acting under statutory or charter authority 1313 or upon a petition of those interested or the owners of abutting property own1314 and the rule of strict construction applies to the authority both in respect to the existence of the power and the manner of its exercise.1315 A highway cannot be legally vacated ers, 1313 Rankin v. Com'rs of Road Dist. No. 15, 97 Ill. App. 206; Martin v. City of Louisville, 16 Ky. L. R. 786, 29 S. W. 864;; Lathan v. Inhabitants of Wilton, 23 Me. 125; Coakley v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 159 Mass. 32, 33 N. E. 930; Ruton V. Adams (N. J. Law) 21 Atl. 937; Read v. City of Camden, 54 N. J. Law, 347, 24 Atl. 549. Consent of abutting owners not necessary. 1314 Johnson v. People, 42 III. App. 402; Patton v. Creswell, 120 Ind. 147, 21 N. E. 663; City of Indianapolis v. Ritzinger, 24 Ind. App. 65, 56 N. E. 141; Devoe v. Smeltzer, 86 Iowa, 385, 53 N. W. 287; Lorenzen v. Preston, 53 Iowa, 580; Dunham v. Fox, 100 Iowa, 131, 69 N. W. 436. A petitioner may withdraw his name at any time before action is taken. Uptagraff v. Smith, 106 Iowa, 385, 76 N. W. 733; Sullivan v. Robbins, 109 Iowa, 235, 80 N. W. 340. It is no ground for holding void the action of a county board in vacating a highway that one of the petitioners was induced through fraud to sign the petition. Millett V. Franklin County Com'rs, 80 Me. 427, 15 Atl. 24; In re Albers Petition, 113 Mich. 640, 71 N. W. 1110; Baudistel v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 113 Mich. 687, 71 N. W. 1114; Spurgeon v. Hennessey, 32 Mo. App. 83; State v. Board of Assessors of Taxes, 53 N. J. Law, 319, 21 Atl. 938; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Village of New Ro chelle, 29 Misc. 195, 60 N. Y. Supp. 904; Excelsior Brick Co. v. Village of Haverstraw, 152 N. Y. 146, 136 N. E. 819, reversing 66 Hun, 631, 21 N. Y. Supp. 99; Vedder v. Marion County, 28 Or. 77, 41 Pac. 3, 36 Pac. 535, affirming 22 Or. 264; James v. City of Darlington, 71 Wis. 173, 36 N. W. 834. 1315 People v. Marin County, 103 Cal. 223, 37 Pac. 203, 26 L. R. A. 659; People v. Hibernia Sav. & L. Ass'n, 84 Cal. 634, 24 Pac. 295; Chicago Anderson Pressed Brick Co. v. City of Chicago, 138 Ill. 628, 28 N. E. 756; Miller v. Schenck, 78 Iowa, 372, 43 N. W. 225; City of Ottawa v. Rohrbough, 42 Kan. 253, 21 Pac. 1061; Kansas Town Co. v. McLean, 7 Kan. App. 101, 53 Pac. 76; England v. Duncan, 10 Kan. App. 577, 62 Pac. 710; State v. Inhabitants of Oxford, 65 Me. 20; Com. v. Tucker, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) 44; City of Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 66 Mich. 42, 33 N. W. 15; Campau v. Board of Public Works of City of Detroit, 86 Mich. 372, 49 N. W. 39; Horton v. Williams, 99 Mich. 423, 58 N. W. 369; McKay v. Doty, 63 Mich. 581, 30 N. W. 591; Bigelow v. Brooks, 119 Mich. 208, 77 N. W. 810; Miller v. Town of Corinna, 42 Minn. 391, 44 N. W. 127; Street v. Town of Alden, 62 Minn. 160, 64 N. W. 157; McNair v. State, 26 Neb. 257, 41 N. W. 1099; State v. Demott, 14 N. J. Law (2 J. S. Green) 254; Condict v. Ramsey, 65 N. J. Law, 503, 47 by a mere nonuser or a neglect on the part of the proper authorities to improve or repair,1316 or by the laying out of an other road to take its place,1317 though by statutory provisions or as based upon other reasons in some states this can be done.1318 Proceedings to vacate highways are regulated by local statutes which