and feasibility of the establishment of the highway petitioned for.389 Their action is based upon a personal examination of the proposed highway and such evidence as may be offered touching the questions at issue.390 Their report, in the absence of fraud, is conclusive in respect to the necessity and feasibility of the highway except in those cases where local statutes give the petitioners, in the case of an adverse decision, the right of appeal or to secure board of county commissioners provided the statutory notice has been given. Banse v. Town of Clark, 69 Minn. 53, 71 N. W. 819. A petition for a highway may include more than one proposed road. Crowley V. Gallatin County Com'rs, 14 Mont. 292, 36 Pac. 313; Throckmorton v. State, 20 Neb. 647. An elector residing within five miles of a proposed highway is qualified as a petitioner on the ground of interest. Baker v. City of Ashland, 50 N. H. 27. Two distinct highways should not be prayed for in the same petition. In re Barrett, 7 App. Div. 482, 40 N. Y. Supp. 266; Satterly v. Winne, 101 N. Y. 218; People v. Village of Whitney's Point, 102 N. Y. 81; Woodruff v. Douglas County, 17 Or. 314, 21 Pac. 49; In re Franconia Tp. Road, 78 Pa. 316; Appeal of Toland, 147 Pa. 471; Kopecky v. Daniels, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 305, 29 S. W. 533. A commissioner's court may, of its own volition, appoint viewers to lay out a proposed highway and report upon its necessity. Sneed v. Falls County, 91 Tex. 168, 41 S. W. 481; Robinson v. Winch, 66 Vt. 110, 28 Atl. 884; Gilley v. City of Barre, 69 Vt. 374; State v. O'Connor, 78 Wis. 282. In respect to the establishment of roads in different jurisdictions see the following cases: Philbrick v. Town of University Place, 106 Iowa, 352; In re Burdick, 27 Misc. 298, 58 N. Y. Supp. 759; Gilley v. City of Barre, 69 Vt. 374. 389 Kimball V. Alameda County Sup'rs, 46 Cal. 19; Brannan v. Mecklenburg, 49 Cal. 672; Wright v. Middlefork Highway Com'rs, 145 Ill. 48; Goshen Highway Com'rs v. Jackson, 165 Ill. 17, 45 N. E. 1000, affirming 61 Ill. App. 381; White v. Fleming, 114 Ind. 560, 16 N. E. 487; Gold v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co., 153 Ind. 232, 53 N. E. 285; Carroll County Com'rs v. Justice, 133 Ind. 89; Hughes v. Milligan, 42 Kan. 396; Higgins v. Hamor, 88 Me. 25, 33 Atl. 655. County petitioners must act upon the petition with reasonable dispatch. Sanger v. Kennebec County Com'rs, 25 Me. 291; Haywood v. Town of Charlestown, 34 N. H. 23; Conover v. Bird, 56 N. J. Law, 228, 28 Atl. 428; Garretson v. Baker, 65 N. J. Law, 184, 46 Atl. 705; In re Main St., 30 Hun (N. Y.) 424; In re Road in Plum Creek Tp., 110 Pa. 544, 1 Atl. 431; Huggins v. Hurt, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 404, 56 S. W. 944. A commissioner's court, under Rev. St. art. 4671, has the power of its own motion to lay out and open public roads when necessary. 390 Raymond v. Griffin, 23 N. H. (3 Fost.) 340; In re Johnson, 49 N. J. Law, 381, 8 Atl. 113. Meetings should be held at the place advertised or their action will be void. In re Pugh, 22 Misc. 43, 49 N. Y. Supp. 398. the appointment of another body of a similar character, to repass upon the petition.391 The rules applying to the character and qualifications of the viewers, 392 their report on the petition in respect to its accuracy and clearness,393 the giving of notice to the property owners whose interests may be taken,394 the admission. of evidence and other details of the proceedings,395 are those which apply to ordinary procedure under an exercise of the power of eminent domain and are to be found in the proper sections and the cases cited. 301 People v. Smith, 15 Ill. 326; Gray v. Jones, 178 Ill. 169, 52 N. E. 941; Smith v. Boisvert, 183 I!. 318, 55 N. E. 631; In re Inhabitants of Byron, 57 Me. 340; Warlick V. Lowman, 111 N. C. 532, 16 S. E. 336; In re Road in Upper Yoder Tp., 129 Pa. 640, 18 Atl. 551; In re Road in Leet Tp., 159 Pa. 72, 28 Atl. 238; Williams v. Turner Tp., 15 S. D. 182, 87 N. W. 968; Lafollette v. Tiller, 105 Tenn. 536, 58 S. W. 1065. 