Case Name: George N. Holmes et al., Appellants, v. F. M. Ward et al., Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1911-10-07
Citations: 85 Kan. 618
Docket Number: No. 17,202
Parties: George N. Holmes et al., Appellants, v. F. M. Ward et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
George N. Holmes et al., Appellants, v. F. M. Ward et al., Appellees.
No. 17,202.
HEADNOTEBY THE REPORTER.
Highways — County Commissioners May Act as Viewers. Under the statute providing for the appointment of viewers of a public road the members of the board of county commissioners may themselves act as viewers without appointing anyone else for the purpose.
Appeal from Shawnee district court.
Opinion filed October 7, 1911.
Affirmed.
O. J. Wood, and Edwin A. Austin, for the appellants.
E. R. Simon, county attorneyfor the appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The court is inclined to regard the road petition as describing a road 50 feet wide by 3921/2 feet long running west from the initial point. So considered the petition is sufficient. The attempt to specify the width of the road did not vitiate it. Read ing all the provisions of the road law together the conclusion must be that the members of the board may themselves act as viewers without appointing anyone else for the purpose. When the commissioners appoint others as viewers such persons must be disinterested householders. The statute assumes that the commissioners will be qualified to act as viewers, and disqualification should be clearly pleaded to warrant an injunction against their proceeding under the statute. It is not alleged that the commissioners are pecuniarily interested in the land affected or that they will be personally advantaged by the laying out of the proposed road. The only facts stated showing disqualification are the premature survey and previous official action regarding the subject of a road through the plaintiff's land.. These are not sufficient, and the court interprets the general charges of interest, prejudice, etc., as conclusions which the detailed facts do not sustain. The presumption is that after view the commissioners will act according to law and will determine the question of the public utility of the road according to the facts. Consequently the district court was right in sustaining the demurrer to the petition and its judgment is affirmed.