
    Vernon Township Road.
    1. A road was laid out and confirmed nisi at February Term and absolutely at April Term. At the next term, and before the road was opened, a petition was presented setting out, that part of it was inconvenient, &c., and asking a view to make alterations, which was granted. Held, 1. That it was a petition to change or vacate, and without authority before opening. 2. The petition should have been for review. 3. As a review, it was too late, not being at or before the next term after the first report.
    2. The report of the second view changed the route. Held, that although the petition was signed by a majority of the original petitioners, it did not save the proceeding as upon an unopened road under 18th section of Act of June 13th 1836 or 1st section of Act of May 3d 1855, those acts authorizing only the annulling or vacating of the road, not reporting another.
    3. Augusta Township Road, 5 Harris 71, approved.
    October-1871.
    Before Thompson, C. J., Read, Agnew, Sharswood and Wildiams, JJ.
    Certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Crawford county: No. 160, to October and November Term 1870.
    On the 19th of June 1868 (to June Sessions 1868, No. 8), a petition of inhabitants of Vernon township was presented, setting out that part of a road running from the “ Dunham road” was inconvenient, &c., and praying “for a view to change the location of said road between said Dunham road and a point westwardly on said road, distant about one hundred rods where said road turns and takes a north-westerly direction so as to obviate said crook or jog, and to widen said road to a uniform width with that part of the road east of the Dunham road, and running to French creek to what was known as Roger’s ferry.”
    The court accordingly appointed viewers, who reported that they had changed the location of the road “ so as to straighten the crook thereof, &c., causing the same to run straight and to be of even width with the balance of the road extending eastwardly to French creek; the bearing thereof being south seventy-seven and a half degrees west, and the distance nineteen hundred and eighty-seven feet, and we do return the same for public use.”
    On the 10th of February 1869, the report was confirmed nisi, and the road was ordered to be opened 50 feet wide. On the 23d of April 1869, the road was confirmed absolutely.
    On the 21st of June 1869, a petition of citizens of Vernon township was presented, setting forth “ that the road leading from the Dunham road, * * * for the distance of about one hundred and ten rods, is inconvenient, useless and burdensome as now laid out,” and praying for the appointment of viewers, “ to view the road and make report of such alterations as they may make, to the next term of this court.” On the same day viewers were appointed to view, and jf they should see occasion, “ to lay out the same,” &c.
    
      On the 16th of September 1869, the viewers reported that * * * “ having fully and impartially viewed the route proposed in No. 8, June Sessions 1868, beg leave to alter the same from the red line as indicated in the annexed draft to the black line which indicates the old worked road. * * * The undersigned, therefore, report in favor of altering the road of the view as reported in No. 8, June Sessions 1868, to the old worked road or track, making the south side of the old worked road, &c., * * * the south line of the road as now laid out by us, and vacate all ground south of said south line, all of which we recommend as being less expensive or requiring no grading or filling up, besides shortening the road and making a less turn at the western end of our view, which, in our opinion, will better serve the public requirements,” &e.
    September 16th 1869, the report was confirmed nisi, and ordered to be opened 50 feet wide.
    September 16th 1869, exceptions were filed to the report, viz.:
    1. The court had no jurisdiction in this case.
    2. The petition is not for a review, nor for vacating an unopened road by the majority of the original petitioners.
    April 18th 1870, the exceptions were overruled, not being filed as required by the rule of court.
    May 16th 1870. Order to open issued.
    The proceedings were removed to the Supreme Court by certiorari.
    The errors assigned there were: — Overruling the exceptions and ordering the road to be opened.
    
      D. M. Farrelly and H. L. Richmond Son, for certiorari,
    cited Millcreek Township Road, 5 Casey 195; McConnell’s Mill Road, 8 Id. 285; In re Milford, 4 Barr 303; Church Road, 5 W. & S. 200; Acts of June 13th 1836, § 23, Pamph. L. 558, 2 Bright. Purd. 1276, pl. 32; May 3d 1855, § 1, Pamph. L. 422,; Id. pl. 28; Liberty Alley, 8 Barr 381; Greenwich Township, 1 Jones 186.
    
      Joseph Shippen, contra.
    Acts of June 13th 1836, §§ 18, 19, Pamph. L. 558, May 3d 1855; Pamph. L. 422, 2 Bright. Purd. 1276, pl. 26, 27, 28; Kyle’s Road, 4 Yeates 514; Ross Township Road, 12 Casey 87; Augusta Township Road, 5 Harris 71.
   The opinion of the court was delivered, January 9th 1872, by

Agnew, J.

This mongrel proceeding cannot be supported. The original petition, No. 8, June Sessions 1868, was a proceeding to change the location of so much of a road running westwardly from the Dunham road as lay between the Dunham road and a point westwardly about one hundred rods from the Dunham road, where the road to he changed turns and takes a north-westerly direction. On the 16th of February 1869, the report of the viewers laying out a new road in a single straight line, at a bearing of 77J degrees, 1987 feet, was approved n, and the width ordered to be 50 feet. The final confirmation took place on the 23d of April 1869. At the next term, on the 21st of June, a new petition was presented, setting forth that the road leading from the Dunham road in a north-westerly direction, for the distance of about 110 rods, was inconvenient, useless and burdensome, as then laid out. The road thus asked to be altered as inconvenient, useless and burdensome, had not in fact been opened, no opening order having issued on the former report as finally confirmed. As an original proceeding to change and vacate, which the second petition clearly was, it was without authority and irregular; the new road, as laid out by the former viewers, not being opened either in whole or in part, according to the 18th section of the Act of 12th June 1836, or the 1st section of the Act of 3d May 1855, Purd. Dig. 873, pi. 24-26. The proper proceeding was not a petition to change and vacate, as inconvenient, useless and burdensome; but a petition to review, upon which the viewers could have laid out and returned another route, thus leaving the court at liberty to adopt the report of the viewers, or that of the reviewers, as it might seem best to them. This is thé only mode of making a change from the route of the original view before the road is opened in whole or in part; and must be applied for at or before the next term, after the report is made upon the first view: Section 25, Act 13th June 1836. But fit . is said the second petition was signed by a majority of the petitioners for the first view. That, however, cannot save the proceeding, for the viewers here, instead of reporting simply that the road laid out by the first viewers should be annulled and vacated, laid out and reported another route. This they could not do, for the only object in the proceeding under the 19th section of the Act of 1836, by a majority of the petitioners is to enable them, before the road is opened, to undo what they had done. As remarked in the Road in Augusta Township, 5 Harris 74, when this proceeding is instituted, and a report made adverse to the proposed road, its effect is to reverse all that had been done; for the object is to permit those who initiated the movement to undo what they aver was mistakenly done at their instance, leaving others the privilege of reviewing the project as original petitioners. When carefully examined, the case in the Road in Augusta Township will be found to rule this.

The proceedings under the petition at No. 11, June Sessions 1869, are therefore reversed, and are hereby ordered to be quashed at the costs of the petitioners, leaving the proceeding at No. 8, June Sessions 1868, to stand as finally confirmed by the Court of Quarter Sessions.  