Court Opinion

ID: 9670104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:14:42.392544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.553842
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
{on motion for rehearing). Respondent’s brief in support of its motion for rehearing argues 13 propositions, most of which the court has already considered and decided adversely to respondent. In three instances, however, respondent has brought to our attention inaccuracies which we gladly correct.
(1) In stating the facts, we said the method of annexation followed was “annexation by referendum” under sec. 66.021 (2) (b), Stats. 1957. In fact the method was “direct annexation” under paragraph (a) of the same subsection. The referendum was conducted as provided in sub. (5).
(2) Respondent challenges our reference to a “general rule that, where the law gives a new remedy, this remedy is exclusive.” A more-apt statement is found in Baxter v, Sleeman: 1 “. . . where the law gives a new remedy to meet a new situation, the remedy provided by the law is exclusive, ...” 2
*638bHere, as pointed out in the opinion of the attorney general, cited in our opinion, there is language in the statute implying that the recount remedy was substituted for other remedies with respect to referenda.
(3) We stated that at the time of the adoption of the constitution there was no right to a jury trial in quo war-ranto trying title to an office. This assertion appears to have been erroneous.3
The original opinion is modified so as to be in accord with the preceding státements. The result is unchanged. An annexation is subject to ascertainment of the choice of the majority. The announced results of this referendum showed annexation losing by a tie vote. It seems entirely reasonable to treat the canvassers’ determination as conclusive unless timely challenged by a participating voter.
The motion for rehearing is denied, without costs.

 (1928), 196 Wis. 562, 564, 221 N. W. 382.

 See Morgan v. South Milwaukee Lake View Co. (1898), 100 Wis. 465, 466, 76 N. W. 354, State ex rel. Martin v. Juneau *638b(1941), 238 Wis. 564, 568, 300 N. W. 187, and 3 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d ed.), pp. 325-327, sec. 6802.

 State ex rel. Schumacher v. Markham (1915), 160 Wis. 431, 437, 152 N. W. 161. See State ex rel. Attorney General v. Messmore (1861), 14 Wis. 125 (*115), and State ex rel. Leonard v. Rosenthal (1905), 123 Wis. 442, 102 N. W. 49.