TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hewes v. Town of Andover

George Hewes and Others v. Town of Andover and Others

Hewes v. Town of Andover, 16 Vt. 510 (1845)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1845
Judges
Curia, Redfield
Citations
16 Vt. 510
Headnotes
In case of a petition to the supreme court for a highway extending through two or more counties, it must appear from the petition that the petitioners are freeholders and inhabitants of the towns, or vicinity, through which theyoad is to be laid. An amendment of a defect in this respect will only he allowed on terms ; and the amendment can only be made by the petitioners themselves. No hearing will be had upon the merits of an application to the supreme court for the laying a highway, until the coming in of the report of the commissioners,
Summary
Petition for the appointment of commissioners to lay a highway through a portion of Andover, in Windsor County, through Wind-ham and Londonderry, in Windham County, and through Winhall into Peru, in Bennington County. The petition commenced, “the undersigned petitioners come, and represent,” &c. A motion to dismiss was interposed, assigning as a reason that it did not appear from the petition that the petitioners were any of them freeholders, or inhabitants, of the towns, or vicinity, through which the road was to be laid. cited Rev, St. 129, § 39 ; 130, § 34; 132, § 44.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Curiaredfield

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Curia, Per Redfield, J.

The statute requires that a petition addressed to this court, asking for a new highway, should be signed by at least seven freeholders of the town, or vicinity, expected to be *511 affected by the road. In the present case the petitioners do not so describe themselves. We therefore think that the petition, on the face of it, is insufficient.

It is necessary that the facts, which are > indispensable to the jurisdiction of this court in these sessions matters, of which the laying of highways is peculiarly one, should appear upon the face of the proceedings. Unless this is so, the court will not entertain the application. This point has been before decided by the court, on the last circuit, in one of the northern counties. We do not ordinarily dismiss the petition for defects, if they are amendable; but in the present case, if an amendment is allowed, it will be by paying the costs of the term as of a judgment, and taking no costs; and the amendment could only be made by the petitioners themselves.

The counsel wished to know of the court, whether, in such case, any hearing could be had upon the case before the appointment of the commissioners.

The Court said, that, of late, no hearing upon the merits of the application, when it was to lay a new road, could be had before the court, until the coming in of the report of the commissioners.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1899: 11919: 11934: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kent v. Village of Enosburg Falls44 A. 343 (Vt. 1899)
  2. Town of Barton v. Town of Sutton106 A. 583 (Vt. 1919)
  3. Probate Court v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America171 A. 336 (Vt. 1934)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list