vary materially in the different states and it is impossible to state more than a few general principles applicable to the subject. $941. Petition. That orderly manner in which a highway must be vacated involves a petition, ordinance or other municipal action as may be required, notice to interested parties, a hearing at which remon Atl. 423; Holtz v. Diehl, 26 Misc. 224, 56 N. Y. Supp. 841; People v. Griswold, 67 N. Y. 59; In re City of New York, 166 N. Y. 495, 60 N. E. 180; Heddleston v. Hendricks, 52 Ohio St. 460, 40 N. E. 408; Huddleston v. City of Eugene, 34 Or. 343, 43 L. R. A. 444; In re Osage St., 90 Pa. 114; Wead v. St. Johnsbury & L. C. R. Co., 64 Vt. 52, 24 Atl. 361. The presumption exists, however, that all steps taken in changing a highway and vacating the old one were regular. Baines v. City of Janesville, 100 Wis. 369, 75 N. W. 404; City of Ashland v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 105 Wis. 398, 80 N. W. 1101. 1316 Ohio & M. River R. Co. v. Cox, 26 Ill. App. 491; Com'rs of Highways v. People, 69 Ill. App. 326; Davis v. Nicholson, 81 Ind. 183; City of Topeka v. Russam, 30 Kan. 550; State v. Reesa, 59 Wis. 106. 1317 Brown v. Robertson, 123 III. 631, 15 N. E. 30; Chadwick v. McCausland, 47 Me. 342; Pratt v. Lewis, 39 Mich. 7; Crump v. Mims, 64 N. C. 767; In re Bridgeport & N. C. Turnpike Co., 171 Pa. 312, 33 Atl. 145; Burrows v. Kinsley, 27 Wash. 694, 68 Pac. 332; Witter v. Damitz, 81 Wis. 385, 51 N. W. 575. The old road, however, can be used by the public until the new highway is in fit condition to be traveled. City of Chippewa Falls v. Hopkins, 109 Wis. 611, 85 N. W. 553. See, also, Maire v. Kruse, 85 Wis. 302, 26 L. R. A. 449. 1318 Brook v. Horton, 68 Cal. 554; City & County of San Francisco v. Burr, 108 Cal. 460; Brockenhausen v. Bochland, 137 Ill. 547, 27 N. E. 458, affirming 36 Ill. App. 224; Grube v. Nichols, 36 Ill. 92; City of Peoria v. Johnston, 56 Ill. 45; State v. Huggins, 47 Ind. 586; Stahr v. Carter, 116 Iowa, 380, 90 N. W. 64; Com. v. Inhabitants of Cambridge, 7 Mass. 158; Bowley v. Walker, 90 Mass. (8 Allen) 21; Commonwealth v. Boston & A. R. Co., 150 Mass. 174, 22 N. E. 913; Yates v. Town of West Grafton, 33 W. Va. 507, 11 S. E. 8; Poling v. Ohio River R. Co., 38 W. Va. 645, 18 S. E. 782, 24 L. R. A. 215. See, also, Patton v. Creswell, 120 Ind. 147. strances may be urged and considered and the right of appeal by those considering themselves aggrieved or injured. Municipal action or the owners' petition originating the proceedings for vacation should be governed in respect to its form and its subjeet-matter by the same rules which apply to the establishment of a highway. The descriptions should be accurate or reasonably so, and definite.1319 The form, if one is prescribed by law or its essentials, should be strictly followed,1320 and should show a prima facie right on the part of those seeking a vacation,1321 and also the existence of a legal highway.1322 Notice and hearing. It is a fundamental rule of law that no action is legal which results in the destruction or impairment of private legal property or a vested right unless that one whose right is thus affected has been given effective notice of the contemplated action and an opportunity for defending it if he so 1319 Keena V. Placer County Sup'rs, 89 Cal. 11; Hughes v. Beggs, 114 Ind. 427, 16 N. E. 817; Cook v. Quick, 127 Ind. 477, 26 N. E. 1007; Furman v. Furman, 