Foster v. Dunklin

• Decision Date: 31 March 1869
• Citation: 44 Mo. 216
• Parties: EMORY S. FOSTER et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. JAMES L. DUNKLIN, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 Mo. 216

EMORY S. FOSTER et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.JAMES L. DUNKLIN, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1869.

Error to the Second District Court.

Jno. L. Thomas, for plaintiffs in error.

J. J. Williams, for defendant in error.

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The County Court of Jefferson county, upon the petition of plaintiffs in error, established a new road across the land of the defendant in error, for which the compensation of fifteen dollars was awarded him, the commissioners deciding that the benefits derived by him from the road equaled the other damages. He appealed to the Circuit Court, which tried the case de novo and affirmed the proceedings of the County Court, and thence to the District Court. The last court reversed the action of the other courts, and rendered judgment against the petitioners, and they bring the case up by writ of error. The defendant files his motion to dismiss the writ, for the reason that the plaintiffs have no such interest as will entitle them to its benefit. The motion is overruled, for the reason that these parties were brought into the Circuit Court and into the District Court by defendant Dunklin, and judgment rendered against them in the latter court. If they have no such interest in the matter as to authorize them to appeal from the action of the County Court, it does not follow that if they are brought into the Circuit and District Courts against their will, and personal judgment rendered against them, they may not ask us to review that judgment.

There seems to have been a general misapprehension of the law pertaining to this matter. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the whole question before the County Court was inquired into, and witnesses examined upon the expediency of establishing the new road. This was beyond the province of the Circuit Court. The County Court has exclusive jurisdiction in that matter. It alone has power to establish new county roads, change roads for purposes of cultivation, and vacate roads. No appeal is allowed from its decision in this matter. The law well assumes that from the constitution of this court, the residence of its members within the county, and their knowledge of its wants, it is more competent to decide these questions correctly than an appellate tribunal. Hence, the discretion of the County Court in establishing the road can not be reviewed by the Circuit or any other court.

Previous to the act of March 23, 1868, appeals were allowed from the assessment of damages; but, by that act (section 53), if a person over whose land the road passes shall be dissatisfied with the damages allowed him by the road commissioner, he may demand a trial and assessment of damages, by jury, in the County Court; and no appeal is allowed from that assessment. Thus the whole matter is now left to the County Court. But still the Circuit Court, upon application of a person entitled to appeal, may exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the action of County Courts, given by section 2, chapter 136, of the General Statutes.

But the jurisdiction does not involve the right to review the discretion of the County Court, or to pass upon anything but the legality of its proceedings. If the County Court has conformed to the law, as shown by its record, its action should be affirmed. There is no provision for a bill of exceptions or for bringing anything before the Circuit Court, except the record proper; nor can the merits of the question be examined. (St. Louis v. Lind, 42 Mo. 348.)

In the appeal to the Circuit Court the petitioners for the road were made defendants, and they were also brought into the District Court. Is there any authority for this? There...