The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-10-19

statutes enacted pursuant thereto re-
lattng to public service corporations
provided new remedies, or old rights
and new tribunal, this commission,
in which to assert such rights There
fore, because remedial In their nature.
both the constitutional provisions and
the statutes should be construed lib
orally so as to make them effective.
according TO their true intent and pur-
pose.
1t is evident that this property is
II canal public water highway.
work of internal Improvement and a
public utility. II owned by cor
tporation the Jurisdiction of the COM
mission could not he questioned. 1t
Seems TO US equally evident beyond
"a doubt that the statutes referred To
give the commission the same juris-
dietlon ovM individuals who claim
iahd own such public utility as the
successor or corporation. as 1t would
have over the corporation to whose
title they succeed, fer beth in the
constitution and in the statutes the
Language seems to be almost exhaust
~ AL LIE tiloit 10 make IL plain that
the same provisions of Law which an
lpiF TO corporations engaged In the
pubic service apply as Well TO persons
engaged in the public service. or hold
ing property which has been dedi-
Gated 10 the public service. II seems
ioiear TO as that To sustain such mar
row construction as is commended for
by the defendants Is 10 stick in the
bark and To defeat the manifest ptir-
pose and intent of tho law We con-
fclude, therefore. that these defend
ants, as persons owning this dock
property. are under the jurisdiction
Of this com mission. because they ara
subject To tho laws OF TINS State gov
ernlng transportation companies ca
nal companies. works OF internal i'm
proveinent and works of public SER
vice, as well because they are per
sons using and occupying public
highway IN manner not permitted
10 the general public.
Irigg Made Successor,
The act of February ~. 1879 au-
thorizing the stchmond and Allie
shany Railroad Company 10 buy the
James River and kanawha Canal
property, by providing for an undi-
minfshed supply OF water in the ca
nal from Bosher's dam To tidawater
and by prohibiting any increase in
the rate of dockage by plain, ire
ststlbie implication. we think, REQUIRED
the dock 10 he kept open. bat when
IL was subsequently proposed 10 con
FeY the property 10 the Trigg Com
pany, this plain and Irresistible inn
plieation was by the General AS
sembly enlarged into an express de.
Eclaration in the act of February "a
1871, whereby, In addition To the con-
: !oltons imposed In the act Of Zebra
airy u, 1879. IL was provided that the
EIrigg Company should be regarded in
J law as the successor OF the Rich
mond DOCK Company and the James
, River and kanaWha Company and
that the successors and assigns of the
, Trigg Company. as respects the Rich
mond deck, should be subject TO all
OF the duties imposed upon the said
Richmond Dock Company.
stu further To emphasize this leg
islatire purpose It was provided that
the William r. Trigg Company should
he made party TO the conveyance for
the purpose OF expressing its accep-
lance on behalf of itself. its. success
sors and assigns, OF the duties and
obligations referred to and then to
be assumed and performed. So that
by this transaction these duties and
obligations assumed the form Of an
express contract which, in our judg-
,nent. Was Intended Ia hlnd. aud does
bind. the defendants, the SUCCESSORS
in title Of the Trigg Company. So
that when the Trigg Company under
, took to convey the property 1t could
only convey the title which it pos
sessed subject TO all of the burdens
imposed by that contract. The pub
lie use thus attached to the property
; in our Judgment, follows It, and the
Chancery Court Of Richmond could
only sell and did only sell the property
: subject to such public uses. n our
opinion this use so attaches to the
property itself under the various acts
referred to. and under the contract Of
the Trigg Company, that it can only
. be discharged therefrom by authority
! Of the General Assembly of Virginia.
Must Restore Canal.
/ We have neither reviewed nor re-
) ferred to the cases cited by counsel.
because we think that all of the issues
fairly arising under the pleadinss in
this proceeding are definitely settled
by the constitution and statutes OF
this State relating To public service
corporations. The cases are instruc-
tive and not in conflict with the writ
ten law of the State. hut II such con-
flict exists the constitution and
!, statutes are controlling.
. Inc evidence SHOWS tnat the delcn-
! dants are negligent in the perfor-
, nance of their duty to the public,
. imposed upon them as owners OF the
property by the statutes and contract
referred to. in failing to repair The
entrance or approach to the canal or
dock. having permitted the. gate nl
the eastern lock to become so weak
as to make Its Use so dangerous that
the dock has been closed 1t Ia their
manifest duty TO repair this gate SO
I az to restore the canal or dock TO
. public use. and the commission viii
/ lenter aU order directing Thorn 10 dis
charge that duty.
Commissioners Rhea and Wingfeid
CONCUR 3