Case Name: The State of Wisconsin ex rel., William H. Lord, Relator, vs. The Board of Supervisors of Washington County, Respondents
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1850-06
Citations: 2 Chand. 247
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Wisconsin ex rel., William H. Lord, Relator, vs. The Board of Supervisors of Washington County, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Chandler
Volume: 2
Pages: 247–260

Head Matter:
The State of Wisconsin ex rel., William H. Lord, Relator, vs. The Board of Supervisors of Washington County, Respondents.
Where the right, which is sought to be enforced, is doubtful, or the performances of the duty which is oxactod, rests in the discretion of the person or body of whom performance is requirod, a writ of mandamus ought not to issuo to enforco obedience.
Where this process is applied for, to enforce a statutory requirement, the provisions of the Statute must be so clear and distinct as not to admit a doubt, to justify this Court in the allowance of. such process.
Where, by Statute, the Legislature required the Supervisors of a^ County to lot to tho lowest bidder tho construction of county buildings, such as a Court House, Jail, Clork and Register’s Office, at a particular place, and to bo completed at a specified time, and to levy a tax upon the taxable inhabitants and property of tho county, for defraying the oxpensos of construction, tho provisions, specifications and requirements of the act must be so clear, specific and distinct as that doubt cannot exist as to roturn of the duty enjoined. If there be reasonable doubt, under tho provisions of the act an regard to the duty, or as to tho specific mode of performance, or any other thing incident to tho performance, tho Court will not grant the writ.
Where a County Seat has been located at a particular place, where it continued for a time, and then, by an act of the Legislature, was temporarily remqvod to another place, there would be no rq^ version, after the lapse of tho time for which it was removed, to the placo from which it had been temporarily removed, unless further Legislation should intervene to establish its locality there.
The relator, on the fifteenth day qf May, in the yea? 1850, applied to the Chief Justice for an order upon the Supervisors of Washington County, to show cause on the first day of the next Succeeding term of the Supreme Court, why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding them to proceed forthwith, to let the contract for the erection for a Court House and Jail, and fire-proof Cleric's and Register’s Office, at the Village of Port Washington, in said County, and to proceed to the erection of the same without delay, and to levy a tax to defray the expense of the same as was required by an act of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin approved February 8th, 1850, entitled “ An Act to provide for the permanent location of the Seat of Justice in thé county óf Washington, and fix the division of said county, and the organization of the county of Tuskola. An order to that effect was made by the Chief Justice, founded upon an affidavit made by the Relator and then presented to the following effect, to-wit:
“ William H. Lord, of Port Washington, Washington County, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, that by act of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin approved, February 8th, 1850, entitled An Act “ to provide for the permanent location of the Seat of Justice of the County of Washington, and for the division of the same, and for the organization of the County of Tuscola,” the Board of Supervisons of said county were directed to let the contract for building a Court Plouse and Jail, and fireproof Clerk’s and Register’s Office, at the Village of Port Washington, in said county, on the first Monnay of May, 18.40, and to proceed to the erection of the same without delay. That the said Board did meet in purpuance of said law, .and organized itself by the election of a Chair- n^n, but wholly neglected and refused either to let thp contracts aforesaid, or to provide for any paeans for the erection of said .buildings as aforesaid; but as y.our depo-nentes informed and believes, refused to do so because the members of the said board believed, or said they believed the act aforesaid to be unconstitutional and void. Your deponent further states that the said Board1 met on the day succeeding the said first Monday, in pursuance of a call signed by a majority of the members, and’ without taking any steps, either to let the contract or provide for the erection of the buildings as is by said act required, immediately adjourned without day. And your deponent further, s.ays that he is informed and believes that the,said Board, or a majority, of the members thereof, give out and assert that they should wholly disregard the requisition of the s,aid act. And your deponent believes that unless commanded by the mandate of the Supreme Court, they will continue so to neglect and refuse.”
The Board of Supervisors, .put in an answer in justification of thus doing, which the reporter is unable to obtain, and which it is, apprehended is not material to be set out, inasmuch as the decision of the court does not involve the consideration of it. To this answer the relator demurred. Upon these proceedings the motion came before the Court.
A wide range of discussion, upon various points raised by the counsel, was indulged on the argument and ably conducted; the greater part of which has not been referred to by the controling opinion of the Court; and therefore need not be stated. But the additional opinion of f'he Chief Justice discusses very fully a question arising to4er the 18th Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which was madp by the respondents counsel, on the argument, t'ó-wit: No private or local bill which may be passed by the Legislature, shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be. expressed in the-title. Larrabee Judge, was not upon the bench.'
É. G. Ryan Jl. D. Smith, for Relator.
J E. Arnold fy J. Holliday, for Respondents.

Opinion:
By the Court.
'Jackson, J.
