The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-05-14
CITY MUST make repairs
II 1t Does Not d. So the Turnpike
Company Nill Have Work Done.
LETTER OF ATTORNEY WATSON
Takes Exception to the Claim Of the City
That Ii Has Absolute Control OF
the Turnpike Within the
City Limits.

the ownership ot that poftion oi thv
Providence ana Abingdon Tur.., as in
side the city limits The following let
ter has been seat by W " Warson. al
tofIey fui the rIrapike company, 10
Street Commissioned kinsles
CHlc, Of lne Providence and Abingdon
turnpike and Plank Road Company.
Scranton Pa, May -, 1885
hir Cnas X kiLsiey. street Commis-
sioE.r. scranton, Ia.
Dear sir received from you on the 9th
inst Your notice under the same date To
the Providence and Abingdon Turnpike
and Flank Road company, as follows:
Il am advised by counsel that by the
opinion ia the case OF the Providence and
Abingdon 'rurnpik. and Flank Road COM
pCny vs. IN. city Of Scranton. that portion
OF the turnpike included In the contract
with the city Is to all intents and purposes
:, city street and subject to the same laws.
etc. a. other city streets.
II hereby holIiy You NOT To interfere Win
the same IN any way, as tn. city viii re-
pain its streets according 10 its legal OBJ
iIsationS.
desire to say To you that "" we're SUI,
prised at his notice and desire to state ~
you briefly some facts relating To this mat
ter
This turnpike company was organized
and duly Incorporated ami the road uuiit
long before the incorporation of the city
of Scranton.
ASREEMENT WAS. MADE
In the course of events al agrecmcnt
was made between the city OF Scranton
ana the turnpike company, with which you
are ianiliar, which contract provided that
the turnpike company should remove Us
tCll-satcs from within the city limits. LII
consideration o. " h!ch the city of Scran-
ton agreed to keep that portion Of the road
within tht city that Is below Leggetts
creek bridge III rtpair-in the same re-
par that the turnpike company, by its
charter and 10y law Is required to keep 1t.
In pursuance of the agreement the toll
gates were removed ana the city expended
some money upon that part of the road
IN rG'ait ing the same. After this nrst cN-
penulture tine city for some reason neglect
cd to fulhll its part OF the agreement.
Whereupon notice was given by the then
president of the company Hon. Henry NJ.
Palmer, that unless the city repaired the
road as provided in said agreement the
company would repair II al the expense Of
thc city of scranton The company went
on anu tNpenued some four thousand
tsiCON dollars the city refused to pay it
and IN due course L suit was brought in
the court OF common pleas Of Lackawanna
county, No. 1.2, September term, lSs-.
1n.s suit was brought by James ii. Tor
rcy and Henry VI. Palmer as attorneys for
thc Turnpike company and was pending
some years before anything was done with
II.
In the meantime the city did some little
repairing upon the street, but Il question
was raised by somebody as to the validity
Of the agreement. and claimed that the
city was not bound 10y its proper officers.
This question being raised. the city ny
It's proper officers submitted the validity
of the contract To the Honorable william
II. Jessup. AN eminent and able lawy-r
He fully examined the question and finally
gave his written opinion to the mayor sus,
tanning the contract ard holding that he
city was bound to fu!nll its terms On its
part.
OPINION or JUDGE JESSUP.
After this opinion was given by Judge
Jessup, !. as attorney and officer OF the
turnpike company submitted to the city
councils a proposition--tna as the attol-
ncy selected by the city had given his
opinion that the contract was binding
upon the city the only question remaining
was how much was due from the city to
the turnpike company. We were Willins
that the amount due be ascertained b.
Judge Jessup or by any diSinterested COM
pttcnt person whom the city might nomi-
nate. lhiS proposition submitted by me
was no, accepted by the city The only
course left was to Try the suit in court
II was therefore put upon the trial list and
tried before Judge Mcl'herson, one of the
ablest common pleas judges in this state.
Tne direct question as to the validity of
the agreement and whether it was bind
ihS upon me city or not was reviewed by
Judge McPhersOn, and after taking con-
siderable time he wrote a very able opin-
ion. sustaining the validity of the CON
TO Keep the ROAD in repair and If Ii failed
to do so the turnpike company should re
pair the road and charge the costs thereof
to the city, whereupon Judgment was on.
tered upon the verdict in favor of the
turnpike company.
This verdict and judgment was by reso.
| luton of both branches of the council ac-
cGpteu as linal but subsequently the coun-
| ell directed their attorney to take an ap-
| peal to the supreme court. The appeal
| was taken ana The supreme court, by his
| honor, Justice Green, fully affirmed the
opinion given by Judge Mcpherson and IN
| addition wrote an opinion fully aifirmin.;
| the validity of the contract tcstifying that
| II was binding upon the city. In other
| words the highest tribunal of this state
has decided that the city of Scranton is
| Dound by the agreement and by it Obliged
| TO Keep the street in repair any If no,
Kept IN repair that the turnpike company
may repair same and compel the city OF
scranton to pay the costs thereof.
BEFORE THE LOCAL. COURT
Before the decision was rendered by the
Supreme court question came before oul
| common pleas court upon a bill asking
| for an injunction.
| His honor, Judge Edwards wrote L
opinion affirming the validity OF the agree
! ment which was concurred in by all of ou,
| three able Judges. 1t therefore appears
that th.s contract has been affirmed as
| binding both upon the turnpike and the
| judges and the seven Judges of our Su
! prcmc court and also by at least three
| able law yeis.
| We know of but one attorney who holds
| a contrary opinion The Supreme court
| has said that the turnpike company was
| right i'll repairing the road when its re
| pair was neglected by the city and mad 1
| right TO SIZE the city and compel the city
! TO pay the costs OF repairs 1t would seen
| that there had been sufficient litigation i,
| this matter. Ii is certain that the tuIpi
pike company has done nothing but iul
| filled its part of the agreement and We Sc,
| no reason now why the city should not pa
| that part of the road below Leggett',
| creek bridge in good condition. such con
ditioA as the turnpike company is boun,
| &c keep II in,
| This is all We ask OF the city of Scrdn
| ton and II the city of Scranton will do a.
the Supreme court of this state has sal,
1t should do then the turnpike compan,
to protect its franchises and its right.
must enter upon the road and repair th,
| same and charge the costs thereof 10 tn,
| city.
| We want no more trouble in this regar.
| but II Ii is the disposition on the part y
the executive officers of the city to maxi
some pretense of repairing the road an,
still leave II in bad condition such as
Is now in. the turnpike company will eXer
else its rights and repair the road
Yours Truly,
". ". Watson.
| nr,<,t,..t,I,,at ,,,>