Case Name: PLATT and Others v. THE TOWNS OF MILTON and COLCHESTER
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1883-01
Citations: 55 Vt. 490
Docket Number: 
Parties: PLATT and Others v. THE TOWNS OF MILTON and COLCHESTER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 490–491

Head Matter:
PLATT and Others v. THE TOWNS OF MILTON and COLCHESTER.
Laying Highway through two or more Towns. County Court has Jurisdiction. '
1. The County Court under section- 2969, R. L., has jurisdiction where the petition prays for commissioners to establish a highway extending into two adjoining towns, although no application had'been made to the selectmen, and the laying the highway would require the building of a bridge over a river between the towns.
2. R. L., s. 2969, laying highway through two or more towns, construed.
Petition for highway. Heard on motion to quash, September Term, 1882, Taft, J., presiding. Motion overruled.
The petition prayed for commissioners to lay out a highway : “ Beginning at or near the easterly terminus of the Sand Bar Bridge, . . .• in said town of Milton, thence running southerly in said Milton through, &c., . . . thence crossing said river Lamoille by a bridge herein prayed for, to a point upon the opposite bank of said river on tbe land of Sherman McNall, in said Colchester ; . . . thence continuing in said town of Colchester through the land of,” &c. A motion to quash was filed, because it did not appear by the petition that any application had ever been made to the selectmen of either town, or that any action ■ in respect to the highway had ever been taken by said selectmen.
Whittemore Wheeler and Roberts Roberts, for the petitioners.
Hard $ Safford, for the defendants.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Yeazey, J.
The petition prays for commissioners to be appointed to establish a highway extending into two adjoining towns. Its description is not limited to the crossing of a river by a bridge, but it describes an extended highway including as a part of it the crossing of a river between the two towns. Upon the face of the petition, the thing sought is a highway running into the towns, not simply " a bridge over a stream between the towns." The County Court, therefore, had jurisdiction under section 2969, R. L.
Judgment affirmed.