Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Grove

• Decision Date: 03 June 1918
• Docket Number: 267
• Citation: 261 Pa. 504,104 A. 732
• Parties: Commonwealth ex rel. v. Grove et al., Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

104 A. 732

261 Pa. 504

Commonwealth ex rel. v. Grove et al., Appellants

No. 267

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 3, 1918

Argued April 22, 1918

Appeal, No. 267, Jan. T., 1917, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Centre County, September T., 1916, No. 182, awarding writ of peremptory mandamus, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Francis Shunk Brown, Attorney General v. Daniel A. Grove, William H. Noll, Jr., and Isaac Miller Commissioners of Centre County. Affirmed.

Mandamus.

The facts appear from the following opinion by QUIGLEY, P.J.:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prays that a peremptory mandamus may issue commanding the commissioners of Centre County to repair two certain bridges along what is known as Route 56 of the system of State highways as defined and described in the Act of May 31, 1911, said bridges being immediately west of the village of Lemont, Centre County, one of which is over Slab Cabin branch of Spring creek, and the other over the main branch of Spring creek.

It is admitted that these two bridges are in bad and unsafe condition and repair, and are unsafe and insufficient to accommodate the public with the usual means of travel, and that said bridges are necessary for the safe and convenient travel of the public in, along and over said highway.

It is also admitted that the part of said Route 56 between Lemont and State College is laid out over what was formerly known as the Agricultural College and Junction Turnpike Road, and that the same was duly condemned by proceedings in the Quarter Sessions of this county entered to No. 2 December Sessions 1907, the final decree of condemnation having been entered January 27, 1908, and the damages assessed thereunder having been paid by the county.

It is also admitted that at the time of the passage of the Act of May 31, 1911, aforesaid, no duty or responsibility rested upon the supervisors of College Township to build, repair or maintain the said bridges or either of them.

The question before us is whether the burden of repairing and putting in good order and condition these two bridges is upon the Board of Commissioners of Centre County or upon the Highway Department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

As we view it the recent case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. v. Bird, appellant, 253 Pa. 364, controls this case.

Judge MAXWELL there held that the burden of building and maintaining county bridges that were located upon the State highways under the Act of May 31, 1911, was upon the county.

The defendants urge that the difference in the nature of the bridges raises a distinction; that the bridge involved in the Bird case was established as a county bridge by proceedings under the 35th Section of the Act of June 13, 1836, while the bridges in question were not in question were not so established but reverted to the county upon condemnation of the turnpike and because of the fact that they were not formally declared county bridges under the Act of 1836 ingeniously argue that there is a clear distinction. In effect they argue that a county bridge within the meaning of the act is one...