Township of Newlin v. Davis

• Decision Date: 01 February 1875
• Citation: 77 Pa. 317
• Parties: Township of Newlin <I>versus</I> Davis.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

77 Pa. 317

Township of Newlin versus Davis.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 19, 1875.

February 1, 1875.

January 19th 1875.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county: No. 105, to July Term 1874 J. W. Barnard and F. C. Hooton, for plaintiff in error.—The railroad company having erected the bridge for its own benefit, they are liable for its repair: Phœnixville v. Phœnix Iron Company, 9 Wright 135; Rex v. Inhabitants of Lindsay, 14 East 317; Pennsylvania and Ohio Canal Company v. Graham, 13 P. F. Smith 297. Bridges are not always esteemed part of a highway: Rapho Township v. Moore, 18 P. F. Smith 404.

J. S. Futhey, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, February 1st 1875.

The injury of which the plaintiff complained, in the court below, resulted, according to the finding of the jury, from the negligence of the supervisors of Newlin township, in not providing proper safeguards, for the bridge in question, over the Brandywine creek.

The road was made, and the bridge built, by the Wilmington and Reading Railroad Company, under the provisions of the Act of February 19th 1849, in order to supply the old improvements. We also understand, that subsequently to the building of the bridge, a road was laid out across it by the ordinary proceedings under the road law. In either case the road and bridge became a public highway. The evidence shows that they were so regarded, not only by the public, which constantly used them as such, but also by the township officers, who took charge of, and put such repairs upon them as they thought necessary.

To whom then was committed the maintenance of this bridge? Unless something is shown to the contrary, this duty must devolve on the county or township: Meadville v. The Canal Company, 6 Harris 66; Rapho v. Moore, 18 P. F. Smith 404. But the county can be made responsible only for those bridges which it erects under and by virtue of the Act of Assembly. As this was not such a bridge, it follows that the county had no control of or power over it, and hence had no duty to discharge with reference to its maintenance. Primâ facie then this obligation rests upon the township.

But it is argued, that as it was built by the railroad company, as part of the old road, which it was bound to supply, therefore that company was responsible for its proper construction, and also for its maintenance. That this is true so far as the first part of this obligation is concerned, there is no doubt; whether it is so as to the latter part, we give no opinion. But admitting the whole proposition to be correct, have the supervisors no duties with reference to this part of this highway? The bridge was defective and dangerous; that the jury have found. That it was a necessary part of a public road, over which persons travelling along that road were obliged to pass, is not disputed; and we think it beyond question, that not only had the supervisors full power and authority to affix any superstructure that would render the bridge safe, but they had the right to...