Boyd v. Negley
| Decision Date | 04 February 1867 |
| Citation | 53 Pa. 387 |
| Parties | Boyd <I>versus</I> Negley. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the decree of the District Court of Allegheny county. In Equity.
Hamilton & Acheson and R. & S. Woods, for appellants, cited Hays v. Risher, 8 Casey 174; Lateral Railroad Act of May 5th 1832, § 1, 3, Purd. 846; Neal v. Connellsville Railroad Co., 7 Casey 19; Redfield on Railw. 192; Commonwealth v. Erie & N. E. Railroad, 3 Casey 355; 21 E. L. & Eq. 620; Lee v. Milner, 1 Eng. Railway Cases 635; Id. 101; Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad, 12 Harris 159; Boyd v. Negley, 4 Wright 383.
W. C. Moreland and A. M. Brown, for appellees, cited Lateral Railroad Act, May 5th 1832, Purd. 846; Hays v. Risher, 8 Casey 174; Boyd v. Negley, 4 Wright 377.
The opinion of the court was delivered, February 4th 1867, by STRONG, J.
Having examined the evidence reported by the master in this case, we are of opinion that the lateral railroad has been built on the line on which it was first located by the petitioner, and that the assessment of damages was made both by the viewers and the appellate jury, for such a location. The seeming confusion in regard to this matter, arises from the fact that more than one line was run before the viewers came upon the ground. Of these one was run and marked, partially at least, by Mr. Darley. It was not, however, run for the petitioner, but at the instance of the appellant. Another line was run by Morley, and still a third by Mr. Negley himself. It was this last line that was adopted by him and marked upon the ground; and it was this line that was exhibited to the viewers and the jury as the located route of the proposed railroad. For a road on such a route the damages were finally assessed, and upon the route the road has been built. Thus much is satisfactorily established by the evidence.
But it is said the route upon which the railroad has been built does not correspond with the route described in the petition. There is no substantial variance between the line of construction and the line of the location, as it was surveyed and marked upon the ground. But there is a slight variance between that line and the description of it contained in the petition. A mistake was manifestly made in the description. But the true and authorized line of the road, is that which was surveyed by the petitioner and marked upon the ground. The description is but evidence of the line. The mistake in this case was the omission of one section about 30 feet in length. It was undoubtedly amendable at any stage of the proceedings, and hence, if necessary, we will treat it now as amended, especially as the damages have been assessed for the route actually appropriated. Under the Act of Assembly it was the duty of the viewers and the jury to view the route surveyed and marked on the ground, and to make report thereon. It must be presumed, and indeed it is proved, they did so. If, as appears to have been the case, the route selected and marked on the ground was mistakenly described in the petition; and if the viewers and the jury proceeded to assess damages on the route marked rather than on that described, the owner of the land might then have objected, and an amendment of the petition would have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Approval of Bond of Peoples Natural Gas Co.
... ... The argument ... maintained by the appellees in this case was similarly ... advanced by the property owner in Boyd v. Negley, 53 ... Pa. 387, but it was not accepted by this Court. In that case, ... Felix C. Negley, owner of a coal mine, built a lateral ... ...
-
Approval of Bond of Peoples Natural Gas Co., In re
...occupied by the iceberg. The argument maintained by the appellees in this case was similarly advanced by the property owner in Boyd v. Negley, 53 Pa. 387, but it was not accepted by this Court. In that case, Felix C. Negley, owner of a coal mine, built a lateral railroad over land owned by ......