Boyle v. Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1867 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | Boyle <I>versus</I> The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company. |
Before WOODWARD, C. J., THOMPSON, STRONG and READ, JJ. AGNEW, J., at Nisi Prius
Appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court at Nisi Prius.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
S. Dickson, for appellant.—The claim of the railroad company to charge for transportation is not in any express enactment; there can be no implication of a contract between the company and those using the road. This right of transportation was one of the franchises. Toll is the only compensation expressly given, and it must therefore include compensation for everything they are authorized to do: Camden and Amboy Railroad v. Briggs, 2 N. J. R. 623; Gildart v. Gladstone, 11 East 685; Brittain v. Cromford Canal Company, 3 B. & Ald. 139; Dock Company v. Browne, 2 B. & Ad. 58; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Company v. Hustler, 1 B. & C. 424; Stowbridge Canal v. Wheely, 2 B. & Ad. 792; Barnet v. Stockton and D. Railway Company, 2 Eng. Railway Cases 440, 442, S. C. 2 M. & G. 163 (40 E. C. L. R. 313); Stockton Railway Company v. Barrett, 3 M. & G. 958 (42 E. C. L. R. 497), S. C. 7 M. & G. 877; Niblett v. Patterson, 1 Bing. N. C. 81; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters 543; United States v. Arredondo, 8 Id. 738; Perrine v. Ches. and Del. Canal, 9 Harr. 172; Head & Amory v. The Providence Insurance Company, 2 Cranch 127; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 636; Bank of United States v. Dandridge, 12 Id. 64; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters 587; Commonwealth v. Erie and N. E. Railroad Company, 3 Casey 351.
J. E. Gowen and Meredith, for appellees.—"Toll" means a charge for the use of the road, and not for road, cars and motive power: Simpson v. Dennison, 13 Eng. Law & Eq. 365; Hunt v. Great Northern Railway Company, 10 C. B. 900; Adey v. Dep. Master of Trinity House, 16 Eng. Law & Eq. 125; Hodges on Railways 33; Redfield on Railways 356. The charter of the defendants discriminates between "tolls" and "rates of transportation:" Act of April 4th 1833, § 24. Words in a statute are to be taken in their usual and best-known signification: Jones v. Harrison, 6 Exch. 333; Waller v. Harris, 20 Wend. 555-567; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 326.
The use of the railroad by other transporters was what the legislature intended to regulate. If "toll" includes charges for transportation, the legislature must have intended to allow as much for the use of the road alone as for road, cars, motive power, &c.
E. O. Parry, for appellant, in reply.
The opinion of the court was delivered, April 1st 1867, by
We adopt the opinion delivered at Nisi Prius when the bill of the complainant was dismissed. Nothing in the argument before us has brought us to doubt the soundness of the conclusion then reached. It would be easy to show more fully, were it necessary, that a grant of power to enter into the business of transportation of passengers and merchandise carries with it authority to enter into the contracts by which the business of common carriage is conducted, but it is too obvious to require argument to prove it. And when several distinct powers are given by our statute, as is the case in the act under which the defendants were incorporated, it would be an anomaly in construction to hold that the restrictions imposed upon one power are also restrictions upon the others. In searching for the powers of the defendants as owners of the artificial road, we should be strangely employed were we to inquire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. Potts
...Ed. 92; Opinion of Justices (N. H.) 120 A. 629; Bush & Sons Co. v. Maloy, 267 U. S. 317, 45 S. Ct. 326, 327, 69 L. Ed. 627; Boyle v. P. & R. R. Co. 54 Pa. 310-314; Penn. R. Co. v. Sly, 65 Pa. 205-210; Lake Superior, etc., R. R. Co. v. United States, 93 U. S. 442, 23 L. Ed. 965; Com'rs of Do......
-
Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. United States
...C. A. 147; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States ex rel. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481, 30 S. Ct. 164, 54 L. Ed. 292; Boyle v. P. & R. Railroad Co., 54 Pa. 310. Private cars are in use generally upon the railroads for transporting not only coal, but oil, grain, flour, meat, fruits, vege......
-
Ruler v. York County
...Maryland, 21 Wall. 456; Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543; Sands v. Imp. Co., 123 U.S. 288; Monongahela, etc., Co. v. U.S. 148 U.S. 312; Boyle v. R.R., 54 Pa. 310; Penna. R.R. v. Sly, 65 Pa. Walter B. Hays, County Solicitor, with him V. K. Keesey and Allen C. Wiest, for appellees. -- The propose......
-
Peru Turnpike Company v. Town of Peru.
...has the rights ordinarily belonging to such business, and that compensation for services is inseparable from the right. Boyle v. Phil. & R. R. Co., 54 Pa. 310. Geiger v. Perkiomen & Reading Turnpike Road, 167 Pa. 582, 31 A. 918, 28 L.R.A. 458, the question whether a bicycle was subject to t......