Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1888-11-15

/ "
541, and cases there cited. It has been
held, that a county, bound by statute to
repair public bridges is likewise bound
to replace or rebuild them when sub
stantially destroyed. State ex rel
Roundbree Board of Commissioners
so Ind AIS, S. C. Il Am. Rep. S21. But
it cannot be successfully maintained,
that County Board of Supervisors may
be compelled to replace or rebuild such
bridge, unless they have at their COM
mand the means for paying the ex
penses thereof, or the authority for
procuring such means. Our statutes
| provide that ''the several county boards
in their respective counties may adopt
any main travelled highways, or parts of
such highways as county roads, and
shall thereafter cause the same to be
kept in good repair, SO long as they
remain under their control" Sec. 1903
r. S. Stilling Town of Throp "a Wis.
| 529 But we do not think that section
authorizes a County board to levy the
]
of rebuilding bridge over a navigable
river under the circumstances here
presented. The portion of the section
referred to, reads: 'Any such board
may annually levy on the taxable
property of the county, a county road
tax, not exceeding eight thousand
dollars, which shall be expended under
their direction in making culverts,
grading, gravelihg, ditching or other
wise improving such highways" By a
familiar rule of construction, the words
cor otherwise improving such high
ways" must be held to mean the
improving such highways by the making
of culverts, grading, graveling, ditching
or other improvements of a similar
character; and not the rebuilding of q
bridge at extraordinary expense as here.
There is another reason why that sec
ton should not apply to the levying of
atax for building bridge over naviga-
bic river like.t the Wisconsin. There is
another section of the statutes which,
within certain limitations, expressly
authorizes any county through which
such navigable stream runs to levy and
collect such tax, for the purpose of
building a bridge across such navigable
streams, or to issue their corporate
bonds therefore. Sec. 1920, r. S. as
amended by'Sec. l Chap. 345 L, 1885,
and Chap 2S5 L. 1887 But the statutes
! also provide. in effect, that no such tax
shall be levied or bonds issued for that
purpose, until the question of levying
such tax or issuing such bonds shall
have been submitted to vote of the
electors of such county, and adopted in
the manner prescribed. Sec 1921, r
S. as amended by Sec. 2 ch. 345 L, 1885
There is no claim that any such
submission was ever had or any such
vote, ever taken. We must hold these
Sections applicable to the bridge il
question Notwithstanding it was acquired
by the county prior to the enactment o.
Chapter 229 L. 1874. The case is distin
guishable from State ex rel Town ot
Rochester Board of Supervisors o
Racine County 20 Wis. 543. The facts
in that case were peculiar. 1t is enough
here to say, that the several session law;
prior to 1878, referred to in the opinion
in that case were all repealed by Sec
1873, r. S. except in so far as revised
and re-enacted in the Revised Statutes
j. Neither the charter of Grand Rapid:
(Ch 249 r. L. L. 1869 nor the charter
of Centralia (Ch. 275 P. L. l.. 1874,
authorizes those cities or either o
them to bridge the Wisconsin,; so tha
: Sec 1919 r. S. as amended by Chapte.
1S7 L. 1865, if otherwise applicable, doe
: not apply. The Wisconsin, at the poin
in question, is navigable river. anC
; hence to bridge the same required
statutory authority, Sec. 1898, r. S. A;
! observed, the authority to purchase tht
! bridge gave the county TIE right t.
maintain the same But that did no
give the County Board unlimited
authority to levy and collect taxes anC
eXpend money in the reconstruction o.
such bridge. On the contrary sucf
Board are confined to the exercise o
such authority as is given them by
statute, either expressly or by necessar.
: implication. 1t appears from the
return, and is conceded IN the relation
and by the demurrer, that the bridge il
: question was located at the foot of tn,
Rapids; that bridge at that point is il
danger annually of being swept away
by ice gorges; that it was swept away
in 1887, and again in April 1888; that il
, 1857, the county rebuilt the bridge
in part at a cost of $4,000 for the super
structure; that it would cost to rebuilC
, the bridge with new stone piers anC
abutments and iron superstructurt
o some S25, 900; that the cost of repairing
the bridge, using the portions no
: destroyed, would be at least $1,000, anC
: probably much more; that if tn,
J bridge should be thus repaired
:, it would probably last but few years a
. most; that a suitable bridge can b,
:, built with much more safety and mucl
more durability at point further VI
the river on Section eight. ASSUMING
= therefore, that the duty of maiRtainin!
q a bridge at the point in question, or ol
! Section eight rests upon the county
: still the County Board should not b
- compelled by manGamus to build th
Ie same in the absence of the necessar
;e means for paying the expenses thereot
le or of procuring such means, which a
hav,a Saar, l.oos ,,r,x.-