Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1852-08-14
inexpediency being once overcome by 9th
er considerations, it seems likes very slight
reason for authorizing another Company to
AZ z.

interfere with the rights it secures.
All the arguments prfori ale therefore
against the defendants, and impose upon us
the necessity Of giving 10 this statute a con-
struction strongly in opposition TO the right
claimed under it. But to Justify a strict
it was not necessary to con-
slider the nature and circumstances of the
particular law before US, for it belongs to a
class of statutes which, by long establish
ed and well-deined rule of Interpretation
in all the States of the Union as well as in
England, must receive, and uniformly have
received the strictest possible construction.
All acts Of incorporation and acts extend
ing the privileges Of incorporated bodies
are to be taken most strongly against the
mpanes-whateve is not expressly and
nnequivocally granted in such acts is taken
to have been withheld, IL East, 6S5. 4
Bingham, 452. 2 Barr & Adoph, 646.-
The same rule was laid down in very clear
terms by Chief Justice Marshall in Billings
v. The Providence Bank, 4 Peters, 5l4.-
In the Charles River Bridge v. The War
rem Bridge, II Peters, sol, it was placed
on grounds SO impregnable by the present
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States, that it is not probable we
will ever hear it seriously questioned again.
In this Court it has been often recognized,
and, so far as know, never denied. See
Easton Bank v. The Comm, 10 Burr. 442,
and the cases there cited.
Let il not be said that both parties in this
cause claim under the acts OF incorporation,
and therefore both are equally affected by
the operation Of this rule for though that
be true, one OF them is beyond its reach
The Susquehanna Company claims under
a charter which is free from all doubt or
ambiguity. 1t is not pretended that they
have not all the rights which they claim.
They are here, not defending their own
privileges, but seeking to restrain the exer-
else OF those claimed by the Sunbury and
Erie Company. The great principles Of
construction ruled in the Charles River
Bridge case are, therefore, strongly in fa-
vor Of the plaintiffs.
Keeping this in mind, and remembering
that the supplement relied on is not only a
public grant, but public grant which Sc
riousl Y conflicts with previous one, and
is, IN its nature, purpose and object, such a
one as no Legislature would be likely to
make we come to examine the ninth Sec
ton Of the supplement to the defendants
charter, which is as follows:
"That the said company shall have power
to construct lateral and branch roads from
the line of their road, at, soulhward or'east-
ward, from Wlliamsport, TO intersect any
other railroads by means OF which the said
company may be enabled 10 form connec
tions with the city of Philadelphia by way
OF The valley of the Schuylkll ; or, as here
matter provided, by way of the valley o
the Susquehanna Provided, That on AM
road that may be made between Sunbur,
and Harrisburg, the same tax be and is here
by imposed. as is now or may hereafter b.
imposed by law, on the Susqnehanna Raj
Road. And provided further, That if tn
Susquehanna Rail Road Company shall la
10 put that portion OF the line of their roa
Cnder contract between Bridgeport and Sun
bury, within one year from the passage c
this act, and complete the same within tw
years thereafter, then, and in that case, In
Sudbury and Erie Rail Road Company
hereby authorized to extend their road (Tor
Sunbury, by the valley of the Susquehanni
at such point as may be deemed most eXpC
dient by the said company, on the sam
temrs and conditions that they are no.
authorized TO construct the main line OF the
, road between Sunbury and Erie"
, That the last Of these two provisions doe
not couple condition with The powers graz
ted TO the Sudbury and Erie Company,
extending their road by the Susquehanna,
so plain that an attempt to Prove it would
a mere waste of words That the priviles
is only 10 be exercised if the Susquehanr
D Company fail 10 complete its work within
? certain time, and shall only proceed wi
/ the extension Gthen and in that caseh
: wholly undeniable. Shall we treat this pr
i viso as nugatory and meaningless Shi
e we strike it from the statute and give it
e attention Certainly not. Yet how can v
i say that the power claimed is given wi
out condition, unless we eliminate the wor
which impose the condition We cam
consider the section in detached parts. v
IS must take it as whole. All OF il is cousi
n ent, and if it were not, that would not he
y the defendants argument, for the rule
b cases of irreconcilable repugnancy is TO
J. the last part and not the frs, determine /
j! meaning of the law-giver. At the head
y the section the Company is authorized
=, form connections with Philadelphia by W
> of the valley Of the Susquehanna How
=. As hereinafter provided. And then fol
in the two provisions, one imposing tax a
the other fixing The time when they nj
e. begin. Both these provisions are, one
OF much as the other drawn up TO and conn
I'd ted with the grant, and made part and P
TO eel OF the grant by The words ''as hereinai
70 provided" What is hereinafter provide
u That the right shall be exercised il
other Company fail is as much hereinaf
= provided, as it is hereinafter provided lha
~ tax shall be laid on any rold that may
e. made. But it is argued that the power
Il