Case Name: The Inhabitants of New Salem et al. Petitioners for a certiorari
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1828-09-26
Citations: 6 Pick. 470
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Inhabitants of New Salem et al. Petitioners for a certiorari.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 472–476

Head Matter:
The Inhabitants of New Salem et al. Petitioners for a certiorari.
The return to the Court of Sessions, of commissioners of highways, of their proceedings in laying out a road, need not state what notice was given to towns and persons interested, and if they have ordered a notice in a particular manner, their return need not state that notice was given in that manner; it is sufficient if it appear from their return that reasonable notice was given.
"When the parties interested are duly notified of the time and place of a meeting of the commissioners, no new notice to them is necessary of the time and place of an adjourned meeting ; of which they are bound to take notice.
Parties who appear before the commissioners cannot object to the proceedings on the ground of their not having had reasonable notice, unless they make the objection at the time of the heaving.
Where the commissioners of highways, on petitions for a new road, ordered a hearing at a certain time and place, and thirty days’ notice of the time and place appointed, to be given to the towns through which the road was to run, and the return of the commissioners stated that on the day appointed they proceeded to the business “ having given reasonable notice to the inhabitants of the said towns,” one of which towns appeared, and having given " like notice ” to certain persons named, being all the persbns whom the commissioners knew to he interested in the lands through which the route of the road passed, most of whom also appeared ; it was held, that the return showed sufficiently that reasonable notice had been given, and the Court refused to grant a certiorari on the ground that the notice was insufficient. *
The commissioners of highways were authorized to enter into a contract for the making of a road, before making their return to the Court of Sessions.
The commissioners of highways were authorized to make such a contract through the agency of the chairman.
This was a petition to the Supreme Court for a certiorari. It alleges, that on May 9, 1827, petitions were presented to the compiissioners of highways for the county of Franklin for a new road in the towns of Wendell and New Salem ; that on the first Tuesday of March, 1828, the commissioners returned to the county commissioners their doings, whereby they located and established a new highway agreeably to the prayer of the petitions ; that the present petitioners, viz. the town of New Salem, through which the road is to pass, and John Sawyer, Jabez Sawyer junior and Avery Pierce, through whose land it passes, being aggrieved at the proceedings of the commissioners of highways, suggest the following errors in the record and proceedings : —
1. Because the commissioners directed thirty days’ notice to be given to the towns of New Salem and Wendell, by the sheriff or his deputy, of the time and place appointed to commence proceedings , and the court afterwards proceeded to view the route, and acted on the petitions, although the order had never been complied with.
2. Because the record does not show what notice was given to New Salem and Wendell, and the individuals through whose land the road passes.
3. Because it does not appear from the record, that Jabez Sawyer junior was either notified to appear before the commissioners of highways, or that any damages have been assessed to him, or that he has sustained no damage.
4. Because the record does not show that the individuals througn whose land the road passes, had such reasonable notice as would enable them to appear and be heard upon the merits of the petitions, or that they actually appeared.
5. Because the road was located at a meeting of the commissioners, of which no notice was given to the corporations and individuals interested.
6. Because the commissioners adjudicated upon the manner in which the road should be made, and authorized the same to be contracted for, before they made a return of their proceedings to the Court of Sessions or the county commissioners, and before parties interested had had an opportunity to petition for a jury to alter the location of the road.
7. Because the commissioners of highways authorized an individual to contract for the construction of the road, thereby delegating to another a trust which they were bound to exercise themselves.
The petition concluded by praying for a certiorari to the county commissioners to certify the record and proceedings of the commissioners of highways, and that the record and proceedings should be adjudged erroneous and void.
The record of the proceedings of the commissioners of highways showed, that on May 9, 1827, petitions for the road having been presented before them, they appointed Monday, the 27th of August then next, at ten o’clock A. M., and Adams tavern in Montague, the time and place to commence proceedings in regard to the road ; and that they ordered that the town clerks of New Salem and Wendell should be served by the sheriff or his deputy with an attested copy of the petitions and the order thereon, thirty days at least before August 27th, in order to give them and all persons interested an opportunity of opposing the petitions.
