Case Name: The State ex rel. William H. Lord v. The Board of Supervisor of Washington County
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1850-06
Citations: 2 Pin. 552
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex rel. William H. Lord v. The Board of Supervisor of Washington County.
Judges: Lakhabee, J., did not hear the argument or participate in the decision.
Reporter: Pinney
Volume: 2
Pages: 552–563

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. William H. Lord v. The Board of Supervisor of Washington County.
1. Mandamus. — Where the right which is sought to he enforced is doubtful,, or the performance of the duty which is exacted reste in the discretion of the person or body of whom performance is required, a writ of mandamus will not awarded.
3. Same. — Where this writ is applied for to enforce performance of a statutory requirement, the provisions of the statute and the precise nature of the duty to be performed must be so clear and distinct as not to admit of a doubt, or it will not be awarded.
3. Same. — Where a statute required the supervisors of a county to let to the lowest bidder the construction of a good and commodious courthouse, etc., etc., at a particular place, and to be finished by a certain time, upon the plan and style generally adopted by the different eov/nties of this state, without providing for obtaining a site for such buildings : Held, that the duty thus imposed was of such an uncertain and doubtful nature, that a mandamus would not be awarded to compel the supervisors to let contracts and proceed to the erection of such buildings. {
4. County shat. — The county seat of Washington county had been located at a particular place, and afterwards it was removed by an act of the territorial legislature to another place for the period of five years. Held, that after the lapse of that period, it would not revert to the place where it was so first located, unless further legislation should intervene to locate it there, as at the expiration of that time there would be no established location of it.
5. The act prescribing the duty sought to "be enforced in this case, was 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.” Stow, C. J., while he concurred in the points decided, was of the opinion that the act was not void as embracing more than one subject (sec. 18, art. 4 State Const.); that the subject of the act was Washington county only, though it contained several provisions relating to it; that the true test in such cases is not the details of the law, but its general scope — its subject; that this provision of the constitution was directory,. not mandatory. But see Mills ¶. Ghwiieton, 29 Wis. 400; Evans v. Sharp, id. 564.
(2 Ghand. 247.)
APPLICATION for mandamus.
. The relator, on the fifteenth day of May, 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 of a court-house and jail, and fire-proof clerk’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, approved February 8, 1850, entitled “ an act. to provide for the permanent location of the seat of justice in the county of Washington, and fix the division of said county, and the organization' of the county of Tuscola.” 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 8, 1850, entitled “ an act to provide for the permar nent 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 supervisors of said county were directed to let tbe contract for building a courthouse and jail, and fire-proof clerk's and register’s office, at the village of Port Washington, in said county, on the first Monday of May, 1840, and to proceed to the erection of the same without delay; that the said board did meet in pursuance of said law, and organized itself by the election of a chairman, but wholly neglected and refused either to let the contracts aforesaid or to provide for any means for the erection of said buildings as aforesaid; but, as your deponent is 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 board 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 buddings, as is by said act required, immediately adjourned without day. And your deponent further says, 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 said 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.
M Q. Ryan and A. T>. Smith, for relator. '
J. M Arnold and J. Holliday, for respondents.

Opinion:
JacésoN, J.
An application is made to this court for a peremptory mandamus, to be directed to the board of supervisors of Washington coiinty, 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 the taxable property of the county for the puipose of defraying the expense and cost of their erection.
A writ of mandamus is the highest judicial writ known to our constitution and laws, and, according to 'long approved and well established authorities, only issues in cases where there is a specific legal right to be enforced, or where there is a positive duty to be and which can be performed, and where there is no other specific legal remedy. Where the legal right is doubtful, or where the performance of the duty rests in discretion, a writ of mandamus cannot rightfully issue. Kindall v. United States, 12 Pet. 613; 18 Wend. 89; 5 Binney, 103; 12 Johns. 416; 1 Cow. 423.
Tested by these principles of law, should the present application be granted ?
The following is the act which is sought to be enforced by this writ:
" The board of supervisors shall, on the first Monday of May next, proceed to let, to the lowest bidder, the contract for the erection of a good and commodious court-house, 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 buddings 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 decide, among winch 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 Ibrmer location, without an express law to that effect. 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 year's 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 new location, and that can be done without any conflict with the provision of the constitution regulating the removal of county seats. But until the legislature shall make some additional statutory provision touching the permanent or temporary location of the comity seat, itrnust be regarded as fixed at Port Washington. Sec. 8, art. 13, ¿¡oust.
The main objection to the allowance of the writ prayed for by the relator, arises from the vagueness "mid 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 courthouse." 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 for the purchasing or obtaining a site for the county buildings; and it would seem to me to be unreasonable, if not impracticable, to compel the board of supervisors to contract for the erection 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 clause of 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 style 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 counties of this state," in the erection of their court-houses. It is believed that there are no two courthouses 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 the 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 duly, 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.