Case Name: Certiorari to the sessions of Delaware county, to remove all proceedings, respecting a road in Aston township, beginning at the Pennsgrove road, and thence by the house of Robert Hill, into the Concord road
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1807-03
Citations: 4 Yeates 372
Docket Number: 
Parties: Certiorari to the sessions of Delaware county, to remove all proceedings, respecting a road in Aston township, beginning at the Pennsgrove road, and thence by the house of Robert Hill, into the Concord road.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 4
Pages: 372–372

Head Matter:
Certiorari to the sessions of Delaware county, to remove all proceedings, respecting a road in Aston township, beginning at the Pennsgrove road, and thence by the house of Robert Hill, into the Concord road.
Court will judge of a road from the record; the sessions should confirm the road most conducive to the public good. Semb. that the clause in the act of 6th April 1802, that the improvements shall be noted, is only directory. Viewers returning the width of the road is only surplusage.
Uited in 4 Rawle X94 in support of the decision that the Supreme Court will not, on a certiorari to the Quarter Sessions to remove the proceedings in a road case, enter into the merits or determine facts.
There had been four different views on this road, and four returns thereon. The sessions confirmed the third review, which did not mention the improvements through which the road passed, but fixed the breadth of the road, which was afterwards adopted by the court.
The deposition of Jonathan Dutton, proving errors in the return made by the first set of viewers, was offered in evidence, but objected to ; because the court, by their 19th rule, were not to enter into the merits of the case, but to decide on the face of the proceedings. It was urged on the other side, that the courses and distances of none of the previous returns, agreed with that confirmed by the sessions.
Messrs. J. Hemphill and Dick, opposed the road.
Mr. Frazer, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The deposition, though taken on a cross examination, is irrelevant to the point before us, and cannot be received. It is of no moment, whether two returns agree or not. The sessions were bound to approve such return, as would conduce most to the public good, and do the least injury to private property. The breadth returned by the last set of men, is but surplusage: the court have adopted it, by their confirmation of the * 7,-| *return. It does not appear to the court that the road 3731 passes through improved lands ; and if it did, it is highly dubious, whether that part of the law (passed 6th April 1802. 5 St. Laws 179, § x,) is not merely directory, and not imperative ; as has been determined in this court, with respect to surveys, where the interior lines have not been run. Noting the interferences with improvements may shew to the sessions, how far the road has been prejudicial to individuals ; but that knowledge may readily be obtained from other sources. There is no irregularity apparent in this record; no proof of corruption, partiality, fraud or undue practice ; and therefore the judgment of the Court of Quarter Sessions must be affirmed.