44 Mo. 216 | Mo. | 1869
delivered the opinion of the court.
The County Court of Jefferson county, upon the petition of plaintiffs in error, established a new road across the land of the defendant in error, for which the compensation of fifteen dollars was awarded him, the commissioners deciding that the benefits derived by him from the road equaled the other damages. He appealed to the Circuit Court, which tried the case de novo and affirmed the proceedings of the County Court, and thence to the District Court. The last court reversed the action of the other courts, and rendered judgment against the petitioners, and they bring the case up by writ of error. Tho defendant files his motion to dismiss the writ, for the reason that the plaintiffs have no such interest as will entitle them to its benefit. The motion is overruled, for the reason that these parties were brought into the Circuit Court and into the District Court by defendant Dunklin, and judgment rendered against them in the latter court. If they have no -such interest in the matter as to authorize them to appeal from the action of the County Court, it does not follow that if they are brought into the Circuit and District Courts against their will, and personal judgment rendered against them, they may not ask us to review that judgment.
There seems to have been a general misapprehension of the law pertaining to this matter. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the whole question before the County Court was inquired into,
Previous to the act of March 23, 1868, appeals were allowed from the assessment of damages ; but, by that act (section 53), if a person over whose land the road passes shall be dissatisfied with the damages allowed him by the road commissioner, he may demand a trial and assessment of damages, by jury, in the County Court; and no appeal is allowed from that assessment. Thus the whole matter is now left to the County Court. But still the Circuit Court, upon application of a person entitled to appeal, may exercise its appellate jurisdiction 'over the action of County Courts, given by section 2, chapter 136, of the General Statutes.
But the jurisdiction does not involve the right to review the discretion of the County Court, or to pass upon anything but the legality of its proceedings. If the County Court has conformed to the law, as shown by its record, its action should be affirmed. There is no provision for a bill of exceptions or for bringing anything before the Circuit Court, except the record proper; nor can the merits of the question be examined. (St. Louis v. Lind, 42 Mo. 348.)
In the appeal to the Circuit Court the petitioners for the road were made defendants, and they were also brought into the District Court. Is there any authority for this ? There can be no question as to who may appeal. Any one directly interested, any one whose property is taken, may bring the matter before the higher courts. But has he any right to bring into court the petitioners for the road, and subject them, against their will, to
The proceedings in the County Court were all regular. The petition for the road contains everything the statute requires; the notice was regular, and all the'orders of the court; the report of the road commissioner, with the accompanying survey and field-notes of the county surveyor, the release of right of way, etc., are more definite and clear than in a majority of such cases that have come under my observation, and I see no material requirement of law not complied with. The Circuit Court, then, did right in affirming the action of the County Court, notwithstanding improper parties were brought before it; but it had no right to try the questions of fact over again. Instead of passing upon the record of the County Court, it proceeded to hear the whole matter de novo., which was outside of its jurisdiction, and rendered judgment for costs against respondent Dunklin. So far as concerns the costs made in the review of the record below and affirmance of judgment, the court was right, and the judg
The judgment of the District Court is reversed; and the judgment of the Circuit, affirming that of the County Court, is affirmed; but its judgment for the costs of subpoenas and witnesses, and other proceedings in the trial upon the merits, is reversed.