State ex rel. Hasbrouck v. City of Milwaukee
State ex rel. Hasbrouck v. The City of Milwaukee
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Cole, J.
A motion is made to quash the alternative writ on various grounds, only one of which we deem it necessary to notice.
It is objected that the writ does not specify any particular duty to be performed, hut states several acts, and commands the respondents to perform one or the other of them, without designating which one they are required to perform.
The rule seems to he -well settled, that the mandatory clause of the writ should expressly state the duty required of the defendant. Tapping on Mandamus, *327; State v. The Supervisors of Beloit, 20 Wis., 80 . Here the command is, that the defendant pay the judgment therein mentioned, or issue.bonds for its payment, or proceed and levy a tax upon the taxable property of the city for its payment. These acts are distinct in their nature, and the defendant may not know which to perform.
The motion to quash, therefore, must prevail, with leave to the relator to amend the writ if he desires to do so. For we have no doubt but the writ is amendable under our statute.
By the Court. — Ordered accordingly.'
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.