Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 61.51 (2026)

Auditing accounts

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

61.5161.51 Auditing accounts.

61.51(1)(1) No account or demand against the village shall be paid until it has been audited and allowed and an order drawn on the treasurer therefor. Every such account shall be made out in items. After auditing, which, at the option of the board, may be done by the village manager or such other officer as may be designated, the board shall cause to be endorsed by the clerk, over the clerk’s hand on each account, the words “allowed” or “disallowed,” as the fact is, adding the amount allowed, if any, and specifying the items or parts of items disallowed, if disallowed in part only. The minutes of the proceedings of the board, or a statement attached thereto, shall show to whom and for what purpose every such account was allowed and the amount. Every such account or demand allowed in whole or in part shall be filed by the clerk, and those of each year consecutively numbered, and have endorsed the number of the order on the treasurer issued in payment, and the clerk shall take a receipt thereon for such order.

61.51(2)(2) Payment of regular wages or salaries may be by payroll, verified by the proper official, and filed in time for payment on the regular pay day and such payments heretofore made are validated.

61.51(3)(3) The fiscal year in each village shall be the calendar year.

61.51(4)(4) Section 893.80 shall be applicable to villages.

61.51 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 285 s. 12; 1979 c. 323 s. 33; 1991 a. 316.

61.51 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See s. 66.0609 for an alternative system of approving claims.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1933–1940 · leading case: Hasslinger v. Vill. of Hartland, 290 N.W. 647 (Wis. 1940).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hasslinger v. Vill. of Hartland, 290 N.W. 647 (Wis. 1940). “The significance of this will hereafter appear. Defendant’s first contention is that plaintiffs have no standing to recover in this action for the reason that they failed to file a claim as provided by sec.”

Sauk Cnty. v. City of Baraboo, 248 N.W. 418 (Wis. 1933). “Its language is clear and unambiguous, and includes all claims and demands against a city, without regard to the nature of the claim or the character of the claimant.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.