State of Maine. Hancock: At the Court of County Commissioners begun and held at Ellsworth, within and for the County of Hancock, on the Fourth Tuesday of January, it being the twenty-seventh day of said month, A. D., 1880.

"Present: William L. Guptill, Esquire, Chairman. John Plopkins, Esquire, Associate. Newell Coolidge, Esquire, Associate. H. B. Saunders, Clerk.

"Isaac B. Desisle et als. Pet. for Road in Eden, at Bar Harbor.

"Respectfully represent, Isaac B. Desisle and seven others, inhabitants of the town of Eden, that a town way, beginning at or near a Balm of Gilead nearly in front and Easterly from the ' Grand Central,’ and running Northerly to the Southern line of Tobias Roberts’ land near his cottage in said town, would be of great public convenience for the use of said town: Wherefore your petitioners pray that the same may be duly laid out as by the statute is provided.

"Dated at Eden this twenty-sixth day of July, A. D., 1879.

"This petition was entered at the April Term, 1879, when and where it was considered by the commissioners that the petitioners were responsible and that they ought to be heard touching the matter set forth in their petition, and therefore order : That the commissioners meet at Isaac B. Desisle’s on Tuesday, the twenty-third day of September next, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, and thence proceed to view the route mentioned in said petition ; immediately after which view a hearing of the parties and witnesses will be had at some convenient place in the vicinity, and such other measures taken in the premises as the commissioners shall judge proper. And it is further ordered that notice of the time, place and purpose of the commissioners’ meeting aforesaid, be given to all persons and corporations interested, by serving an attested copy of this petition and this order thereon upon the clerk of the town of Eden and by posting up attested copies as aforesaid in three public places in said town thirty days at least before the time appointed for said view and also by publishing the petition and this order thereon three weeks successively in the Ellsworth American, a public newspaper published in Ellsworth, in the County of Hancock, the first publication to be thirty days at least before the time of said view, that they may then and there attend and be heard if they think fit.”

The petition was then continued to the October Term, 1879, when and where the commissioners appeared and presented in court their report in the words following, to wit:

"State of Maine. Hancock, ss. Whereas, Isaac B. Desisle and seven others, inhabitants of the town of Eden, by their petition made to the court of county commissioners at their regular sessions holden at Ellsworth, within and for said County, on the first Tuesday of July (April adjourned term), A. D., 1879, represent: That a town way, beginning at or near a Balm Gilead nearly in front and Easterly of the' Gran d Central ’ and running northerly to the Southern line of Tobias Huberts’ land, near his cottage at Bar Harbor, in the town of Eden, would be of great public convenience, that the selectmen of said town after notice and hearing of parties have unreasonably refused to lay out such way. Wherefore, your petitioners considering themselves aggrieved by such refusal pray that your Honors would agreeably to law in such cases, made and provided, view the route and locate said road if in your judgment the public convenience and necessity require it, and as in duty bound will ever pray.

"Hated at Bar Harbor, in the town of Eden, this fourth day of August, A. H., 1879.

"And whereas at the April adjourned term of said Court, A. H., 1879, it was considered by the commissioners that the petitioners were responsible and that they ought to be heard touching the matter set forth in their petition, and therefore order "that the commissioners meet at Isaac B. Hesisle’s on Tuesday, the twenty-third day of September next, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, and thence proceed to view the route mentioned in said petition ; immediately after which view a hearing of the parties and witnesses will be had at some convenient place in the vicinity, and such measures taken in the premises as the commissioners shall judge proper.

"And it is further ordered : That notice of the time, place and purpose of the commissioners’ meeting aforesaid be given to all persons and corporations interested, by serving an attested copy of the petition, and this order thereon upon the clerk of the town of Eden and by posting up attested copies as aforesaid in three public places in said town thirty days at least before the time appointed for said view, and also by publishing the petition and this order thereon three weeks successively in the Ellsworth American, a public newspaper published in Ellsworth, in the County of Hancock, the first, publication to be thirty days before the time of said view that they may then and there attend and be heard if they think fit.

"In accordance with the foregoing order the undersigned met at the time and place and for the purpose above specified and it appearing that notice had been given agreeably to said order, by serving an attested copy of the petition and order of court thereon upon the clerk of the town of Eden, and by posting up attested copies of the same in three public places in said town thirty days at least before the time appointed for said view, and also by publishing an attested copy of the petition and order three weeks successively, in the Ellsworth American, a public newspaper published in Ellsworth, in the County of Hancock, the first publication being thirty days at least before the time appointed for said view; proceeded to view the route set forth in said petition, after which view a hearing of the parties and witnesses was had at a convenient place in the vicinity, and after due consideration thereon being had, do adjudge that a road over said route will be of common convenience and necessity.

