Schuster v. Supervisors of Lemond

Gilfillan, C. J. The only question here is the right to appeal to the district court from the order of town supervisors laying out, altering, or discontinuing a road, under the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, c. IS. The district court denied the right to this appellant, and dismissed his appeal. That there is a right of appeal in such cases (to be taken to the district court if the damages claimed exceed $100) was decided by this court in Gorman v. Supervisors, etc., 20 Minn. 892. The only question left is, is appellant entitled to claim such appeal ? The language of the statute (section 59) is: “Any person who shall feel himself aggrieved” may appeal. This is not to be taken literally. A person having no interest which could be affected might imagine himself aggrieved, yet the statute could not have intended to give such a person a right to appeal. The person claiming the right must undoubtedly be in position to be injuriously affected by the order or determination made; in position, as we think, to sustain special injury, disadvantage or inconvenience; not 255 -common to himself with the other inhabitants or property •owners of the town. One through whose land a new road is laid out is in such a position; and so is one through, to, or •along whose land an old road to be altered or discontinued runs. The appellant’s petition shows that he may be injuriously affected in a special manner by the discontinuance of •one of the roads ordered discontinued. He is therefore in position to claim the right of appeal, and.the order of the ■district court dismissing his appeal was erroneous and is reversed.