Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1888-11-15
SUPREME Court Decision on the
Wood County Bridge.

tue dp plIGdJlOil III a wiz u '''
to compel the County to rebuild the
bridge.
After statement of the facts gathered
from the papers in the case, the opinion
announced by Justice Cassoday pro-
ceeds as follows
The bridge in question was constructed
by the Wood County Bridge Company
under its charter of section seventeen,
in township twenty-five, north of range
six east, in Wood county, some time
prior to Sept 1st, 1857. The charter
authorized the county to purchase the
same and its appultenances, including
toll-houses and the soil or landing
places upon which the ends of the
bridge should rest, and the right of way
thereto, any time after Sept. 1st, 1872,
Sections | and 6 CHI IT'S, p. l.. l.. 1865.
Accordingly such purchase was made
an March 1873: The charter provided,
that the franchises granted to the
company thereby, should continue until
the county should make such purchase
when the bridge should become a
free bridge i'd The charter also
provided, that until such purchase, no
person or persons should have the
right to build any toll or free bridge
across the river within two miles of the
bridge thereby authorized i'd Sec. 7.
BY an act of the legislature approved
March 10, 1873, and published April /,
1873, the county of Wood was, upon
certain con dItions specified, expressly
authorized to erect and forever maintain
a free bridge across the Wisconsin river
upon Section eight in said township and
range within the city Of Grand Rapids
and upon said Section eight at the
!" Grand Chute to a corresponding
point in said Section eight within the
village Of CentraIia which points were
to be selected and the exact location of
the bridge fixed upon and determined
within said limits by the Board of
Supervisors Of said county. Secs. l and
2, Oh. 293 l.. 1873 The same act
provides for levying a county bridge tax
in not less than three successive years
for paying for such bridge, or if the
Board deem the same preferable to
issue bonds in lieu of such tax. Secs. 5
and 6, i'd But this last Section provides,
in effect, that before any such tex shall
be levied or such bonds issued, in either
case, the question shall be submitted to
the qualified electors of said county at
an election to be held ut the various
election precincts in said county upon
notice specifying the time, place and
manner of holding such election, and
the question of levying the tax or of
issuing the bonds to be voted upon and
gives the different forms of ballots to be
used; and declares that " the said tax
shall or shall not be levied, and the
said bonds shall or shall not be issued,
in accordance with the vote thereon" F"
as therein provided, by majority of
the electors of said county" The
same Section further provides :" that no
tax shall be levied or bonds issued, as
aforesaid, until said county shall have
complied with the provisions of
Section seven' of Chapter LIS 2. L. L.
1865 "by purchase and possession OF
said Wood county bridge" Under
these two acts it is very obvious. that
the county was prohibited from building
any such bridge on Section eight until
after it had exercised its option and
actually purchased the bridge construct
ed by the Wood County Bridge
Company.
But the act of 1878 goes still further
and, in effect, precludes the county
from building any such bridge on section
eight until the levying of such tax OF
issuing of such bonds has been actually
voted ''by majority Of the electors O1
said county" True the supervisors
might take the preliminary steps pre-
scribed and submit the question Of
Ievying such tax or issuing such bonds
to vote of such electors; but that Is
the extent to which coercion could now
go, if at ALL and the result would be
uncertain and might turn out to be
SullIGlN lutAlG. CuCI bC1ItS tiG dutLiO1'
ity, or rather want of authority in the
county board in relation to building 8
new bridge ON section eight, there
would seem to be no force in the
argument advanced against the award
ing OF mandamus, if the relator i:
otherwise entitled thereto, by reason O
a supposed discretion in the boarC
either to build such new bridge OF
section eight or to rebuild such bridge
on section seventeen. The question
recures, whether, under the circum
stances disclosed by this record, tn,
law imposes upon the county board th
imperative duty of rebuilding tn
bridges on the old site? As observed
the charter provided, that upon tn
purchase of the bridge by tn
county the same should becom
free bridge By such purchas
the county became the owner with tn
exclusive right of control, subject to th
public user of the same as a free. bridge
and consequently, it was held by thi
court, that the county was bound
keep the bridge in repair. State ex re
Neeyes Supervisors of Wood Count