271 N.W. 509 | Iowa | 1937
This appeal involves the construction of sections *1374 4564, 4565, 4566, 4567, and 4571 of the 1935 Code relative to the location and establishment of a public highway.
In September, 1935, a petition was filed in the office of the county auditor of Woodbury county asking that a highway be established "on each side of a line commencing at a point 33.0 feet west of the S.E. corner, S.W. 1/4 of Section 15, T. 87, R. 47 W.; and thence extending and bearing N. 87 degrees 45 minutes west to a point 86.0 feet north and
The plaintiff filed a petition in the district court for a writ of certiorari claiming therein that the board of supervisors had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in establishing the highway for the reason that the commissioner appointed failed to report in favor of the establishment thereof, and that the commissioner's report shows that the road examined and reported upon was not the same as proposed in the petition. The writ was issued and a return made thereon, and upon a trial the district court entered an order finding that the board of supervisors had jurisdiction and did not act illegally in the establishment of the highway, and confirmed such action and dismissed and annulled the writ. From this order the plaintiff has appealed.
It must be conceded that the board of supervisors has authority under the statutes to establish such a road as the one proposed in the petition, and the only question that is submitted here is, did the board exceed its authority in locating and establishing the proposed road? There is no sufficient assignment of error by the appellant, but we will dispose of the matter on its merits. The appellant contends that the plat filed by the commissioner is not a correct representation of the road proposed *1376
for the reason that the plat shows the proposed road as astraight road, while the petition asks for the establishment of a road running west with a variation, we have heretofore noted, to a point
It has been repeatedly held by this court that in the location and establishment of highways a substantial compliance with the statute is all that is necessary. Harbacheck v. Telephone Co.,
In the last above cited case, which is cited and relied upon by the appellant, we said:
"It will be noticed that the language of this section allows unimportant deflections from the particular route or line designated in the petition and notice."
In that case we simply held that the commissioner did not have authority to create a new or different route than that described in the petition, and the case furnishes no support for the appellant on this appeal.
We are of the opinion that the board of supervisors in the instant case had authority and jurisdiction to enter its final order locating and establishing the highway in question, and that the order of the district court so holding and dismissing and annulling the writ of certiorari was correct and that it should be and is affirmed. — Affirmed.
RICHARDS, C.J., and KINTZINGER, PARSONS, MITCHELL, HAMILTON, STIGER, SAGER, and DONEGAN, JJ., concur.