Case ID: mich_64/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Morse, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company v. Homer Norton, Commissioner of Highways.
    
      Certiorari — Proceedings to lay out a highway — Assessment of damages — Appeal to township hoard.
    
    
      Certiorari will not lie to review the action of a highway commissioner in laying out a road, where the only grievance urged is an arbitrary disregard of a land-owner’s rights in the assessment of -damages, his remedy being an appeal to the township board, in which case it must be presumed that, if the commissioner refused to consider the proper elements of damage, the appellate board will do justice in the premises.
    
      Certiorari to highway commissioner to review award of damages in laying out a highway.
    Argued January 7, 1887.
    Writ dismissed as improvidently issued, January 13, 1887.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Wisner & Draper, for petitioner.
    
      William Banker (Ervin Palmer, of counsel), for respondent'.
   Morse, J.

No question is made in this case as to the sufficiency of the petition, notice, etc.; but it is claimed that the commissioner, in proceedings to establish and lay out a highway over the right of way and track of the plaintiff in error, arbitrarily disregarded the rights of the railroad company in his assessment of damages, and failed and neglected to award it just compensation for its damages by rea- . son of the laying out of the proposed highway.

The writ of certiorari was improvidently granted, and ■must be dismissed, with costs. The statute has provided for an appeal from the commissioner to the township board. When the only grievance lies in the • award of damage, the proper remedy is by such appeal. “It must be presumed that, if the commissioner refused to consider the proper ^elements of damage, the board would have done justice on the appeal.” Detroit & B. C. R. R. Co. v. Graham, 46 Mich. 642.

The other Justices concurred. 
      
       How Stat. § 1303.
      See Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Hough, 61 Mich. 507.