Rensselaer Republican, Volume 18, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 April 1886 — Rensselaer versus Leopold. [ARTICLE]

Rensselaer versus Leopold.

( ,A decision has 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, ..befpre Judge Huff, who decided, upon technicalities, thatthe action of tho Board was illegal The case was Carried to the Supreme Court, and last Week that bod}’ rendered its decision reversing the ruling of Judge Huff'. The following is the published abstract of the opinion, rendered by Judge Mitch^:

“12356. Town of Rensselaer- v. Abraham Leopold. Jasper C. C. Reversed. Mitehell, J.-—-(I.) Narrowing a street in pursuance of tile conditions im;)<;se<l "by the statute, Sections 3367 and 3368, is a lawful exercise of the authority vested in tovrn 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.) Tire report of 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 nai'rowing -of the street, and what real estate damaged; the amounts of benefits nnd damages to ehch 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 Sec. 3369. The column of damages being left blank clearly -indicates that there were no damages.