The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1880-06-04

OPINION.
The defendants were the petitioners for
the re-review of a road in the laying out of
which the services of the plaintiff were rem
dered as a surveyor. 1t is agreed by the par
ties that these services were worth the
amount stated iu the claim of the plaintiff.
The question to be determined is whether
the petitioners for review or for third or
other view are liable for the expense attend
ing such view2
The question is answered by the erpress
provisions of the Act of 13 June, 1886. By
the 54th section it is enacted, that, "The er
penSeS of views of private roads, aud the ex-
pense of any revie,cs, or of any view subse-
quent to review of private or public road
shalt be whoHy paid by the parties applying Jor
the same" And by the Goth section of the
same Act it is provided that "RevieVers and
viewers upon 8 third or any subsequent
view, shall be entitled each to receive:com-
pensation from the persons at whose instance
they were appointed, for every day by them
necessarily employed in such service"
Digest 1884, pl. SS and 81.
And by the 5Sth section of the same Act
it is provided that "In all cases of view or
review or OF any view subsequent to a re-
view of road surveyor shall be found and
paid by the persons applying for such
views"
The intention of the legislature to make
the petitioners liable for all expenses attend
ing review or a re review of a road OBJ
tanned at their request, is manifested by
clear, explicit and unambiguous language.
From the time the road laws of this State
were moulded into a system by the Act of
6 April, 1902, Pamphlet Laws 1851 to the
present time, they have declared that re-
view of a road shall be at the expense of
the parties applying for the same.
Iu Shafierstown Road, Watts 476, Judge
Huston who was practcng lawyer con-
temporaneous with the act of 1902, says:
THE review is to be granted at the expense
of the parties applying for the same" 1t
was held by the Court in that case, that a
review coul9 not be granted on the petition
of an attorney for the parties interested in
the road. "The names of tho persons liza.
BILE" says the Judge, fought to be of record
The parties dissatisfied should themselves
sign petition for review"
In Hellertown Road w & ) 203, there
is dict of Jddge Rogers that review il
a matter of right, aud is at the expense OF
the county. The learned Judge does no
however refer to the 54th section of the Ac
of 1886 above cited. The only questions be
fore the court were whether an alias re re
view ordered by the court without pc ii
tion therefor could be sustained, and wheth
er report which did not conform to the or
der should be set aside. The question as f
the costs was not before the court as ther
were no petitioners for the alias re.reviews
lnasmuch therefore, as the dictd above cite,
is in the very face of the statute, it is not @
binding force and must be dsregarded.
When petition is presented for revie,
or for any subsequent view, and reviewer
are appointed, the clerk is thereby substar
TALLY directed to make out an order drecte
to the persons appointed, and if such orde
I comes to the hands of the reviewers, an
, they obey its commands, they are entitle
to recover the compensation allowed by Law
e although not notified by any of the petition
e ers. They are not bound to inquire VIII
had taken out the order. 1t is enough I
= entitle them to charge the petitioners thi
r the order was issued upon their petition.
is no defence against claim for the exper
ses OF review or re-review tbat the pet
TONERS were not active in the matter b,
: yond inaugurating the procee aings and prt
; curing the appointment of the viewer
7 When the proceedings are begun by then
and prosecuted to the end without disser
or objection on their part, it must be conclr
sively presumed that the services were rel
c dered at their instance.
= The county is clearly not liable for tt
costs in this case, even under the opinion
Hellertown Road. Supra.
The legislature have imposed the costs an
9 expenses of all reviews, and of third or sui
l. sequent views upon the petitioners. Und,
the agreement as to the value of I'll
: plaintiffs services and the law, he is entitle
to judgment.
And now, May 18th, 1880, judgment fc
d the plaintiff upon the facts agreed upon
the parties for the sum of fourteen dolla
e and fifty cents and costs.