Opinion ID: 2184987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is resort to mandamus precluded?

Text: The appellants contend that mandamus may not be maintained because several other plain, adequate and complete remedies exist. For reasons hereinafter stated, we consider this assertion to be without merit.  The trial court granted the appellants leave to file a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus although the motion was not made prior to the time for a return to the writ. This motion to quash was denied, and no appeal was taken from the order so denying the motion to quash. State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court (1968), 41 Wis. 2d 188, 163 N. W. 2d 6; State ex rel. Hurley v. Schmidley (1970), 48 Wis. 2d 659, 180 N. W. 2d 605. After the appellants' motion to quash had been denied, the cases then proceeded to trial on the merits. After apparently four days of trial the court entered judgment directing a peremptory writ of mandamus. We are now asked to reverse the judgment of the trial court because the respondents were precluded from resorting to mandamus. We do not consider it necessary to here discuss the other possible remedies appellants suggest were available to the respondents. Mandamus is a discretionary writ and the order of the trial court will not be reversed except for abuse of discretion. Menzl v. Milwaukee (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 266, 275, 145 N. W. 2d 198. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in this case. Also, under the facts of this case we are of the opinion that State ex rel. Racine County v. Schmidt (1959), 7 Wis. 2d 528, 97 N. W. 2d 493, is sound authority supporting the judgment of the trial court: . . . Even where mandamus was determined not to be a proper remedy, however, this court has, in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the determination of public questions, treated an action in mandamus as if it were an action for declaratory relief. Thus a final decision has been reached with a minimum of uncertainty. . . . Where the sole question is one of law and the moving party chooses mandamus for his remedy, there is ordinarily little reason to require him to change the form of his action into one for declaratory relief. It is true that  in the present situation complications may arise as noted by the trial court, . . . It may well be that these complications put the question of propriety of mandamus within the discretion of the circuit court. Even so, we conclude that where the circuit court within its discretion decided that mandamus was not the appropriate remedy, the court should have expedited the matter by following the suggestion of the Young and Silgen Cases and proceeding as if the action in so far as it pertains to sec. 51.08 were an action for declaratory relief. State ex rel. Racine County v. Schmidt, supra, pages 536, 537.