Case Name: Re Road in Washington Township
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1885-10-26
Citations: 1 Sadler 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: Re Road in Washington Township.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reportedÉ
Volume: 1
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Re Road in Washington Township.
When a court of quarter sessions finds that notice of the view was properly given to owners of land and others interested in the location of a public road, the supreme court will presume the finding was on sufficient ■evidence, and will not look behind it.
(Decided October 26, 1885.)
Certiorari to review a decree of the Quarter Sessions of Cambria County, confirming the report of viewers in the location of a public road.
Affirmed.
^ A petition having been presented to the court of quarter sessions of Cambria county, for the location of a road in Washington township, viewers were appointed for that purpose. A report by them in favor of the road, accompanied by a draft of it, was confirmed by the court in the following order: “January ■6, 1885, confirmed absolutely on proof of notice as required by act of assembly.”
Thereupon, Nicholas Behe and Garret Bisban, landowners through whose lands the road passed, brought this writ to review the order, alleging that they were not notified of the view, and that the viewers were disqualified because of relationship to the parties interested in the proceedings.
Geo. M. Beade for plaintiffs in error.
John B. Scanlan for defendant in error.
Note. — A similar determination was made in Kirk’s Appeal, 28 Pa. 185. See also Keller’s Private Road, 154 Pa. 547, 25 Atl. 814; Bell’s Appeal, 26 Pittsb. L. J. 66.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam :
This is a ease of a public road. Previous notice of the view should be given to the owners of land and others interested in the location of the road; yet it is not essentially necessary that the report of the viewers show it to have been done. It may be shown by parol. When the court below finds it was properly given, we will presume it was found on sufficient evidence, and not look behind that finding, on a certiorari. In this case the court expressly says the report was confirmed on proof of notice required by the act of assembly. No other exception filed in the court below requires specific consideration. They have no merit. Those made here for the first time are not to be favored. They are not sustained.
Judgment affirmed.