Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1868-12-26
Supreme Court Opinions.

KIxo COUNTY. PlG in Errs. r. ID. A. Nelly.
LIFT in Error
DRxSusox. A.~riatc Jsssic-. delivered the
o,,inisn of the Court.
l. statement Of tn
ppes nom the Ksrt of s,mie-ious~s exsmis~L and
es,ne dssvts printss But hyw fss sA~-e s-fss.s
r rsS f IN n. y .res s Cur; . sssn3
lAe tssrt d''cs ns d~cid< = d. p"sst - sS rai-d
Jude, ,ur ssasu,e r~iastsg - - - Hacsvsy-.
4 the Bssd Of t.aniy conssIs-l.Iss 8 Inrsais: and
",,SSns sSn'y r $500 s.e,s 81 ,se s.s ss''~ Is
in order TO ..een.i. .s. mode Of pc,sssu'inc an
,sSsn II eosneri,.m .i,h ID. prc,os. .c,. 80 the
subjest especially the sri II i~A wel -sstn ~
af he sct Il Jasuary a. is', rciaiss tn County CON
Views 81 the Cnurt expressed In resri to the r-n-
eay which complainant may re-"r in wh-rr
cr,seoas sud also In ~herr the Can.i. sionrr.
hsse ~ jugisdictoe q, having jursdicsioa,
ecsfIag thrir prescribed kats.
OPINION.
This ease GUINNESS up On writ n csrus. In ~
view judgment rendered. by the District Court
In case appealed r. that COurt fr,m the lhnri
ii County Commissioners of King County. The
subject matter out If which the litigation ar~.'
was the location II . public rad ACROSS the
land claim If Nicely. and the damages awarded
therefor The facts of the case ~ far a. they
are disclosed ia tho Transcript arr sul,stsn-
| italy these:
In May. 1867. under an act Of the Trgisla-
| tive Assembly approved January 30. 1867. the
| County Commissioners located q rad leading
from Seattle to White River. which road. when
| opened. would run acrDss the land claim Of
d. 4. Nicely.
At q session Of the Boarl Of Commissioners
in August. 1867. Nicely, a. II seems fr'm re-
| cital in the transcript. presented complaint
| IL the Commissioners claiming that he would
be damaged in u large amount by the opening
of the rad What else, if anything, was con.
tanned in this complaint docs not APPEAR. as
no copy Of il il In the transcript Thercul,On
the Commissioners appointed three persons to
! assess and determine the amount Of damages.
| At the November session, 1857. these npl,rais-
| crs made ruls,rt II the Commissioners, and
were not able to agree upon the amount OF
damages sustained by Nicely; whcrupon. the
Board discharged them and appointed thrce
other persons to asscss and determine the
amount Of damages. This new set Of apprais-
ers made their report to the Bard Of Com.
missioncrs at their session in February, 1868.
The Poard accepted the report and ordered
! that u. a. Nicely he allowed the amount OF
damages stated therein, t0wit Two hundred
dollars.
| February 90. 1903. Nicely fled his notice oi
appeal to the District Court claiming that Inc
was aggricvcd by the action Of the Board on
an application made by himself and others,
February 4tl. 1868. to vacatc Sd much Of the
| rVad AZ leads from the old Washburn House
to the old Indian Ranch on. Ncclcy's farm
and Also by the decision made the same day
on his application for damages for the location
and opening said road on his land.
| The case was tried in tho District Court at
Seattle. upon the notice Of appeal. and what
purports to be copy Of the journal entries Of
the COMMISSIONER Court touching the locn-
tiOn Of the RIAL and the damages awarded tn
Nccloy. On tho trial, tho Judge directed the
jury to find special verdict and to return ali
answer In writing to the following question
do You approve or disarprovc the location Of
the road in contrversy!' To this direction
the County excepted. and the jury answered in
writing I'VE agree 10 disapprove the action
of the Board Of County Commissioners" The
County then moved fer new trial on tho
ground that the Court could not pass upon the
location of tho roaal, and had M jurisdiction
to do ~. The Court Overrulcd tho motion and
rendered Judgment THAT the action of che
County Commissioners regarding the road In
question IN vacatci and held for naught III
far as It runs ON plaintiffs land. and als,. TINT
the defendant. King County. pay the c'sts Of
this suit" No other exceptions being taken,
| suC NOuuty va AAuuE WYNN - VIII W. CtSOs "
this Court. Two errors are assigned.
| LIST. The direction given to the jury TO re-
turn an answer in writing whether they MP
proved or dimpprovcd the road.
2d. The Overruling Of tho motion for a new
trial.
| Both Of the errors assigned may he consid-
eretl under one head. namely: What was or
what was not legally before the District Court
to he determined ON tho appeal taken, In
l.. e.
was legally presented to the District Court for
determination on tho appeal taken by Nicely !
We think it at least doubtful IL any qucs-
ton at all was % presented to tho Court, al
though the point was not directly urged in ar.
gument.
As general rule, party litigant, who dc.
sifes to prosecute an appeal from An inferior
to . superior Court, must dAs0 in conformity
With tho law regulating appeals, otherwise
the appellate Court legally acquires no juris-
diction. II Ia true, there aro somo Irregular.
ties which the opposite party will DO doomed
to have waived by appearing and not Directing
- the proper time but tho substantive re-
quircments Of the law-thoso which are essen
thai In order TO confer juriMic4loa o. tho appel.
late COurt-muse b. complied With.
Without saying moro upon this point at
present, let AZ ASCERTAIN II possible, what steps
should b taken by complainant In order 70
secure aud efIectuatc tho right Of appeal. in
cases Of this Kind, from the Board n County
Comhissloners. We say In cases Of this kind.
meaning thereby, in cases Of appeals allowed
BY the oct relating TO roads and highways, ap-
proved Jan. S0th. 1857.
Our road laws have undergone = many and
singular changes aimee 1854, that II y not an
easy task 10 ascertain the precise Inoec Of pro
eeciing In prosecuting. IN appeal from the
board Of Commissioners.
BY tho ct Of 1854. Sce. .. 10. and II. any
Pseoa csaaaenae theG l,o woald b is3psed
By H. epse1ng of County rod thleugh he
lard was required, within specified tlmc astnr
- leeaaioa. 70 make compliant IN vyities 10
the Csmmissioaces and have the dazDagso. -
sesssd By thrco viewers 70 b appointsd by the
C1huiaiaasss, ~. u eass IT, complainant
W. lot aatisAed With the amount ofdamages
AWARDED, ~ might appeal within twenty (1ys
% The Diasict Coart, end TIE appeal W. %
b tried in w. Distriet Court In tie same nan.
ner = appcals nom Justices Of tho reSfe.
0>at. 1854, r. S48. - i rs,f'
By tho act Of 1875. amending the q. Of
1884 the pFUccodlnQS before thn COMMIT r m.