86 Mich. 391; Pearsall v. Eaton County Sup'rs, 71 Mich. 438, 39 N. W. 578; Zeibold V. Foster, 118 Mo. 349, 24 S. W. 155. A description of the proposed road is sufficient if it can be readily and definitely located. Milford's Petition, 37 N. H. 57; Evers v. Vreeland, 50 N. J. Law, 386, 13 Atl. 241. But a variance in the description as given in the establishment of a highway will not be considered in proceedings to vacate. Ruton v. Adams (N. J. Law) 21 Atl. 937; Vedder v. Marion County, 22 Or. 264, 29 Pac. 619; In re Road in Whiteley Tp. (Pa.) 15 Atl. 895. A reference to a plat attached to a report is sufficient. 67; Vedder v. Marion County, 22 Or. 264; Attorney General v. Sherry, 20 R. I. 43. But see Devoe v. Smeltzer, 86 Iowa, 385, 53 N. W.. 287. See, also, Bigelow v. Brooks, 119 Mich. 208. V. Hittel, 16 1321 Brandenburg Ind. App. 224, 45 N. E. 45; Pearsall v. Eaton County Sup'rs, 71 Mich. 438, 39 N. W. 578. The insufficiency of a petition will affect the validity of the proceedings only in respect to those persons injured by the discontinuance of the highway. Merchant v. Town of Marshfield, 35 Or. 55, 56 Pac. 1013; State v. Nelson, 57 Wis. 147. 1322 People v. Marin County, 103 Cal. 223, 26 L. R. A. 659; Devoe v. Smeltzer, 86 Iowa, 385; Bradbury v. Walton, 94 Ky. 163; Hyde v. Teal, 46 La. Ann. 645; Jersey City v. Howeth, 30 N. J. Law, 521; Keen v. Board of Supervisors of Fairview Tp., 8 S. D. 558, 67 N. W. 623; In re Vernon Tp. Road, 70 Pa. 23; In re Swanson Street, 163 Pa. 323,. 1320 Harris v. Board of Supervisors of Mahaska County, 88 Iowa, 219, 55 N. W. 324; Coakley V. Boston & M. R. Co., 159 Mass. 32; Chosmer v. Blew, 55 N. J. Law, 30 Atl. 207. desires.1323 This rule applies in connection with the present subject. Notice as required by law, whether actual or constructive, must be given and an opportunity afforded for the making of objections to those to whom is given by law the right, or the filing of remonstrances.1324 The right to object is usually re 1323 Atherton v. Com'rs of Highways, 81 Ill. App. 59; Imhoff v. Highway Com'rs, 89 Ill. App. 66; Moffitt v. Brainard, 92 Iowa, 122, 60 N. W. 226, 26 L. R. A. 821; Miller v. Schenck, 78 Iowa, 372; McKinney v. Baker, 100 Iowa, 362, 69 N. W. 683; Sullivan v. Robbins, 109 Iowa, 235, 80 N. W. 340; Mills v. Board of Com'rs of Neosho Co., 50 Kan. 635, 32 Pac. 361; Garrett v. Hedges, 13 Ky. L. R. 647, 17 S. W. 871; Lincoln v. Inhabitants of Warren, 150 Mass. 309, 23 N. E. 45; White v. Inhabitants of Foxborough, 151 Mass. 28, 23 N. E. 652; Curry v. Place, 99 Mich. 524, 58 N. W. 472; Goss v. Highway Com'rs of Westphalia, 63 Mich. 608, 30 N. W. 197. The giving of notice is jurisdictional and an omission cannot be supplied after an order for vacation has been made. Kimball v. Homan, 74 Mich. 699; State v. Deer Lodge County Com'rs, 19 Mont. 582; Parkhurst v. Van Derveer, 48 N. J. Law, 80; Jersey City H. & P. St. R. Co. v. City of Passaic, 68 N. J. Law, 110, 52 Atl. 242; State v. Convery, 53 N. J. Law, 588, 22 Atl. 345; Latimer v. Tillamook County, 22 Or. 291, 29 Pac. 734. Jurisdiction will be presumed to have been acquired although the affidavit of posting notices was ambiguous. Hill v. Hoffman (Tenn.) Civ. App. 58 S. W. 929; Conrad v. Lewis County, 10 W. Va. 784; Lazzell v. Garlow, 44 W. Va. 466, 30 S. E. 171; Yates v. Imp. Co., 65 Neb. 52, 90 N. W. 1002; Haynes V. Lasell, 29 Vt. 157. 