If the county appropriated any part of the tract of land owned by the plaintiff which was not included within the boundaries of the road described in the resolution of the County Court authorizing the construction of the road, plaintiff would be entitled to the damages suffered thereby. His damages would include not only the value of the property taken but the damages resulting to the remainder of the tract. But if the land belonging to plaintiff and taken in the construction of the road is included within the boundaries of the proposed road as described in the resolution, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages he suffered by the location and construction of the road because such damages are presumed to be included in the damages allowed by the viewers. He never appealed from the order of the County Court approving the amount of the damages assessed by the viewers. That matter has therefore become final. He cannot recover additional damages resulting from the construction of the road if it was constructed within the limits of the description in the resolution: Barrett v. Union Bridge Co., 117 Or. 220 (243 Pac. 93).

*415 Myers v. Clackamas County, 98 Or. 391 (194 Pac. 176), relied on by plaintiff, is not in point. Tbe county was enjoined in that case from changing a long-established road because as surveyed, platted and constructed, it slightly departed from the description in the petition for the road. In the instant case the controversy is the application of the description in the resolution to the ground on which the road is laid.

The question presented on this appeal is one of fact. The plaintiff and his wife testified that the road as constructed included a small triangular part' of his tract not included within the,description of the proposed road embodied in the resolution adopted by the County Court establishing that road. The defendant produced its county surveyor who surveyed and laid out the road. He testified that all of the land covered by the construction of the road is included in the boundaries of the proposed road as described in the said resolution. The defendant also introduced the record of said proposed road, including the field-notes and plat. The differences arise because of the angle and curves in the end of road No. 1138 where it joins the Pacific Highway. A careful consideration of all the evidence including the exhibits convinces us that the plaintiff has not established his case. A discussion of the evidence would be of no benefit. The plat showing the exact location of the road confirms the testimony of tlie county surveyor.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Neither party will recover costs in this court.

Affirmed.