the location of the highway can be determined by an inspection of all records and proceedings, including the report of viewers or commissioners, it will not be regarded as deficient in this respect.128 The rule also applies to this part of a report or award that the highway located or found necessary for the public use should be the indentical one sought to be established by the petition or act originating the proceedings.420 (a) Description of property taken. The courts require as an essential to a valid report not only a correct description of the highway or the proposed improvement, but also an accurate description of the property and interests which will be taken or damaged through the pending proceedings. 430 The requirement of an accurate and definite description does not, however, exclude those technically accurate but so worded as not to be commonly understood. (b) Owners' names. A report, to be complete and valid, must further contain the names of the owners of all property or property interests taken or damaged through the force of the proceedings, coupled with its description.431 § 780. Award of damages. In many of the steps connected with the exercise of the power of eminent domain the property owner is not concerned, and the law gives him no right to raise questions affecting their validity. In the subject of damages, he is, however, vitally interested, and the details of the exercise of the power relating to this are under mouth v. Bristol County Com'rs, 153 Mass. 12, 26 N. E. 425; State v. English, 22 N. J. Law (2 Zab.) 291; In re Kingston Tp. Road, 134 Pa. 409; State v. Hogue, 71 Wis. :384, 36 N. W. 860. But see Blair v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co., 110 Wis. 64, 85 N. W. 675. 428 State v. Prine, 25 Iowa, 231; Wilson v. Simmons, 89 Me. 242, 36 Atl. 380; Hall v. City of Manchester, 39 N. H. 295. 429 Dunstan v. City of Jamestown, 7 N. D. 1, 72 N. W. 899; In re Benzinger Tp. Road, 115 Pa. 436, 10 Atl. 35; Flint v. Horsley, 25 Wash. 648, 66 Pac. 59. But see Hill v. Ventura County Sup'rs, 95 Cal. 239, 30 Pac. 385; Crowley v. Gallatin County Com'rs, 14 Mont. 292, 36 Pac. 313. 430 Hays v. City of Vincennes, 82 Ind. 178. 431 Talliaferro v. Roach, 11 Ky. L. R. 665, 12 S. W. 1039. The omission of a name of an interested member from the award will not vitiate the proceedings as to others. Morris v. Salle, 14 Ky. L. R. 117, 19 S. W. 527. But see Granger v. City of Syracuuse, 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 308. 432 Fanning v. Gilliland, 37 Or. his constant scrutiny.432 The report or award should show, therefore, affirmatively, that the amount of damages, if any, suffered by each property owner has been considered by the commissioners or viewers and passed upon, though not necessarily affirmatively or in favor of an award of damages. 433 It is necessary also that that portion of the report dealing with the question of damages should show the amount awarded to the owner of each separate and distinct interest taken or affected by the proceedings.434 The courts do not countenance inaccurate and indefinite descriptions, looseness of phraseology or lump awards of damages in condemnation proceedings. § 781. Conclusiveness of report or award and the doctrine of collateral attack. The essential recitals of a report or award have been considered in the preceding sections; the right of one to object to its character or sufficiency may be affected by his laches or through action by him considered as a waiver.435 The rule also obtains that a report or award will be held sufficient and legal when an attack is made upon it in a collateral proceeding which would not be so regarded if the questions were raised in a proceeding directly involving them,436-an application of the familiar doctrine of collateral attack to the subject under discussion. 369, 61 Pac. 636, rehearing denied, 62 Pac. 209. 433 Butte County v. Boydston, 64 Cal. 110; Forsyth v. Wilcox, 143 Ind. 144, 41 N. E. 371; Troutman v. Cooper, 23 N. J. Law (3 Zab.) 381; Dunham v. Runyon, 24 N. J. Law (4 Zab.) 256; Kelley v. Garretosn, 23 N. J. Law (3 Zab.) 388. 434 McKernan v. City of Indianapolis, 38 Ind. 223; Rentz v. City of Detroit, 48 Mich. 544; Gregg v. French, 67 Minn. 402, 69 N. W. 1102. An award of damages is not uncertain if it sufficiently indicates a means through an arithmetical calculation by which it can be definitely ascertained. State v. Oliver, 24 N. J. Law (4 Zab.) 129; Combs v. Blauvelt, 33 N. J. Law, 36; Kopecky v. Daniels, 9 Tex. Civ App. 305, 29 S. W. 533. 