Commonwealth v. Erie and North-East Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 07 September 1854
• Citation: 27 Pa. 339
• Parties: Commonwealth <I>versus</I> The Erie and North-East Railroad Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 339

27 Pa. 339

Commonwealth versus The Erie and North-East Railroad Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

September 7, 1854.

BILL in equity.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thompson, Williams, Grant, and Griscom, for the complainants. —The equity jurisdiction of the court extends to the restraint by injunction of "acts contrary to law, as well as prejudicial to the interests of the community, or the rights of individuals:" Hagner v. Heyberger, 7 W. & S. 104.

1. The bill in this case, charges that the company contrary to law, have located the western portion of their road sixty rods south of the borough, as it was when the act of incorporation was passed, and the charter issued, — and have not within ten years constructed their road as required by their charter.

2. That they occupy, cross, impede, and obstruct the public and established streets and lanes of the city of Erie, and have located and constructed their road, leading to the point where it enters the city, on ground not authorized by their charter.

3. And have located and maintained their road upon and along what is known as the Buffalo road, for the distance of 80 rods in one place, and 40 rods in another, to the exclusion of the public from the use of the same.

4. That they have yielded up the control and operation of the road to a foreign corporation, which they had no right to do.

These are the material points in the bill.

The act incorporating the defendants, is dated 12th of April, 1842: P. L. page 267.

By the 6th section of the act, it is enacted that the company "shall have power to construct a railroad from the borough of Erie to some point on the east boundary of the township of North-East, in the county of Erie." This is the New York state line.

The termini having been thus fixed by law, the railroad company was bound to adhere strictly thereto.

The proof establishes and the answer admits, that, in place of beginning at the borough of Erie, as it was when the act passed, the road was located and constructed 60 rods south of the borough as it was in 1842. There is no law to authorize the change.

The bill charges and the proof establishes, that the road crosses and obstructs the free use of Peach, State, French, Holland, German, Parade, Penn, and Ritner Streets, and Ash Lane, in the city of Erie. There is no grant of the right to the company to do so.

On these points the following Acts of Assembly and authorities

are cited to establish the want of authority in the company to locate their western terminus at the point they have fixed, or to enter upon, cross, or occupy the streets of the city.

By Act of 18th April, 1795, 3 Smith Laws 233-34, four thousand six hundred acres of land was ordered to be laid off in town lots for the town of Erie — and it was provided "that the land so surveyed shall respectively be laid out into town lots and out lots in such manner and with such streets not more than 100 or less than 60 feet, as the said commissioners shall direct," and "all the streets, lanes, and alleys thereof, and of the out lots thereto adjoining, shall be, and for ever remain common highways." The town was laid out the same year, and all the streets crossed by the railroad above mentioned, were then laid out and established, except Penn and Ritner Streets, the former of which, the answer admits, was dedicated to public use before the railroad was constructed. They were both laid out by the owners of property adjoining thereto in 1850.

The laying out of the streets under the Act of 1795, was a dedication of them, in the most solemn manner, to public use, and it is questionable whether the legislature could revoke it.

"There is a manifest distinction between a dedication, and a mere reservation of land. The former is irrevocable, and the owner has no power or control over the property inconsistent with the terms of the dedication:" 4 Sanford's Rep. 608, Pitcher v. The New York and Erie Railroad Company.

But it is not necessary in our case to go this far, as the legislature have not revoked the dedication of the streets made by the Act of 18th April, 1795.

No implication can be allowed the effect of revoking the express grant of the streets to the public, or of extending the rights and powers of the railroad company over them in the absence of any express grant to that effect.

Neither does the act authorize the construction of the road into or across the borough of Erie, as it existed in 1842. The construction of charters is always strict. Nothing is implied by necessary incidents.

Section 10, of the Act of 19th February, 1849, gives the right to any company thereafter chartered to extend their road into any town or village where it is named as the terminus. This is a legislative construction that the right did not therefore exist: Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 591; Commonwealth v. The Franklin Can. Co., 9 Harris 117; Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill Bank, 1 Wh. Dig., 245; Walford on Railw. 64-5; 1 Railw. Cas. 591; 4 Id. 560; Blackman v. Glanmorganshire Can. Co., 1 M. & K. 162; Scales v. Pickering, 4 Bing. 448; 1 M. & P. 195; Barnett v. Stockton and Del. R. R. Co., 2 Scott, N. R. 337; Shelford 67.

Thus it will be seen that the construction in the English courts is of the very strictest kind; the same rule obtains in the Supreme Court of the United States: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 543; Head & Amory v. The Prov. Ins. Co., 2 Cranch 127; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 636; Bank of U. S. v. Dundridge, 12 Id. 64.

This same doctrine has been as emphatically announced and as firmly maintained by our own courts: Stormfeltz v. The Manor Turnp. Co., 1 Harris 560; The Commissioners v. The North. Lib. Gas Co., 2 J. 318. Ambiguity in the grant is always construed against the company, and in favour of the public.

There is no ambiguity in this charter. There is no authority to enter the town, and cross and occupy the streets. To begin at some point at the borough of Erie, means the borough as it was when the act was passed, and not as the city of Erie now is, with its extended limits.

The act is imperative and express that the "railroad shall be so constructed as not to impede or obstruct the free use of any public road, street, lane, or bridge now laid out and opened or built, nor to interfere with any burial-ground, dwelling-house," &c. These difficulties could all have been avoided by making the road to the harbour of Erie, and where the act contemplated it should be made.

The case of Dedrick v. Wood, 3 Harris 9, the prohibition against impeding the navigation of boats or rafts on a stream declared a public highway, is held to amount to a prohibition against impeding it as to any raft whatever.

The present location of the road, 60 rods south of the borough line as it existed in 1842, is without authority of law, and in derogation of the public rights.

This location, it is said, must be maintained because authorized by the corporate authorities of the city of Erie. But the last section of the ordinance referred to, expressly reserves the right to revoke the license, whenever the interests of the city might require it. And this right of revocation was exercised on the 28th Nov., 1853. Besides, the borough and city authorities had only power to improve and keep the streets, &c., in repair, for the purpose designed in establishing them. There was no power in the Councils to grant them away for another and different purpose: Rush v. The Commonwealth, 2 Harris 191; Gossler v. The Corporation of Georgetown, 6 Wheat. 593; Commonwealth v. Bowman, 3 Barr 206; Rung v. Shoenberger, 2 Watts 24; Lancaster Turnpike v. Rodgers, 2 Barr 114; State v. City of Mobile, 5 Porter 279.

Stanton, Meredith, Hirst, and Campbell, for respondents.—I. The termini of a railroad, or any other work of internal improvement may be described by the legislature in general terms, or by fixed points. The terminus a quo of the Erie and North-East Railroad was not specially designated, but only described by a general term "from the borough of Erie."

These words are to have a reasonable construction in reference to the subject-matter and the public object of the grant.

The word "from" as terminus a quo is correlative to the word "to" as terminus ad quem, and may be taken inclusively according to the subject-matter: 1 Stra. 179-81.

The word "a" as a terminus a quo, and the word "usque ad" as a terminus ad quem, have been taken inclusively according to the subject-matter: 5 Co. 7, 103, 111; 6 Co. 62, 67; 1 Vent. 292; 3 Keb. 594; 3 Leon. 211.

The "borough of Erie," as the bridge in the case cited from Strange, was intended as a well known place, without intending its exterior line to form the limit.

In the case of the Farmers' Turnpike v. Coventry, 10 Johns. Rep. 388, the act of incorporation authorized the plaintiffs to make a road "from Troy to the city of Hudson," and prohibited toll-gates within three miles of either extremity. The road was made from Main Street within the city of Hudson, passing through the compact part of the city, and a toll-gate was erected over three miles from the junction, but within less than three miles from the line of the city. By an order of the Common Council of Hudson, the gate was declared a nuisance and thrown down. In an action of trespass, it was held that the road might commence within the city.

Per Curiam. The plaintiffs, by their charter, were entitled to carry the road "to the city of Hudson." This did not mean that the road was to terminate on arriving at the north bounds of the city, which are the middle of Major Abraham's creek, and several miles from the compact part of the city. The words are to receive a more reasonable interpretation in reference to the subject-matter, and the public object of the grant; which was to open a good road from Troy to the compact part of the city of Hudson. The words usque ad are sometimes to be taken inclusively, according to the subject-matter: 1 Stra. 17...