Groff's Appeal
| Citation | 128 Pa. 621 |
| Parties | APPEAL OF W. W. GROFF, ET AL. [GROFF ET AL. v. BIRD-IN-HAND TURNPIKE CO.] |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1889 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Page 621
[GROFF ET AL. v. BIRD-IN-HAND TURNPIKE CO.]
Before PAXSON, C. J., STERRETT, GREEN, WILLIAMS and MITCHELL, JJ.
FROM THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, IN EQUITY.
No. 92 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, Equity Docket No. 2, page 271; C. P. in Equity.
Page 622
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 623
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 624
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 625
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 626
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 627
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 628
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 629
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 630
Mr. W. U. Hensel (with him Mr. J. Hay Brown, Mr. B. F. Davis and Mr. H. M. Houser), for the appellants:
1. There is no difference in the construction of charters granted specially by the legislature and those granted under a general law: Cochran v. Arnold, 58 Pa. 405. To ascertain the powers of this corporation, we must therefore resort to the same tests that have been judicially applied to legislative grants of corporate authority. It is well settled that such grants are to be construed strictly, and all acts beyond what the corporation is authorized to do by plain words or necessary implication, are illegal: Commonwealth v. Railroad Co., 27 Pa. 339; Miami Coal Co. v. Wigton, 19 Ohio 566; Currier v. Railroad Co., 11 Ohio 231. This is especially true in the case of a public grant which interferes injuriously with another grant previously made: Packer v. Railroad Co., 19 Pa. 211. It is such a grant which this corporation claims to have.
2. It is not pretended that a right to take and occupy the old road is expressly given to the defendant. The master, however, says that the charter does not exclude or prohibit its appropriating the old road. But this is not enough. Since the decision in Commonwealth v. Railroad Co., 27 Pa. 339, it has been uniformly held that such a power must either be expressly granted or unmistakably appear to be necessarily implied: Harvey v. Railroad Co., 47 Pa. 436; Penna. R. Co.'s App., 115 Pa. 517. The circumstances from which the master sought to deduce the power by necessary implication do not sustain it. That the old road is in bad condition during part of the year, may show that the supervisors ought to be indicted, but does not justify the appropriation of it as a toll road, for private gain. If it did, there is no reason why a city street, allowed to remain in bad condition, should not be appropriated likewise.
3. The findings of the master that the road is located in a thickly populated district, leads to a prominent railroad station and has much travel on it, go far to suggest not only that the road should be free, but that, as such, it can be maintained in
Page 631
passable condition. And the finding that a divergence by the defendant from the line of the old road would have involved greater difficulty and expense, does not justify the decree. We join issue with his findings of fact in this connection. It nowhere appears that the old road is the only route that can be found. The testimony shows that it is not on a straight line between the points given; that no natural obstacle intervened to obstruct another route, and that the adoption of the old road was simply for the convenience of the corporation...
To continue reading
Request your trial