In re Towanda Bridge Co.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1880 |
| Parties | In re Towanda Bridge Co. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ. GREEN, J., absent.
Certiorari to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Bradford county:
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Edward Overton, Jr., and John F. Sanderson, for the bridge company.
Davies & Carnochan, for county of Bradford.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered March 29th 1880, PER CURIAM.
That the right of eminent domain extends to corporate franchises, and that by virtue of that right the bridge of a corporation can be taken for public use and made a free bridge, we think are positions no longer open to controversy. The opinion of Judge Elwell, and the authorities cited by him, are conclusive upon that subject. The proposition to have the question as to the necessity of taking the bridge heard in open court before the judge and grand jury was certainly a novel one, and if it was in the sound discretion of the court to grant or refuse it, their decision cannot be reviewed here. The question whether, under the provision of art. 16, sect. 8, of the constitution, the county can take actual possession of the bridge without paying or securring the damages awarded, does not arise on this record. There is no order of court to the county commissioners to take possession. The county, as well as the bridge company, had the right to appeal from the award of damages to the Court of Common Pleas and to a trial by jury. No time is fixed in the Act of 1878 for taking the appeal. It is to be under such regulations for bringing the matter to a trial in due course of law by a jury as the court may prescribe. The record shows no appeal. The certiorari was issued and filed in the court below two days after the confirmation by the court of the finding of the grand jury.
Proceedings affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas & Texas Coal Railway v. Northwestern Coal & Mining Company
... ... 134; Balch v ... Essex County Commrs., 103 Mass. 106; St. Louis ... County Ct. v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175; Re Towanda Bridge ... Co., 91 Pa. 216; Commrs. of Parks and Boulevards v ... Moesta, 91 Mich. 149, 51 N.W. 903; Kansas City v ... Ward, 134 Mo. 172, 35 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bremerton Bridge Co. v. Superior Court for Kitsap County
... ... Rumford & Mexico Bridge District v. Mexico Bridge ... Co., 115 Me. 154, 98 A. 625; State v ... Stevenson, 164 Wis. 569, 161 N.W. 1; Fulton Ferry & ... Bridge Co. v. Blackwood, 173 Ark. 645, 293 S.W. 2; ... Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N.H. 404; In re Towanda ... Bridge Co., 91 Pa. 216; Detroit International Bridge Co ... v. American Seed Co., supra; 20 C.J. 559-561, § 43; 10 R.C.L ... 39, § 35; I Lewis, Eminent Domain, 3d Ed., p. 522, § 261; ... annotation, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 135 ... The ... bringing of ... ...
-
Pennsylvania Hospital v. City of Philadelphia
...P. Connelly, City Solicitor, with him Joseph G. Magee and Ernest Lowengrund, Assistant City Solicitors, for appellees, cited: In re Towanda Bridge Co., 91 Pa. 216; In Opening of Twenty-Second Street, 102 Pa. 108; Commonwealth, ex rel., v. Broad St. Rapid Transit Street Ry. Co., 219 Pa. 11; ......
-
Penna. Hospital v. Phila.
...P. Connelly, City Solicitor, with him Joseph G. Magee and Ernest Lowengrund, Assistant City Solicitors, for appellees, cited: In re Towanda Bridge Co., 91 Pa. 216; In re Opening of Twenty-Second Street, 102 Pa. 108; Commonwealth, ex rel., v. Broad St. Rapid Transit Street Ry. Co., 219 Pa. 1......