
    Grinnell et al. v. Adams et al.
    After the jurisdiction of county commissioners, in the matter of laying out or altering a county road, has attached by the filing of a proper petition, etc., such jurisdiction can not he defeated by any number of the petitioners afterward becoming remonstrants against the granting of the prayer of the petition.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the District Court of Greene county.
    On appeal from an order of the county commissioners ■of Greene county, establishing an alteration in a county road, the probate court found “ that of the seventeen petitioners for said alteration of said road and the establishment thereof, fifteen were freeholders of said county, residing in the vicinity where said road was proposed to be altered; but that after said view had been made, and after the report of said viewers favorable to said proposed alteration had been made and filed, nine of said petitioners; signed their names, with the defendant, to a remonstrance against said alteration; and thereupon there being but nine freeholders left upon said petition, the court is of opinion that said county commissioners had no jurisdiction to establish said alteration in said road, and said petition is. therefore dismissed.”
    The court of common pleas, on error, affirmed the judgment of the probate court, but the district court reversed the judgment of the court of common pleas and the probate court.
    It is now sought to reverse the judgment of the district court.
    
      Nesbitt $ Martin, for the motion.
    
      J. J. Winans, contra.
   By the Court.

The proceedings before the county commissioners was under the act of January 27, 1853, entitled “ an act for opening and regulating roads and highways” (S. & C. 1289) and its amendments. The second section of the act, as amended April 16,1873 (Sayler’s St. 2956), provides “that all applications for laying out, altering, or vacating-any county road . . . shall be by petition to the county commissioners, signed by at least twelve freeholders of the county residing in the vicinity,” etc.

The filing of such petition, the giving of certain notice,, and the execution of a bond to pay the expenses, in case-the application shall fail, confer upon the county commissioners power to act in the premises, and the only question; now before us is, after jurisdiction is thus conferred and. assumed by the commissioners, is their power to proceed defeated by all or any number of such petitioners subsequently remonstrating against the prayer of the petition being granted ?

"We are unanimous in the opinion that this question must he answered in the negative.

In so holding, we do not undertake to overrule the case-of Hays v. Jones, 27 Ohio St. 218. That case involved the ■construction of a statute materially different from the act •of 1858.

Motion overruled.  