88 Ind. 302 | Ind. | 1882
— This proceeding was instituted by the appellees to change a public highway. After viewers had reported favorably, the appellants remonstrated, on the ground that the change would not be of public utility. Reviewers were appointed, and reported in favor of the change, after which
The reasons embraced in the motion to dismiss will be noticed in the order of their statement. Without copying the petition in this opinion, we will merely say that it seeks the change of a highway, aud not the vacation of one and the location of' another. This is authorized by the statute. The change of a highway necessarily requires the vacation of a portion of the highway and the location of such portion upon a different line, and in this sense a vacation and location are authorized in the same proceeding. In our conclusiou that the petition in this case seeks nothing else, we are confirmed by the fact that the parties seem to have so treated it, and as the motion to dismiss was not made for more than four years after the proceeding was instituted, and until after the cause was reversed by this court, we think it should be so regarded. This objection can not, therefore, be sustained.
The statute does not require the petitioners to aver that the change of the proposéd highway will be of public utility, and,, therefore, there is nothing in the second objection.
The third is not required by the statute, and is not mentioned in appellants’ brief.
Pee Curiam. — It is therefore ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be and it is hereby affirmed, at the appellants’ costs.