Case Name: ROAD IN POTTSGROVE
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-05-12
Citations: 2 Walk. 503
Docket Number: No. 167
Parties: ROAD IN POTTSGROVE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 503–506

Head Matter:
ROAD IN POTTSGROVE.
It is sufficient if the report of the viewers sets forth that they were severally sworn or affirmed in pursuance of the order of Court.
Certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Montgomery County. No. 167 July Term, 1883.
Viewers were appointed to lay out a road, and made the following report: We, the undersigned persons, appointed by the within order of Court to view and lay out the road therein mentioned respectfully report, that having been all present who signed this report at the view of the ground proposed for such road, and having all been first severally sworn, or affirmed, in pursuance of the said order, we have viewed and laid out, and do return for public use the following road, to wit: Beginning at a point in a public road at the east end of Queen St., thence on Queen St. south 89 degrees 15 minutes, west 1,698 feet to the center of a public road at west end of Queen St., both points named, in the order ; the first 1,367 feet is the length of Queen St. as laid, out by Joseph Potts & Co., and is shown on the town plot on file in the Register’s office, and known asPo ts’ Addition to Pottstown ; now in part built up and improved. No damage is claimed by tbe lot holders on said street, or the representatives of Potts & Oo. The last 331 feet runs through the improved property belonging to the estate of the late John E. Spare, for which we allowed the estate $150 as damages, a plot or draft'whereof is hereby annexed. "Which said road, so as aforesaid laid out, we are of the opinion is necessary for a public road or street, and would recommend it to be 50 feet wide, so as to conform to the width of the street as laid out in said town plot of Potts’ Addition as on file. The executors of John E. Spare filed exceptions to this report, and asked that it should be set aside. The Court, per Boyer, P. J., refused to do so.
They then took a certiorari to the Supreme Court, complaining of the action of the Court below.
J. W. Apple and George N. Corson, Esqs., for appellants,
argued that the report does not set out, that the jury viewed the ground proposed for said road, and parts adjacent, but states that they viewed and laid out. The report does not state that there is occasion for said road, and that they decided in favor of locating said road; Macungie Township Case, 14 S. & R. 68; Harrison Township Case, 5 Penna. 499; Limestone Township, 11 Penna. 270. The road should not be made more than 33 feet wide. The petition was for a jury to view and lay out a road, and the order was made to view and lay out and assess damages. There should have been no jury to assess damages, under the Act of May 14th, 1874, P. L. 164. The report of the jury does not give courses and distances, as required, and does not state through whose land the road passes. The report does not state that the viewers were sworn or affirmed to perform the duties of their appointment with impartiality and fidelity, but merely states that they were sworn or affirmed. This is fatal; Cambria St., 75 Penna. 357. The exceptant had no notice of the view. .
Franklin March, Esq., contra.
The record is regular on its face, aud sets forth that five of the viewers examined the road; Road in Little Britain, 27 Penna 69; Road in Ross Township, 36 Penna. 87. The Act of June 13, 1836, provides that the breadth of the road shall not exceed 50 feet. The jury had a right to recommend that width. It is fatal to the proceedings if the.width is not fixed ; Road Case, 3 W. & S. 559; Road Case 4 W. & S. 39; Pitt Township Road, 1 Penna. 356; Norriton Road, 4 Penna. 337; Charlestown Township Road, 2 Phila. 128. The road was laid out under the Acts of June 13, 1836, and 14th May, ’74, P. Laws 164, Purd. Dig. 1511 Pl. 115, which latter act provides for the assessment of damages. The question whether the jury demanded releases cannot avail. The exceptants were allowed damages and cannot complain; Road in Chartiers Township, 34 Penna. 414. The report does show the course to be north 89 degrees 15 min. east, and the distance 331 feet, in the Spare property, and 1,367 feet in Potts’ Addition; but if the draft is incorrect, it is a question of fact, which should • have been raised in the Court below. The Supreme Court will not review the facts on certiorari; Spring Garden Road, 43 Penna. 144; Kirk’s Appeal, 28 Penna. 185; Road in Chartiers Township, 34 Penna. 413. Notice may be verbal; Middle Creek Road, 9 Penna. 70, and may be shown by parol evidence; McCall’s Ferry Road, 13 S. & R. 25; Schuylkill Falls Road, 2 Bin. 250; Spear’s Road, 4 Bin. 174. It is claimed that the report of the jury is not according to law in setting forth that they were sworn or affirmed in pursuance of said order. . The report shows as follows: That, having been all present who signed this report of the view of the ground proposed for said road, and, having-all been first severally sworn or affirmed, in pursuance of said order, we have viewed and laid out, and do return for public use the following road, &e. Leaving out the words, “who signed this report” it is the same as in the ease of the road- in East Donegal Township, 90 Penna. 190. This certiorari is premature, there having been reviewers appointed, who have not reported. Road in Kiskimenitis, 8 C. 10. The jury state in the report, which said road was, as aforesaid, laid out we are of opinion is necessary, for a public road or street. This is a sufficient adjudication of the necessity for the road ; Road from Apps Tavern, 17 S. & R. 388.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court below, on May 12, 1884, in the following opinion :
Per Curiam.
"We discover no fatal error in this report. The view appears to have been made with sufficient accuracy and certainty ; In re Road in East Donegal Township, 90 Penna. 190. Something is always due to the presumption of regularity. "When the proceedings appear to be substantially correct, they are a sufficient compliance with the law.
Judgment affirmed.