Case Name: Haubner, Respondent, vs. City of Milwaukee, Appellant; Haubner, Respondent, vs. City of Milwaukee and another, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1905-02-21
Citations: 124 Wis. 153
Docket Number: 
Parties: Haubner, Respondent, vs. City of Milwaukee, Appellant. Haubner, Respondent, vs. City of Milwaukee and another, Appellants.
Judges: KeewiN, L, took no part in tbe decision of this case.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 153–168

Head Matter:
Haubner, Respondent, vs. City of Milwaukee, Appellant. Haubner, Respondent, vs. City of Milwaukee and another, Appellants.
October 22, 1904
February 21, 1905.
<1) Actions: Consolidation: Order of trial. (2-7) Municipal corporations: Special assessments for street improvements: Validity: Reassessment: Right of abutting owner to damages: Milwaukee city charter.
1. Refusal to consolidate an action against a city to recover for injury to plaintiffs lot by tbe cutting down of the street in front thereof with an action against the city, its treasurer, and the contractor, to set aside a special assessment certificate issued for such work ,to said contractor, and for other relief, is held not to have been error; nor was it error to direct the trial of the action at law first, immediately followed by that of the suit in equity, the court having control of both cases at the same time.
2. An assessment by the board of public works of the benefits and damages to abutting lots by reason of the grading of a street in Milwaukee was made without separate consideration. of the several lots, although they were very differently affected by the improvement; it was not made at the time of viewing the premises, hut at a different time and in the office of the board; and it assessed a uniform sum per front foot as benefits along the whole street, and awarded no damages whatever for injuries. Held, that under the city charter such assessment was void.
3. By sec. 1210e, Stats. 1898, as amended by ch. 354, Laws of 1903, a reassessment is provided for in every case where a special assessment for street improvement is held invalid by reason of defects in the assessment of benefits and damages, whether such invalidity be determined in an action at law or one in equity.
4. The amendment to sec. 1210e, Stats. 1898, by ch. 354, Laws of 1903, whereby a reassessment was provided for in legal as well as in equitable actions, was applicable to actions thereafter commenced, although the assessments complained of were made prior to its enactment.
5. Although an abutting lotowner has no right, either by statute or at common law, to recover for damage to his land resulting from the original grading of the street done lawfully and regularly, yet where the city fails to proceed in the manner prescribed by law it becomes liable for the damage proximately caused to such owner by the improvement.
6. The right of the lotowner in such a case to recover for the damage to his land could not be taken away by a subsequent amendment (ch. 354, Laws of 1903) of the statute relating to reassessment of benefits and damages; but no constitutional right of the lotowner is invaded by the provision, in such subsequent statute, for a reassessment of the amount of benefits which he ought to pay to the city, and a reassessment so provided for should be ordered in his action to recover for the damage, upon the original assessment being held invalid.
7. If, in such a case, relating to land in the city of Milwaukee, the benefits as ascertained by such reassessment are less than the legal damages to which the lotowner is entitled, the difference is to be paid to him out of the proper ward fund.
Appeals from judgments of the superior court of Milwaukee county: J. C. Ludwig, Judge.
Reversed.
