Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1883, the entire Tyler term, 1883, and the early part of the Galveston term, 1884. Volume 60. Page: 77

                                
1883.]               BoURGEOIS V. MILLS.                 77
Opinion of the court.
of the proposed road would greatly injure them, in the sum of $1,000.
A preliminary injunction was sought and obtained.
Appellee answered by general demurrer and general denial.
Upon the hearing the court sustained the demurrer, anc, appellants
declining to amend, judgment was rendered dismissing the cause.
Good, Brown & Combs and JOhn   . . Stemmons, for appellant.
No briefs on file for appellee.
WATTS, J. COM. APP.-This is a suit in the district court to enjoin a
road overseer from opening a public road through the inclosed lands
of the appellants, in obedience to an order of the county commissioners'
court. The county commissioners' court is provided for by
the constitution, that is, it is a constitutional court, with such
powers and jurisdiction over all county business as is conferred by
the constitution or that might be conferred by law. The act to
regulate the laying out, opening and classifying and working public
roads, etc., approved July 29, 1876, confers upon the commissioners'
court full power and jurisdiction over the subject of public roads.
This is a special power or jurisdiction confided to that court, to be
exercised according to its discretion. No provision is made in the
act for reviewing its action with respect to that matter. No doubt,
however, is entertained as to the power of the district court, through
its equitable jurisdiction, to revise the exercise of that discretion,
where it is clearly shown that it has been grossly abused; or to
interfere and prevent an injury where it appears that the commissioners'
court had transcended its authority, or was proceeding without
authority of law. Floyd v. Turner, 23 Tex., 292; Duer v. Police
Court, etc., 34 Tex., 283; Anderson County v. Kennedy, Texas Law
Review, vol. 1, No. 14, p. 218.
In this case the petition does not show an abuse of discretion upon
the part of the commissioners' court, nor that it had either transcended
its legal authority or was proceeding without authority of
law. All the proceedings had by that court appear to have been regular,
and clearly within the scope of its legal jurisdiction. Reviewers
were properly appointed, and it was upon their report that the court
made the order under consideration.
Appellants complain that the reviewers did not allow or assess any
damages as resulting to them by reason of opening up the road
through their inclosed lands. The law under which the commission
of review acted required that, in assessing damages, the advan