The New York and Erie Railroad Company v. Young
| Decision Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Parties | The New York and Erie Railroad Co. versus Young. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
There are several matters in this case undisputed, and others so fully settled by the decisions of this and other courts as to leave little room for controversy, and being material to a correct disposition of the case, may as well be stated in the outset.
1. The plaintiffs in error and defendants below, were, by the Act of 16th February 1841, under restrictions therein contained, authorized to construct their road with a single or double track, through the county of Susquehanna, "by such route as they shall deem expedient for the extension or continuation of their said road," &c., with the right to enter upon and take such land and materials as might be necessary in constructing the same, paying the owners of such land and materials so taken, and in case of inability to agree as to the damage to the owners, then the same to be estimated by a jury of six disinterested men. There are two or three supplements to this act, but they are not material in this case.
2. For the purposes of this case, the rights involved are to be tested and judged by the same rules of law as if the company had been primarily incorporated by this Commonwealth. So far as the road runs through this state under the privileges granted by it, the company is quasi a Pennsylvania corporation. The right of eminent domain, within the restrictions of the grant, was as fully conferred on them by the Act of 16th February 1841, as it ever is conferred on corporations exclusively within the state; and their rights and duties under the privileges granted must be ruled by the same principles.
3. The injury complained of by the plaintiff below, was not for a taking of his property for the construction of the defendants' road, but for a consequential injury to it, resulting from the location and construction of the road; and which ensued, not from any wanton disregard of his rights, or negligence in doing their work, but from the location and construction alone.
4. It has been held by this court in the Monongahela Navigation Company v. Coons, 6 W. & S. 101; The Susquehanna Canal Company v. Wright, 9 W. & S. 9; McKinney v. Monongahela Navigation Company, 6 Harris 65; Shrunk v. Schuylkill Navigation Company, 14 S. & R. 71; The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad, 6 Whart. 45; and Rundle v. The Delaware and Raritan Canal Company, 14 Howard 80, that the grantees of such a franchise have the same power that existed in the state, and may exercise it, subject only to such restrictions as are imposed in the grant, and that they are subject only to the same liability unless otherwise declared. Such grants are always supposed to be for the public benefit, and to be exercised with that view by the corporation rather than by the state itself. In the cases cited, the doctrine has been distinctly held, and is the settled law of the land, if anything can be settled, that unless the act of incorporation provides for it, consequential damages are not recoverable from a railroad or other improvement company in constructing or maintaining their works. Thus applying the same rule to them as was held applicable to the Commonwealth itself: Commonwealth v. Fisher, 1 Penn. R. 467. That the legislature may direct otherwise, nobody doubts; but the liability does not exist unless it is expressed. The Act of Assembly does not require the company to pay consequential damages, and none were recoverable from them.
5. The right of the plaintiff to build and maintain his dam in the Susquehanna river exists by virtue of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penna. R. Co. v. Duncan
... ... , through its courts, upon the Pennsylvania railroad company the liability for consequential damages provided by ... Railroad Co., 16 Pa. 182; N. Y. etc. R. Co. v. Young, 33 Pa. 175; Watson v. Railroad Co., 37 Pa. 469; Buckwalter ... from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, with a branch to Erie, and gave to it the right to enter upon and occupy all land ... ...
-
Behling v. Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines
... ... company, or its representatives in charge of the lines, ... could, ... Pipe Line Co., 153 Pa. 366; ... New York etc. R.R. v. Young, 33 Pa. 182; ... Struthers v. Ry. Co., ... for the jury: Railroad Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. 306; ... Township of West Mahanoy ... ...
-
Easton Etc. Pass. Ry. Co. v. City of Easton
... ... Railway Company filed a bill in equity against the city of ... Easton and ... employees of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and other ... persons, have laid down T rails ... R. Co. v ... Speer, 56 Pa. 325; New York etc. R. Co. v ... Young, 33 Pa. 175; Penna. R. Co.'s ... ...
-
City of Havre de Grace v. Harlow
... ... "That in every such dam so constructed by said company ... the said company shall construct and maintain ... be taken for use upon the Erie and other canals; secondly, ... arks or rafts which were ... York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. A half century and more ... Am. Dec. 312; N.Y. & Erie R. R. Co. v. Young, 33 Pa ... 175. It is perfectly true that under the ... ...