Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Wis. 272

Potter v. Brown County

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1882

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1882-12-12

<p>Practice: Taxation. (1) When findings unnecessary. (S) Stay of proceedings for reassessment, when required.</p> <p>1. If no issue is joined, in an action triable by the court, formal findings of fact are unnecessary,</p> <p>2. In an action against a county to set aside tax certificates, on the ground that the assessment was illegal and void, and for other defects in the proceedings going to the groundwork of the tax, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint, final judgment may be entered; and it is unnecessary in such case (under sec. 1210b, R. S.), to stay the proceedings until a reassessment can be had.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-12-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1930

6 state decisions

30188218901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Oetoh, J.

¶1This action was to set aside and cancel certain tax certificates on the plaintiff’s land, and enjoin the issuing of tax deeds thereon, on the ground of the assessment being illegal and void, and other defects in the proceedings going to the groundwork of the tax. There was no appearance or answer. There is no hill of exceptions, and whether the court had any evidence before it or not, we cannot know; but it must be presumed it had, if necessary; but under the second subdivision óf sec. 2891, R. S., no evidence is necessary in such case, except to enable the court to give judgment. There were no findings of fact, and in such case, where there is no issue, none need be made. Sec. 2863, R. S.; Krause v. Krause, 23 Wis., 354. The main point urged in the brief of the learned counsel of the appellant is that the circuit court should have stayed all proceedings in this casé, without final judgment, until a reassessment could be made, under sec. 12105, R. S. But that section only requires such stay, of proceedings “in actions hereafter tried upon issue joined in any of the courts,” etc. Here there was no issue joined, and of course there was no trial, for “ a trial is a judicial examination of the issues between the parties,” etc. Sec., 2842, R. S. It is therefore clear that a stay of proceedings was not necessary in this case, it not being a case within the terms of the above statute, and to extend that statute to such a case would be judicial legislation.

¶2There appear to be no errors in the record.

¶3By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

/56/wis/272 · .json · Public domain