Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1869-04-22
Tbo lirst ooestion I am coiJed nj

: by law to act In this case, an
. whether their action was Judicial
its nature. The amendatary act {
1868 provides that the county CON
missioners shall have the power q
hereinafter provided, &c, 20. I
vol 65, page Al, sec. /, J That upo
the presentation Of .petitiQn,stal
ing the kind of improvement, DC
sigued by{ 5 OF more landholders
&c, and the filing of a bond, &c
the commissioners shall appoin
three viewers, &C., that the Audito
shall give noticeby publication DC
oethe time and place ofmeeting o
the viewers, &c. (Qi Layol65, pag
Al ec.a2,) lrsluoo Js ug86 d
Seetion5 5 provides that upon th'
return Of the reporti &C., the com
missiouers shall, If in their opiaio1
public utility requires ito enter up
on their record an order that til,
Improvement be made, DC. bu
such cider shall not be made unit
a majority Of the residentland own
ers Of the county whose lands arr
reported as benefited and oughtrtC tC
be assessed, shall shave subscribed
the petition mentioned in tho %
section of this act; and IN determ-
iatng said mgjority, minors heirs
shall not be counted, DC.
Thus it appears that the commits
sioners have ample and complete
powers in the premises, and that
the powers exercised by them are
judicial. Their judgment and dis
erection is called into requisition,
and among the questions which re-
quire judicial determination, and
the exercise of discretionary power
on the part of the Board, is the
questioned majority of landholders
petitioning for the improvement,
and the utility or public necessity
of the improvement The latter
rests solely in the opinion and DIS
crettoh of the commissioners, The
former is expressly submitted TO
their determination Such is the
express language of the statute.
This is the exercise Of judicial
functions in the true sense of the
word and this question Of maiori-
ty is by the statute submitted to the
decision Of the Board of Commits
sioners, and to no other tribunal.
They are invested with complete
Jurisdiction to inquire fully into
the facts in all their bearings, such
as, Who are landholdets how
many have subscribed the petition,
and how many have not ? who are
minor heirs tenants in commons? ?
and all other matters Of fact reflect
ing upon and proper to be consid- |
cred in determining the question
But it is contended by the plain
lifts that the jui3sdtction of the
commissioners depends upon the
fact that a majority had signed the
petition, and if that fact did not ex-
ist, their jurisdiction didnot attach
end that therefore the truth Of that
fact may be inquired into, and
shown. bylproof not TO exist, al
though the commissioners found
that it did exist; and it is denied byI
the plaintiffs counsel that the pow
er exercised by the commissioners
is judicial. IL is insisted by them
that it is bare, naked statutory
power, and any misjudgment on the
part Of the Board upon the question
Of majority may be inquired into
md corrected. Numerous author
ties are cited by counsel (Judge
Stafford reviewed the. authorities re-
erred to In the argument and then
,roceeded); alIfoa stI
The authortiesr refored to estab-
ish the principle that the question
is always the subject
# inquiry, and the want of juris
,iction may be shown in any pro
'eeding, collateral as well as direct
Fhey also settle the principle that
{ 10 be found the jurisdiction had
Ittached, then no fact or matter
subsequently determined and adju.
Heated can berevised in any Court
'xcelt by petition In error or ap.
zeal. pm oi a'slaaluH n' 4f
The real question here then is,
Fh6a did the commissioners &C.
uire Jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is
efned by Webster TO be illegal
over or authority" BY Bouvier,
a powepconferfed upon any one |
, take cognizance Of and decide :
muses. according to law, and carry
10 decision into execution In y
heldon VS.. Newton, 3 0. s., z.
%, Judge Raney says "the power t
} hear and determine a cause, is S
lrlsdictlcn and tits cordm 3adici l
a case is presented which
rings this power into aetion.'
Judge Stafford then proceeded to :
tie further authorities upon the '
nestion Of Jurisdiction, and also :
careful analysis of the subject !
nd applied the cases and principles
} the case at bar and concluded y
= saying; h.a :
1t cannot be denied that the Il
oard of Commissioners is q tribu. 8
n, exercising judicial functions Ep
I'd 1t Is the conclusion Of the =
ourt that their Jurisdiction was o
'mplete after tho presentation of Q
Ie petition signed by 5 orlmore v
nd-holders, the giving ofthe bond, il
10 appointment of the viewers, /
G, and that the decision of the I'll
lmmissionors on the question as q
} whether u majority had signed p
lesDptiiion ttyp q n iuflifiel 4aofotd, | a,