Case Name: Marvin, Respondent, vs. The Town of Jacobs, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1890-05-20
Citations: 77 Wis. 31
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marvin, Respondent, vs. The Town of Jacobs, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 31–33

Head Matter:
Marvin, Respondent, vs. The Town of Jacobs, Appellant.
April 30
May 20, 1890.
Town orders drawn on road fund.
There being no law authorizing the establishment of a separate road fund, town orders pm-porting to be drawn upon such a fund are payable out of the general fund of the town.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ashland County.
Action upon the several town orders, payment of which bad been, refused. Each of said orders was in form like the following:
“ $10.00 Eoad Okdee. No. 302.
“ (Hidden, Ashland Co., Wis., July 20, 1889.
“ To the Treasurer of the, Town of Taoobs: Pay to II. Xal-vring or bearer, the sum of ten dollars out of any moneys in the road fund not otherwise appropriated, being for inspecting road. O. W. Kline, Chairman.
“ Countersigned: P. J. ScalloN, Clerk.”
The defendant appeals from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint.
For the appellant there was a brief by Cole & O’Keefe, attorneys, and Tomhms, Merrill <& Smith, of counsel, and oral argument by Dublee A. Cole and W. M. Tomldns.
For the respondent there was a brief by Mead <& Dixon, and oral argument by A. K. Dixon.

Opinion:
Cole, C. J.
This is a suit against the town upon town orders. The objection to the complaint is that the orders are drawn upon a particular fund, — that is, the road fund,— and that it does not appear that there was any money belonging to that hind to pay them. The orders must be deemed payable out of the general fund of the town. We do not understand that there is any provision of law which authorizes the town officers to establish a separate road fund. The orders, therefore, were payable out of the general fund of the town. The fact that the orders stated that they were payable out of the road fund not otherwise appropriated must be understood as merely designating the purpose for which the orders were drawn, and for the convenience of the officers of the town in tracing and adjusting their accounts. Montague v. Horton, 12 Wis. 668.
The other objections to the complaint are disposed of by tbe decisions in Brown v. Town Board, ante, p. 27, and Brown v. Jacobs, ante, p. 29.
By the Court.— Tbe order of tbe circuit court is affirmed, and tbe cause remanded for further proceedings.