Opinion ID: 1922537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the order appealable?

Text: This issue is raised for the first time on appeal and is predicated upon the provisions of sec. 274.33 (3), Stats., which provides: 274.33 Appealable orders. The following orders when made by the court may be appealed to the supreme court: . . . (3) When an order grants, refuses, continues or modifies a provisional remedy or grants, refuses, modifies or dissolves an injunction, sets aside or dismisses a writ of attachment, grants a new trial or sustains or overrules a demurrer, decides a question of jurisdiction, grants or denies a motion for stay of proceeding under s. 262.19, determines an issue submitted under s. 263.225, or denies an application for summary judgment, but no order of the circuit court shall be considered appealable which simply reverses or affirms an order of the civil court of Milwaukee county, unless the order of the civil court grants, refuses, continues, modifies or dissolves a provisional remedy or injunction.  (Emphasis added.) The civil court of Milwaukee was created by ch. 549, Laws of 1909. Over a long period of years, the legislature established, by specific acts, many special courts throughout the state of Wisconsin. There were wide variances in both jurisdiction and procedure in the numerous special courts throughout the state. In 1959, the legislature enacted the Court Reorganization Act, ch. 315, Laws of 1959, which became effective the first Monday in January, 1962. This was an act relating to reorganization of the courts into a system consisting of a supreme court, circuit courts, county courts, and justices of the peace. [2] The Court Reorganization Act abolished some special courts and incorporated or transferred the jurisdiction of others into that of county and circuit courts. Thus, in the instance of the previously existing civil court of Milwaukee county, its jurisdiction and function was transferred to and included in that of certain branches of Milwaukee county courts as created by the Court Reorganization Act. Secs. 18 and 27 of ch. 315, Laws of 1959, provide as follows: Section 18. . . . . . . (2) In counties having a population of 500,000 or more, branches Nos. 1 and 2 shall be the probate branches. Branch No. 3 shall be the traffic court branch. Branch No. 4 shall be the misdemeanor court branch. Branches Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall be the civil court branches. . . . (3) Regardless of the name given to a particular branch or the type of cases assigned to it, the judge of that branch shall handle other matters assigned to him as time permits. (4) Whenever a branch is given a particular name by statute, all cases of the type described by the name of the branch shall be assigned initially to that branch by the clerk and shall be reassigned to another branch only in the case of disqualification, illness or vacation of the judge or congestion or vacancy in the branch named by statute. Section 27 . . . [T]he civil court, district court and children's court of Milwaukee county are constituted branches of the county court of their respective counties effective the first Monday in January 1962 according to the provisions of section 253.02 of the statutes as created by this act with the jurisdiction specified in sections 253.10 to 253.14 of the statutes as created by this act. All special or local acts relating to these courts are repealed, effective the first Monday in January 1962. . . . (Emphasis added.) We are of the opinion that the language of ch. 315, Laws of 1959, must be considered in its entirety and that the act expresses a clear legislative intent to create, as far as possible, a uniform system of county courts throughout the state, including the establishment of uniform county court procedure. The language of sec. 27 is a positive expression of intent to repeal special and local acts relating to the civil court of Milwaukee county. If this language cannot be said to specifically repeal the portion of sec. 274.33, Stats., which we have emphasized, surely it can be said that such was the intent of ch. 315, Laws of 1959. Therefore, it is our opinion that since the enactment of ch. 315, Laws of 1959, the emphasized portion of sec. 274.33, Stats., has become a nullity. Sec. 274.33, Stats., refers to a specific courtthe civil court of Milwaukee county. The intent to repeal all former laws upon the subject is made apparent by the enactment of subsequent comprehensive legislation establishing elaborate inclusions and exclusions of the persons, things and relationships ordinarily associated with the subject. Legislation of this sort which operates to revise the entire subject to which it relates, by its very comprehensiveness gives strong implication of a legislative intent not only to repeal former statutory law upon the subject, but also to supersede the common law relating to the same subject. . . . 1 Horack, Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d ed.), pp. 475-477, sec. 2018. The order of the circuit court in the instant case relates to subject matter jurisdiction and is, therefore, appealable under sec. 274.33, Stats. Klotz v. Wathen (1966), 31 Wis. 2d 19, 142 N. W. 2d 197; Stroup v. Career Academy of Dental Technology (1968), 38 Wis. 2d 284, 156 N. W. 2d 358. There is no statutory prohibition to appeal an order of the circuit court affirming or reversing an order of the county court relating to subject matter jurisdiction.