An application is made to this Court for a peremptory Mandamus, to Toe directed tó the Board of Supervisors of Washington County, -commanding them to proceed,.under the act of the.last session of the Legislature, to let to the lowest bidder, the contract for the erection of the County Buildings, and to levy an additional tax upon th'e taxable property of the county, for the purpose of defraying the expense and cost of their erection.
A writ of Mandámus is the highest judicial writ knowh to oúr Constitution and laws, and according to the lohg approved and well established authorities, only issues in cases where there is a specific legal right to be enforced, hr where there is a positive duty to be, and which can be performed, and where there is no otheir specific legal remedy.
Where the legal right is doubtful, or where the perform--'anee of the duty rests in discretion, a writ of Mandamus cannot rightfully issue. Kendall vs. United States, 12 Peters, 613; 18 Wendell, 89; 5 Binney, 103; 12 Johhson, 416; 1 Cowen, 423.
Tested by these principles of law, should the' present application be gránted 1
The following is the act tfrhich is sought to be enforced by this writ:
"The Board of Supervisors shall, on. the first Monday of Máy next, proceed to let to the lowest bidder, the contract for the erection of d good and commodioüs CourtHouse upon the plan and style generally adopted by the different counties of this State, a good and sufficient Jail, and good and commodious fire-proof Clerk's and Register's Office, upon grounds in the village of Port Washington, to be located by the Supervisors of the County of Washington, said buildings to be erected and ordered during the summer of 1850, and finished by the first day of July 1851; and 'for the purpose of defraying the expense and cost of erecting said buildings, the said Supervisors are directed to levy an additional tax upon the taxable property of said county, in addition to the ordinary taxes of said county, for the year 1850, equal to the amount of the contract price of said buildings."
Various objections were raised by the respondents, and ably argued to this Court, which it is not necessary to deeide ; among which is the constitutionality of the act of 1850.
The Court are all of opinion that the power to award the writ, in a case like the present, is clearly conferred by the constitution and laws of the State.
Nor is there any division of sentiment in regard to the operation of the law of 1847, by which the county seat of Washington county, was located at the village of Port Washington, for a period of five years.
There cannot be two separate and distinct locations, at one and the same time; nor can there be a right of reverting or returning to a former location, without ah express law to that efiect. In this case there is none.
The act of 1847 operated as an abrogation of- all previous acts on that subject; and when the .term of five years expires, there will be no established location of the county seat of Washington County.
It will be the duty of the Legislature, on .the, happening of that event, to provide by law, for the 'establishment of a now location; and that can-bo done, without any conflict with the provision of the Constitution regulating the removal of Copnty, Seats. But until the Legislature shall make some additional statutory provision, touching the permanent or temporary location of the County Seat, it must be regarded as fixed at Port Washington. (See sec. 8th, article 13th Cons.)
The main objection to the allowance of the writ, prayed for by the relator, arises-from the, vagueness and uncertainty of the law prescribing'the duty of the respondents.
The Board of Supervisors were required, on the first Monday of May, 1850, to "proceed to let to the lowest bidder, .the contract for the erection of a good and-commodious Court-House."
No provision is made for advertising or obtaining proposals, and it might well have happened, that there would be no bidders, in which case the respondents could not have, let the contract in the manner required by law. . •
Nor was there any provision made fop the purchasing or obtaining, a site for the County Buildings; and it would seem to me to be unreasonable,, if not impracticable, fe? compel the Board of Supervisors to contract for the erocr tion of a Court-House, Jail, and Clerk's Office, without naming any lot or place for their location, and without its being known where, in fact, they were to be erected.
But I have much greater difficulty with another clans*? <pf the act,
The respondents are required to enter into a contract, for the erection of a good and commodious Court-House,
" upon the plan and sty Ip generally adopted by the different counties of this State."
There is no criterion,¡ that I am aware of, by which to determine what is the "'plan and style generally adopted by the different countiesr-of this State," in the erection of their Court-Houses.
It is believed that there are no two Court-Houses, in the State, which are alike in their form, material, dimensions, and arrangements.^
Every member of the Board of Supervisors might have his individual opinion, and maintain with equal sincerity, that his plan ,and style approached the nearest to the\
" plan and style generally adopted."
And the members of this Court might be equally variant, in their own views, upon the subject.
It is clear, therefore, to my mind, that there is not, in this case,¿on part of .the relator, a specific legal right to be enforced, nor, on the part of the respondents, a positive duty to be performed and which can be performed.
While.,-therefore, in a case wherein the facts were such as, to justify the awarding of a writ of mandamus, this Court would-not hesitate to interpose its authority to compel any;individual or public body to discharge a duty, or perform an act required by law, I am satisfied that this is -not one, in which it would be safe or proper, to exercise such authority.
The writ- must be denied.