DocketNumber: No. 25,183.
Citation Numbers: 208 N.W. 757, 167 Minn. 187, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1287
Judges: Dibedl
Filed Date: 4/30/1926
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
"Did the town board of the town of Hancock, Carver county, Minnesota, act arbitrarily, oppressively and against the best interests of the public in making the order under date of October 6th, 1924, vacating and discontinuing the public highway mentioned and described in the proceedings herein?"
At the close of the trial the court directed an answer in the negative. Rolf appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The appeal is authorized by G.S. 1923, § 2588. If there was evidence justifying a finding contrary to that directed by the court there was error; if not, the trial court's direction was right. This is the only question.
The question whether a public highway should be vacated is legislative, one of policy. Under our Constitution its determination cannot be committed to the courts. State v. Simons,
It is suggested that members of the town board had preconceived views as to the propriety of vacating the highway and that the question of vacation was an issue in the town election. The question of legislative or administrative policy may be made an issue before the voters. Often it is. The officers elected need not have the unbiased attitude of jurors, nor are they elected as judges. Reference is made to Sartell v. County of Benton,
2. The highway ran north and south two miles on a section line, and was established a year and a half before the vacation. A half mile at the north, which included a theretofore established cartway, was not vacated. This was the only portion which had been improved. *Page 190 There was evidence that it would cost $15,000 or $20,000 to build the road. There was evidence that it would cost much less. There were other roads in the town needing grading and graveling. There was a section line road one mile east and another a mile west. The vacated road would serve the convenience of some residents near the south end in reaching their church and school north of the township line. It was not of substantial, if any, advantage in reaching a market town or a public school. There were doubtless conveniences to the general public of the town, and of the community in general, in having the road open. Any public road is of service to those who would use it occasionally or frequently. This one, if improved, would have been of public use. It was a fair case for legislative judgment whether the road should be vacated or left open. So far as can be seen from the record the town board, in the exercise of a proper legislative discretion, might have determined it either way. A finding of the jury contrary to that directed could not be sustained.
Order affirmed.
In Re Appeal of Beasley Bros. , 206 Iowa 229 ( 1928 )
Trout Brook Realty Co. v. Town of Featherstone , 173 Minn. 448 ( 1928 )
Rask v. Town Board of Hendrum , 173 Minn. 572 ( 1928 )
Burlington Transportation Co. v. Iowa State Commerce ... , 230 Iowa 570 ( 1941 )
In Re Appeal of Sowers , 175 Minn. 168 ( 1928 )
State, Department of Game, Fish & Parks v. Troy Township , 900 N.W.2d 840 ( 2017 )