Moffit v. Brainard

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Citation92 Iowa 122,60 N.W. 226
Decision Date13 October 1894


Appeal from district court, Keokuk county; A. R. Dewey, Judge.

Action in equity to enjoin the obstruction of a highway. Judgment against plaintiffs for costs, and they appeal. Reversed.C. M. Brown, for appellants.

A. G. Schulte, for appellee.


1. It appears that plaintiffs own land abutting upon that part of the highway sought to be vacated; that defendant petitioned for the vacation of the highway; a commissioner was appointed, who reported, recommending the vacation, whereupon notice of the hearing by the board of supervisors was given only by publication; that at the date fixed in the notice the board vacated the highway as prayed; that the highway thus vacated was convenient and necessary for the use of plaintiffs and others; that none of them were served with notice, though their ownership of land abutting upon it appeared from the transfer books in the office of the auditor of the county at the time said petition was filed and notice published. Their damages for such vacation have not been assessed. The published notice was not directed to any one by name, and plaintiffs never saw it, and had no knowledge of it until long after the highway was vacated, and defendant had closed it up. It is charged that the board acted without jurisdiction, and that its action attempting to vacate the highway was void. An injunction is prayed for to restrain defendant from obstructing the highway. A demurrer to the petition because the court had no jurisdiction, and the facts stated did not entitle plaintiffs to the relief demanded, was sustained, and, plaintiffs standing upon their petition, judgment was rendered against them for costs.

2. This record presents two questions for determination: (1) Was the action of the board of supervisors in vacating the highway void by reason of want of jurisdiction? And (2) may plaintiffs avail themselves in such a case of the remedy by an action in equity for an injunction, or are they limited to certiorari proceedings? We first consider the question of notice. The form of notice required to be given is prescribed by the Code, and the notice must be served “on each owner or occupier of land lying on the proposed highway, or abutting thereon, as shown by the transfer books in the auditor's office, who resides in the county, in the manner provided for the service of original notice in an action at law;” and it is also provided that the notice be published for four weeks. Code, § 936. The giving of the notice required by the statute is necessary in order to confer jurisdiction on the board of supervisors to act in the matter. No notice was ever served upon the plaintiffs, who were owners of land abutting on the highway proposed to be vacated. The fact of their ownership appeared from the transfer books in the auditor's office, and they were in fact residents of the county, and lived upon their land. Under such circumstances the board had no jurisdiction to vacate the highway, and its action was absolutely void. Snyder v. Foster, 77 Iowa, 641, 42 N. W. 506;Railway Co. v. Ellithorpe, 78 Iowa, 418, 43 N. W. 277;State v. Weimer, 64 Iowa, 244, 20 N. W. 171; State v. Anderson, 39 Iowa, 275; McBurney v. Graves, 66 Iowa, 314, 23 N. W. 682;State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 56 N. W. 401;State v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 59 N. W. 35. Even the published notice did not comply with the requirements of the statute. It did not set out the names of the owners of the land. State v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 59 N. W. 35.

3. Are the plaintiffs limited to proceedings by certiorari? That certiorari is a proper remedy in such a case is well settled. Tiedt v. Carstensen, 61 Iowa, 335, 16 N. W. 214;Smith v. Powell, 55 Iowa, 215, 7 N. W. 602; Myers v. Simms, 4 Iowa, 501; Stubenrauch v. Neyenesch, 54 Iowa, 570, 7 N. W. 1; Code, § 3216. We do not think, however, that certiorari is the exclusive remedy in such cases Nor do we find that this court has so held in any case where the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Thorpe v. Clanton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • March 30, 1906
    ...... presumed to hold subject to the paramount right of the. public. Elliott on Roads and Streets, sec. 874; Moffit v. Brainard, 92 Iowa 122, 60 N.W. 226, 26 L.R.A. 821;. Curren v. City of Louisville, 83 Ky. 628; Parker. v. City of St. Paul, 47 Minn. 317, 50 ......
  • Moffit v. Brainard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 13, 1894

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