Sept. 24th
Sept. 26th.
The return of the commissioners of highways addressed to the Court of Sessions showed, that the commissioners met pursuant to the order, on August 27, 1827, “ having given reasonable notice to the inhabitants of the said towns of New Salem and Wendell,” and that the town of Wendell appeared, but that New Salem did not appear ; and that having given the like notice to twenty persons, who are named, being all the persons whom the commissioners knew to be interested in the lands over which the route of the road passes, all the persons named so notified, except three, appeared before the commissioners, either personally or by attorney ; that Avery Pierce, one of the present petitioners, appeared personally, and Jabez Sawyer junior, another of the present petitioners, appeared as the attorney of another person ; that after viewing the routes mentioned in the petitions, the further consideration of the subject was postponed to October 22, then next, at the same place ; that on October 22, the commissioners, after reviewing the routes and hearing the parties, adjudged and located the route of the road, and determined the mode of its construction, all which are particularly specified in their return, and also adjudged damages to certain persons whose lands' were taken for the road ; that among others, thirty-five dollars were adjudged to Avery Pierce ; and that William Whitaker Esquire (chairman of the commissioners) was authorized to contract for the construction of the roaa pursuant to the order.
D. Wells, for the petitioners,
cited Lancaster v. Pope, 1 Mass. R. 86; St. 1825, c. 171, § 3.
Bigelow, contra,
cited Lees v. Childs, 17 Mass. R. 351; Weston, Ex parte, 11 Mass. R. 417; Lancaster v. Pope, 1 Mass. R. 86; Commonwealth v. Coombs, 2 Mass. R. 490.

Opinion:
Parker C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. None of the causes alleged for quashing the proceedings is maintained.
1. The petition for the road was presented on the 9th of May. The time appointed for a hearing was the 27th of August following. Notice was ordered to be given thirty days before that time. The commissioners return that reasonable notice was given, and we must presume that it was given pursuant to their order. Moreover, that such was the fact appears by the sheriff's return on the order of notice ; which was properly exhibited in evidence, a petition for a certiorari being an application to our discretion.
2. The commissioners also notified all persons whom they knew to be interested in the land through which the road would pass. They certify that the inhabitants of Wendell did appear, and that many individuals did also appear, and that they had taken a view of the route proposed, after which they adjourned to the 22d of October. This adjournment must be presumed to have been known to the parties interested ; indeed they were bound to take notice of it, as they would be of an adjourned term of a court. The parties appearing cannot complain of shortness of notice unless they apply for further time and are refused. This answers the second objection.
3. It is complained that there was no notice of the location of the road ; by which it is meant, that it does not appear, that when the commissioners travelled over the land and surveyed the route, parties interested had been notified to appear and be present with them. But this view was only preparatory to the actual location, which is a judicial act, and that was on the 22d of October, at which time the parties might have appeared, having had notice that a final determination would then be made, and the minutes of the commissioners were then before them and open to inspection, and might have been objected to. The parties were present and heard before the adjudication took place.
4. It is objected that the commissioners entered into a contract for constructing the road, before they made their return to the Court of Sessions. This is immaterial, for by the statute then in force it does not appear that the Court of Ses sions had any power over the proceedings, and the doings of the commissioners were complete except the making of their return. The contract might be made before, although the agent could not execute it perhaps until the return was made.
5. It was objected that no damage was awarded to Jabez Sawyer junior, and no reason given for omitting him ; but it is stated, and not denied, that the only land in virtue of which he could claim damages was supposed to belong to his father, to whom damages were awarded ; and Jabez Sawyer junior was present as the agent of his father.
6. As to the objection that the contract was made by the chairman of the commissioners, the statute authorizes the commissioners to cause roads to be constructed, and the manner of doing it was left to their discretion.
See Rutland v. County Com. of Worcester, 20 Pick. 71.