Valentine v. Road Directors of Allegany County

• Decision Date: 21 June 1924
• Docket Number: 38.
• Citation: 126 A. 147,146 Md. 199
• Parties: VALENTINE v. ROAD DIRECTORS OF ALLEGANY COUNTY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

126 A. 147

146 Md. 199

VALENTINE v. ROAD DIRECTORS OF ALLEGANY COUNTY.

No. 38.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 21, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allegany County; Albert A. Doub, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by John L. Valentine against the Road Directors of Allegany County. Judgment on demurrer for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, and BOND, JJ.

Carl G Mullin, of Cumberland, for appellant.

Saul Praeger, of Cumberland (Lloyd Lowndes and J. Philip Roman both of Cumberland, on the brief), for appellee.

OFFUTT J.

John L Valentine, the appellant, on July 14, 1921, sued the road directors of Allegany county, in the circuit court for that county, for injuries which he claimed to have received whilst in the lawful use of a certain bridge on a public highway in Pennsylvania in an accident said to have been due to the defective condition of the bridge.

A demurrer to the declaration which he first filed having been sustained, he filed an amended declaration to which the defendant also demurred. That demurrer was likewise sustained, and judgment entered for the defendant, and from that judgment the plaintiff has appealed, so that the question before us is whether the averments of the amended declaration state a good cause of action.

It appears from the demurrer, and from certain public local laws of Allegany county of which the court will take judicial notice, that chapter 262 of the Acts of 1904 of the General Assembly of Maryland created a body corporate with power to sue and be sued under the name of the "Road Directors for Allegany County," and conferred upon it certain powers and charged it with certain duties in reference to the public roads and highways of that county, stating in part that--

"Their powers, duties and obligations with respect to the public roads in Allegany county shall be coextensive with the powers, duties and obligations heretofore resting upon the county commissioners of Allegany county with respect to the public roads and bridges in said county, except in so far as the same may be modified or changed by the provisions of this act." Section 212.

It also provided in section 213 that--

"The road directors shall adopt such system for the repairs and improvements of the roads in Allegany county as they may deem best."

And in section 216A that--

"The road directors herein provided for shall take charge and supervision of all roads and bridges in Allegany county."

And in section 216T--

"The road directors shall have power to make rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this act."

It also provided for raising funds by taxation for carrying out the purposes of the act, and provision is made in it for the construction and maintenance, use, relocation, alteration, and closing of public highways in that county.

Included among the roads embraced in the highway system of that county is "a road leading off the Bedford road to Hazen, Md., and is the only route or road by which the people of Hazen can get to Cumberland or the improved roads without making a detour of five or six miles through Pennsylvania; that at a point where the aforesaid road crosses Evitt's creek, a bridge has been maintained by Allegany county, Md., for a period of about 50 years, it being supposed until ten or twelve years ago that said bridge was in Allegany county, Md., when it was discovered that it was located across the Pennsylvania line, although the road of which said bridge is a part runs back into Allegany county, Md., on both sides of the stream spanned by the bridge; that when it was discovered that the bridge was located in Pennsylvania it was necessary to rebuild and maintain it on the same location, or relocate a long stretch of expensive road, and the defendant in the year 1912 elected to and did rebuild the aforesaid bridge on the same location and maintained the same up until the date of the injuries herein complained of."

The bridge referred to was suffered to fall into disrepair and to become so weakened and unsafe that on June 15, 1920, as the plaintiff was driving a team of horses drawing a load of lumber across it, it collapsed, "throwing the plaintiff and his team into the waters of Evitt's creek," in consequence of which he was injured, two of his horses killed, one badly injured, and his wagon damaged.

The declaration sets out these facts, and declares that it was the duty of the defendant to keep that bridge in a safe condition for public travel, and that as his injuries resulted from a breach of that duty the defendant is answerable to him in damages for his injuries and losses.

The controlling question in the case is whether the road directors of Allegany county are under existing law responsible for the condition of a bridge on a public highway in Pennsylvania. The appellee is a governmental agency charged with certain public duties, and clothed with certain powers enumerated in the act creating it, together with such other incidental powers as may be necessary to effect the purposes of its creation, and it has no power, duty, or authority except such as are conferred upon it mediately or immediately by the Legislature. Heiskell v. Baltimore, 65 Md. 152, 4 A. 116, 57 Am. Rep. 308; Horn v. Baltimore, 30 Md. 218; McQuillin on Mun. Corp. par. 499. And this case could be disposed of by a mere reference to the statute which expressly and in terms limits the powers, duties, and obligations imposed by it upon the appellee to the public roads and bridges in Allegany county; for by no process of reasoning with which we are familiar can a bridge wholly within the boundaries of Bedford county, Pa., be held to be in Allegany county, Md., with which it has no physical connection at all except that supplied by a road which runs from it into Maryland.

But aside from that consideration it is obvious that the defendant in the absence of an express grant from the Legislature could have no power to expend the public funds of the county dedicated under the terms of the act to the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges in Allegany county to the construction of roads and bridges in another state. Certainly the same road without the sanction of both states could not at the same time be a public highway both of Maryland and Pennsylvania, and it is difficult to see under what power or authority the appellee could exercise any control or supervision over public roads and bridges in another state or how they could lawfully repair, rebuild, or maintain them without an express grant of power so to do from the Legislature of such state. These principles seem to be self-evident and scarcely need authority to support them, but the same question has been considered in other cases. Perhaps the leading case in which it has been decided is that of Becker v. La Crosse, 99 Wis. 414, 75 N.W. 84, 40 L. R. A. 829, 67 Am. St. Rep. 874, in which, to quote from the syllabus, it was held:

"A city cannot accept a grant from another state to operate a toll

...