On November 5, 1903, the plaintiff, as owner of lot 6 in block 13, having a frontage on Fifth street of fifty feet, commenced this action at law in the superior court of Milwaukee county to recover damages for cutting down tbe street in front of bis lot and thereby injuring his premises. The complaint alleges, among other things, in effect, that March 14, 1900, the city, by ordinance, permanently established the grade of Fifth street from Burleigh street (being the street next south of the plaintiff’s lot) north to Ring street and beyond, several blocks north of the plaintiff’s lot; that by such grade the center of Auer avenue (being the first street north of plaintiff’s lot) was twenty feet higher than the center of Burleigh street, and the south line of Ring street (which is the first street north of Auer avenue) was forty-three and one half feet higher than Burleigh street; that May 19, 1902, the board of public works recommended the grading and macadamizing of Fifth street; that July 14, 1902, the common council, by resolution, directed the board of public works to improve Fifth street, as recommended, from Chambers street (being' the first street south of Burleigh street) to Ring street; that August 25, 1902, the board transmitted to the common council its assessment of benefits and damages to the lots fronting-on Fifth street between Chambers street and Ring street by reason of such improvement, dated August 15, 1902, reciting that it viewed the premises August 6, 1902, and that the benefits to the plaintiff’s lot No. 6 were $175 (that is to say, $3.50 per front foot), and his damages nothing; that the benefits to each and all the lots on both sides of Fifth street between Burleigh street and Ring street were assessed therein at $3.50 per front foot, and no damages were assessed to any of said lots; that such assessment was unlawful, arbitrary, and not made on view of the premises, nor, as to the effect of the grading, as to each lot or piece of land separately, but was falsely and arbitrarily made, as mentioned, at the office of the board, without personal inspection, and without considering the damage to the lots, respectively, and such assessment was based solely upon the cost' of the improvement per front foot; that the board well knew that the plaintiff’s lot would be injured at least to tbe extent of tbe special assessment certificate to be issued thereon, and for sueb injury no •consideration or allowance was made; that tbe original surface of tbe center line of Fifth street between Burleigh and Ring streets varies more tban forty-two feet from a level; tbat ■on tbe east line of Fifth street such variation is more tban thirty-seven feet, and on tbe west line of such street such variation is 43.49 feet; tbat tbe grading of Fifth street in question valúes from tbe fill of five or six feet to a cut of from ten to twelve feet along various parts thereof, but tbat the board made a uniform assessment of benefits of $3.50 per front foot, and awarded nothing for damages or injury; tbat August 30, 1902, tbe common council adopted such assessment, and thereafter let tbe contract for such improvement to tbe contractor, the defendant Froemming in tbe equity suit hereinafter mentioned, under and in pursuance of said assessment, and by the authority and direction of tbe city be proceeded to do tbe work; tbat such work was so negligently and improperly performed tbat tbe plaintiff’s approach to bis lot along the entire front was blocked and shut off by a vertical wall of earth from ■eight to ten feet in height, to tbe plaintiff’s great damage; tbat tbe cost of cutting and filling in front of tbe plaintiff’s lot was $79.80, and all other fifty-foot lots varied from $4.20 to $86.70. Judgment is prayed for $2,000 as damages.
On January 21, 1904, tbe defendant answered such complaint by way of admissions, denials, and counter allegations. February 13, 1904, tbe plaintiff commenced an action in tbe circuit court to annul tbe assessment certificate, and to cancel and set aside tbe same, and for an injunction. Juno 4, 1904, tbe defendant served its answer in such equity suit so pending in tbe circuit court. June 10, 1904, tbe action at law was called for trial in tbe superior court. Thereupon tbe defendant asked leave to amend its answer, setting up tbe pendency of tbe equitable action in tbe circuit court, and asked that tbe venue of tbe action at law be changed to tbe circuit court for tbe convenience of witnesses, under subd. 3, sec. 2622, Stats.. 1898. Tbe plaintiff objected to sucb change of venue, and offered to accept tbe amended answer and to proceed to trial at once; and thereupon tbe defendant amended its answer in the action at law by alleging the pendency in tbe circuit court of the equity suit against tbe city and its treasurer and one Eroemming, tbe contractor. Tbe court then stated that both cases ought to be tried by tbe same judge; that tbe party who was ready was entitled to proceed with bis case first. It was. then stipulated in open court that tbe venue of tbe equity suit be changed to tbe superior court for trial as soon as an order to that effect could be made. Tbe court then directed counsel to proceed with tbe trial of tbe action at law, which' bad already been called. Tbe defendant then expressed a desire to try tbe equity suit first, to which tbe plaintiff objected ;. and tbe court concluded to try tbe law case first, and then dispose of tbe equity case afterwards. Thereupon tbe court and jury, without objection, viewed tbe premises. Tbe defendant then asked that tbe cases be tried together and consolidated, which motion was denied, and tbe court stated that tbe cases would be tried together — that is, tbe trial of tbe equity case would follow tbe trial of tbe law case, — with which tbe defendant’s attorney expressed himself satisfied.
