin constitution.

*277 The framers of the Wisconsin constitution vested the legislative power of the state in a senate and assembly. The exercise of such power is subject only to the limitation and restraints imposed by the Wisconsin constitution and the constitution and laws of the United States.

This court has repeatedly held that the power of the state legislature, unlike that of the federal congress, is plenary in nature, and we again repeat what Mr. Justice Cole stated in Bushnell v. Beloit (1860), 10 Wis. 155 (*195), 168 (*225), and which we previously quoted in Cutts v. Department of Public Welfare (1957), 1 Wis. (2d) 408, 416, 84 N. W. (2d) 102, to wit:

“ ‘We suppose it to be a well-settled political principle that the constitution of the state is to be regarded not as a grant of power, but rather as a limitation upon the powers of the legislature, and that it is competent for the legislature to exercise all legislative power not forbidden by the constitution or delegated to the general government, or prohibited by the constitution of the United States.’ ”

Sec. 253.19, Stats., provides:

“Temporary duty. A county judge may act as county judge in another county or as a circuit judge on the written request of the judge of said court; and, when designated and assigned to so act by the chief justice of the supreme court or other designated justice, shall do so. While acting temporarily as a county judge in another county or as a circuit judge, a county judge has the power to hold court, try cases, and exercise all the authority of the presiding judge.”

The circuit court is a constitutional court vested with judicial power under the express provisions of sec. 2, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution. 2

*278 The county courts are inferior courts created by the legislature pursuant to the provisions of sec. 2, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution, with a limited civil and criminal jurisdiction.

The circuit courts, pursuant to the provisions of sec. 8, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution, 3 have original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal within the state, not excepted in this constitution, and not hereafter prohibited by law, and appellate jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals as well as supervisory control over the same.

The election for circuit court judges is governed by sec. 7, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution, 4 and vacancies are governed by sec. 9, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution. 5

The problem presented in the instant action is whether the constitution prohibits a judge of an inferior court from acting temporarily as the judge of a constitutional court (circuit court). There is no express prohibition to that effect in the constitution. Therefore, to hold sec. 253.19, Stats., unconstitutional, it would be necessary for this court *279 to imply such prohibition from the provisions of art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution, relating to circuit courts.

The law in this state presumes that all legislative acts are constitutional unless it appears they are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. See the cases annotated in 1 W. S. A., p. 292, note 117. It is also recognized that the Wisconsin constitution is not a grant of power, but a limitation upon the powers of the legislature. Except for these limitations the power of the legislature is practically absolute. Cutts v. Department of Public Welfare, supra.

Under the provisions of sec. 11, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution, 6 the judges of the circuit court are empowered to hold courts for each other and can be required to do so by legislative enactment.

In Van Slyke v. Trempealeau County Farmers’ Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1876), 39 Wis. 390, 392, this court stated:

“So manifest is this intent to distribute and restrict the exercise of judicial authority by express grant, that the framers of the constitution deemed it necessary to give ex *280 press authority to the judge of one circuit to hold court in another.”

The petitioners contend that the rule of construction of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) is applicable to the construction of sec. 11, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution, which construction would prohibit by implication anyone to hold circuit court except a circuit court judge. This court in Ferguson v. Kenosha (1958), 5 Wis. (2d) 556, 564, 93 N. W. (2d) 460, held that the construction of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”

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

Related

State v. Williams
2012 WI 59 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2012)
Panzer v. Doyle
2004 WI 52 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2004)
State Ex Rel. Unnamed v. Connors
401 N.W.2d 782 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1987)
Quinn v. Town of Dodgeville
364 N.W.2d 149 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1985)
Opinion No. Oag 44-83, (1983)
72 Op. Att'y Gen. 156 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1983)
Opinion No. Oag 2-83, (1983)
72 Op. Att'y Gen. 4 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1983)
Wipperfurth v. U-Haul Co. of Western Wisconsin, Inc.
304 N.W.2d 767 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1981)
State Law Enforcement Standards Board v. Village of Lyndon Station
295 N.W.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1980)
State Ex Rel. Kleczka v. Conta
264 N.W.2d 539 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1978)
Opinion No. Oag 73-76, (1976)
65 Op. Att'y Gen. 194 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1976)
(1974)
63 Op. Att'y Gen. 305 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1974)
State Ex Rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante
205 N.W.2d 784 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1973)
State Ex Rel. Bowman v. Barczak
148 N.W.2d 683 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1967)
Gottlieb v. City of Milwaukee
147 N.W.2d 633 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1967)
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. La Follette
135 N.W.2d 269 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1965)
State Ex Rel. Sachtjen v. Festge
130 N.W.2d 457 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1964)
State Ex Rel. Democrat Printing Co. v. Schmiege
118 N.W.2d 845 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 N.W.2d 211, 18 Wis. 2d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mccormack-v-foley-wis-1962.