Filed Date: 12/15/1818
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
OPINION OP THE COURT.
This was a writ of certiorari, to reverse the proceedings of the county court of Wilkinson county, vacating part of a public road in that county.
The first exception taken, is, that the county court vacated the road in. question, without the intervention of a jury.
As the proceedings were intended to be based upon the directions of the statute respecting public roads and highways, we must look to that statute, to ascertain whether the exceptions are well founded. The first section of this statute provides, that the courts of the several counties, shall order the laying out of public roads, and appoint where bridges should be made, and to discontinue such roads as now are, or shall thereafter be made, as shall be found useless, and to alter roads so as to make them more useful, as often as occasion may require. The second section provides, tliát all roads thereafter. laid out, shall be laid out by a jury of seven freeholders. The 8th section declares, that no person shall turn, alter, or change, any public road, unless it is by order of the court, founded upon the report of jury, appointed and sworn as in the case of laying out of roads.
Here we find it is necessary, that there should be a jury to lay out, turn, change, or alter a road, but not to discontinue a road, unless it be embraced by the words, turn, change, or alter, which do not seem to us to comprehend the case of a mere discontinuance of a road. But it is contended, that the discontinuance of a road, comes within the spirit and reason of the provision for laying out, turning, changing, or altering a road. We consider them as standing on different grounds. In laying out a road, it becomes necessary that the ground should be particularly designated, and marked in its whole route, from its commencement to its termination, so as to inflict the least injury upon the owners of the land, compatible with the public advantage. This land, being the private property of individual proprietors, cannot be taken and applied to public use, without compensation to the owners of the soil which is to be occupied as a road, and the damages sustained by them must be assessed. This cannot be done, with any degree of certainty, without going actually upon the ground; but in the mere discontinuance of a public road, this is not necessary. The only enquiry then is, whether the road has ceased to be of public benefit, or not. That can be ascertained, as well by testimony addressed to the court, as by a view.
With respect to the notice, which it has been contended ought to have