
    The Inhabitants of Adams, Petitioners, &c.
    •This Court will not prohibit the county commissioners from working a road during the pendency of a petition for a certiorari on account of supposed errors in their previous proceedings, but after notice of the pendency of such petition the commissioners will make the road at their peril, for if their proceedings are ultimately adjudged to have been erroneous, a tax laid to pay the expenses will not be legal.
    This petition was presented at this term, setting forth, that at the recent term of this Court in Berkshire, the inhabitants of the town of Adams presented a petition, in which they stated that the county commissioners, in September 1829, established alterations in a certain county road in that town ; that in July 1830, the commissioners issued notice to the inhabitants of that town to work the road as so altered, and to have ^e same completed by the last Tuesday of September 1830 ; and that there were certain errors in these proceedings ; wherefore the petitioners prayed for a writ of certiorari to the commissioners ; whereupon notice was ordered to the commissioners to appear at the next May term of this Court in Berkshire, to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue as prayed for ; that notice was accordingly served upon them on the 30th of September, 1830, but that nevertheless, on the 5th of October following, they proceeded to make contracts for the working of the road, and are now working the same : wherefore the petitioners pray that a process in the nature of a supersedeas or prohibition,may issue, commanding the commissioners and all others to stay all proceedings in relation to the road, until the Court shall have adjudicated upon the proceedings set forth in the petition for. a certiorari.
    
      
      Oct 20th
    
    
      
      Briggs, for the petitioners.
   Per Curiam.

This application cannot be granted. If county commissioners proceed to construct a road, after notice of the pendency of a petition for a certiorari on account of error in their previous proceedings, and it shall ultimately be determined that such previous proceedings were erroneous and ought to be quashed, they will have acted at their peril. It is manifest that a tax laid upon the county to pay the expenses so incurred will be illegal, and that after such complaint, petition and notice, the town cannot be held chargeable for any expenses incurred under proceedings so adjudged to be erroneous. A writ of error operates as a supersedeas, and possibly a writ of certiorari may ; we have not examined the point; but it is clear that mere notice of a petition for a certiorari cannot have that effect.

Petition dismissed. 
      
       A certiorari to a subordinate tribunal operates as a stay of proceedings from the time of service, unless the order or judgment complained of has been begun to be executed. Patchin v. Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn, 13 Wendell, 664. See also Kingsland v. Gould, 1 Halsted, 161; Mairs v. Sparks, 2 Southard, 513; Case v. Shepherd, 2 Johns. Cas. 27; Gardiner v. Murray, 4 Yeates, 560 ; Ex parte Sanders, 4 Cowen, 544 ; Blanchard v. Myers, 9 Johns. R. 66.
     