Anderson v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Town of Decoria

• Citation: 77 N.W. 229,74 Minn. 339
• Parties: ANDERSON v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF TOWN OF DECORIA.
• Decision Date: 29 November 1898
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

74 Minn. 339

77 N.W. 229

ANDERSON

v.BOARD OF SUP'RS OF TOWN OF DECORIA.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 29, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Blue Earth county; M. J. Severance, Judge.

Appeal by John R. Anderson from an assessment of the board of supervisors of the town of Decoria in laying out a highway. The order appealed from was affirmed, and from an order denying a new trial he again appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. On the evidence in this case, it is held that the appellant, owner of a farm over which town supervisors had by order laid out and established a public highway, had, by appearing and participating in the proceedings at the hearing of the petition for the highway by the supervisors, waived the omission to serve notice of such hearing upon him, if there was such an omission.

2. Held, further, that the verdict as to the amount of damages sustained by said appellant by reason of the order cannot be held inadequate and insufficient on the evidence. Lorin Cray and Pfau & Pfau, for appellant.

Thomas Hughes, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

Anderson appealed to the district court from an order made by the supervisors of defendant town laying out a highway across his farm, and assessing his damages at $150, for the purpose of wholly reversing the action of the board, on the ground of illegality in the proceedings, and also, in case the location of the highway was confirmed, to secure an increase in the amount of damages. This he had the right to do. Pairier v. Board, 68 Minn. 297, 71 N. W. 382. The appeal was duly tried in district court, and the order appealed from was affirmed in all respects. The present appeal is from an order refusing a new trial.

1. It is urged by Anderson's counsel that the order made by the supervisors was illegal, and not within their jurisdiction, because notice was not given to him of the meeting of the supervisors for hearing the road petition. The proof of service of a copy of the notice upon Anderson, attached to the original, was insufficient, although the copy seems to have been in his possession at the trial. But he resided on the farm, and it was shown that he was personally present at the hearing; twice walked over the line of the proposed road with the supervisors; was questioned by the chairman as to the amount of damages he would sustain, if the petition was granted; did state the amount claimed, which led to some discussion over the subject between the supervisors and himself;...