Thereupon the action at law was tried on tbe 10th and 13th of June, 1904, and at the close of tbe trial tbe jury returned a special verdict to tbe effect (1) that tbe property of tbe plaintiff was depreciated in value by tbe grading of Eiftli street; (2) that tbe difference in value of sucb property immediately before and immediately after sucb grading was $200. Sucb verdict was filed June 14, 1904. June 13, 1904, tbe same court and judge entered upon tbe trial of the equity suit. June 18, 1904, tbe court ordered judgment on tbe special verdict in tbe action at law for $200, with costs and disbursements to be taxed. July 2, 1904, tbe defendants moved for a stay of proceedings therein, and that tbe court order a reassessment, and tbe same was denied, to which the defendants excepted. July 6, 1904, judgment was entered, filed, and docketed on such verdict for the amount stated. July 7,1904, the same court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, based upon the same evidence as in the action at law, and the facts found are substantially as alleged in the complaint in the action at law, and above stated; and, in addition, the court found to the effect (11) that the plaintiff’s lot was not benefited by such grading and improvement of Fifth ■street, in excess of the injury to his premises, but, on the contrary, such injury was in excess of all benefits derived therefrom; (12) that the contractor completed his work under the ■contract, and the city issued and delivered to him a certificate .of the board of public works for the work so performed, which certificate was a lien upon the plaintiff’s lot, but that the contractor had, before the commencement of this action and service of the injunctional order herein, in good faith and for value received, duly sold, assigned, and transferred the same, and all his right, title, and interest therein, to a third person, unknown to the court, in whose hands the same now is.
As conclusions of law the court found, in effect, (1) that the assessment of benefits and damages was wholly arbitrary and without authority of law, and was illegal and void; (2) that the city and the contractor were without jurisdiction to grade and improve the street as prescribed by the resolution of the common council; (3) that the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason thereof were in excess of any benefit derived therefrom; (4) that the certificate issued to the contractor was so issued without authority, and was void, and should be delivered up for cancellation; (5) that the city and its treasurer should be permanently restrained from selling, or offering or attempting to sell, the plaintiff’s property by reason of such certificate or any proceedings under said assessment; (6) that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for a permanent injunction against the city and its treasurer, and that tbe certificate be declared mill and void, together with costs and disbursements to be taxed, — and ordered judgment to be entered accordingly. Judgment was so entered July Y, 1904, and on the same day the city and its treasurer brought this appeal; and the city also on the same day appealed from the judgment so entered in the action at law.
Eor the appellants there were briefs by Qarl Bunge, city attorney, and B. S. Witte, assistant city attorney, and oral argument by Mr. Witte.
Eor the respondent there were briefs by Hamilton, Van Wyck & Silber, and oral argument by G. H. Hamilton' and Howard Van Wyck.

Opinion:
The following opinion was filed December 13, 1904:
Cassoday, C. J.
1. Error is assigned because the court refused to consolidate the action at law with the suit in equity, and also refused to try the equity suit first. No such question was suggested until' after the superior court had entered upon the trial of the action at law, nor until after the city had asked and obtained leave to amend its answer, setting up the pendency of the suit in equity in the circuit court, and the city had sought and failed to have the venue in the action at law changed to the circuit court, and the venue in the equity suit had, by stipulation, been changed to the superior court. What occurred in respect to the matter is fully set forth in the foregoing statement, and need not be here repeated. The action at law was simply for damages, and against the city alone. The suit in equity was against the city, its treasurer, and the .contractor, and the prayer was for different relief. The court had stated that the two "cases ought to be tried by one and the same judge." The court fully appreciated the close relationship between the two cases, and entered upon the trial of the suit in equity immediately upon the action at law being submitted to the jury. Of course, the court had control of the verdict, and so of both cases at the same time. The order in which they should be tried was certainly within the discretion of the trial court. Secs. 2647, 2844, Stats. 1898. The fact that the action at law was first tried did not prevent the court from doing justice to the parties in both cases. We find no reversible error in refusing to consolidate the two actions, nor in trying the action at law befoi'e the suit in equity.
