Inhabitants of Nobleboro v. Lincoln County Com'rs

Citation68 Me. 548
PartiesINHABITANTS OF NOBLEBORO', petitioners for certiorari, v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LINCOLN COUNTY.
Decision Date17 December 1878
CourtMaine Supreme Court

ON REPORT.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.

A. P Gould & J. E. Moore, for the petitioners for the writ.

Converse, for Gowen & Knowlton, original petitioners.

Hilton, county attorney, for the county commissioners.

LIBBEY J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari, and involves the validity of the proceedings on petition to the county commissioners of John L. Gowen and Olivia M. Knowlton, for an increase of damages, caused by the location of a town way, by the town of Nobleboro', over their lands.

In their petition, the petitioners set forth two grounds on which they rely to show the proceedings illegal and that they should be quashed.

I. The county commissioners had no authority to issue a warrant for a jury to assess the damages upon said petition, because the town way described in the petition had never been legally accepted by the town, and was not legally located, and therefore the county commissioners had no jurisdiction over the petition.

II. Because the sheriff who served the warrant gave no notice to the town of the time and place of the view and hearing before the jury.

The prayer of the petition is that the record of the proceedings before the county commissioners may be quashed; and that the adjudication of the supreme judicial court, confirming the verdict of the jury, and ordering the cost of the proceedings for the fees of the jurors and others to be paid out of the county treasury, and the judgment of that court in favor of the petitioners against the town for their costs, be reversed and annulled.

Upon the first ground it is objected by the counsel for the petitioners that the record of the county commissioners does not show that they found that the way had been legally located, and therefore it does not appear that they had jurisdiction to issue the warrant for a jury.

The legal location of the way is properly alleged in the petition. The allegations in the petition upon this point present a case clearly within the jurisdiction of the county commissioners. In North Berwick v. York Commissioners, 25 Me. 69, in discussing a point somewhat similar to the one under consideration, Whitman, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says: " One ground insisted upon is that the commissioners have not directly adjudged of record, that the refusal of the town to confirm the doings of their selectmen was unreasonable. But it is so alleged in the petition under which they acted; and after final judgment we must understand that allegations duly and necessarily made were satisfactorily proved, although the proof may not be set forth in the record." Applying the rule there decided to the case at bar, we must infer that it was satisfactorily proved to the commissioners that the way had been legally located by the town.

But, by the evidence introduced by the petitioners, it appears that the record of the town as it then stood showed a legal location of the way by the town. The record was the only evidence of the fact. It could not be impeached or contradicted by parol evidence. This evidence, introduced by the petitioners, may be considered by the court, in the exercise of its discretion, in determining whether the writ should be issued as prayed for. West Bath pet's, 36 Me. 74.

The record of the town showed a legal location, and the original petitioners and the commissioners might well act upon it.

It is said, however, by the petitioners that their record was not correct; and they introduce, under the objection of the respondents, an amended record which it is claimed shows that the way was not legally accepted by the town. The amendment was made by leave of court, at the October term, 1876, after this petition was filed, allowing the town clerk to amend his record according to the fact.

The question arises whether it is competent for the petitioners by this amended record, to show that the way was not legally accepted, and thus deprive the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Carter v. Wilkins
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • October 12, 1964
    ...the course of the common law, that it may be seen and determined whether there is any error * * * .' Inh. of Nobleboro v. County Commissioners of Lincoln County, 68 Me. 548, 551; Toulouse et al. v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, City of Waterville, 147 Me. 387, 392, 87 A.2d 670. This method of......
  • Rogers v. Brown
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • October 28, 1935
    ...of bodies and officers acting in a judicial or quasi judicial capacity. Frankfort v. County Com'rs, 40 Me. 389, 391; Nobleboro v. County Com'rs, 68 Me. 548, 551; Devlin v. Dalton, 171 Mass. 338, 341, 50 N.E. 632, 41 L.R.A. 379; People ex rel. Trustees of Village of Jamaica v. Board Supervis......
  • County Com'rs of Aroostook County, In re
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1968
    ...defend their record. Inhabitants of Phippsburg v. County Com'rs of Sagadahoc County, 127 Me. 42, 141 A. 95 (1928); Nobleboro v. Lincoln County Commissioners, 68 Me. 548 (1878); Levant v. Penobscot County Commissioners, 67 Me. 429 (1877); Carter v. Wilkins, et al, 160 Me. 290, 203 A.2d 682 (......
  • State Bd. of Ed. v. Coombs
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1973
    ...was a board of county commissioners. Levant v. County Commissioners of Penobscot County, 67 Me. 429 (1877); Nobleboro v. County Commissioners of Lincoln County, 68 Me. 548 (1878). Both of these cases were cited in Carter v. Wilkins, supra, thus recognizing their continuing viability. In Inh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT