15 Me. 21 | Me. | 1838
After a continuance, the opinion of" the Court was prepared by
This petition sets forth several errors in the proceedings in locating a highway in the town of New- Vineyard; none of which were insisted upon at the argument except one, alleging a want of jurisdiction in the county commissioners, because the highway prayed for is described in the petition as being wholly within the limits of that town.
The first section of the act of March 2d, 1821, gives the court of sessions authority to lay out or alter highways, “ from town to town or place to placeand this language is adopted from the act of Massachusetts, of the 27th of February, 1787 ; and it had there received a judicial construction in the case of the Commonwealth v. Cambridge, 7 Mass. R. 158; where it was decided, that the words from place to place authorized the sessions to establish a highway wholly within the limits of one town.
This construction, according to established precedents, must be understood to have been adopted by our legislature in its use of the same phraseology. That power the county commissioners had at the time these proceedings took place, unless repealed or altered by the act of the tenth of March, 1831. The third section of this act gives the county commissioners, “ all the powers, authorities, and duties ” of the court of sessions, “ except so far as the same are modified or altered by the provisions of this act;” and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions are repealed. The fourth section prescribes the mode, of proceeding upon petitions, and says, “ that all and every petition for the laying out, alteration, or discontinuance of any highway or common road leading from town to town shall be presented to the county commissioners.”
The argument is, that the omission of the words “place tq place ” in this section is a limitation of their powers.
Writ not granted.