The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-08-30

"
to do some other illegal act, a court
OF equity has no authority to interfere
with the exercise OF such statutory
rights. If the defendant shall here
after he found abusing It's charter
privileges In violation of the act Great
ing 1t, the commonwealth, through lite
attorney general, is the power to he
invoked for the proper remedy" And
so we are clearly of opinion that The
Scranton and Northeastern Railroad
company has the right under the law
TO exercise the right of eminent domain
In obtaining a right Of way for it's rail
road.
AS TO PROCEDURE.
The next question: to be considered
Is: Has the Scranton and Northeast
ern Railroad company taken such steps
In the exercise of its power or eminent
domain, which vest in II a rsht of way
over the lands In question as against
the plaintiff water company? Mr.. Jus
tice Williams, In Wlliamsport, etc. r..
co. VS. Phila., etc. r. CO., l4i Pa. 4O7,
lays down the law upon this subject
very clearly. He says: THE import
ant question presented by this appeal
is. What constitutes valid location.
on the ground, OF "A projected line Of
railroadp 1t iS singular that such q
question should be to any extent an
open one In n state remarka bic as
Pennsylvania Is for the number ana
extent OF It's railroads. The act Of loca-
tion is an appropriation of private
property. by virtue of the right of emil
nent domain with which the state has
invested the railroad company, either
by the act Of incorpora tion or by vir-
tue of general laws. The requisites Of
| valid location may be considered
first with reference TO the private
| owners upon ir over whose lands the
lao ft,,v, 10. 1ns a,,I .,,l,
erence to third parties and other COR
porat tons.
The successive steps contemplated by
! the Act of 1S49 and subsequent legis-
lation, as necessary TO vest title to
| the roadway in the corpora ton, are
| these:
|. A preliminary entry on the lands
| OF private owners for the purpose of
| exploration This is made by engineers
and surveyors who run and mark one
or more experimental lines, and who
| report their work. with such maps and
| profiles as may he necessary to pre-
sent 1t properly to the company that
| employs them.
| .. A selection and adoption of a line.
| or one of the lines so run, as and for
the location of the proposed railroad.
| This is done by the corporation, and il
| requires the action in some form of the
board OF directors. This makes wha /
was before experimental and open, a
| fixed and definite location. It fastens
a servitude upon the property affected
| thereby, and so takes from the owner
and appropriates to the use of the cor
| pora tion.
| 3. Payment to the owner for what Is
taken and the consequences of the
| taking, or security that il shall be
| made when the amount due him is
| legally ascerta ined.
MUST BE COMPLETED
| The title Of the owner is not divested
| until the last of these steps has been
taken: Levering VS.. Railroad Co.. $
| w. q s. 459; McClnton VS.. Railway
| Co. Sc Pa. 404 Dimmick VS.. Broad
head IS Pa. 464; Buffalo. etc, r. co.
vs.. Harvey. 1O7 Pa. 3l9; Gilmore VS..
Railroad Co., 10+ Pa. 275. As against
| him, the corporation can acquire only
a conditional title by its act Of loca -
ton, which ripens into an absolute one
| upon making compensation.
AS to third persons and rival cor
| porationS however, the action of the
company adopting a definite location
| enough to give title For this reason,
in several of the United States pro-
| vision is made by law for recording
the action of the company and the line
adopted by it, SO as to give notice Ia
| the public. and to settle questions of
priority of title. We have no such
| statute and the action of the com
| pany must be proved by other com
petent evidence: Heise VS.. Railroad
| CO., SO Pa. -. But when proved II
| has the same effect upon all interested
as though 1t had been recorded. II
settles the date of actual appropriation
and shows the exact location of the
line of the road proposed. An exam
ination OF our own cases will show
that the conclusions we have reached
are fairly deducible from them. In \
| Y, etc, K. 60. vs.. Young. 33 Pa 115
It was held that the location of the
line of its road is ntrusted by the law
To the company alone: and after it has
exercised the discretionary power con.
fided to it, its action is final as to thirt
persons, and cannot be reviewed. The
same doctrine was agan asserted ir
cleveland. etc. X. co. VS. Speer. 56 Pa
325, and 1t has been adopted in manN
subsequent cases. The effect of a loca.
tiOn, when made, so far as the line and
| the ground covered by il are con.
cerned, was considered in Pttsburg
etc, Ry. Co. vs.. Commonwealth. 10
Pa. 1872; and it was held the act Of the
company in adopting a definite anC
permanent location for it's road was n
appropriation OF the ground covered
by il. whether such ground was withir
the enclosure of a private owner. or II
the public highway. In other words
this is the method by which the cor
poration exercises the power OF emf
nent domain with which the state in
vested it at its creation. and take.
what before belonged to others for it.
corporate use
THAT corporation cannot exerCis.
the power to appropriate land until i
has located it's line, is Well settled
Thus, If a company has an option be
tween two or more lines or routes /
must make its election by an actua
adoption Of one of them before it car
acquire title by appropriation upor
either: | Redf on Railways, 240. TIL,
reason for this is. that the act of loca