If any person or persons be of the opinion that the damages awarded him or them by the viewers are inadequate and insufficient, the board of county commissioners may agree with such person or persons upon the measure of the same, and should they fail to so agree such person or persons may appeal from the decision of the viewers to the district court of the county and evidence shall be taken before the court or a referee as in other cases and the court shall determine the amount of damages and render judgment accordingly.
History: Laws 1905, ch. 124, § 17; Code 1915, § 2669; C.S. 1929, § 64-718; 1941 Comp., § 58-418; 1953 Comp., § 55-4-18.
ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For procedures governing administrative appeals to the district court, see Rule 1-074 NMRA.
Compiler's notes. — For scope of review of the district court, see Zamora v. Village of Ruidoso Downs, 120 N.M. 778, 907 P.2d 182 (1995).
Remedy to review alteration of award. — There is no appeal provided from action of a board of county commissioners in altering an award made by viewers in proceeding to lay out a road. The proper remedy to review quasi-judicial action by board of county commissioners is by certiorari. State ex rel. Sisney v. Board of Comm'rs, 1921-NMSC-054, 27 N.M. 228, 199 P. 359.
Appeal and effect of irregularities in assessing damages and benefits. — Since this section allows an appeal to the district court in the matter of assessment of damages, and a review of that question before the court, the opening of a highway cannot be enjoined on ground of irregularities in action of viewers in assessing damages and benefits. Michelet v. Board of Comm'rs, 1915-NMSC-078, 21 N.M. 95, 152 P. 1140.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 39 Am. Jur. 2d Highways, Streets and Bridges §§ 270, 271.
39A C.J.S. Highways § 80.