Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-11-29

announced. IL Is expressly QelQ IN Il
that case that the viewers cannot de-
viate from the line of the road de-
scribed in the notice SO as to include |
land for the road not within the de-
scription They must keep within the |
proposed route OF the road, and they |
are only permitted to deviate from |
that route sufficiently to avoid OBJ |
structions, save expense or to better
accommodate the public, taking into
consideration the utility, convenieu e,
expense to the individual and the pub
lie, but within the course specified in
the notice; and it was further held
that the description in the notice was
sufficiently specific and that the Ioca-
ton of the road was within the route
described, namely-a northwesterly
course.
In this case, however, no interme-
diate points are named, nor is the
general direction of the route given.
From the starting point to the point
of termination on direct line, at a
rough estimate, the course is north 25
degrees east, distance Of about four
miles. If reached by courses due
north and due east 1t is more than
"A miles. AS located by the viewers
the distance travelled is more than
| 76 miles, the course of which varies
to every point of the compass, with
257 angles, and this is not objection
able under the conditions disclosed,
but it makes plain the fact that the
petition does not mention the direc-
/ ,rAo t,Nc rf Ahn
road but is carte blanche to the view
ers and they evidently acted upon 1t
as such. If they had located 1t north
and east the two possible lines would
be more than a mile and half apart
Certainly such petition is not notice
to any one as to how road may
touch his land or that it will touch it
at ALL and thus might result in the
appropriation of the lands of the
owner to public use without notice
to him The petition need not contain
a detailed survey of the line of the
road where that is impracticable AS
said in the Ames case, it Is not nee
essary that the petitioners procure a
survey and state in the petition the
route with technical accuracy, but 1t
is sufficient if it is described in a
practical way. But it should contain
some general description of the line
of the road with reference to a creek
canyon, hillside, farm or other desig-
nation, if other definite description OF
course is not practicable, that will
, indicate to land owners what lands ol
rights it will affect. The description
of the line of the road in the petition
, is so indefinite as to be a nullity.
, The petition states that the route O
, the road is to follow as near as prac
, ticable the line of the survey hereto
: fore made by H. Il. Merryman, count.
. surveyor of Wallowa county, in thu
I, matter of a road pettioned for b,
John Anthony ct al, the field note
and plat of which are filed in tn
, county clerks office and referred t
= for more particular description o
: the route, and defendant insists tina
this reference makes the description
in the petition definite. But we ar
q of the opinion that 1t does not al
q the petition. AS already stated, tn
4 object of the petition Is to give tn
6 owner of land liable to be affected b
= the location of the road notice of tn
4 proceeding, and the notice must b
complete in itself for that purpose.
: cannot require every land owner
a the vicinity Of proposed road to g
= to the county seat and search the rec
- ord and find whether his land Is liabl
C to be affected and even If he did so h
= could not determine the fact from tn
~ surveyors notes without the aid {
. one skilled in such descriptions.
is said in Elliott on Roads and Street
% Sec. 377, Where petition Is require
y 1t constitutes the foundation of tn
10 proceedings. 1t must, therefore, col
! tain such facts as will inforl
" the parties interested of the righ
and lands affected And in Slime
~ Spencer, 80 Or. $40, 343, 1t Is sale
J. zone of the purposes of the statutoI
le requirements of the petition Is, I
IT doubt, to place interested parties
Al the possession of information so di
)t tinct and definite as that they migl
~ know with reasonable certainty
L what manner and to what extent the
'e will be affected by the establishmel
y of the proposed road" And in Sc
At $50 of Elliott, it is said: THE d
'e scription of the line and character
IN the road should, at least, be so acc
Il rate and certain as to convey reasol
K able information to all parties
II. 1t is obvious that the descriptiC
OF should be reasonable definite and ce
or tain, since the interested parties a
5s entitled to notice and to informatit
u that will at least enable them to
ly cate the line of the proposed way" "
In Woodruff v Douglas County
is Or 314, 1913, It is said that cOun
h., road cannot be laid out unless the p
or titioners have in mind the distin
of points referred to and so designa
%, them in their petitions that perst
e. of ordinary intelligence need not mi
be take their location. The statute 7
tn auires this to be done by the petiti
lie and notice, and they must be suf
he cient in themselves for that purpoI
nd and reference therein to some 9th
es paper for information that the statu
on says they must contain Is insufficiel
Of Therefore the petition and notice we
lie. insufficient to give the county COT
D. jurisdiction. and defendants obiecti
he thereto should have been sustained
or The decree of the lower court
le- reversed and the road proceeding d
on missed.
I'd. Whitten and Bryant V. Grlswold
i'd MultnOmah County.
Of Decided November 20, 1911