2. It is found by the court, in addition to what is stated above, and is undisputed, that the excavation in front of the plaintiff's lot was from six to ten feet, leaving a vertical wall of earth of that height along the entire front thereof; that all the lots fronting on the street in question, between Burleigh street and Ring street, except one lot 250 feet north of the plaintiff's lot, were assessed at a uniform rate per front foot; that the estimated expense of grading the several lots having a frontage of fifty feet varied from $4.20 to $86.70; that such expense in front of the plaintiff's lot was $79.80; that in making the assessment the several lots were not separately considered and benefits and damages assessed to each lot; that the assessment was not made at the time of viewing the premises, but at a different time and at the office of the board; that the grade of the street in question varied from a fill of six feet to a cut of twelve feet, along various parts thereof; and that the board made a uniform assessment of $3.50 as benefits per front foot along the entire line of the street in question, and awarded no damages for injury whatsoever. Under the decisions of this court, construing the charter of the city, there can be no question but that such assessment was void. Kersten v. Milwaukee, 106 Wis. 200, 81 N. W. 948, 1103; Sanderson v. Herman, 108 Wis. 662, 666-668, 84 N. W. 890, 85 N. W. 141; Friedrich v. Milwaukee, 114 Wis. 304, 90 N. W. 174; S. C. 118 Wis. 254, 95 N. W. 126. This seems to bo conceded by counsel.
3. Error is assigned because the court, prior to the entry of judgment in either case, refused to grant a stay of proceedings and order a reassessment, as prescribed by sec. 1210c, Stats. 1898, as amended by ch. 354, Laws of 1903. Whether such ruling was right is the important question in this case. Prior to that amendment that section provided that:
"If in any action to set aside any special assessment against property for any of the purposes mentioned in section 1210ii [which includes street improvement], or to set aside any special assessment certificate . . . the court determine that such assessment is invalid by reason of a defective assessment of benefits and damages, it shall stay all proceedings in such action until a new assessment thereof be had in the manner hereinafter mentioned; . . . When the amount to be assessed against the plaintiff's property has been finally determined by an assessment of benefits and damages which the court shall hold to be valid, or when an appeal is taken, the court shall make an order requiring the plaintiff to pay into court, within a time to be fixed by such order, for the benefit of the parties entitled thereto, the amount which, based upon such valid new assessment, he ought justly to pay, or which should be justly assessed against the property in question; upon compliance with said order judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff with costs. If the plaintiff fails to comply with such order the action shall be dismissed with costs."
In obedience to that section it was held by this court three years prior to that amendment, in effect, that the remedy by appeal to the circuit court for such illegal assessment, provided by the charter of Milwaukee, was not exclusive, but that the aggrieved party might resort to a court of equity. Kersten v. Milwaukee, 106 Wis. 200, 206, 81 N. W. 948, 950, 1103. In that case it was also held that "where, in an action to set aside a special assessment for street improvements, the assessment is held invalid by reason of defects in the assessment of benefits and damages, it is the duty of the court, under see. 1210s, Stats. 1898, to stay proceedings, so far as relates to the assessment of benefits and damages, order a reassessment, and make payment of the amount finally determined a condition of judgment." That was followed by Sanderson v. Herman. 108 Wis. 662, 666-668, 84 N. W. 890, 85 N. W. 141, decided two years prior to tbe amendment mentioned. Each of those cases was in equity to set aside a special assessment against property for a purpose mentioned in sec. 1210e, as mentioned in sec. 12105, Stats. 1898. In each of those cases the right to a stay of proceedings and a reassessment was expressly sanctioned. In Friedrich v. Milwaukee, 114 Wis. 304, 90 N. W. 174, a complaint for damages on account of such illegal assessment was sustained, and no reassessment was ordered, because it was on demurrer and, as there stated, the cause of action alleged or sought to be alleged was not in equity to enforce a reassessment under the statutes (sees. 1210d—1210/) Stats. 1898), as in the two-cases just mentioned. That decision in Friedrich v. Milwaukee was made by this court more than a year prior to the enactment of ch. 354, Laws of 1903. Subsequently that case was tried on the merits, and a judgment for damages in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed by this court. Friedrich v. Milwaukee, 118 Wis. 254, 258, 95 N. W. 126. That case was argued in this court two weeks prior to that enactment, and decided four, days after that act went into effect. Obviously the decisions mentioned led to the enactment. One of the purposes of that act was to make the statutes apply to actions at law as well as suits in equity. And so it prefixes to sec. 1210e a provision which declares that:
"If in any action at law for the recovery of damages arising from a failure to make a proper assessment of benefits and damages, as provided by law, or failure to observe any provisions of law, or because of any act or defect in any proceeding in which benefits and damages are assessed," etc. Ch. 354, Laws of 1903.
