Case ID: yeates_4/html/0434-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Cur.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bridge over Wallenpaupac in Wayne County.
    To make a bridge a county charge, it must appear by the report of the viewers, that five of them had viewed the place, and that such bridge was necessary.
    Certiorari to the Court of Quarter'Sessions of Wayne county, to remove all proceedings respecting the erection of a bridge, over Wallenpaupac waters, a branch of Lakawaxen river.
    It appeared by the record, that in May sessions 1804, the supervisors of the public roads in Palmyra township, petitioned for this bridge, whereupon six persons were appointed to view the same, and make report to the next sessions. In September and December sessions following, no return was made; but in February sessions 1805, the same viewers were re-appointed, without any continuance of the first order, or a new petition. In May sessions 1805, four of the viewers reported, that the bridge was too expensive for the township; but the report was then disallowed by the grand jury, and also at the September sessions following.
    nfc *In February sessions 1806, the grand jury declared *• 435 their opinion, that the bridge ought to be repaired by the county, and the same was allowed by the court, and an allowance was afterwards subscribed by two of the commissioners.
    In May sessions 1806, on motion of Mr. Sitgreaves, a rule was given to shew cause why the proceedings respecting the bridge, should not be quashed ; but the same was discharged by the court on the 3d September following; though the certiorari had been read and filed two days before, viz. on the 1st September.
    Mr. Sitgreaves now moved, that all proceedings respecting the bridge, should be reversed. The manner in which bridges shall be erected over waters, which cross a public highway, is pointed out by the 21st and 22d sections of the road law, passed 6th April 1802. 5 St. Laws 194. On a representation or petition, a view is to be appointed, and five of the persons so ap* pointed must view the place and report to the next sessions, the necessity of such bridge, and that it is too expensive for the township to erect. If the court, grand jury and commissioners concur therein, the same shall be confirmed, unless an application for a review shall be made to the sessions next after the report has been made on the first view.
    Passing over in silence the sessions undertaking to discharge the rule to shew cause, two days after the certiorari had been read, the following, among other errors, appear on the face of the proceedings.
    1. The petition died a natural death, by no report being made to September sessions 1804.
    2. No necessity for the bridge is stated in the report.
    3. Nor does it appear, that five of the persons appointed, had viewed the spot, though four might return.
    4. A sessions should have intervened; but here the grand juries at May and September sessions 1805, refused their concurrence as to the bridge being a county charge.
    5. When the grand jury declared their opinion in February sessions 1806, it was, that it should only be repaired, (not erected) by the county.
    6. Neither the grand jury, court nor commissioners, find that the bridge was necessary.
    7. Only two of the commissioners have approved of the bridge.
   Per Cur.

It is impossible to support these proceedings. It does not appear by the report, that the bridge was deemed necessary *by the viewers, or that five of them had viewed the spot. We need not go further. [*436

The proceedings must be reversed.