Case ID: watts_1/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bachman’s Road.
    A review of a road is a matter of right; but upon the report of the reviewers having been made, the court may, at their discretion, adopt it or the report of the viewers.
    CERTIORARI to the quarter sessions of Lancaster county.
    Case of the road, in Bart and Strasburg townships, Lancaster county, leading from Bachman’s to Trout’s.
    
    In this case a petition was presented to the court at November sessions 1831, and a view granted; and return made by viewers to January session 1832: on the 16th of January, same year, “ read and approved nisi.’’ At the April sessions following, a petition was presented praying for a review, which was granted; and a report made to August session'following, on the first day of the term, by the reviewers, declaring that there was no occasion for such road as that returned and reported by the viewers, on the order for a view, which was on that day “ read and confirmed nisi.” And the court after-wards, on the 27th of the same month, without any notice to any of the petitioners for the review or their counsel whose name was indorsed on the back of their petition, confirmed the view made to the. court on the 16th of January, and set aside the confirmation of the report and return of the reviewers made to the August, term.
    
      Frazier, pro querente.
    
      Hopkins, contra.
   Per Curiam.

A review is a matter of right; but although grantable at the instance of a party, it, as well as the view, is but to inform the conscience of the court, who may adopt the report of the viewers, or of the reviewers at discretion; as was held in the case of Buckwalter’s Road, 3 Serg. & Rawle 236. As, then, the party at whose instance the review was granted, had no right to insist on having the report of the reviewers confirmed as a matter of course in the absence of a special objection to it, it was not error to adopt the one report without exceptions filed to the other.

Proceedings affirmed.