State Ex Rel. Sisney v. Bd. of Com'rs of Quay County
| Decision Date | 01 July 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 2529.,2529. |
| Citation | 199 P. 359,27 N.M. 228 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. SISNEYv.BOARD OF COM'RS OF QUAY COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Held, that boards of county commissioners are without authority to alter award made by viewers in proceeding to lay out a road, except where the property owner is dissatisfied with the award.
Held, that there is no appeal provided from action of a board of county commissioners in altering an award made by viewers in proceeding to lay out a road.
Held, that, where no appeal is provided, the proper remedy to review quasi judicial action of board of county commissioners is by certiorari.
Appeal from District Court, Quay County; Lieb, Judge.
Petition by the State, on the relation of P. H. Sisney, against the Board of County Commissioners, Quay County, and another, for a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings in fixing damages in laying out road. Judgment for defendants, and petitioner appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Boards of county commissioners are without authority to alter award made by viewers in proceeding to lay out a road, except where the property owner is dissatisfied with the award.
R. A. Prentice, of Tucumcari, for appellant.
ED. MECHEM, District Judge.
This is an appeal from the action of the district court of Quay county, dismissing appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari to the board of county commissioners and county clerk of Quay county to quash the proceedings of the board of county commissioners in fixing damages due appellant in laying out and establishing a road through his land.
The petition for the road was presented to the board April 1, 1918, and on the same day the board appointed viewers to assess the damages and benefits to the landowners affected. The viewers filed their report fixing appellant's damages at $1,145.
On April 8, 1919, the board received the reports of the viewers and approved the same with the exception of the amount of damages awarded, and to the appellant they awarded the sum of $200. The board then ordered the notices to be posted declaring said road to be opened.
On May 17, 1919, the appellant filed his petition in the district court for writ of certiorari to the board and county clerk, setting out the fact regarding the proceedings and alleging that the action of the board in reducing the amount of the award was without notice to the appellant and was without warrant of law; that he never had been tendered the amount of damages awarded him by the viewers and that the board was attempting to open said highway over his protest; that he was without other speedy and adequate remedy at law; and praying that the resolution laying out said highway be reversed and held for naught, and for such other relief as to the court might seem meet and proper.
The cause came on for hearing. No evidence was introduced save the records of the proceeding before the board. The court gave judgment for the appellees and dismissed the petition at appellant's costs, from which action the appellant appealed.
The statutes fixing the authority of the board of county commissioners with reference to the awards made by viewers are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zamora v. Village of Ruidoso Downs
...by "the nature of the act to be performed rather than the ... board which performs it...." State ex rel. Sisney v. Board of Comm'rs of Quay County, 27 N.M. 228, 231, 199 P. 359, 361 (1921) (quoting 11 C.J. Certiorari § 67, at 121 (1917)). We find that the Board was acting in its quasi-judic......
-
Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, Civil 4296
... ... from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of ... Maricopa, J. C. Niles, Judge. Judgment affirmed ... As was ... said in State ex rel. Attorney General v ... Hawkins, 44 Ohio St. 98, 5 ... 269, 159 N.E. 41; State ... v. Board of Com'rs Quay County, 27 N.M. 228, 199 ... P. 359; [57 Ariz. 251] ... ...
-
Dugger v. City of Santa Fe
...actions. See Hillhaven Corp. v. Human Servs. Dep't, 108 N.M. 372, 772 P.2d 902 (Ct.App.1989); see also State ex rel. Sisney v. Board of Comm'rs, 27 N.M. 228, 199 P. 359 (1921). We believe that the dispositive issues in this appeal are (1) the nature of the final decision required by the pet......
-
Edward H. Snow Const. Co. v. City of Albuquerque
...to review acts of inferior courts or tribunals acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial character. State ex rel. Sisney v. Board of County Commissioners of Quay County, 27 N.M. 228, 199 P. 359. So, if the right of review exists at all, authority therefore must be found in the The pertinent pr......