State ex rel. Radl v. Shaughnessey

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State ex rel. Radl v. Shaughnessey

57 N.W. 1105, 86 Wis. 646, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 7

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 57 N.W. 1105 (State ex rel. Radl v. Shaughnessey) 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. Radl v. Shaughnessey, 57 N.W. 1105, 86 Wis. 646, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 7 (Wis. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CuRiam.

E. M. Shaughnessey is an acting justice of the peace in Portage. As such justice, he issued a summons, which was served upon the relator, in favor of Charles Chislow. The relator contends that Shaughnessey was appointed by the common council of Portage to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation .of another, and that the common council had no authority to make such appointment ; and he therefore seeks in this proceeding to have Shaughnessey’s title to such office determined by this court in this action. There can be no question but that the circuit court has jurisdiction, upon a proper application, in such a case. Const. art. VII, sec. 8; R. S. sec. 3463 et seq. Since the decision in Attorney General v. Railroad Cos. 35 Wis. 425, 521, et seq., this court-has refused to take original jurisdiction in the class of cases mentioned in sec. 8, art. VII, of the constitution, except where it affects the state at large, this court judging of the contingency in each case for itself. State ex rel. Wood v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71, 77; State v. St. Croix Boom Corp. 60 Wis. 565. The question here presented does not so affect the state at large.

The writ is denied.

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

Per CuRiam.

E. M. Shaughnessey is an acting justice of the peace in Portage. As such justice, he issued a summons, which was served upon the relator, in favor of Charles Chislow. The relator contends that Shaughnessey was appointed by the common council of Portage to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation .of another, and that the common council had no authority to make such appointment ; and he therefore seeks in this proceeding to have Shaughnessey’s title to such office determined by this court in this action. There can be no question but that the circuit court has jurisdiction, upon a proper application, in such a case. Const. art. VII, sec. 8; R. S. sec. 3463 et seq. Since the decision in Attorney General v. Railroad Cos. 35 Wis. 425, 521, et seq., this court-has refused to take original jurisdiction in the class of cases mentioned in sec. 8, art. VII, of the constitution, except where it affects the state at large, this court judging of the contingency in each case for itself. State ex rel. Wood v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71, 77; State v. St. Croix Boom Corp. 60 Wis. 565. The question here presented does not so affect the state at large.

The writ is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 N.W. 1105, 86 Wis. 646, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-radl-v-shaughnessey-wis-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack