Saturday news. (Watertown, S.D.) 19??-19??, 1914-05-28

court said.
From 4 close examination and an
salysis Of the language used iii ana
cited from said sections SIS ana So, il
seems to us that the seton Of the
board of commissioners provided Tor
IN section SO, Is entirely dependent
upon the action OF the city, ais pro
vided for in said section SIS, and is
limited strictly to the granting or de-
'nying of the prayer Of the city's Pc
tition. The board Of commissioners
Is not authorized BY law u grant 4
part, and deny a part. of the city's
petition. II the board is Of the opin-
ion that the prayer Of the petition
should be granted, then it shall make
the order for the annexation. If the
legislature had intended that the
board Of commissioners should have
the power to grant the prayer OF the
city's petition, in part, Ii such man
ner as to authorize the board to an
mex to the city such part only Of the
territory described in the petition, as
to the board might seem right and
PROPER, and to deny the prayer of the
petition as to the residue of such ter
ritory, then the language of the stat
ute would have been very different
from what It is now. It seems to us
that it was intended to provide, by
the legislation we have cited, that
city boundaries might be extended, in
the mode prescribed. to include con
tiguous territory, when the common
council Of the city and the board Of
commissioners of the county, win
the proper and necessary formalities
required by the law, concurred in the.
proposed extension, but not other
wise. In the case at bar, the action
of the board of commissioners upon
the petition of the City Of Peru, Id the
annexation of a part only of the ter
ritory described therein, was not In
harmony with, nor pursuant to, the
lcity's action and petition. IT can not
be said, with any degree of a~ccuracS,
that the board of commissioners
granted the prayer of said petition;
and 1t was only upon thegranting of
the prayer Of the petition, that the
board was authorized to make any
order for the annexation of territory.
And the order of the board, in this
case, for the annexation to the City Of
Peru of a part only of the territory.
described in the city's petition, was
wholly unauthorized by law, and was
therefore imperative and void
Section 1872, supra, provides that
the Court shall make its order pro-
vided it finds, that the request OF
the petitioners ought to be granted
When the court determined that al
part of the territory described ought
not to be disconnected from the city.
it was a conclusion that the request
of the petitioners ought not to BIZ
granted. In the case Of Foreman We.
Town of Mariana, d3 Ark. 1924, a case
wherein, as provided by statute, d
vote OF the electors was first had and
then the petition presented to the
county court and an appeal taken to-
the circuit court, and, in the circuit
court, an amendment of said petition
asked for, by which amendment the
amount of territory sought to be at
was diminished, the question
presented to the appellate court was
as to the authority Of the circuit court
to allow an amendment Of such pc
tition SO that a different territorial
tract might be annexed, the court
granted the amendment but said.
1T is %contended that the amend
ment of the petition, after it had been
voted upon, was an error. I'll
certainly would be fatal, if the stat-I
ute, IN that point, had been silent;
for 0 constat that any voting
for a certain proposed annexation,
would have been willing to vote for a
less one, which might leave out the
spot the voter hoped to have in
But the LEGISLATURE MAJ pre-
the whole mode of annexation,
it has authorized just such an
amendment as this, pending the petit
The statute of this state Is entirely
upon the right to amend a Pc
ition and, neither directly nor indi
'ectly, expressly nor implicitly, con
ers upon the city board or the court
he right to grant any relief other
han such as is asked for in the pc
ition filed. Respondents have cited,
n support Of the proposition that the
might disconnect a part Of the
erritory. a cas- from Nebraska
Michaelson ct al, VS.. Village of Til
Ien, 101 N. w. 1926. That the opin-
on therein has absolutely no bearing