
    WILLOW AND DIAMOND ALLEYS.
    Widening a street should be under the same kind of proceedings as-opening a street.
    Three viewers only are necessary in road cases in Lancaster County.
    Certiorari to Quarter Sessions of Lancaster County, No. 2 and 3, May Term, 1874.
    The facts appear in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered on April 19, 1873, by
    Livingston, P. J.
    At April Term, 1872, petitions were presented to this Court asking for the appointment of proper persons to view, widen and extend Diamond Alley in this city. Viewers were appointed, notice was given, and those persons who now ask the Court to -set aside the report attended the view. The Act of Assembly requires that the viewers shall make report of their proceedings at the next term of Court after their appointment, and the rules of Court require that such reports shall be returned and presented to Court on or before the third day of the sessions to which the same are returnable. The reports in the present case were returned at the next term of Court after the orders issued, as required by the Statute, but not on or before •the third day of the term, as required by the rule of Court, the third day of the term being August 21, 1872. This confirmation nisi nunc pro tunc violated none of the provisions of the Act of As'sembly, which requires reports to be made at the next term, without specifying any particular day of the term; nor ■did it violate any of the rights or privileges of complainants. It was but a suspension or relaxation of our own rule, and this, too, on confirmation nisi only. There was at that time no absolute confirmation. The whole proceedings remained for one whole term after that in fieri, open for inspection, exception, or application for review, as required by the Act of June 13th, 1836, Sect. 4 P. Laws, 556, which declares that “if the Court shall approve of viewers allowing a road, they shall direct of what breadth the road so approved shall be opened; and at the next Court thereafter, the whole proceedings shall be entered •on record; and thenceforth such road shall be taken, deemed ■and allowed to be a lawful public road or highway, or private road, as the case may be.”
    These reports and proceedings remained in Court until the ■then next term, November, 1872.
    The rules of Court declare that in all cases of reports of viewers of roads, the exceptions intended to be insisted upon, ’■shall be filed on or before the third day of the session, next .after the session to which the report shall be returnable, and in default thereof the report shal be confirmed. The time for filing exceptions to these reports expired on the 3rd day of November sessions, 1872 (November 20) and there being no exceptions filed or petitions for review presented, the Court on November 21, 1872, confirmed these reports absolutely.
    The complainants have slept on their rights until it is now too late to open the proceedings in these cases, and they have shown no sufficient reasons for setting the report aside. They attended the view and were bound to know that the viewers-were obliged to report their proceedings to the Court, at the next term after the view, and that if proceedings were not satisfactory to them, they could except to them or present their petitions to the Court and have reviewers appointed; and. knowing this, it was their duty to see to it, in the time prescribed by law. Having failed and neglected to do this, and the whole proceedings having been regular, and in strict accordance with the provisions of the Acts of Assembly, and the practice of this Court, the rules to show cause why the reports should not be set aside must be discharged.
    The alleys in question were widened from fourteen feet to-fifty-two feet in Willow Alley and sixty-four feet in Diamond Alley. These alleys had been opened for over forty years, and three viewers were appointed in each case. On May 17 and 19, 1873, writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court were filed. In November, 1873, the Court referred the reports back to the viewers to apportion damages between the City and County, of Lancaster.
    The principal errors alleged were that only three viewers-were appointed; that the alleys were widened to more than fifty feet; that the reports were referred back to the viewers to apportion the damages after absolute confirmation.
    
      P. B. Baker and A. J. Eberly, Esqs., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that the Act of June 13th, 1836, P. Laws, 551, does not authorize widening roads. That the Act of May 8, 1850, P. Laws, 715, limits the width of roads to be widened to fifty feet;. Charlotte Street, 23 Pa., 287. These errors appeared on the face of the record, and it is not necessary that exceptions be taken in the Court below; Frankstown Road, 26 Pa., 472.
    
      Wm. A. Atlee and J. W. Johnson, Esqs., contra,
    
    argued that the Act of April 28, 1857, P. L., 338, providing for three-viewers applies to Lancaster City; Road in Lancaster, 68 Pa., 396. The Court fixed the width under the Act of April 13, 1854, P. L., 352, Sect. 4. Only the county or city could complai of the order to apportion damages, and not the appellant.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the orders on May 18th, 1874, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

The case of Lancaster Road, 68 Pa., 396, rules this. t It applies to the city as well as the county and the viewers are for roads and bridges and necessarily include all purposes. Widening is a new location as to the part widened. It covers new ground and is of the same nature as the laying out of a new street. It would be very inconvenient to have different modes of proceeding in the same comity, and the cases should be assimilated when the language of the law so clearly includes widening. The Act of April 13, 1854, P. L., 352, conferring on the Court the power to decree the width of all streets opening or extended in the City of Lancaster, in effect repeals the proviso of the Act of May 8, 1850, P. Laws, 715. The power to fix the width was intended not only to promote convenience, but to produce uniformity.

The orders and decrees in the above cases are affirmed.  