
    (*) Eastman versus Inhabitants of Stowe.
    To recover for damage done to a land-holder, hy the location of a town road, he must pursue the mode prescribed by E. S., c. 25, § 31.
    Such recovery cannot be had hy a statute submission of the claim to referees.
    On Exceptions from the late District Court, Cole, J.
    Motion to accept an award of referees.
    The heirs of Asa Eastman claimed to recover for the damage done to their land, by the establishment of a town road across it.
    The plaintiff was. one of the heirs, and acting both for himself and the others, presented the claim before the defendants in a town meeting, by whom it was rejected. He then, acting in the same capacity, joined with .one O. H. Day, in submitting the claims to referees. Day was the general agent of the town, but had no special authorization as to this claim.
    The submission was entered into in the statute form. The referees awarded that the damage was $100, and should be paid by tbe town. A majority of tbe selectmen were present, and assisted at tbe trial before tbe referees.
    Eastman presented tbe award and moved for its acceptance. Tbe defendants resisted it, and offered evidence of tbe facts above stated. Tbe Judge ruled sucb evidence inadmissible, and accepted tbe award, and tbe defendants excepted.
    Hastings, in support of tbe exceptions.
    
      A. R. Bradley, contra,
    
    cited R. S., c. 25, art. II, § 31; Knowlton v. Plantation No. 4, 14 Maine, 20; Buckland v. Conway, 16 Mass. 396; Pittston v. Clark, 15 Maine, 460.
   Tenney, J.

— The acceptance of the report of a majority of the referees was opposed by a special agent of the town, duly elected for that purpose, on the ground that the-town agent, wbo entered into the agreement to submit the claim annexed to the submission, bad not authority to bind the defendants in the premises, not having special authority therefor. No authority to enter into the agreement was shown; although it was admitted, that the person wbo signed the submission was at the time the general agent of the town.

The statute c. 25, § 31, has provided the mode in which a party, who has sustained any damage in their property, by the laying out, altering or discontinuing any town or private way, may ascertain who is liable therefor, and the amount be is entitled to • receive. The mode adopted in this case is clearly one not embraced in the provision. Neither does it appear that the road was one, on account of the location of which the town was liable to the payment of damages, alleged to have been sustained.

Exceptions sustained. Proceedings dismissed.

Shepley, O. J., and Wells, Howard and Appleton, J. J., concurred.  