
    Elijah B. Daniels v. Samuel M. Smith, Drain Com’r.
    
      Notice must be given of proceedings to run a drain.
    
    Proceedings to lay out a drain are quashed for want of evidence-that statutory notice was given to the parties concerned.
    Certiorari.
    Submitted April 10.
    Decided April 16.
    
      Dickerman & St. John for plaintiff in certiorari.
    Service of notice of proceedings to lay out a drain is necessary to give the drain commissioner jurisdiction, Goldsmith v. Highway Com’rs, 14 Mich., 528; Van Auken v. Com’rs, 27 Mich., 414; Dupont v. Com’rs, 30 Mich., 490; Kroop v. Com’r, 31 Mich., 144; Purdy v. Com’r, 31 Mich., 455; Detroit Sharpshooter’s Ass’n v. Com’rs, 34 Mich., 36.
   Per Curiam.

This is a certiorari to review the pro-, ceedings of the drain commissioner of the township of Adams, in the county of Hillsdale, in laying out a drain ■and- assessing the cost on the persons supposed to be benefited. A number of objections are taken to the proceedings, but it is sufficient to notice as a fatal objection, that there is no evidence that the notice to the parties concerned, which the statute (Comp. L., § 1779; Laws 1875, p. 168) requires, was given. The proceedings must be quashed. People v. Highway Commissioners of Nankin, 14 Mich., 528; Sharpshooters’ Association v. Highway Commissioners of Hamtramck, 34 Mich., 36.  