Court Opinion

ID: 9834637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 01:34:00.411217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:44.826316
License: Public Domain

*485aThe following opinion was filed June 22, 1946:
Wickhem, J.
{on motion for rehearing). Appellant’s motion for rehearing is grounded on the fact that the court did not dispose of its contention that, aside from the timeliness of its action, the village did not comply with the terms and conditions of the acquisition. The court is of the view that there is no substance to this contention. There are three alleged defects. The first is that the certificate by the clerk of circuit court reciting the deposit of $11,500 cash on February 23, 1945, and the filing of an undertaking as of that date has attached to it papers which appear to be a part of the village ordinance without indication of its adoption, and an undertaking unsupported by proof of village authority for its execution. We have carefully checked the record in this respect and consider that this objection is unfounded in fact. The second objection-is that there is a serious variation between the acquisition order and the right-of-way ordinance adopted by the village; that the order provides that the village shall grant a right of way to appellant to maintain its transmission line through the village until such transmission line may be removed by appellant without disrupting service; that the ordinance as adopted provides that the right of way shall exist until the transmission line can be removed by appellant without disrupting service. It is contended that the commission contemplated the use of the right of way by appellant until it should find it expedient to remove the line, whereas the ordinance would require appellant to remove the line as soon as it is possible to do so.
We shall not undertake to construe the commission’s ordér. We hold that the ordinance was a purported and intended compliance with the order of the commission; that the use of the word can for may was obviously inadvertent, and that the ordinance should be construed as a compliance with, and as having the same meaning as, the commission’s order.
*485bIt is further objected that it does not appear that either the financing or right-of-way ordinances were published. The requirement in question is contained in sec. 61.32, Stats., and, so far as material to this contention, reads:
“The board shall keep a record of all its proceedings, and if there be a newspaper published in any village, the board shall cause the proceedings to be published therein in such manner as the board shall direct.”
Publication of the proceedings of the village board are not specifically made a condition to the validity of its enactments, but we shall not consider whether a failure to publish the proceedings of a board meeting invalidates ordinances enacted at such a meeting if the village has a newspaper. Assuming that it does, there is a presumption upon presenting the original or a certified copy of the ordinance into evidence, without more, that there was no newspaper in the village. This follows from the fact that the statute makes no requirement of publication unless there is a newspaper in the village. The situation is quite different where a statute unconditionally requires publication or posting. Even in such cases, when the ordinance has been in force for a considerable time this court has held that there is a presumption of publication. See Osceola v. Beyl, 168 Wis. 386, 170 N. W. 252. In view of our conclusions we do not pass upon respondents’ contention that this court may take judicial notice of the fact that there is no newspaper in the village of Centuria because the Blue Book contains a list of the newspapers in the state and lists no newspaper for that village.
By the Court. — Motion for rehearing denied without costs.
Rector, J., took no part.