25 Conn. 133 | Conn. | 1856
The single question presented in this case is, whether the plaintiffs had a right to withdraw their petition, after a verbal communication by the county commissioners, that they were of opinion, and so decided, that the highway prayed for was not of public convenience and necessity. We think they had. The case was still undecided by the commissioners, in the eye of the law, and it remained so until the commissioners had drawn up and signed the report and presented it to the court, or the clerk of the court, to which it is returnable, or at least to the parties or their counsel; until this was done, they could not be said to have put their decision into legal form, or to have divested themselves of power to deliberate further, and change their opinion if they saw fit, upon giving notice to the parties. Somewhere there must be a point, to distinguish between mere opinion or purpose, and a fixed and unalterable judgment. Where is this point, in the doings of commissioners, whose report becomes a part of the records of the court? We think their report alone can speak their official acts, and therefore to that only can we look to know what those acts are. We are satisfied that nothing short of this will answer the requisites of the law, and that until they have finished and signed the report, they have not divested themselves of power to act in the premises, as they may have occasion. The same is true of auditors, committees in chancery and jurors. In the case of the latter, it has often been ruled on the circuit, that the plaintiff may suffer a nonsuit at any time
We are therefore of opinion that the petition was legally withdrawn, and that the respondents are not entitled to have the entry of withdrawal erased, or the report of the commissioners accepted, and so advise the superior court.
In this opinion, the other judges, Storrs and Hinman, concurred.