That is followed by what is quoted from sec. 1210e, above, and also other provisions of that section. By see. 1210e, as thus amended, a complete scheme for reassessment was provided in every case where the special assessment for street improvement was held to be invalid by reason of defects in the assessment of benefits and damages — whether such invalidity be determined in an action at law or in equity. In other words, the right to a reassessment when such invalidity was determined in an action in equity, as held in Kersten v. Milwaukee and Sanderson v. Herman, supra, was, by the statute, as amended by ch. 354, Laws of 1903, also given when such invalidity is determined in an action at law.
4. It is claimed that the amendment was not retroactive, and hence did not apply to either of the cases at bar. That chapter went into effect more than six months prior to the commencement of the action at law, and nearly nine months prior to the commencement of the suit in equity. True, the assessments complained of were made prior to that enactment. But, as indicated, the act merely extended the remedy by reassessment which previously existed when such invalid, ity was determined in an action in equity to the cases in which such invalidity is determined in an action at law. It did not undertake to destroy or impair any substantial right. By its terms it applied "in any action at law" or in equity therein prescribed, and hence applied to the cases at bar.
5. But' it is claimed that the damage to the plaintiff's lot by reason of the wrongful acts complained of gave to the plaintiff a right of action against the defendant, which, under the constitutions — state and federal — could not be divested or impaired by subsequent legislation. Secs. 9, 13, art. I, Const. Wis.; sec. 1, art. XIV, Const. U. S. Moreover, it is claimed that such right is not preserved by the statute in question, nor by the city charter, and that there is no provision for paying an award in the lotowner's favor in case of an appeal. Of course, the provisions of the charter of Milwaukee are to be considered in connection with the statutes mentioned. Neither the charter nor the statute attempts to deprive the lotowner of any damages in excess of the benefits, and hence they are not objectionable on that ground. Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 19 Sup. Ct. 187; Lathrop v. Racine, 119 Wis. 461, 475, 97 N. W. 192. Tints in tRe chapter of tRe charter on "Taking Property for Streets and OtRer Purposes" it is provided tRat:
"If tRe total amount -of damages as assessed, exceeds tlie total amount of benefits as assessed, tRe excess of sucR damages sRall Re chargeable* to and paid out of tRe general city fund and the ward funds of tRe wards in wRicR tRe lands proposed to be taken are situated, in equal proportions." Sec. 6,. cR. VI.
And again tRat cRapter provides tRat:
"If tlie damages to any person be greater tRan tlie benefits, received, or if tlie benefits be greater tRan tRe damages; in eitRer case tRe board shall strike a balance, and carry tRe difference forward to anotRer column so that the assessment will sRow wliat amount is to be received or paid by such owner or-owners respectively, and the difference only sRall in any case-be collected of them or payable to them" Sec. 8, cR. VI.
