Court Opinion

ID: 9655774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:21:32.648468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:21.689930
License: Public Domain

Gehl, J.
(dissenting). It is not questioned that this proceeding was taken under the provisions of sec. 89.52, Stats., and that all of its provisions have been complied with. The trial judge found as a fact that the lands of the objectors are receiving benefits from the drain, and as appears from his memorandum opinion, reluctantly ordered them included in the district. His difficulty appears to have arisen from the fact that he saw no escape from his duty to recognize and apply the provisions of sec. 89.52.
The majority base their determination principally upon their conviction that the purpose of the district throughout the proceedings was to increase the size of the district “piecemeal,” and they so conclude in the face of the trial judge’s conclusion that he was satisfied that the later developments in the area were not contemplated when the original proceeding was commenced.
He was not convinced, as the majority seem to be, that he should leave the judicial field and invade that of the legislature and for the purposes of this case, at least, repeal the statute.
I am of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Broadfoot joins me in this dissent.