1324 Spiegel v. Gansberg, 44 Ind. 418; Brandenburg v. Hittel, 16 Ind. App. 224, 45 N. E. 45. Defining an abutting owner. Martin v. City of Louisville, 97 Ky. 30, 29 S. W. 864; Hyde v. Teal, 46 La. Ann. 645, 15 So. 416; Raxedale v. Seip, 32 La. Ann. 435. Those living in the vicinity of a road are not necessarily "contiguous" proprietors within the meaning of the statute. Shaw v. County Com'rs of Piscataquis, 92 Me. 498, 43 Atl. 105. The jurisdiction of commissioners in laying out a highway cannot be attacked in subseqent proceedings having for their purpose the discontinuance or alteration. People v. West Bay City Sugar Co., 124 Mich. 521, 83 N. W. 278. A property owner may be barred by laches in contesting the validity of proceedings vacating a street. Street v. Town of Alden, 62 Minn. 160; In re Coe, 19 Misc. 549, 44 N. Y. Supp. 910; People ex rel. Mershon v. Shaw, 34 App. Div. 61, 54 N. Y. Supp. 218; Buchanan stricted to abutting or contiguous owners or those whose means of ingress and egress to property will be materially damaged or destroyed. The right of appeal to a higher tribunal or some other official body is usually a statutory one and unless the privilege of review is expressly granted or appears by indisputable implication, the judgment or order of the body acting in the first instance in respect to the vacation will not be considered appealable.1325 The right if given is strictly construed.1820 § 942. Vacation; when effective. 1327 an Assuming a compliance with statutory provisions and the legality of all previous action, this rule obtains that where the affirmative action of the voters is not required as in some cases,' order of the municipal authorities which has for its purpose the vacation of a highway must be of the same grade or have the same legal weight as action by the same authorities having for their purpose the establishment or the creation of a highway. Since the power to vacate is practically co-extensive with the power to create, it follows that the step can only be effectively v. Baker, 54 Ohio St. 324, 43 N. E. 330; Hill v. Hoffman (Tenn. Ch. App.) 58 S. W. 929; Trudeau v. Town of Sheldon, 62 Vt. 198, 20 Atl. 161. But see Nicholson V. Stockett, 1 Miss. (Walk.) 67. 1325 Early v. Hamilton, 75 Ind. 376. The appeal papers should show the right of the plaintiffs in this respect. Harris v. Board of Sup'rs of Mahaska County, 88 Iowa, 219, 55 N. W. 324; Inhabitants of Cambridge V. County Com'rs, 86 Me. 141, 29 Atl. 960. A failure to comply with directory provisions of a statute will not render void an appeal. Callaway County Ct. v. Inhabitants of Round Prairie, 10 Mo. 679; In re Big Hollow Road, 40 Mo. App. 363; Condict v. Ramsey, 65 N. J. Law, 503, 47 Atl. 423; Miller v. Oakwood Tp. 9 N. D. 623, 84 N. W. 556; Merchant v. Town of Marshfield, 35 Or. 55, 56 Pac. 1013; Crook v. Town of Bradford, 65 Vt. 513, 27 Atl. 118. Construing Rev. Laws, § 2940, relative to petition for rehearing. Hull v. Stephenson, 19 Wash. 572, 53 Pac. 669. One having the right to petition for the vacation of a highway under laws of 1895, p. 82, has the right to appeal from an adverse decision. 1326 Commissioners of Highways v. Quinn, 136 Ill. 604, 27 N. E. 187. 1327 Welton v. Town of Thomaston, 61 Conn. 397, 24 Atl. 333; State v. Inhabitants of Brewer, 45 Me. 606; Bath's Petition, 22 N. H. 576; Manchester's Petition, 28 N. H. 296; Drew v. Cotton, 68 N. H. 22, 42 Atl. 239; Thompson v. Major, 58 N. H. 242. |