Hayford v. Comm'rs of Aroostook Co.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1886
• Citation: 3 A. 51,78 Me. 153
• Parties: HAYFORD and others, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONERS OF AROOSTOOK CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

3 A. 51

78 Me. 153

HAYFORD and others, Petitioners

v. COMMISSIONERS OF AROOSTOOK CO.¹

SUPREME COURT OF MAINE.

Filed February 6, 1886.

Petition for writ of certiorari to quash the alleged irregular proceedings of the court of commissioners of Aroostook comity.

Wilson & Woodard, for plaintiffs.

A. W. Paine, for defendants.

VIRGIN, J. Generally the granting or withholding of a writ of certiorari for the purpose of bringing up and quashing the irregular proceedings of county commissioners rests wholly within the discretion of this court. But, as an exception to this general rule, when the commissioners have no jurisdiction in a given proceeding, the court has no occasion to exercise its discretion in the matter, but, on due presentation of the record, orders the writ at once; for in such a case, the action of the commissioners being without the authority of law, parties aggrieved thereby have the legal right to have the proceedings quashed for the asking. Fairfield v. County Com'rs, 66 Me. 385; Levant v. County Com'rs, 67 Me. 429. Being an inferior tribunal, nothing is presumed in favor of the commissioners' jurisdiction, but it must appear by their record. State v. Pownal, 10 Me. 24. A general jurisdiction merely, given by the statute over the subject-matter, is not enough; they can only have it, in the particular case in which they are called upon to act, by the existence of those preliminary facts which confer it. Small v. Pennell, 31 Me. 267, 270. Moreover, while generally no particular form of words is required in the petition, nor is strict technical accuracy expected therein, (Windham v. County Com'rs, 26 Me. 406, 409,) their jurisdiction depends upon whether sufficient jurisdictional facts are set out, as they always should be, in the petition which forms the foundation of their action, (Bethel v. County Com'rs, 42 Me. 478,) although in some classes of cases concerning which the statute does not prescribe what facts the petition shall set out,—such as those seeking an abatement of taxes, —if the whole record, when completed, shows actual jurisdiction notwithstanding one or more of the jurisdictional facts were wanting in the petition, the court may, if substantial justice has been done by the commissioners, rightfully refuse to grant the writ, (Orland v. County Com'rs, 76 Me. 462.) But in cases involving the laying out of highways by the commissioners, the statute prescribes, in part at least, the character of the petition. It must be a "petition describing a way." Whatever else it may contain, if no way is therein described, it cannot authorize any action but dismissal on the part of the commissioners. When, and only when, a "petition describing a way," is presented to them by persons considered "responsible," the "commissioners may act upon it, conforming substantially to the description, without adhering strictly to its bounds." Rev. St. c. 18, § 1. Without a "petition describing a way" the commissioners would have no jurisdiction, for they could not "conform substantially to the description." One of the evident objects of the provision requiring a description of the proposed way, coupled with the required public notice thereon, is to afford those over whose lands it is to be laid, and those whose interests may be affected thereby, such information as will enable them to be heard. Hence it has been the practice in such cases to state at least the termini of the proposed way with reasonable and approximate...