Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1869-04-22

Z same, and other matters which rem,
d dered the testimony admissible
. On the S0th of March the case went
! to a final hearing, occupying sever
( al-days IN the hearing Of the eEi-
+ dence and arguments, and Judge
s Safordst0ok the case undeT-oonsid.
:. Grafton until the 18th day Of April,
at which time he rendered his deci-
, sioh. After fecohside dering theopin-
, ion delivered. On tpeicpppetqney OF
, the evidence, (Which he did at the
! instqnee of plaintiffs counsel), he
said he was still satisfied with that
opinion, and adhered to it having
I found nothing to induce him to
change II, but much to strengthen
and confirm 1t, and then proceed
ed: 3a H9 Z 81
| am then to enquire into the
facts asawell as the law to ascertain
if there has been usurpation and
abuse ofpower on the part of the
commissioners. Having settled
the question of their Jurisdiction,
shall not notice at length those
Irregularities which do dot go to-
the Jurisdiction, but might be re-
garded as errors by higher trlbu-
nal on a proceeding to reverse.
The distinction between error of
judgment and usurpation of power
is definitely drawn and settled by
the authorities. voorhees, VS.. Bank
of U. S. 10 Peters, 474-5, the ques-
ton of majority was a judicial
question to be determined by the
commissioners. They did determ-
inc it. finding a majority who petit
toned for the Improvement that
finding is not void. So with refer
ence to the power of those petition
ers who subsequently signed TIE
remonstrance to revoke This was
judicial question for the commits.
sioners to decide, and they did de-
eide there was no revocation.
But the evidence upon all these
questions is admissible, and admit
ted to show that the commissioners
actel fraudulently, and in arroga-
ton and abuse Of power, &c. l
shall examine it, therefore, with that
view. -...-.
The statute requires a mqjomtyl
Of IandholderS &c. TO be petitioners
for the Improvement. The first
question here suggested is, Who iSI
a landholder in the meaning Of the
actS Judge Stafford here carefully
reviewed the evidence and argu.
ments, and held that not only are the
owners in. fee simple were landhold-I
ers, hut also holders of completed
equities and partial equities-that
is, persons in possession under {
of purchase, who have :
paid part of the purchase money :
and made improvements, are land ,
holders within the meaning Of the /
law, and are competent petitioners,
He cited numerous authorities and
analogies Of the law in support of
his conclusion, and sustained it al. ,
so from the statute itself, its OBJ
jects, purposes and provisions. The !
action of the commissioners, there
fore, in counting these classes Of /
persons as land. holders was proper, t
and furnishes no ground for inter d
fering with their order,
AS to the question of revocation.
It is contended by plaintiffs |
counsel that the petitioners had Il v
right to revoke their authority or T
consent to the Improvement before !,
the commissioners acted upon the =
question of majority, and thatA5 4
Of the petitioners who signed the
petition before the order of view,
md 43 who signed subsequently, .
lid revoke their names and author .
ty as petitioners by signing the re- y
?
Judge Stafford considered this i
question at length, holding that a
whether the signing Of the petition 9
'e considered as a license, or in q q
he nature Off contract with the
wo freeh olders who execute the 1
'ond, whereby all agree to be re- +
ponsible pro rata for the expen- !
es, or as q Joint venture for q mu- =
nal benefit; after action has been W
lken upon the petition, and eXpen- Bl
es incurred, no one or more peti- 81
Ioners can revoke their authority VI
r abandon the enterprise without - -
he consent ofAlb and that such is /.
he case as welltwith the post vJe,o Ia
igacrs as the ante vieto sigaers to
ne petition.
This being the conclusion to nIy
hieh / have arrived, it is upneces- W
ary to pass upon the question NJ NJ
neither the remonstrances were in p(
,rms or effect a revocation OF the W
Ignatures to or authority of the a
etitlon. l IinI'9fei 8Hl n
PAe question Of the disqualification IN
+ Jones, one OF the Commission
RS, arises by reason Of his marriage
ith one Of the petitioners for che 4J
prior to the acts of -