Platte Cnty. Court v. McFarland

• Decision Date: 31 July 1848
• Citation: 12 Mo. 166
• Parties: PLATTE COUNTY COURT v. MCFARLAND AND OTHERS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 Mo. 166

PLATTE COUNTY COURT

v.MCFARLAND AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1848.

ERROR TO PLATTE CIRCUIT COURT.

ALMOND, for Plaintiff.

1st. The decision of said County Court was not and is not such a decision as will legally entitle a writ of error to lie from the Circuit to the County Court thereon. It was not and is not a judgment at all, and is no bar to the future presentation and reception of the same report by said County Court. See Astor v. Chambers, 1 Mo. R. 191. 2nd. It was certainly cruel thus to create a case in the Circuit Court against the “Platte County Court,” and it was evidently wrong to render judgment against defendant for an error of judgment, supposing one to have been committed. 3rd. There was no bill of exceptions filed in the County Court, before the case arrived in the Circuit Court, to show upon what evidence or grounds the report was rejected. See Davis v. Hays, 1 Mo. R. 270. 4th. The assignment of errors by McFarland and others in the Circuit Court, and the action of that court seem to imply that the County Court ex necessitate rei, ought to have received and acted upon the report. 5th. The commissioners, acting in a public capacity, and for the public, had no private right or interest affected by the decision of the County Court, and had no right to their writ of error. And the question as to their pay was altogether a different question from the reception” of the report. See Galloway v. Overbeck & Shaw, 10 Mo. R. 364. 6th. The Circuit Court had no right to revise the decision of the County Court in this case, and if the Circurt Court has any control over the County Court in reference to this road, it can only be exercised by writ of mandamus, commanding the County Court to receive said report. 7th. If the precedent is established of taxing the County Court with the costs in this case for a wrong decision, supposing it to be wrong, it might be extended to the Circuit Courts, which would prove most disastrous. 8th. But the County Court decided correctly. For, 1. If the evidence before the County Court had been preserved, it would be seen that Shaw, the objector, had private rights affected, and his objections were sustained by proof. 2. The private act of the Legislature is nowhere preserved upon the record establishing said State road, but is found on page 334 of Laws of Missouri of last session of the Legislature. And from the report it will be seen that only Bailey and Allen met as required by the second section of said act. 3. Bailey and Allen then having met at the time and place designated in the second section of said act and complied with all its requirements, “constituted a quorum, and were competent to perform the duties by said act assigned to the three commissioners.” 4. Ferrill, by failing to meet at the time and place, evidently lost his capacity as commissioner; it having centered in the other two who did thus meet. 5. Allen does not join in the report, but Ferrill at a subsequent day comes up after he was functus officio, qualifies and aids in appointing McFarland. 6. Even supposing that Ferrill had a right to act as commissioner after he thus qualified, clearly he and Bailey had no right to appoint McFarland. 7. The special act gave them no authority to make such an appointment, and only upon failure of said commissioners or a majority of them to meet as required by the second section of said act, were they authorized to act under the general law. See seventh and last section of said act. 8. McFarland and Ferrill then were not authorized to act as commissioners. 9. Said report is deficient in this that the pretended commissioners did not obtain a relinquishment of the right of way from various persons, nor did they legally assess the damages of those persons. 10. As the county of Platte had and has to foot all the damages as occasioned by the location of said road, the County, Court did right in requiring the commissioner strictly to conform to the law. See Rev. Code, p. 972-3-4, §§ 3, 13, 16.

WILSON & REES, for Defendants. Our first point is, the report is strictly correct and conforms to every requisition of the law. See Rev. Stat. 504, Roads and Highways, art. 2, §§ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 to 36 inclusive. 2nd. The commissioners had such an interest as authorized them to appeal and litigate the case. The defendants had no such interest. See Gallaway v. Shaw & Overbeck, 10 Mo. R. 364. 3rd. William B. Almond had no such interest; not even the color or pretense of interest, and consequently had no right to except to the opinion of the court. Nor had he a right to bring the case here by writ of error. 4th. There is nothing in the motion, the overruling of which is complained of and made the sole ground for exception. The court did right...