Penn Township v. Perry County

• Decision Date: 24 May 1875
• Citation: 78 Pa. 457
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Penn Township <I>versus</I> Perry County.

78 Pa. 457

Penn Township versus Perry County.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 10, 1875.

May 24, 1875.

May 10th 1875.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Perry county: Of May Term 1875, No. 25 C. A. Barnett, for plaintiff in error.—A bridge is but a substitute for a ferry: Shearman & Redfield on Negligence 288. It is the duty of the county to erect bridges: Commonwealth v. Monroe County, 2 W. & S. 495, and if any change in a road by reason of making a bridge is necessary the county must do it. At common law the approaches to a bridge are to be made by the county: Shearman & Redfield on Negligence 294, sect. 252; Rex v. Westriding of York, 7 East 588; Rex v. Same, 2 Id. 342; King v. Bucks, 12 Id. 192; 2 Bacon's Ab. "Bridges." "Bridge" imports not only the structure over the stream but its approaches, &c.: Shearman & Redfield on Negligence 295, sect 253.

C. J. T. McIntire, for defendant in error.—Statutes are to be construed according to the natural meaning of their words and supposed errors cannot be corrected by the courts: Dwarris on Statutes 144, rule 9. A bridge is a structure across a stream for ease, &c., of travellers: Jacob's Law Dict., Webster's Dict., ad verbum. Highways and bridges are distinct: Angell on Highways, sect. 40; Commonwealth v. Breed, 4 Pick. 460.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, May 24th 1875.

Under the provisions of the Act of the General Assembly of 1873, the bridge in question, over the Juniata river, was erected at the joint expense of Dauphin and Perry counties, and was fully completed, except that the space between the wing-walls, on the Perry county side of the river, was not filled in with earth or other material, so as to make the approach to the main superstructure possible. The question presented, in the case stated, for the solution of the court below, was whether the township or county was liable for the expense of this filling, so as to make the bridge accessible to the public, for whose convenience it was erected. The learned judge below held that this liability rested upon the township; and this on the ground that the wing-walls and earth filling were not technically part of the bridge proper, but rather part of the road leading thereto. We cannot subscribe to this doctrine. That the approach to a bridge is part of the highway is doubtless true, but so, also, is the bridge itself; and as the construction...