
    THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. ALBERT H. SITTE, Resident and Landowner of the Village of Abercrombie, Richland County, North Dakota, Respondent, v. M. M. BORMAN, Ole Olson, James Holkestad, as the Board of Trustees within and for the Village of Abercrombie, Appellants.
    (199 N. W. 38.)
    Municipal corporations — determination oí questions concerning detachment of territory conclusive.
    Under chapter 32, Laws 1921, the local governing bodies were clothed with exclusive power to determine all questions concerning the detachment and exclusion of territory from municipalities, and no provision was made for judicial review of their determinations on those questions, following Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N. D. 30, and State ex rel. Claver v. Broute, 50 N. D. 753.
    Municipal Corporations, 28 Cyc. p. 207 n. 1.
    Opinion filed May 3, 1924.
    
      Appeal from tbe District Court of Richland County, Allen> J.
    Reversed.
    
      G. PL. Korsvih and Lauder & Lauder, for appellants.
    
      Purcell & Slattery and Wolfe & SchneUer, for respondent.
   Nuessle, J.

Tbe village of Abercrombie is a duly organized arid existing village, and bas been such for many years. Tbe relator, Albert H. Sitte, petitioned tbe defendants and appellants as tbe board of trustees of such village to disconnect and exclude certain real estate belonging to him from tbe village. Such petition was drawn and presented in accordance with tbe provisions of chapter 32, Sess. Laws 1921. There is no question as to the sufficiency of tbe petition. Tbe appellant board, after bearing, denied tbe petition. Thereupon this proceeding in mandamus was brought by tbe respondent to compel tbe appellants to grant tbe relief prayed for in tbe petition. Tbe appellants resisted, a trial was bad, and judgment entered awarding tbe respondent a peremptory writ of mandamus. From such judgment this appeal was taken.

This court bas heretofore construed tbe statute (Sess. Laws 1921, chap. 32) here involved. We have held that by that statute tbe local governing bodies were clothed with exclusive power to determine all questions concerning the detachment and exclusion of territory from municipalities, and that no provision was made for judicial review of their determinations on those questions. See Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N. D. 30, 195 N. W. 16; and State ex rel. Claver v. Broute, 50 N. D. 753, 197 N. W. 871. Those cases are decisive of this appeal.

Tbe judgment must be reversed.

Christianson, Johnson, and Birdzell, JJ., concur.

Bronson, Cb. J.

(dissenting). I dissent upon tbe grounds and for tbe reasons set forth in tbe dissenting opinions in Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N. D. 30, 195 N. W. 16, and State ex rel. Claver v. Broute, 50 N. D. 753, 197 N. W. 871.  