"Beginning at a Balm of Gilead tree nearly in front and Easterly from the Grand Central Hotel, thence running North 91-degrees East, 19-¿- rods to North West corner of B. Sproul’s store, thence North 7 degrees East 40 rods to a stake near the North West corner of Tobias Bobert’s dwelling house. Said line to be Eastern line of said road, and said road to be three rods wide.

"Ellsworth, Oct. 22nd, 1879.

"Which report being seen by the court and due deliberation thei’eon being had, was accepted by the court, and it was further ordered by the court that the original petition on which the foregoing proceedings are founded be continued to the next regular session qf this court, to wit, the January Term, 1880. And now at this term the court order that the proceedings on the original petition be closed.

Attest: H. B. Saunders, Clerk.”

The record before the court does not show in and of itself, and without the aid of any inference, that the necessary jurisdictional facts existed to authorize the commencement of the proceedings by the commissioners; and, therefore, the proceedings in laying out the way were void, and afford no justification to the defendant for the acts complained of. Small v: Pennell, 31 Maine, 267 ; Goodwin v. Go. Com. 60 Maine, 328 ; Bethel v. Go. Oom. 42 Maine, 478 ; Hayford v. Go. Com. 78 Maine, 156.

It would appear that the petition, ante p. 28, was addressed to the county commissioners. The record shows that it was upon this petition that notice was given and the action of the commissioners based. But the petition does not state any of the essential jurisdictional facts. If the proceedings of the commissioners were based upon this petition then they are void for want or jurisdiction. The petition referred to on page 28, is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the commissioners. It does not state that any petition had before been made to the selectmen, by any one. It does not show that the selectmen had unreasonably refused to lay out the way within one year prior to the petition to the commissioners. Both these facts are essential.

It should appear that the petitioners to the commissioners were the same persons, or at least some of the same persons, who had before petitioned the selectmen. There is nothing in the record to show that it was adjudged by the commissioners that there had been an unreasonable refusal by the selectmen. This is essential. JPownal v. Co. Com. 8 Maine, 271; State v. Pownal, 10 Maine, 24; Goodwin v. Co. Com. 60 Maine, 328.

The time has passed for the plaintiff to bring certiorari. However defective the doings of the commissioners are, the plaintiff must submit, provided they had jurisdiction. In deciding this question of jurisdiction upon the record presented here the plaintiff should have the benefit of a strict construction of the record.

While the county commissioners’ record does not in all respects conform to the statute, it at least shows these things: that they, by virtue of a written application made to them setting forth that the selectmen of the town of Eden after notice and hearing of parties had unreasonably refused to lay out the way, gave all and the same notices required by the statute, went on'to the ground at the time appointed, heard the parties, laid out the way and made their return describing it, which return was filed and recorded as required by law. There are some omissions and inaccuracies in their return, but these ai’e either entirely unimportant,— mere violations of directory statutes,— or if important are defects that can only be taken advantage of by certiorari. Many of the alleged defects, such as failure to assess damages, to return a plan, to erect monuments, etc., are unimportant. They would not have been fatal even if the plaintiffs had proceeded by petition for writ of certiorari. Howland v. Co. Com. 49 Maine, 143.

The only defect open to proceedings on certiorari, is the failure on the part of the commissioners to make return of their adjudication that the selectmen had unreasonably refused to lay out the way. The petitioners set out this fact and the commissioners must have so adjudicated; but the record does not show it. Unless amended this would have been fatal upon certiorari. But this proceeding is an action of trespass against a duly qualified town officer acting under the decree of the court of county commissioners; and whatever might be said if this decree had been attacked directly, it cannot be impeached collaterally. In this respect the acts of county commissioners differ from those of selectmen. The selectmen of towns are not a court. Their acts may be attacked collaterally. An officer exercising authority under them must show that their proceedings are correct ; but it is otherwise with county commissioners’ decrees. Robbins v. Lexington, <8 Cush. 292 ; Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Fall River, 147 Mass. 459, and cases; Goodwin v. Hallo-well, 12 Maine, 271; Fisk v. Briggs, Lb. 376; White v. Co. Com. 70 Maine, 317.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress