Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/132/75/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:28:09+00:00

Document:
Neither the charter of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, contained in an Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed April 13, 1846, Laws of 1846, No. 252, p. 312, nor the acts supplementary thereto, nor the Act of that legislature passed May 16, 1857, Laws of 1807, No. 579, p. 519, constituted such a contract between the state and the company as exempted the latter from the operation of Section 8 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania of 1573, requiring that corporations invested with the privilege of taking private property for public use should make compensation for property injured or destroyed by the construction or enlargement of their works, highways or improvements; nor did such constitutional provision, as applied to the company, in respect to cases afterwards arising, impair the obligation of any contract between it and the state.
The company took its original charter subject to the general law of the state, and to such changes as might be made in such general law, and subject to future constitutional provisions and future general legislation, since there was no prior contract with it exempting it from liability to such future general legislation in respect of the subject matter involved.
Exemption from future general legislation, either by a constitutional provision or by an act of the legislature, cannot be admitted to exist unless it is expressly given or unless it follows by an implication equally clear with express words.
defendant, to transport freight and passengers in cars drawn by steam locomotives; that Twenty-Third Street and Filbert Street at the place in question, were public highways of the City of Philadelphia; that the construction by the defendant of the elevated railroad, and of the abutment and pier for the support of the bridge superstructure, and the operation and use of the elevated railroad to transport freight and passengers in cars drawn by steam locomotives, and the noise, burning cinders, smoke, dust, and dirt incident to the use of such railroad, had injured the plaintiff in the enjoyment of his premises, and had rendered the same incommodious, and of little or no value to him, and had deprived him of the free use of Filbert Street as a highway, and of free access to and from the wharves on the riverfront of his property, by the river as well as by Filbert Street, and had greatly depreciated the value of the wharves, and that the injuries were committed on the 1st of June, 1881, and at all times since.
The elevated railroad in question was built by the defendant in 1880 and 1881, and was opened for freight in April, 1881, and for passengers in December, 1881. It is known as the "Filbert Street Extension," and crosses the Schuylkill River a short distance above Market Street, and ends at Broad Street. From Twenty-First Street west to the river, the tracks were laid upon a structure of wooden and iron beams directly over the cartway of the street, and were sustained by iron pillars, some 18 inches square, resting upon the footway inside of the curb line. This was the case along the whole length of the south side of the plaintiff's property, the structure being some 40 feet high, and the railing or guard along the track coming within one or two feet of the wall the plaintiff's building. None of the plaintiff's property was actually taken by the defendant, but the action was brought for the consequential damages caused by the construction of the railroad and its use and operation.
p. 312, and by virtue of a further Act of that legislature passed May 16, 1857, Laws 1857, No. 579, p. 519.
The case was tried before a court and the jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $20,000, for which amount, with costs, he had judgment. On a writ of error, the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Railroad Co. v. Duncan, 111 Penn.St. 352, and the defendant has brought the case to this Court by a writ of error to the court of first instance, to which the record had been remitted. Duncan having died, his administrator has been substituted as defendant in error.
The federal question involved is whether the acts of 1846 and 1857 constituted a contract between the state and the defendant relieving the defendant from liability in this suit, and whether such contract was of such a character that its obligation could not be impaired by subsequent legislation by the state.
It is first necessary to see what are the provisions of the statutes on which the defendant relies.
"provided that such compensation shall be made, secured, or tendered to the owner or owners of any such lands or materials as shall be agreed upon between the parties, or in such manner as is hereafter mentioned; provided further that the timber used in the construction or repair of said railroad shall be obtained from the owners thereof only by agreement or purchase."
lateral railroads or branches, leading from the main line of their said railroad, to such convenient place or points, in either of the counties into or through which the said main line of their road may pass, as the president and directors may deem advantageous and suited to promote the convenience of the inhabitants thereof, and the interests of said company."
"That if said railroad company shall find it necessary to change the site of any portion of any turnpike or public road, they shall cause the same to be reconstructed forthwith at their own proper expense on the most favorable location, and in as perfect a manner as the original road, provided that the damages incurred in changing the location of any road authorized by this section shall be ascertained and paid by said company in the same manner as is provided for in regard to the location and construction of their own road."
By § 1 of an Act passed April 12, 1851, Laws 1851, No. 297, p. 518, it was provided that the 5th section of the act of 1848 should be so construed as to include the streets, lanes, and alleys in any town, borough, or city through which the road passed.
