Case Name: Commonwealth versus The County Commissioners of Berkshire
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1829-09-12
Citations: 8 Pick. 343
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus The County Commissioners of Berkshire.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 354–357

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus The County Commissioners of Berkshire.
A notice of a meeting of the commissioners of highways for the purpose of viewing the route of a highway, signed “ By order of the commissioners, A. B., chairman,” was held to be sufficient, notwithstanding the objection that it did not appear that the notice was issued at a meeting of three or more of the commissioners.
Where, upon a petition for the alteration of a (< county road ” (as it was called, though in fact it was a town road) or .the location of a new road, between two other county roads, the commissioners of highways laid out a new road between the termini, it was held, that their describing the new road as an alteration, did not vitiate their proceedings.
Where the commissioners, after notice to all persons interested, viewed the route for a highway, and adjourned to a certain time and place for the purpose of locating the way and assessing the damages to individuals, it was held, that it was not necessary to give notice of the time and place so appointed.
Writ of certiorari to the county commissioners.
At the Court of Sessions, in April, 1826, was presented the petition of M. Hendrix and others, representing that “ the county road leading from the dwellinghouse of Levi Crittenden junior to the dwellinghouse of Cyprian Branch, in Richmond, is circuitous and hilly,” and praying that court “ to locate a county road from the dwellinghouse of Crittenden to the dvvellinghouse of Branch, or make such alterations in the location of the present county road between said places as shall be considered necessary and proper.”
This petition was transferred to the commissioners of highways by St. 1825, c. 171, and in a report signed “By order of the commissioners, George N. Briggs, Chairman,” it was stated that the commissioners, “ deeming it proper to view the route prayed for in the petition,” appointed the 18th of October, 1827, and the house of Crittenden, “ the time and place when and where they would meet to proceed to view the said route, and having notified the selectmen and town clerk of the town of Richmond and all other persons interested, of the time, place and object of said meeting, by publishing the copy of said petition and the notice thereon which is hereto annexed, in the Pittsfield Sun, &c. the commissioners met at the house of Crittenden at the time aforesaid and proceeded to view the route aforesaid, and having viewed the same and heard all persons interested, they adjudged the alteration prayed for to be of common convenience and necessity. Whereupon the commissioners adjourned to meet again at the house of Branch on the day of November, 1827, at which time and place the commissioners met and proceeded to make, locate and establish the following alterations in the road aforesaid,” (describing them.) Then follows an enumeration of the persons to whom damages were allowed.
The notice alluded to in the above report is directed “ to the selectmen or town clerk of the town of Richmond, and to all persons interested in the foregoing petition,” and states that the commissioners “ have appointed the 18th of October, 1827, at 9 o’clock A. M. and the house of Crittenden,” the time and place when and where they will meet to proceed to view the route mentioned in said petition ; immediately after which view, they will hear the parties interested, at some convenient place. The notice was signed, “ By order of the commissioners, George N. Briggs, chairman.”
The foregoing report was returned to the county commis-
Sept. 10th.
Sept. 12th.
aoners in April, 1828, and was accepted and the proposed alterations established.
The inhabitants of Richmond afterward applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari, alleging the following errors in the proceedings of the commissioners of highways :
1. Because it does not appear that the notice issued by the commissioners, of the time and place appointed to view the route, was issued at any meeting held by three or more of the commissioners upon reasonable notice previously given.
2. Because the road from Crittenden’s to Branch’s was not a county road but a town road.
3. & 4. Because no notice was ever given to the persons interested, of the time when and place where the commissioners met for the purpose of making, locating and establishing the alteration, and of estimating the damages to individuals and corporations.
5. & 6. Because it does not appear when and where the alteration was located and established and the assessment of damages made.
Jones and Bishop supported the petition.
On the first error assigned, they referred to St. 1825, c. 171, § 2.
As to the second, they said the proceedings of the commissioners were void, having nothing to operate upon, there being no county road.
As to the third and fourth, they said that as no mode of locating a road and assessing damages is pointed out in the statute of 1825, the provisions of St. 1786, c. 67, § 4, should be pursued. The record states that the meeting was adjourned, but it does not say for what purpose ; and it cannot be presumed that it was for the purpose of locating the road and assessing damages ; and the notice given does not state that there would be a hearing on those subjects.
Hubbard and Briggs, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The objection to the notice of the meeting of the commissioners cannot prevail.
The commissioners had no jurisdiction over a town way, but the imperfect description of the subject of their proceedings is not essential, if they had a right to act. It is admitted that there was a county road at each terminus, and the prayer was, that there should bo an altera Von of the road in question, which was called a county road, or that a new road should be located. The commissioners had a right to connect the two county roads, and that seems to be the effect of their doings, a straight road being made between the two termini.* Calling this an alteration of the old road, we think, ought not to vitiate the proceedings.
As to there being no notice of the location and assessment of damages ; the commissioners went to view the route pursuant to notice given by them, and having adjudged the road to be of common convenience and necessity, they adjourned to an appointed time and place for the purpose of locating it and assessing damages. As the location and assessment of damages were to be made by the same body which viewed and adjudged the road to be of common convenience and necessity, a new notice was not required. The blank left in the record for the day to which the commissioners' adjourned is a mere clerical omission, and may be filled up by the commissioners.
Proceedings affirmed.
See New Vineyard v. Somerset, 15 Maine R. (3 Shepley,) 22.
See Revised Slat. 24, § 6; Rutland v. County Comm, of Worcester, 20 Pick. 71.