Porter v. Dawson Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1893
• Parties: PORTER v. DAWSON BRIDGE CO.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

27 A. 730
157 Pa.St. 367

PORTER
v.
DAWSON BRIDGE CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 2, 1893.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Fayette county; James Inghram, Judge.

Action by Samuel E. Porter, for himself and in behalf of the county of Fayette, against the Dawson Bridge Company, to recover penalties for certain overcharges of toll Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Modified.

Following are defendant's 1st, 2d, 3d, and 8th assignments of error:

"(1) The court erred in charging the jury as follows: The third point we affirm, for the present, at least; and it not being disputed, gentlemen of the jury, that the company did collect from this plaintiff the amount which the plaintiff claims to have paid to the company, the amount of the penalty would be easily ascertained, and it is claimed by the plaintiff to amount to five thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars, and, with your consent, the prothonotary will now take your verdict for that amount in favor of the plaintiffs.'

"(2) The court erred in affirming the plaintiff's first point, which point is as follows: That under the testimony the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the penalty of ten dollars for each and every time the defendant company collected from plaintiff more than fifteen cents toll for a two-horse, four-wheel vehicle, and more than twenty cents toll for a four-horse, four-wheel vehicle.'

"(3) The court erred in affirming the plain-riff's second point, which point is as follows: 'That under all the testimony the plaintiffs are entitled to recover.'"

"(8) The court erred in refusing defendant's fourth point, which is as follows: That under the evidence in the cause the defendant company collected tolls off plaintiff but five times, and that, if plaintiff is entitled to recover at aR, there can only be a recovery in this action for five penalties, viz. fifty dollars.'"

27 A. 731

S. L. Mestrezat and M. M. Oochran, for appellant.

R. W. Dawson, Boyd & Umbel, G. B. Jeffries, and R. H. Lindsey, for appellee.

GREEN, J. On February 9, 1891, the defendant demanded and collected from the plaintiff $9.54; on February 24th, $42.03; on March 9th, $42.92; on March 25th, $40.10; and on April 7th, $38.49—for tolls due for driving over the defendant's bridge with a two or a four horse vehicle at various times preceding those several dates. It was alleged by the plaintiff that there were in the aggregate 579 several acts of driving over the bridge, and that at each of those drivings there were passengers in the vehicles, for each of whom, also, a foot passenger's toll, of two cents, was collected. It was claimed that, by the law under which the defendant company was chartered,—Gen. Law 1874, (P. L. 73.) and Supplement of 1876, (P. L. 30,)—a penalty of $10 for each offense was imposed, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover 579 penalties, of $10 each, amounting in the whole to $5,790. The court below so directed the jury, and a verdict and judgment for $5,790 were entered against the defendant, who thereupon took the present appeal.

By the second clause of the thirty-first section of the act of 1874, not changed by the act of 1876, the bridge companies chartered under the provisions of the act were authorized to charge tolls for passage over their bridges, not exceeding certain fixed rates prescribed in the act among which were, for every four-wheeled vehicle with two horses, 15 cents, and for the same with four horses, 20 cents; also, for every foot passenger, 2 cents. Clause 3 is in the following language: "If the said corporation, or any person employed for it, shall collect or demand any greater rate or price for passing over said bridge, than what is prescribed in the list of tolls put up at the gate as aforesaid, or neglect to keep the said bridge in repair, he or they shall forfeit for every such offense the sum of ten dollars to be recovered as debts of a similar amount are recovered, one half to be paid to the county, and the other half to the person who shall sue for the same." The penalty is incurred "for every such offense," and the offense is described in the antecedent words of the section thus: "Shall collect or demand any greater rate or price for passing over said bridge than what is prescribed in the list of tolls put up at the gate as aforesaid." That is, every time the defendant or its agents collected or demanded a greater sum than the prescribed tolls, the offense was committed, for which the penalty of $10 was...