435 Pearce v. Town of Gilmer, 54 Ill. 25; State v. Minneapolis & St. L..R. Co., 88 Iowa, 689, 56 N. W. 400; Oliver v. Monona County, 117 Iowa, 43, 90 N. W. 510; Duncan v. City of Louisville, 71 Ky. (8 Bush) 98. But see Seavey v. City of Seattle, 17 Wash. 361, 49 Pac. 517. 436 Fenwick Hall Co. v. Town of Old Saybrook, 69 Conn. 32, 36 Atl. 1068; Goodwillie v. City of Lake View, 137 Ill. 51, 27 N. E. 15; Bailey v. McCain, 92 Ill. 277; Gordon v. Highway Com'rs, 169 Ill. 510, 48 N. E. 451; Strieb V. Cox, 111 Ind. 299, 12 N. E. 481; Adams V. Harrington, 66, 14 N. E. 603; 114 Ind. Wells V. § 782. Filing of the award or report. Commissioners or viewers constituting a body of limited and special jurisdiction and powers must act within their authority that their action be considered valid and, therefore, binding.437 The law usually requires a prompt consideration of the questions submitted and the making of their official determination in a report or award. This is customarily required to be filed within a prescribed time 438 and with a designated person.439 The service of a notice of filing upon those interested for the purpose of in Rhodes, 114 Ind. 467, 16 N. E. 830; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Sutton, 130 Ind. 405, 30 N. E. 291; Tucker v. Sellers, 130 Ind. 514, 30 N. E. 531; Helms v. Bell, 155 Ind. 502, 58 N. E. 707; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Machler, 158 Ind. 159, 63 N. E. 210; McIntyre v. Marine, 93 Ind. 193; Evans v. West, 138 Ind. 621; Bowen v. Hester, 143 Ind. 511, 41 N. E. 330; State v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 88 Iowa, 689; Small v. Pennell, 31 Me. 267; Mitchell v. Kansas City & I. R. T. R. Co., 138 Mo. 326, 39 S. W. 790; Taft v. Commonwealth, 158 Mass. 526, 33 N. E. 1046; St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 141; Lingo v. Burford (Mo.) 18 S. W. 1081; Daugherty v. Brown, 91 Mo. 26; Baubie v. Ossman, 142 Mo. 499, 44 S. W. 338; Bryant v. Tamworth, 68 N. H. 483, 39 Atl. 431; Horne v. Town of Rochester, 62 N. H. 347; Humphreys v. City of Woodstown, 48 N. J. Law, 588, 7 Atl. 301; Dana v. Craddock, 66 N. H. 593, 32 Atl. 757; Weinckie v. New York Cent. & Hudson River R. Co., 61 Hun (N. Y.) 619; State v. Joyce, 121 N. C. 610, 28 S. E. 366; Smith v. Lebanon, 8 Pa. Sup. Ct. 481; State v. Kendall, 54 S. C. 192, 32 S. E. 300; Yankton County v. Klemisch, 11 S. D. 170, 76 N. W. 312. Jurisdictional questions may be raised, however, in a collateral attack. Robson v. Byler, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 374, 37 S. W. 872; Vogt v. Bexar County, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 567, 42 S. W. 127; State v. Town of Vernon, 25 Vt. 244. 437 Blaisdell V. Inhabitants of Winthrop, 118 Mass. 138. 438 Wright v. Middlefork Highway Com'rs, 145 Ill. 48, 33 N. E. 876; Forster v. Winona County Com'rs, 84 Minn. 308, 87 N. W. 921; Rose v. Garrett, 91 Mo. 65, 3 S. W. 828; Rose v. Kansas City, 128 Me. 135, 30 S. W. 518; Frame v. Boyd, 35 N. J. Law, 457; Savage v. City of Buffalo, 131 N. Y. 568, 30 N. E. 226, affirming 14 N. Y. Supp. 101. Title 8, § 8, of the city charter of Buffalo requiring commissioners to make their report within sixty days is directory and a report will be sustained made after the expiration of this time where no public or pri vate right has been prejudiced by the delay. In re Morewood Ave., 159 Pa. 39, 28 Atl. 130. 439 State v. O'Laughlin, 29 Kan. 20. The fact that a report of commissioners cannot be found twelve years after a highway has been duly established affords no ground for disputing its legal existence. New Jersey So. R. Co. v. Chandler, 65 N. J. Law, 173, 46 Atl. 732 forming them of the board's official action may be also necessary. Provisions of this character are ordinarily considered mandatory, not directory, and a failure to observe the plain requirements of the law may result in a failure of the proceedings. The action of commissioners or of viewers either in making or filing their report or in respect to other questions submitted for their determination or action may be reviewed and the errors complained of corrected 440 or their proceedings set aside.**1 The common-law writ of certiorari is the remedy commonly used for this purpose. 42 In some states special remedies are given by statutory provision and the rule then obtains that these must be followed.443 440 Rees v. City of Chicago, 38 Ill. 322; Everett V. Pottawattamie County Sup'rs, 93 Iowa, 721; In re Penley, 89 Me. 313, 36 Atl. 396; State v. Vandervere, 25 N. J. Law, 669; Vedder v. Marion County, 28 Or. 77; In re Wilson's Appeal, 152 Pa. 136, 25 Atl. 530. 441 In re North Union Tp. Road, 150 Pa. 512, 24 Atl. 749. 