It also gives to tRe lotowner tRe rigRt to appeal from sucR assessment to tRe circuit court, upon giving tlie notice and bond prescribed, and provides tRat if upon tRe trial in tlie circuit court
"tRe benefits assessed by tlie said board of public works shall be diminished, or the damages so assessed shall be increased, then and in eitRer case the appellant shall recover costs on such appeal, otherwise the city shall recover costs. When the jury shall, by their verdict, award damages to the owner-of any lot or part of a lot, and judgment shall Rave been rendered upon such verdict, the said city shall pay the amount of such judgment, and the costs, if any, recovered therewith. . . . And in case the appellant shall succeed, the difference between the amount assessed and the amount finally adjudged shall be chargeable to and paid out of the proper ward fund." Sec. 14, cR. YI.
So in the chapter of the charter on "City Improvements, and Special Assessments" it is provided that "the grading . . . shall be chargeable to and payable by the lots fronting or abutting upon such streets . to the amoxmt which such grading . . . shall be adjudged by said board to benefit such lots." Sec. 2, ch. VII. The same section provides for paying certain expenses out of the ward fund. That chapter then prescribes the proceedings essential in "grading or improving streets." Sec. 6, ch. VII. It then provides for the "assessment of benefits for street work" on lots abutting thereon, "taking into consideration in each case any injury which in the opinion of the board may result to each lot or piece of land from such improvement; and in case the benefits, in their opinion, amount to less than the cost of the improvement, the balance shall be paid out of the ward fund of the ward or wards in which such improvement is made." Sec. 7, ch. VII. The next section provides for compensation to lot-owners for change of grade, and assessments therefor, and provides that "the excess of the said damages, costs and charges over the benefits assessed, as provided in the preceding section, shall be paid out of the ward funds of the ward or wards in which such improvement and alteration of grade shall be made." Sec. 8, ch. VII. That chapter then gives to the lotowner the right to appeal from such assessments to the circuit court upon giving the notice and bond prescribed; and then declares that:
"Such appeal shall not affect the rights of the contractor, or the proceedings in reference to his contract, but the certificate against the lot or parcel of land in question shall be given as if no appeal had been taken; and in case the appellant shall succeed, the difference between the amount charged in the certificate and the amount of the benefit finally adjudged, shall be paid by the city out of the proper ward fund, to the appellant, but not until he shall have done the work in question, or have paid the certificate issued for doing the same. The amount assessed by the board of public works, or finally adjudged on appeal, for damages, costs and charges arising from an alteration of the grade, m excess of the amount charged against property deemed benefited, shall be paid by the city out of the proper ward fund, to the person or persons thereto entitled," as therein provided. Sec. 11, ch. VII.
It is true that the charter provides that such appeal shall be the lotowner's only remedy for such damages. Sec. 15, ch. VI; sec. 12, ch. VII. ' But such provisions in the charter could not prevent the legislature from providing otherwise, as they did by sec. 1210e, Stats. 1898, as held by this court in the eases cited. Kersten v. Milwaukee, 106 Wis. 200, 81 N. W. 948, 1103; Sanderson v. Herman, 108 Wis. 662, 84 N. W. 890, 85 N. W. 141. In those cases it was held that the right to appeal given to the lotowner by the city charter was not exclusive, but that the person aggrieved might resoi't to a court,of equity; and now, under ch. 354, Laws of 1903, he may resort to reassessment in a court of law. As already indicated, the statute declared before and since that amendment, in effect, that when
"an assessment of benefits and damages'7 has been held to be valid by the court, "or when an appeal is taken, the court shall make an order, requiring the plaintiff to pay into court, . . . for the benefit of the parties entitled thereto, the amount which, based upon such valid new assessment, he ought to justly pay, or which should be justly assessed against the property in question; upon compliance with said order judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff with costs. If the plaintiff fails to comply with such order the action shall be dismissed with costs."
