Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 April 1886 — Rensse aer versus Leopold. [ARTICLE]

Rensse aer versus Leopold.

A decision lias been reached in the Supreme Court upon the well known appeal cases growing out of the action of the Town Board in narrowing Van Rensselaer street, and assessing benefits, upon parties affected. The case of A. Leopold was made the test case. It was tried in the circuit court, before Judge Huff, who decided, upon technicalities, that the action of the Board was illegal The case was carried to the Supreme Court, aud last week that body rendered its decision reversing the ruling of Judge Huff. The following is the published abstract of the opinion, rendered by J udee Mitchell: “12356. Town of Rensselaer v. Abraham Leopold. Jasper C. C. Reversed. Mitchell, J.—(l.) Narrowing a street in pursuance of the conditions imposed by the statute, Sections 3367 and 3368, is a lawful exercise of the authority vested in town boards, and the statute requiring the written consent of a lot-owner to the vacation of a street in front of his lot has no application to an improvement by narrowing or altering it. (2.) The report ot a commission to assess benefits and damages by the narrowing of a street which shows that the commissioners proceeded to ascertain by an inspection and evidence what real estate would be benefited by reason of the narrowing of the street, and what real estate damaged; the amounts of benefits and damages to each tract, each tract being described and the name of the owner given, the amount of benefits being set in one column entitled “benefits,’’ another column entitled “damages,” is sufficient under See. 3369. The column of damages being left blank clearly indicates that there were no damages. Mrs. Carrie Phelps, leading milliner, at Hemphill & Honan’s, April Ist.