442 Grinstead v. Wilson, 69 Ark. 587, 65 S W. 108; Imhoff v. Highway Com'rs, 89 Ill. App. 66. The failure to show the taking of any land for use in the laying out of a new highway will warrant a quashing of the writ since no invasion of any right of the relator was shown. Bailey v. McClain, 92 Ill. 277; Perry v. Bozarth, 95 Ill. App. 566; Behrens v. Highway Com'rs, 169 Ill. 558, 48 N. E. 578; Butler Grove Highway Com'rs v. Barnes, 195 Ill. 43, 62 N. E. 775; Hupert v. Anderson, 35 Iowa, 579; Abney v. Clark, 87 Iowa, 727, 55 N. W. 6; Tiedt v. Carstenson, 61 Iowa, 334; Janvrin Poole, 181 Mass. 463, 63 N. E. 1066; Names v. Highway Com'rs, 30 Mich. 490; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Town of Berlin, 68 N. H. 168, 36 Atl. 554; Freeman v. Price, 63 N. J. Law, 151, 43 Atl. 432; Morris & Cummings Dredging Co. v. Jersey City & G. & H. R. Co., 64 N. J. Law, 142, 45 Atl. 917; People v. Schell, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 352. One must say that his property or rights are immediately or directly involved in order to have such an interest as will entitle him to a writ of certiorari to review proceedings. People v. Ireland, 75 Hun, 600, 27 N. Y. Supp. 582; In re Palmer Road Tp., 109 Pa. 274; In re Diamond St., 196 Pa. 254, 46 Atl. 428; Cowan's Case, 1 Tenn. (1 Overt) 311; Prince v. Town of Braintree, 64 Vt. 540, 26 Atl. 1095; State v. Wallman, 110 Wis. 312, 85 N. W. 975. But see Detroit & Bay City R. Co. v. Graham, 46 Mich. 642; People v. Onondaga County Court, 4 App. Div. 542, 38 N. Y. Supp. 920, affirmed 152 N. Y. 214, 46 N. E. 325, and People v. Turner, 8 App. Div. 395, 40 N. Y. Supp. 839. 448 Siskiyou County v. Gamlich, 110 Cal. 94, 42 Pac. 468. An order A report of commissioners or road viewers may include findings and recitals upon questions other than those relative to the compensation or damages to be paid property owners; or it may consider the latter question alone with a recital of the facts necessary to sustain jurisdiction in this respect. In either case a property owner or interested party alone is entitled to an appeal from the decision or award and only those questions can be considered on appeal which are and can legally be raised in the notice of ap approving the report of viewers by the board of supervisors under Political Code, §§ 2681-2690 cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground of insufficient evidence. Cutler v. Sours, 80 Ill. App. 618; Ravatte v. Race, 152 Ill. 672, 38 N. E. 933; Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v. Lorance, 180 Ill. 180, 54 N. E. 284; Wells v. Rhodes, 114 Ind. 467, 16 N. E. 830; Manor v. Jay County Com'rs, 137 Ind. 367, 34 N. E. 959; Monroe County Com'rs v. Conner, 155 Ind. 484, 58 N. E. 828; Eastman v. Inhabitants of Stowe, 37 Me. 86; Overmann v. City of St. Paul, 39 Minn. 120, 39 N. W. 66. 444 Gray v. Lott, 18 Ill. 251; Whittaker v. Gutherridge, 52 Ill. App. 460; Butler Grove Highway Com'rs v. Barnes, 195 Ill. 43, 62 N. E. 775. An appeal by one not adjoining the road sought to be established confers no jurisdiction on the appellate body. Odell v. Jenkins, 8 Ind. 522; Rassier v. Grimmer, 130 Ind. 219, 28 N. E. 866. The judgment of the board of commissioners cannot be collaterally attacked for any error or irregularity. Fleming v. Hight, 95 Ind. 78; Hight v. Claman, 121 Ind. 447, 23 N. E. 279; Wilson v. Wheeler, 125 Ind. 173, 25 N. E. 190; Spray v. Thompson, 9 Iowa, 40; Commonwealth v. Kimberlin, 71 Ky. (8 Bush) 444. The common wealth of Kentucky may prosecute an appeal from the judgment of the county court establishing an alteration in a public road. Shurtleff v. Chase County Com'rs, 63 Kan. 645, 66 Pac. 654; Alexander v. City of Baltimore, 5 Gill (Md.) 383; Brown v. Greenfield Tp. Board, 92 Mich. 294, 52 N. W. 614; Schuster v. Town of Lemond, 27 Minn. 253; State v. Barton, 36 Minn. 145, 30 N. W. 454; Runyon v. Alton, 78 Minn. 31; Aldridge v. Spears, 40 Mo. App. 527, 101 Mo. 400; Schroeder v. Jabin, 94 Mo. App. 111, 67 S. W. 949; Union School Dist. v. Keene, 63 N. H. 623, 7 Atl. 380; Morse v. Wheeler, 69 N. H. 292, 45 Atl. 561; State v. Kearney Tp., 51 N. J. Law, 473, 18 Atl. 349; McDowell v. Western N. C. Insane Asylum, 101 N. C. 656, 8 S. E. 118; Losch's Appeal, 109 Pa. 72. An owner is the one who possesses the property at the time the proceedings are instituted; the claim for damages is a personal State v. Town of Geneva, 107 Wis. 1, 82 N. W. 550. But see Brown v. Robertson, 123 Ill. 631, 15 N. E. 30. The right to review the amount agreed upon for damages between the owner and highway commissioners does not exist. Smith v. City of St. Paul, 69 Minn. 276, 72 N. W. 104. one. |