392 Keenan V. Dallas County Com'rs, 26 Ala. 568; Beck v. Biggers, 66 Ark. 292, 50 S. W. 514; Town of Groton v. Hurlburt, 22 Conn. 178; Betts v. New Hartford, 25 Conn. 180; Highway Com'rs v. Jackson, 61 Ill. App. 381; Crossett v. Owens, 110 Ill. 378; Kieckenapp v. Wheeling Sup'rs, 64 Minn. 547, 67 N. W. 662. The action of a town board of supervisors in laying out a highway by one of them disinterested through the ownership of land taken is voidable, a majority being impartial and not interested. State v. Auchard, 22 Mont. 14; Crowley v. Gallatin County Com'rs, 14 Mont. 292, 36 Pac. 313; Conover v. Bird, 56 N. J. Law, 228, 28 Atl. 428; Tiffany v. Gifford, 7 N. Y. Supp. 43; Dunstan v. City of Jamestown, 7 N. D. 1; Attorney General v. McCaughey, 2 R. I. 341, 43 Atl. 646; Vogt v. Bexar County, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 567. 393 Beck v. Biggers, 66 Ark. 292, 50 S. W. 514; Freshour v. Hihn, 99 Cal. 443, 34 Pac. 87; State v. Rapp, 39 Minn. 65; Halverson v. Bell, 39 Minn. 240; Sonnek v. Town of Min. nesota Lake, 50 Minn. 558; Adams v. Rulon, 50 N. J. Law, 526; Dunstan v. City of Jamestown, 7 N. D. 1, 72 N. W. 899; Sime v. Spencer, 30 Or. 340, 47 Pac. 919; In re Road in Lower Merion Tp., 8 Pa. Dist. R. 581; Clarke v. Town of South Kingstown, 18 R. I. 283, 27 Atl. 336; Kidder v. Jenison, 21 Vt. 108. 394 Baker v. Town of Windham, 25 Conn. 597; Gifford v. Town of Norwich, 30 Conn. 35; Gold v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co., 153 Ind. 232, 53 N. E. 285; Woolsey v. Hamilton County Sup'rs, 32 Iowa, 130; Banse v. Town of Clark, 69 Minn. 53, 71 N. W. 819; Crenshaw v. Snyder, 117 Mo. 167; State v. Schanck, 9 N. J. Law (4 Halst.) 107; In re De Camp, 19 App. Div. 564, 46 N. Y. Supp. 293; Fravert v. Finfrock, 43 Ohio St. 335; In re Locust St., 153 Pa. 276, 25 Atl. 816. A report of viewers that holds the giving of notice according to law is sufficient proof in the absence of contradictory evidence. State v. Harland, 74 Wis. 11, 41 N. W. 1060. 395 Goshen Highway Com'rs V. § 774. Report of viewers and orders establishing highways. Upon the making of a report by road viewers or commissioners favorable to the establishment of the proposed highway, the power then becomes vested in the official body or court to whom such report is made and having jurisdiction to proceed with its formal laying out, and an order to this effect legally and naturally follows.396 Since, in the laying out of a highway, private property is taken, to render the proceedings valid and the highway a legal one, it is necessary that both the reports of subordinate officials or bodies and final orders shall include an accurate description of the proposed highway or the property to be taken in its construction 397 and that it should be the same as that asked for in Jackson, 165 Ill. 17, 45 N. E. 1000, affirming 61 Ill. App. 381; Yankton County v. Klemisch, 11 S. D. 170, 76 N. W. 312. A petition for the establishment of a highway may be considered by county commissioners at an adjourned meeting, proper notice having been given. Costa 396 Hopkins V. Contra County, 106 Cal. 566; Shepherd v. Turner, 129 Cal. 530, 62 Pac. 106. A proper petition is jurisdictional to the making of a valid order establishing a road. Highway Com'rs v. People, 69 Ill. App. 326. The presumption exists that all preliminary proceedings are regular. Imhoff v. Highway Com'rs, 89 Ill. App. 66. Jurisdiction of tribunals of special and limited jurisdiction must appear on the face of the record. O'Connell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer Co., 184 Ill. 308, 56 N. E. 355; State v. Barlow, 61 Iowa, 572; Louisville, H. & St. L. R. Co. v. Com., 20 Ky. L. R. 371, 46 S. W. 207. Curative acts may be passed by the legislature in respect to all jurisdictional irregularities. Inhabitants of North Berwick v. York County Com'rs, 25 Me. 69; Albaugh v. Goldsborough, 80 Md. 49, 30 Atl. 574; Folsom v. Middlesex County Com'rs, 173 Mass. 48, 53 N. E. 155; Lincoln v. Com., 164 Mass. 1; Price v. Stagray, 68 Mich. 17 Brewer v. Gerow, 83 Mich. 250, 47 N. W. 113. Highways on township lines must be laid out by the joint action of the commissioners of both townships and a proceeding prosecuted by one township alone is illegal and void. Jones v. Zink, 65 Mo. App. 409. An order should affirmatively show a compliance with jurisdictional conditions. McNair v. State, 26 Neb. 257, 41 N. W. 1099; Rose v. Washington County, 42 Neb. 1, 60 N. W. 352. Under Neb. Comp. St. c. 78, § 46, the filing of a petition is not necessary to confer jurisdiction on the county brought to cen a section line road. Warren V. Brown, 31 Neb. 8, 47 N. W. 633; Barry v. Deloughrey, 47 Neb. 354, 66 N. W. 410; Jones v. Polk County. 