Court Opinion

ID: 9698116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:42:22.420433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:38.478987
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring.
While I concur in the result which the court reached in this case, there is a procedural question that I believe requires mention. It was not raised by the parties and is not discussed in the opinion of the court.
The appellant in this case attempted to appeal to the District Court from the adoption by the City of the ordinances vacating the streets and authorizing a sale of the land. The petition on appeal recited that the appeal was taken pursuant to the provisions of sections 15-1201 to 15-1205, R. R. S. 1943. Properly construed that statute permits an appeal from any final administrative or judicial order of the city council only when the council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. There can be no direct judicial appeal from an exercise of legislative power. Williams v. County of Buffalo, 181 Neb. 233, 147 N. W. 2d 776.
It is generally held that the power to vacate streets is legislative in nature and may be delegated to municipal corporations by the state. The exercise of such power in a particular case is a legisla*525tive question not ordinarily subject to review. See 11 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed., 1977), § 30.185, pp. 97, 98.
An ordinance vacating a street is, of course, subject to collateral attack, ánd that is what the present action amounted to. The parties subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and are bound by its judgment.
Clinton, J., joins in this concurrence.