Dixon v. Highway Com'r of Port Huron Tp.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 814,75 Mich. 225
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: DIXON v. HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER.

42 N.W. 814

75 Mich. 225

DIXON v. HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 14, 1889

Certiorari to highway commissioner of Port Huron township, St. Clair county.

LONG J.

This is a certiorari to the highway commissioner of the township of Port Huron. The petitioner is the owner of a piece of land situated in said township, through which, under proceedings had before the commissioner, it is proposed to locate and establish such highway; said land being occupied as it is claimed, by petitioner's tenant. The petition was presented to the commissioner for the establishment of this highway signed by the requisite number of freeholders of the township on September 18, 1888, and on the 19th he served a notice, as is claimed, on only a part of the residents whose land was affected by the opening of such highway, and also posted notices at the several points in the township required by the statute. The notice stated that the proceedings would be heard on the 20th of September at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. On that day, as appears from the return, the commissioner, on his own motion adjourned the hearing until October 13, 1888, without stating any definite time or particular place. On October 13th he claims to have gone on and established the highway. At the time of the institution of the proceedings the petitioner in this cause was a resident of Port Huron, and the premises owned by him, and through which the said road was to be established, were occupied by his tenant, and had been for a number of years. The commissioner, in his return, states that he served this notice upon certain person, owners of the lands through which said highway was to be established, and certain of these parties appeared before him on September 20th, among whom was Herman W. Stevens, and that, while said stevens stated he did not appear for any one, he verily believed that said Stevens appeared for Albert Dixon, the petitioner herein. It is not claimed that any notice was ever served upon Dixon, or on his tenant in possession of the premises. The question raised are: (1) That the notice of hearing either served or posted on September 19, 1889, for a hearing to take place on the 20th of that month, was too short to give the commissioner jurisdiction; (2) that, had he acquired jurisdiction upon a proper notice, he lost the right to proceed further by adjourning the hearing without specifying the hour and place of such...