89 Mo. 61 | Mo. | 1886
This appeal arises out of proceedings instituted in the county court of Johnson county for the opening of a new road, and those proceedings-were had under the provisions of the act of 1883. Session Acts, 157.
I. Those provisions require that commissioners be-appointed for the assessment <ef damages, and that such commissioners make their report on or before the first day of the next regular term of the county court. Those-provisions also require that should the premises of more than one owner or other person interested be included in the same proceedings or order of court, then the damages shall be stated separately, together with the name of each person interested and a specific description of the-property or premises for which such damages are-assessed. There were several owners of the premises in question, and the statutory provisions were not complied, with:
1. The report contained no description of any land.
2. Nor was it filed on or before the first day of the-next regular term of the county court, nor were the commissioners qualified, nor did they enter on the discharge-of their duties until several days after the term commenced.
Their appointment had thus become functus officio, and had spent its force. If they could enter on the discharge of their duties several days after they were required by the statute to make report and return in writing showing those duties had been performed, then might they do so several weeks, months, or years, after the statutory designated time. The behests of the law cannot thus lightly be disregarded, the statute must be-followed in these proceedings. And so it has been held.
II. Mrs. Rose was the owner of an eighty acre tract passed over by the proposed road, she and her husband having lived there for some fourteen years, being placed in possession by her father under a parol gift, had paid
III. And it has been ruled that in such proceedings that' they are proceedings in entirety, if void as to one of the parties in interest, void as to all. Brush v. Detroit, 32 Mich. 43. If this be the true rule, it would certainly find application here, for the land of Mrs. Rose lies between the terminal points of the proposed road, and until her damages are assessed and paid, the road cannot be opened.
The judgment should be reversed.