Case Name: In the matter of the state road from Gettysburg, in the county of Adams, to the top of Conococheague hill in Perry county
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1830-10
Citations: 2 Pen. & W. 289
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the matter of the state road from Gettysburg, in the county of Adams, to the top of Conococheague hill in Perry county.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Penrose & Watts)
Volume: 2
Pages: 289–291

Head Matter:
In the matter of the state road from Gettysburg, in the county of Adams, to the top of Conococheague hill in Perry county.
The act of the 23d of April, 1823, does not give the Quarter Sessions power to vacate absolutely a state road. It expressly forbids a vacation, unless when the view or review supplies another route. Views and reviews may be granted under the act of 1825, and that of 1809, to vacate and change the route of a state road before it has been opened.
Certiohari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of the county of Adams.
This writ was taken to the decree of that Court, confirming the report of reviewers, appointed to review a part of the state road from Gettysburg in the county of didams, to the top of Conococheague hill in Perry county.
The following errors were assigned:.
1st. The Court erred in appointing.viewers to view and vacate, or change, the route of the road as reported by the state commissioners.
2d. Also in appointing reviewers, and receiving and confirming their reports.
3d. The reports of the viewers and reviewers were both erroneous: — First, because the routes were not surveyed and chained by,-nor in the presence of the viewers, or reviewers: — 2d. They do not describe the parts of the former route, or routes, to be vacated: — 3d. Because a road opened according to the report of the reviewers north, of Conewago creek, would not unite with the-road, as-reported, south of that creek. ✓
• 4th. The Court ought to have rejected both reports; and to have adhered to the confirmation, (if any confirmation were necessary,), of the report of the state commissioners.
Fuller and Alexander? against the proceedings.
■ No review of a state road can be granted, until the road be opened. Act of 23d April,, 1829, Pamphlet Laws, 326. When the report of state viewers is filed it is a record, and ipso facto a road directed to be opened ; and-n® further proceeding can be had upon it until the road be opened. JBy the act of the l l:th of April, 1825? Pamphlet Laws? 16.1, views and reviews ar.e directed to be granted upon the report of a state road, as in the case of a county road y and by the act of the 6th of February, ISIS? Pnvd. Dig. 732? where a road is reported, and after confirmation, and before-the road is opened, a review is desired,, it carr only be obtained on the petition of a majority of the original- petitioners:- and they contended that as a majority of the original petitioners did not apply for a review in this case, the Court erred in granting it. They referred also to the nineteenth section of the act of the 6 th of April, 1802, Purd. Dig. 198..
Stevens for the proceedings,
A county road may be vacated without supplying- another.. Not so of state roads; when they are vacated a new road must he laid out by the viewers or reviewers, to supply the place of the- old road.-
A state road cannot be laid out until the Court fix the breadth of the road. Jn the case of the road from Jonestown to JVillces-barre, T Serg. & Eawle, 487. The case of a state road is not governed by the act authorizing the Court to grant orders on petitions to- vacate roads; but by the compound rules of all the acts on the subject of granting orders- to lay out road's in the county. How could the Court of Quarter Sessions be informed, that a majority of the original petitioners had signed a petition for a view or review to vacate a state road, when the original petition for such road was not presented to the Court, but to the legislature?

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Huston, J.
The act of the 6th April, 1802, provides for laying out, and opening roads ; and in the nineteenth section, for vaca'ting any useless or burdensome road ; and this act contemplated that after the road was .vacated, there might be no highway from .one extreme point to the other. "
And the act of the 6th February, 1815, provided, that after a road was laid out and before it was opened, it might be vacated on a petition by a majority of those who petitioned for the road, and-this act also contemplated, that there might be no highway between the extreme points. Another law and very beneficial one, the act of the 3d of April, 1809, is made to provide for the improvement of our roads, by vacating certain parts, and laying out a road to supply such parts, on other and better ground. The old road is vacated wherever it-is supplied by a new one. Under this law there is still to be a highway between the extreme (joints 5 but it may be in many places, different -from the old one. The act of the 23d of April, 1-825,. does not give the Sessions power under the two first acts, to vacate absolutely a state road — but in the words of the act of 1809 " to vacate and change." It expressly forbids the Court to vacate, unless upon the view or review another route is supplied.
On the act then of 1825, and that of 1809, we are of opinion that the Court had power to grant the views and reviews in question, and so ehange the route. It would be strange, if viewers, in laying a road thirteen miles in length, should not commit •some errors, and in some places lay out the road on ground not the best, And it would be very.'harsh, if, when this was discovered, the county was compelled to malie a bad and inconvenient -road, in order to be entitled to permission to apply for and obtain .a more convenient one.
The other exceptions need not be noticed.
proceedings confirmed.