The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-05-19
IS. B. PRICE ON THE
TURNPIKE CASE
City's Special Attorney Gives His Inter
pretatiOn Of the Case.
DIFFERS FROM ATTORNEY wATSONS
How Justice Gvern's Opinion i> Ike.
ceivcd trom the City's Standpoint.
Thc Turnpike People Lose Their
Franchise ON West Market street,
in the DpiniOn Of Attorney Price.

CyuucaiSc ON West Market Street,
in the Opinion Of Attorney Price.
In response to n request for his in
terpretation of Justice Green's opinion
i'm the West Market street matter, ;. Ii.
Price. special attorney for the city. yes
terday communicated To The Tribune
the following:
I'm order to understand the matters
at issue between the city of scranton
ana the Providence and Abingdon Turn-
pike company, it is necessary that the
reader know the facts connected with
the controversy since its inception.
I'm 1889 the Turnpike company placed
two OF three gates within the city linz
its which We're an Inconvenience to the
travelling public. The officers of the
company recognized this and submitted
proposition for adjustment to the
councils of the city. In substance II
was: D That the city of Scranton
should keep the road in repair from the
stone bridge across l.eggett's creek to
the square in Providence; 90 that the
city should provide sufficient fences and
guards for all dangerous places and
keep them i'm repair. and that III" city
should indemnify the company for any
expense and damage that might arise
ON account of any negligence IN III"
premises. In consideration of these
obligations to be taken on the part ol
the city the Turnpike company agreed
to remove the gates.
THE AGREEMENT MADE.
THE city accepted this proposition
by an ordinance regularly adopted. ana
an agreement was executed between the
nd A sity I,I' that
tract the company agreed not to main
tain Il gate upon that portion of the
road between the stone bridge over Leg
gets creek and the square in ProNi-
| dcnce. The city stipulated, on its part,
| to keep that portion of the road in as
good order and repair as the company
were under obligation to keep ii. TO pro-
vide and maintain proper fences and
guards where necessary, and to in.
| demnify the company for all manner
| of expense, damage or liability accru-
| ing by reason of any negligence in the
| repair Of the road.
THE evident intention of the Turn
/ pike company was to place the road in
| the hands OF the city for repair and
| maintenance and be relieved from all
obligations which the law imposed upon
| them with regard to the road, and at the
same time to hold the franchise for the
collection of toll over that part of the
| road This Is not an unfair Inference
| because the subsequent conduct of the
| company proves that that was the in
tentiOn. Indeed, the company has re-
Gently restrained the laying of Il sewer
| in this street. 1t did afterwards charge
| toll for the full mileage of the road to
| the square in Providence, and the city.
| for some reason unknown to me, neg
lected to repair the road in accordance
with the terms of the contract.
suit was brought for damages. There
were two questions raised on the trial
of the case: % The validity of the
contract: and CD whether the amount
| claimed to have been expended on the
road by the company had been used for
that purpose. The judge before whom
the case was tried reserved the question
| as To the validity of th" contract and
afterwards decided that it was valid.
! The amount of damages suffered by the
! company by reason of the neglect of the
city to repair, was submitted to the
| jury. The company claimed about
$i 100 to $500 and the jury found Il ver-
diet for 5000.
VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT.
"The legal question as to the validity
of the contract would not have arisen
had the company construed thc con-
tact as IL is now Interpreted by the
supreme court. There is an act of as
scmhiy which authorizes Il city to agree
with 4 turnpike company for the pur-
chase of Tie franchise of a road, and ii
the parties cannot agree viewers may
hr appointed Il. under the law. aud tho
property of the company in the road
condemned, and after the payment OF
the damages Occasioned by the con
| Al tiIn b,. road thnn h,.nYp,s Al
city street.
''ln deciding that the contract was
valid. Judge Aicl'herSOp did not con-
Stlue the contact to mean that the road
was freed from the franchise of th'
company 20 far as the contract applied
to it. but left the question of constiuc-
tlun open aS to whether ii was par
tally IL city street and partially turn.
| pike road The l,ain argument in the
supreme court. therefore. was upon the
question as Ia whether a public high.
way could he both Il turnpike road an,
II city street.
ms cunstruc Judge Green's opinion
it is tu the effect that il cannot. II,
defined the contract to mean that tn,
Turnpike company surrendered tina
portion of its road between Leggett:
creek and Providence square to the city
and the city took the road az Il publ,
, for its reuair and maintenance unde
the same liability as the other streets
oi the city. The language Of the Opin
. ion is: ''rhis repair should be done b.
> the city because. after the contract tn
. subject was no longer Il private turn
pike, but was exclusively a city street
Hence in no aspect of the case can we re
gard this transaction as mere engage
T ment by the city to keen i'm repair
/, private turnpike. These consideration
eliminate the chief contentious of tn
learned counsel for the appellant ant
also the authorities upon which he re
3 lies
Y NO DOUBT ABOUT 1T.
This construction of the contrac
brings it within the terms of the statut
: relating to the subject. and under sue
construction there can be no doub
about its validity.
THE company served notice upon tn
city that the municipality should repai
the street or the company would pro
ceed 20 do so, and the street commits
sionre replied that he intended to repai
) the street in question and notified tn
company not to improve it. This aC
tion of the city official assumes the oil
legation to repair and under the la,
and the conduct of the parties the cit
now becomes responsible for any dam
ages which may be occasioned to an
person by reason of negligence in tn
care and reparation of the road.
There is no difference Of opinion a
to the validity of the contract. Th
contention now will be as to whetht
the portion of the road between Leg
gets creek and Providence square
still subject to the right of the compan
to charge tolls. Under the opinion
Judge Green. l believe it's right cease
with the execution of the contract.
"The result of the litigation Is. as
| laac Tn fla oil 1,la4