29 Wis. 444 | Wis. | 1872
This is a common law certiorari, issued out of this court for the purpose of bringing up for review the proceedings of the board of review of the town of Hubbard, in Dodge county, in assessing and fixing the valuation of the property of the Wisconsin Iron Company, situated in that town. The writ was issued in October last, and was directed to the town clerk of the town, commanding him to send up a “ full and complete record of the testimony taken before said board of review, together with the record of all the proceedings and judgment or finding of said board of review upon the application ” of the Wisconsin Iron Company for a reduction of the value assessed upon its real estate. A motion is made to quash the writ:
First. Because it is not issued or directed to the tribunal that made the determination complained of and sought to be re-' viewed, and because the power and functions of the board of review of the town of Hubbard have ceased.
Thirdly. Because the petition and writ wholly fail to show on their face any case in which such writ ought to issue.
Fourthly. Because the writ is, in other respects, informal, defective and insufficient
In answer to the first objection, the counsel on the other side says, that the settled rule in all cases from necessity is, to direct the writ to the tribunal, person or persons having the possession and legal custody of the record of the proceedings sought to be reviewed; and that, as in this case the town cleric alone had the legal control and possession of the proceedings of the board of review, he was the person to whom the writ should be directed. This answer appears to us entirely satisfactory and conclusive. There can be no doubt that the record of the proceedings of the board is in the possession and under the control of the clerk. Section 28, chap. 180, Laws of 1868, makes it the duty of the assessors to deliver their assessment rolls as corrected by the board, with all sworn statements and valuations of personal property, to the clerk of their town, city or village on or before the first Monday of August of each year, which latter records are to be “filed and preserved by said clerk.” The clerk, then, had the legal custody and possession of the record of the action of the board, and of all statements, and of examinations of persons under oath made before the board; and he alone could make return to the writ. Of course the object of the writ is to reach this record where-ever it is, and bring it before this court for review. It, therefore, appears that the objection that the writ was improperly directed to the town clerk is untenable. (See, upon this point, The People v. Highway Com'rs, 30 N. Y., 72; and The People v. Reddy, 43 Barb., 540.)
But the important question raised by this motion is really
This statement of the law is, doubtless, sufficiently accurate when considered in connection with the cases in which it is generally made. But this rule is not always strictly adhered to, as an examination of the adjudged cases will abundantly prove. Courts do frequently consider, upon a common law certiorari, defects and errors in the proceedings of the inferior tribunal which are not strictly of a jurisdictional nature. “ Questions relating to the regularity of the proceedings, or questions of law which arise on the face of the record, or of the proceedings and orders, which are'in the nature of records, will be noticed.” Senator Paige, in Stone v. Mayor and Aldermen, etc., 25 Wend., 168. Indeed, in many instances the final adjudications of persons invested with power to decide on the property or rights of the citizen, and who act in a summary manner, or in a new course, different from' the common law, are reviewed upon cer-
In the case of the People v. Reddy, supra, which was common law certiorari to remove the proceedings in relation to an assessment upon the real and personal property of the relator, the supreme court examined the principal upon which the assessment was made, as well as the evidence before the assessors, and held that the assessment was clearly unwarranted by the evidence. It is true that in that case the writ was dismissed because it was directed to the assessors, and it appeared that the roll or record was no longer in their possession or under their control. But the case is directly in point upon the question as to what matters can be considered on the writ in the present case. In Baldwin v. City of Buffalo, 35 N. Y., 375, there is a very clear intimation in the opinion of Justice MORGAN, that on a common law certiorari to review the proceedings of comissioners appointed to award damages upon opening a highway, such writ would bring up so much of the evidence as was necessary to present the question of law upon which the relator relies to avoid the decision of the commissioners. But it is proper to. add that that precise question was not before the court for decision. Again, in Swift v. City of Poughkeepsie, 37 N. Y., 511, which was an action to recover back an illegal tax assessed and paid, the court, while denying that, upon the facts, the action could be maintained, yet suggest that the plaintiff had an ample remedy, by certiorari, to correct the assessment, had he availed himself of it in season, and say that such a writ would not only bring up the naked question of jurisdiction, but the evidence on which the body acted to which the writ is directed, as well as the ground or principle of their action.
In The People v. Board of Assessors, 39 N. Y., 81, the court fully examine the action of the assessors, and correct the errors committed by them in making the asssessment. In
In The People v. The Board of Police, 89 N. Y., 506, the court likewise lay down the doctrine that on a common law cer-tiorari the court may go beyond the inquiry whether the inferior tribunal had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, and whether its proceedings and judgment were within that jurisdiction, and affirms the proposition that it may also examine the case upon the whole evidence, to ascertain whether any error had been committed in the proceedings before such inferior tribunal. The writ in that case was sued out to review a judgment or order of the board of police imposing a fine upon the relator for absence from duty. The opinion was delivered by Woodruff, J., and is quite full and instructive. He examines many of the cases in New York, and comes to the conclusion that a disposition has been too frequently manifested by the courts of that state to limit the office of the writ within too narrow bounds, and finally proceeds to examine the case.
In this state, the common law writ has almost invariably been brought to review the proceedings and judgments of justices of the peace, and this court has, with much uniformity, declined to consider upon such writ any but jurisdictional questions, or such questions of law as might arise upon the docket entries of the justice. The court has refused to try the merits of the action by a common law writ; or to examine any alleged error of the justice in his rulings on the trial; or to consider any objection which involved an inquiry into the evidence. There was no way provided by which such decisions and rulings became a matter of record; and, besides, an adequate remedy was afforded for a review of these judicial acts by means of the statutory writ of certiorari, or by appeal. There was, therefore, no necessity for enlarging the power and office of a common law certiorari in this class of cases, inasmuch as any one whose rights were injuriously affected by the errors and mistakes of the justice upon such questions, had an ample remedy open to him. Therefore, in the very latest cases which have come before this court, where we have had occasion to consider the question (Owens v. The State, 27 Wis., 456, and The State v. Huck, ante, p. 202) the chief justice has stated, with much emphasis, that it is only errors or defects going to (the jurisdiction of the justice which will be inquired into upon ithe common law writ of certiorari, because, for all other errors ,or mistakes, the aggrieved party has his remedy by appeal. This settled doctrine of this court it is oúr purpose to maintain.
But, in proceedings of a summary character and out of the .course of the common law, like the proceedings of the board of ¡review under our statute, in which powers are exercised affecting valuable rights of property, and where there can be no di
It is believed that these authorities are sufficient to show that the writ in the present case need not necessarily be ineffectual, because this court would not be restricted to the mere inquiry whether the board of review had jurisdiction of thé property of the company. This court can go beyond that question, arid inquire whether the board was guilty of any excess of jurisdiction, and consequently may look into the record, or what is of the nature of a record, to see if the board in its decision violated its duty and the rules of law prescribed for its abtion.
The statute requires that the assessors shall lay before the board of review their assessment roll of the real property, and
Tbe correctness of tbe action of tbe board of review is a matter which can fully be gone into when tbe clerk makes a return to tbe writ. We shall refer to it now upon this motion to quash merely for tbe purpose of saying that, according to tbe petition, it very clearly appears that tbe board exceeded their jurisdiction and violated tbe law in fixing tbe valuation of the real estate of tbe company. Tbe board arbitrarily affixed values to tbe property, in utter disregard of tbe sworn state;
It results from these views that the motion to quash the writ of certiorari must be denied.
By the Court — Motion denied.