Case Name: J. B. Lockard et al., Appellants, v. J. O. Hartley et al., as the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Saline, etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1915-01-09
Citations: 93 Kan. 742
Docket Number: No. 19,108
Parties: J. B. Lockard et al., Appellants, v. J. O. Hartley et al., as the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Saline, etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
No. 19,108.
J. B. Lockard et al., Appellants, v. J. O. Hartley et al., as the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Saline, etc., et al., Appellees.
HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.
1. Highways — Establishment—Viewers Report Not Conclusivo. Under the provisions of section 6 of chapter 248 of the Laws of 1911 the county commissioners have jurisdiction to relocate a road, even if the viewers report adversely.
2. Highways — Relocation—Petitioners to Pay Part of Expense —Order Valid. An order relocating a road was not void as against public policy because the petitioners were required to pay a portion of the damages assessed.
Appeal from Saline district court; Dallas Grover, judge.
Opinion filed January 9, 1915.
Affirmed.
David Ritchie, and G. A. Spencer, both of Salina, for the appellants.
Z. C. Millikin, and L. W. Hamner, both of Salina, for the appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The petition to relocate the road was sufficient, and the board of county commissioners had jurisdiction to relocate the road even if the viewers had all reported adversely. (Laws 1911, ch. 248, § 6; See, Molyneux v. Grimes, 78 Kan. 830, 98 Pac. 278.)
That the order relocating the road was not void as against public policy because the petitioners were required to pay $125 of the assessed damages has already been decided by this court. In the case of Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids Township, 77 Kan. 580, 96 Pac. 68, the principle involved was thoroughly considered. In the recent case of Rice v. Ard, 93 Kan. 165, 143 Pac. 418, the same principle was again considered. While one of-the questions in that case was whether or not the order was invalid because conditional, the court went beyond that subject and considered the question whether or not the order was invalid on grounds of public policy. The conflict in the authorities was noted, and language from the opinion in the case of North Baptist Church v. Orange, 54 N. J. Law, 111, 22 Atl. 1004, 14 L. R. A. 62 (cited in the Blue Rapids case) was quoted as expressing the views of this court. The court adheres to those, views.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.