City of Erie v. Erie Canal Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1869
• Citation: 59 Pa. 174
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: The City of Erie <I>versus</I> The Erie Canal Company.

59 Pa. 174

The City of Erie versus The Erie Canal Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 20, 1868.

January 5, 1869.

October 20th 1868.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Erie county: No. 129, to October and November Term 1867 E. Babbitt, for plaintiff in error,—referred to the Acts of 1843 and 1864. No act is unconstitutional except clearly forbidden by the Constitution: Eakin v. Raub, 12 S. & R. 330; Harvey v. Thomas, 10 Watts 63; Commonwealth v. McWilliams, 1 Jones 61; Commonwealth v. Hartman, 5 Harris 118; Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 9 Id. 147; Erie & N. E. Railroad v. Casey, 2 Casey 287; Speer v. Blairsville, 14 Wright 150. There was a moral obligation on the company to rebuild the bridge and therefore the legislature could add a legal one: Menges v. Wertman, 1 Barr 218; Lycoming v. Union, 3 Harris 166. He referred also to Meadville v. Erie Canal Co., 6 Id. 66; Bank of Penna. v. Commonwealth, 7 Id. 144; Penna. Railroad v. Duquesne Borough, 10 Wright 223.

J. C. Marshall and D. Derrickson (with whom was F. F. Marshall), for defendants in error, referred to the Acts of Assembly, Meadville v. Erie Canal Co., before cited; also Indiana Turnpike v. Phillips, 2 Penna. R. 184; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87; Brown v. Hummel, 6 Barr 86; Claghorn v. Cullen, 1 Harris 133.

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 5th 1869, by SHARSWOOD, J.

There are two questions which must be considered to have passed in res judicatas. The first is that where the state has made a grant of a public work to a corporation, the grantees are discharged from those duties to the public growing out of the work which the state has been accustomed to perform before the grant, unless there are express words in the transfer imposing those duties on the corporation. The second is that the charter of the Erie Canal Company does not impose upon that company the duty of making or keeping in repair public bridges connecting highways intersected by the canal: Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Duquesne Borough, 10 Wright 223; Meadville v. The Erie Canal Co., 6 Harris 66.

This leaves in this cause but one question, whether the Act of March 16th 1864, entitled "An act to compel the Erie Canal Company to construct and keep in repair the bridges made necessary by the construction of their canal," is a constitutional exercise of legislative power.

Had the legislature seen fit to impose such a duty upon any municipal corporation within whose bounds the bridges were, it seems now well settled that they would have had the right to do so: Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 9 Harris 147; Kirby v. Shaw, 7 Harris 258; City of Philadelphia v. Field, 8 P. F. Smith 320.

On the other hand, it seems equally clear that they could not impose such a duty on a private individual or a private corporation, such as a bank or insurance company. That would be to take private property for a public use without compensation, and the power of taxation, though very great, still has limits, and does not extend so far as that.

Is there any reason, then, why a quasi public corporation, such as a turnpike company, a railroad or canal company, should stand on a different footing?

The charter of a municipal corporation is not a contract within the protection contained in the prohibition of the declaration of rights against laws impairing contracts: Const. of Penna. Art. ix., § 17, 3 Story on the Const. 260. But it has been expressly decided by this court that a charter to a company to make a lock navigation in a public stream is a contract, and that no new terms can be subsequently imposed by the...