Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1922-11-01
JUDGE HIGBEE'S DECISION
FAVORS THE CITY

iHvUhJ I'LL UIII
The decision handed down by Judge
higbee on the pavement cases, order
ing reassessment, puts quietus on
the attempt to throw the cost of the
Improvement upon the general public.
The unfairness of this attempt, to
those who previously had paid for
tneir own pavement, is apparent. The
decision is a victory for justice and
ialr play in the community 1t is un-
fortunate that so many were induced
TO waste attorneys fees, because the
one action was sufficient for all pur-
poses, and the money might better
nave been applied to the cost of the
pavement. AS one citizen says, 1.-THE
only victors are the lawyers they re-
celve their fees. The tax payers pay
the COSTS"
In the re-assessment the council will
nave the advantage Of knowing the
cost OF thecompleted pavement-some-
thlng which they could not be exact
about at the outset Otherwise there
can be no radical change in the assess
ment unless there is a shifting of the
burden from one to another. Techni-
cal errors can now be better avoided.
and 1t is hoped the assessment win be
more satisfactory now that the mat
ter has become better understood.
We are thankful the pavement is
still there and believe the community
as a whole will profit by the lessons
learned.
Judge Higbee's decision follows:
STATE OF WISCONSIN, CIRCUIT
COURT-VERNON COUNTY.
M. H. Bekkedal, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
c. E. Mullen. plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant
Ellen B. Wise, plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
Sophia Wise, plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
w. r. Aiken, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
N. II. Nelson, Plaintiff, VS.. CITY of
Viroqua, Defendant.
Fred Slade, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
John R.Spellum, Plaintiff VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
John Devlin,, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
John Weber, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
Vifoqua Milling Co. Plaintiff, VS..
City of Viroqua Defendant.
Geo. A. Groves, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
John Connor, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
w. H. Clark, Plaintiff, VS.. City of
Viroqua, Defendant.
Mar,oraud,,,,. nao;.sow
In view of the Importance of this
case | deem it but fair to the parties
that state the reasons for the
conclusions which / have reached since
the remarks | made at the conclusion
of the evidence. But first desire to
refer to certain provisions of the stat
ute and decisions of our Supreme
Court.
Section 62.16 Sub. 2 B provides:
"The grade of all streets shall be
established and described, and the
adoption of such grades and all alter
ations thereof shall be recorded by the
City Clerk. No street shall be work
ed until the grade thereof is establish
ed and recorded in the manner herein
set forth"
Subdivision of said section pro-
vides:
1.-THE expense of all cross walks al
the intersections of streets and across
public grounds shall be paid by the
city at large"
Subdivision "A of said Section pro-
vides:
THE expense of such work or i'm
provement may be paid in whole or in
part by the city or by the property
to be benefited thereby, as the Coun-
Gil shall direct, but in no case shall
the amount assessed to any parcel OF
real estate exceed the benefits ac-
cruing thereto by such improvements
except in the case of sidewalks"
Subdivision &C of said Section
provides:
mo irregularity in the form of said
report or manner of conducting the
proceedings by said Board or in the
proof of publication or in the affidavit
of posting shall affect the legality of
said report, unless it shall appear that
the owners of the property affected
by the proceedings were clearly mis-
lead by such Irregularities and have
not had an opportunity to be heard. y
Subdivision 81 of said section pro-
vides:
Subject to the limitations before
mentioned the Council may determine
the amount to be paid by the real es-
tate as benefits on account of the i'm
provement of street and the amount
that shall be paid by the city"
Subdivision ell of said Section
provides:
''The appeal given by the last Sec
ton from the report of the Board OF
Public Works, as confirmed by the
Council, shall be the only remedy OF
the owner for the redress of any griev-
ance he may have by reason of the
making of such improvement or the
change of any established grade COW
cred by said report"
In Newton against Superior, LAG
Wis. 308, the Court determined that
the appeal was the only and exclusive
remedy of the property owner for the
redress of any grievance, which doc
trine was affirmed in Waukesha
against Nelson, lat Wis. 1853; Dunn
against Superior, 148 Wis. 636.
In Wagner against City of Ashland
154 Wis. "a, it was held that the con-
tract for doing the work need not be
let for even two years after the pro-
ceedings for assessment for benefits
and damages are completed, though
the statute limits the time for APP
peal twenty days, and notwithstand-
ing, it had been decided that the col
lection of any amount in excess of the
actual cost of the work should be