
    In re: Application for Laying Out of Public Road in Litchfield Township, Bradford County. Bean’s Appeal.
    
      Appeals — Equal division of appellate court — Affirmance of lower court.
    
    Where the appellate court is equally divided, the decree of the lower court will be affirmed.
    Argued November 22, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 153, Oct. T., 1922, by John W. Bean, from judgment of C. P. Bradford County, Dec. T., 1920, No. 245, dismissing exceptions to report of Reviewers in re Application for laying out' of public road in Litchfield Township, Bradford County.
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Exceptions to report of reviewers. Before Maxwell, P. J.
    Prom the record it appeared that, upon petition of - qualified citizens of Litchfield Township asking for laying out of a public road, fully described in the petition, the supervisors acted upon said petition and reported against the road; that a verbal notice was given by the petitioners for said road of an appeal from the action of the local supervisors, and a request that reviewers be appointed. Pursuant to such appeal by petitioners of the road, there were selected, as required by law, review-^"' ers from adjoining townships. The reviewers met upon the ground where the proposed road was to be laid, after due legal notice, and proceeded to act upon the petition. Subsequently a report was made laying out of the public .road.
    A certiorari was taken to the said proceedings and exceptions were filed setting forth that no legal notice of dissatisfaction of the finding of the supervisors was ever served on the supervisors; and that entertainment was furnished to the board of reviewers by one of the petitioners for the road.
    December 11, 1922:
    The court dismissed the exceptions and confirmed the report of reviewers. John W. Bean appealed.
    
      Errors assigned, among others, were dismissing the exceptions and the decree of the court.
    
      William G. Scfvrier, for appellant.
    
      William P. Wilson, and with him J. Roy Lilley, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The judges who heard the argument of this appeal being equally divided in opinion the assignments of error are dismissed. ■

The judgment is affirmed.  