Iowa capitol reporter. [volume] (Iowa City, Iowa) 1841-1855, 1854-08-16
Smith Ball ct al. APppalffom Jefferson
vS. County.

a. Humphrcyset al.
Opinion by j. C. Hall J. This was an ap.
peal by Bail ct al from proceedings had before
in jefferson County aud the assessment OF
damages Humphreys aud others pctGoued
for the road and Bail and Others resisted the
establishment and claimed damages, for rea-
son that the road passed over lands owned by
them
The proceedings before the County Judge
appear to have been regular up to the tine OF
| the assessment Of damages ami final establish
ment of :he road. al which tiCe the County
Court ordered the estsb ishmenl OF the road
upor the condition that the petitioners paid
the damages assessed tc the claimants and
costs. From this decision smith Ball aud
others, to whom damages had been awarded
by the County Court, appealed to the District
Court On the trial in the District Court, the
court submitted TO the Jury the question: oi
damages sustained by each of the appellants
severally, and refused to submit to the Jury
or entertain the question, as 10 the necessity
or convenience Of tue road fsr the travelling
public.
The appe'lees move to DISMISS the appeal
because the appellants had not made the ap-
plicaticp iOr damages within The time requir.
ed by law, aud because the District Court had
| no Jurisdiction over that question; which mo
ton was overrulsd and exceptions taken. The
appel ants except to the ruling ot the Court,
refusing to try the question IN relation to es
tablishing the road
| The District Court, after assessing damages
refer the whole nlatter back to the County
CoMt, and make no order In Tlation 10 The
costs, that were assessed In tkst Court, but
send it to the County Cour. Tor disposition.
Both parties now appeal 10 this Guurt Hall
and others assign for error, the refusal of the
| Court below 10 hear and determine the ques-
tion as to the propricty 81 establishing the
road and the refusal Of the Court TO render a
| Judgment for the costs that arose in the Dis
tricI Court on the appeal. Humphreys and
others assign for error the refusal Of the Courl
to dismiss the appeal, aud for assessing dam
ages.
We thiuk there is no ground in tho o joclio,
that the applicants did not petition the COUNTY
Court for damages in time. The County Court
decided that question and acted upon The case
and no objection was raised before that Cours
ar appeal taken from its decision IN that re-
spcct.
| The propriety or impropriety Of establishing
public road is purely question for the pub
| lie. No one person can have an interest in
that question as contrao istinguished from a !.
| True; some persons may use the road more
than others, but all are equally Interested ia
its establishment. The private citizen whose
land is taken for the road, has no interest as
..distinguished from the public. For ha. pun
pose be IS part Of the Pubhc and his interest
is one, in common with all. He is to be' paid
just compensation for the land thus taken
for the pubic use. When he has received thu,
com pensation or an equiv alent for the land
he stands in the same relation TO the road as
the citizens do, whose lands have not beef
taken. His interests as Distinguished from
the public, have been eftinguished by the pay.
unent for the land taken. Section 13f Of the
Code provides for appeals from .she deerees
orders and decisions Of the County Court, oi
any matter affecting the rights o. interest oi
individuals, as distinguished from the public.
II follows than that the location and establish
ment OF the road cannot be reviewed by M
appeal o the District Court, and that the
Court was night in refusing to submit that
question to the Jury.