36 Or. 539, 60 Pac. 204; Platt v. Town of Milton, 55 Vt. 490; Williams v. Giblin, 86 Wis. 147, 56 N. W. 645. A record for the establishment of a highway should contain prima facie evidence of the regularity of all prior proceedings. 397 Shinkle v. McGill, 58 Ill. 422; Erwin v. Fulk, 94 Ind. 235; Barnes the petition. If there are special requirements by statutes in respect to the form or the recitals of such a report or order, these must be strictly followed, under the rule which requires a strict construction and a literal following of the authority for the exercise of the power of eminent domain. v. Fox, 61 Iowa, 18. An order directing the road established according to the petition is insufficient where the petition asked for its location between certain points on the "nearest and most suitable ground." Thompson v. Trowe, 82 Minn. 471, 85 N. W. 169; In re Essex Ave., 121 Mo. 98; Crowley v. Gallatin County Com'rs, 14 Mont. 292. A deficiency in an order establishing a road may be supplemented by the statute under which the proceedings are had. Pagel v. Fergus County Com'rs, 17 Mont. 586. 44 Pac. 86; Warren v. Brown, 31 Neb. 8, 47 N. W. 633; Wentworth v. Town of Milton, 46 N. H. 448; Inhabitants of Mt. Olive Tp. v. Hunt, 51 N. J. Law, 274, 17 Atl. 291; People v. Village of Haverstraw, 137 N. Y. 88, 32 N. E. 1111; In re Road in Borough of Verona (Pa.) 12 Atl. 456; Terrell v. Terrant County, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 563, 28 S. W. 367. 398 Deer V. Sidney Highway Com'rs, 109 Ill. 379; Farrelly v. Town of Kane, 172 Ill. 415, 50 N. E. 118; Layman v. Hughes, 152 Ind. 484; Inhabitants of Pembroke V. Plymouth County Com'rs, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) 351; State v. Thompson, 46 Minn. 302, 48 N. W. 1111. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 13, § 33, the supervisors are not required to follow literally the course of the highway as given in the petition for its establishment. Wiggin v. Exeter, 13 N. H. 304; Eames The legality of a report or v. Northumberland, 44 N. H. 67; Flanders v. Colebrook, 51 N. H. 300; Young v. Laconia, 59 N. H. 534. Α description in the petition may be amended after the highway is laid out. State v. Vreeland, 50 N. J. Law, 386; In re Feeney, 20 Misc. 272, 45 N. Y. Supp. 830; Woodruff v. Douglas County, 17 Or. 314, 21 Pac. 49; French-Glenn Live-Stock Co. v. Harney County (Or.) 58 Pac. 36; State v. Kendall, 54 S. C. 192; Robson v. Byler, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 374, 37 S. W. 872. A mere verbal discrepancy between the description on a petition and the order based upon it will not render the latter invalid. Megrath v. Nickerson, 24 Wash. 235, 64 Pac. 163. But see Inhabitants of Wayne v. Kennebec County Com'rs, 37 Me. 558. 399 Davenport Mut. Sav. F. & L. Ass'n v. Schmidt, 15 Iowa, 213. The filing of a petition and service of notice according to the statute confers jurisdiction upon the county court and thereafter every presumption is in favor of the legality of its further proceedings. Schade v. Theel, 45 Kan. 628, 26 Pac. 38. It is not necessary that the board of county commissioners in their order establishing a road expressly recite that the petitioners were householders. Craig v. North, 60 Ky. (3 Metc.) 187; Peck v. Whitney, 45 Ky. (6 B. Mon.) 117; State v. Parsons, 53 Mo. App. 135. But see State v. Richmond, 26 N. H. 232. 1858 8775 of the final order may depend upon the manner or the time when $775. The tribunal. After a favorable judicial decision upon the sufficiency of the petition and the right for appointment of commissioners, a tribunal is then selected for the determination of compensation to be awarded property owners.402 This may be secured either through appointment by the court 403 passing upon the petition, or a selecting in some manner prescribed by statute. The mode of selection is dependent upon provisions of local statutes. The question of the character and personnel of the tribunal, however, raises other and broader questions. It is a familiar and axiomatic principle that no person shall be the judge of his own cause 404 and further that in the determination of all questions, those who are to consider and pass upon them should be competent and qualified for 400 Town of Windham v. Litch- 401 See §§ 643 et seq., ante. 403 Abney v. Clark, 87 Iowa, 727, 404 Epler v. Niman, 5 Ind. 459; 44 Ind. 356; Bradley v. City of |