Wood v. Commissioners of Highways

Citations

• 62 Ill. 391

Syllabus

<p>1. Highways—laying out. In this case, notice of the petition to establish a road was posted October 21st. Thirty days thereafter (November 20th) the commissioners of highways met, in pursuance of notice, to hear reasons for and against the establishment of the road, and the prayer of the petition was granted and a survey ordered, which was entered of record. No final order was then made, and there was no adjournment entered to a future day. Nothing further was done by the commissioners until the 4th of December following, when the final order was made establishing the road, and on the 14th of December the damages were assessed: Held, on certioi-ari, that the final order was void, and that the proceedings should be quashed.</p> <p>2. Same. The statute evidently contemplates that the final order establishing a road should be made within the thirty days from the posting of the petition, unless for good cause there is an adjournment for a reasonable time, entered on the record, so that parties interested may be advised of any future meeting in relation to the road. 3. Same—notice of meeting. The notice of the time and place of meeting of the commissioners to hear reasons for and against the proposed action, is in the nature of a condition precedent to any action on the part of the commissioners, and to the exercise of the power to appropriate the land of the citizen for the use of the road.</p> <p>4. Same—adjournment. If, at the meeting to hear reasons, of which notice had been given, the officers had entered an order for adjournment upon their records, for sufficient cause, and for a reasonable time, then they might be justified in making the final order after the expiration of the thirty days, as the land owners would then have some notice of the subsequent action.</p> <p>5. This case distinguished from Allison v. Commissioners of Highways, 54 Ill. 170.</p>