Coal Co. v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 05 January 1885 |
| Citation | 108 Pa. 147 |
| Parties | Oak Ridge Coal Company, Limited, <I>versus</I> Rogers. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ. PAXSON, J., absent
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term, 1884, No. 209.
W. W. Thomson and J. S. Ferguson, for the plaintiff in error.—The Act of May 8th, 1876, being a penal Act, must be strictly construed. The defendant below is not within its terms. It is not a "corporation," nor a "person," but a partnership of a peculiar kind. Individual partners therein might have guilty knowledge under the Act of 1876, and be liable to its penalties; but neither the innocent members nor the partnership association, limited, as such, can be held liable for the statutory punitive damages. The court instructed the jury, in substance, that if they found that the pit-boss knew he was trespassing on the plaintiff's coal the partnership which employed him knew it also, and was liable in this action. The court erred in its charge as to the measure of damages: Forsythe v. Well, 5 Wr. 291; Herdic v. Young, 55 Pa. St. 178.
W. B. Rodgers, for the defendant in error.—The word "persons" in a statute includes artificial persons, corporations or quasi corporations: Sedgwick on Statutes, 372; Canal Co. v. Dauphin County, 3 Brewst. 124. Limited partnerships and corporations act through agents. The agent having charge of the business of a corporation is regarded for all practical purposes as the corporation itself: Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 13 P. F. S. 150.
This action of trespass was brought under Section 1 of the Act of 8th May, 1876: Pur. Ann. Dig. 2000, pl. 9. The section consists of two parts. The first part declares if any person or corporation shall mine or dig out any coal, iron or other minerals, knowing the same to be upon the lands of another person or corporation without the consent of the owner, the person or corporation so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined or imprisoned, as therein provided. The other part proceeds: "And the person or corporation so offending shall be further liable to pay to such owner double the value of said coal, iron or other materials so mined, dug out or removed, or in case of the conversion of the same to the use of such offender or offenders, treble the value thereof, to be recovered, with costs of suit, by action of trespass or trover, as the case may be; and no prosecution by indictment under this Act shall be a bar to such action."
The claim was for both double and treble damages, under the second portion of the section. No question therefore arises as to the character or degree of proof necessary to convict on an indictment.
The plaintiff in error contends that it is neither a person nor a corporation within the meaning of the Act of 1876, and therefore not subject to the penalties and liabilities prescribed thereby. The fact relied on to support this view is that it is an association formed under the Act of 2d June, 1874, which provides for the formation of limited partnerships.
Such an association is not technically a corporation. Yet it has many of the characteristics of one. It can sue and be sued in its association name only. The longest period of its duration is fixed by the Act which provides for its existence. Like most corporations its capital (except in certain cases designated by the Act) is alone liable for its debts. The making of any division of profits which shall at the time diminish or impair the capital of the association is prohibited, and a personal liability is imposed on any manager consenting thereto. The omission to use the word "limited" may make each person participating therein personally liable for any indebtedness arising on writings executed and used in the transaction of its business. The Act further provides for a dissolution of the association, for winding up its business, and for the distribution of its property. It may not be improper to call such an association a quasi corporation. If not a corporation, it is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Ellwood Power Company
... ... Huff v. McCauley, 53 Pa. 206, where it was held that ... a contract that one might take coal for his works from the ... land of another, must be by grant. So also is Bowers v ... Bowers, 95 Pa. 477, where it is held that a contract for ... v. Gilson, 8 Watts, 243; R.R. Co ... v. Stayman, 2 W.N.C. 103; R.R. Co. v ... Balthaser, 126 Pa. 1; Oak Ridge Coal Co. v ... Rogers, 108 Pa. 147; Graham v. Railroad Co., ... 145 Pa. 504; Coleman's App., 62 Pa. 252 ... Before ... MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, ... ...
-
Lyons v. Central Coal & Coke Company
...the coal field had been purchased from the plaintiff by the defendant at the fair market value of the district." In the case of Coal Co. v. Rogers, 108 Pa. 147, following instruction to the jury was approved on appeal: "The measure of damages is the fair value of the coal at the place there......
-
Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company v. Benjamin Jones
...created under the statutes of that state, on the basis of corporations. 'Such an association,' that court said in Oak Ridge Coal Co. v. Rogers, 108 Pa. 147, 150, 'is not technically a corporation. Yet it has many of the characteristics of one,' and 'it may not be improper to call such an as......
-
Valley Smokeless Coal Co. v. Hager
...158; Forsyth v. Wells, 41 Pa. 291; Coleman's App., 62 Pa. 252; Ege v. Kille, 84 Pa. 333; Stauffer v. Soap Co., 151 Pa. 330; Oak Ridge Coal Co. v. Rogers, 108 Pa. 147; Lehigh Coal Co. v. R.R., 187 Pa. 145; Trustees v. Coal Co., 241 Pa. 469. Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON,......