It will be observed that the lotowner is only required to pay into court the amount he ought justly to pay according to such new and valid assessment, and that such payment is to be for the benefit of such parties as the court may adjudge to be entitled thereto. Of course, the rights of the contractor are to be considered, the same as though the lotowner had appealed to the circuit court from the assessment under sec. 11, ch. VII of the charter, mentioned above. So the money so paid into court is to be finally disposed of by the court, sitting as a court of equity, to the parties entitled thereto. The amount finally adjudged for damages, costs, and charges, "in excess of the amount charged against property deemed bene fited, shall be paid by the city out of the proper ward fund, to the person or persons thereto entitled," the same as though the owner had appealed to the circuit court, under the section of the charter last cited. Where a municipality is thus made liable to the lotowner for any damages sustained in excess of such benefits, the taxable property of such municipality constitutes a pledge or fund to which the owner may resort for payment in the manner prescribed by the statute. Norton v. Peck, 3 Wis. 714, 724; Brock v. Hishen, 40 Wis. 674; Smeaton v. Martin, 57 Wis. 364, 15 N. W. 403, and cases there cited; Smith v. Gould, 59 Wis. 641, 18 N. W. 457; State v. Hogue, 71 Wis. 390, 36 N. W. 860; State ex rel. Burbank v. Superior, 81 Wis. 654, 51 N. W. 1014. We perceive no invasion of the plaintiff's supposed constitutional right to damages by reason of such proposed reassessment. We must hold that the court improperly refused to stay proceedings and direct a reassessment as prescribed by sec., 1210e, as amended by ch. 354, Laws of 1903.
By the Gourt. — Both of the judgments of the superior court of Milwaukee county are reversed, and the causes are both remanded for further proceedings as indicated in this opinion.
The appellants moved for a rehearing. The motion was denied February 21, 1905, and the following opinion was filed:
Cassoday, C. J.
The fifth subdivision of the opinion filed in this case is not as explicit as it should have been. It seems to have misled counsel on both sides. This may be the result of a failure to appreciate that what was said in that portion of the opinion was by way of answering the contention that the plaintiff's right to damages was not preserved by sec. 1210e, Stats. 1898, as amended by ch. 354, Laws of 1903, "nor by the city charter," the "provisions" of which were "to be considered in connection with the statutes mentioned." Tbe several provisions of tbe charter quoted in. tbe opinion were merely to indicate tbe general scope and statutory policy as to benefits and damages to tbe abutting lotowner when tbe city bad proceeded regularly as prescribed by the statutes. Tbe statement in tbe opinion that "neither tbe charter nor tbe statute attempts to deprive tbe lotowner of any damages in excess of tbe benefits" does not mean that it confers any right to such damages which did not exist at the time of tbe enactment of ch. 354, Laws of 1903. Certainly none are given either by statute or common law in case of original grading done lawfully and regularly. In this case tbe city did not proceed regularly, as prescribed by law, and hence for that reason became liable for the consequential damages proximately caused by tbe improvement. Drummond v. Eau Claire, 85 Wis. 556, 55 N. W. 1028; Jorgenson v. Superior, 111 Wis. 561, 87 N. W. 565; Friedrich v. Milwaukee, 114 Wis. 304, 90 N. W. 174; Bunker v. Hudson, 122 Wis. 43, 99 N. W. 452, and cases there cited; Damkoehler v. Milwaukee, ante, p. 144, 101 N. W. 707. Tbe plaintiff's right to such damages could not be taken away by tbe subsequent amendment of sec. 1210e, State. 1898, by ch. 354, Laws of 1903, although it could provide for a reassessment of tbe amount of benefits secured to tbe lotowner, and which be ought to pay to tbe city. If, when so ascertained, they are less than tbe legal damages to which tbe plaintiff is entitled, the ward funds of tbe ward in which tbe improvement is made are clearly liable for tbe excess. Sec. 7, ch. VII, Milwaukee Charter. Counsel contends that there are no benefits in this case, but that is a question to be determined in such reassessment proceedings prescribed in sec. 1210e, Stats. 1898, as amended by ch. 354, Laws of 1903. Of course, the mandate is to be construed as referring to this opinion as well as to tbe original.
KeewiN, L, took no part in tbe decision of this case.