84 Neb. 789 | Neb. | 1909
This action was brought to restrain defendants from closing and vacating a public road. The petition alleged, in substance, that a public county road had run in front of the tract of land belonging to the plaintiffs for more
The proceedings of the board looking to the vacation of the road are fully set forth in the petition, and it appears that all the preliminary requirements have been complied with sufficient to give the board jurisdiction • to act. The simple question is presented whether a court of equity has power to control by injunction the discretion of the proper officers of a county in the establishment or vacation of public highways. This is not a new question to this court. We are of the opinion that the court has no such power, the jurisdiction or matter of the establishment or vacation of county roads has been committed by the legislature exclusively to the discretion of the proper officers of the county, and with this discretion the courts cannot interfere. “The decision of the necessity or expediency of establishing, maintaining or vacating a public road is committed exclusively to county boards and other like legislative and governmental agencies, and is not subject to judicial review.” Otto v. Conroy, 76 Neb. 517, and cases cited. Throener v. Board of Supervisors, 82 Neb. 453.
It may be true, as plaintiffs alleged, that the closing of the highway will be a great disadvantage to them and inflict an injury upon them greater than that suffered by
Under the facts shown in the present case, the district court properly held that the county board had jurisdiction to act, and that there was no equity in the bill. Its judgment therefore is
Affirmed.