"That, should any company already incorporated by this commonwealth become the purchaser of said main line, they shall possess, hold, and use the same under the provisions of their act of incorporation, and any supplements thereto, modified, however, so as to embrace all the privileges, restrictions, and conditions granted by this act in addition thereto, and all provisions in said original act and any supplements inconsistent with the privileges herein granted shall be, and the same are hereby, repealed."
"Municipal and other corporations and individuals invested with the privilege of taking private property for public use shall make just compensation for property taken, injured, or destroyed by the construction or enlargement of their works, highways, or improvements, which compensation shall be paid or secured before such taking, injury, or destruction."
municipal corporations, but also then existing "other corporations." It further held that the defendant did not derive its authority to build the branch road in question, from the western side of the Schuylkill River through Filbert Street, from the act of 1846, because that act embraced only the power to build and operate a road from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, but that it derived such authority from the Act of May, 1857, in the 11th section thereof, before quoted, and that the convention which made the Constitution of 1873 had the power to subject the defendant's exercise of the right of eminent domain to the provision that it should make just compensation not only for the property which it might choose to "take," in the strict sense of that word, but also for such as it might injure or destroy.
in cases which should arise after the exercise of such power. But the defendant took its original charter subject to the general law of the state, and to such changes as might be made in such general law, and subject to future constitutional provisions or future general legislation, since there was no prior contract with the defendant exempting it from liability to such future general legislation in respect of the subject matter involved.
This principle is well set forth in the opinion of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, given by them in answer to a question submitted to them by the Senate of that commonwealth in In re Provident Institution for Savings, 9 Cush. 604. See also Nelson v. Vermont & Canada Railroad, 26 Vt. 717; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington Railroad, 27 Vt. 140; Branin v. Connecticut & Passumpsic Railroad, 31 Vt. 214; Frankford Railway v. The City, 58 Penn.St. 119; Baltimore & Susquehanna Railroad v. Nesbit, 10 How. 395, 51 U. S. 399-400; Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166; Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 168, 95 U. S. 170; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 97 U. S. 32-33; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548, 100 U. S. 557; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512; 1 Hare's American Const.Law 609, 610; 2 Morawetz on Private Corporations, 2d ed. §§ 1062, 1065, 1067; Cooley's Const.Lim., 4th ed. *574, 716.
for damages for injuries causing death, which result from negligence, upon corporations which had not been previously subjected by their charters to such liability. Boston, Concord &c. Railroad v. State, 32 N.H. 215; Southwestern Railroad v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356; Duncan v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 94 Penn.St. 435; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174; Cooley's Const.Lim., 4th ed. *581, 724; 1 Hare's American Const.Law 421.
Nor will the exemption claimed from future general legislation, either by a constitutional provision or by an act of the legislature, be admitted to exist unless it is expressly given or unless it follows by an implication equally clear with express words. In the present case, the statutory provisions existing prior to the Constitution of 1873 in favor of the defendant cannot be properly interpreted so as to hold that the state parted with its prerogative of imposing the liability in question in regard to future transactions. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet, 514; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420; Christ Church v. Philadelphia, 24 How. 300; Gilman v. City of Sheboygan, 2 Black 510; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548, 100 U. S. 561; 2 Hare's American Const.Law, 661, 663, 664.
"The whole main line of the public works between the said Cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, in the State of Pennsylvania, consisting of the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad, the Allegheny Portage Railroad, including the new road to avoid the inclined planes, with the necessary and convenient width for the proper use of said railroads, the eastern division of the Pennsylvania Canal, from Columbia to the junction, the Juniata division of the Pennsylvania Canal, from the junction to the eastern terminus of the Allegheny Portage Railroad, and the western division of the Pennsylvania Canal, from the western terminus of the Allegheny Portage Railroad to Pittsburgh, and including also the right, title, and interest of the commonwealth in the bridge over the Susquehanna at Duncan's Island, together with the same interest in the surplus water power of said canals, with the right to purchase and hold such lands as may be necessary to make the same available, and all the reservoirs, machinery, locomotives, cars, trucks, stationary engines, workshops, tools, water stations, toll houses, offices, stock, and materials whatsoever and wheresoever thereunto belonging, or held for the use of the same, and together with all the right, title, interest, claim, and demands of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to all property -- real, personal, and mixed -- belonging unto or used in connection with the same by the said commonwealth, and together with all and singular other the buildings, improvements, powers, authorities, ways, means, and remedies, estates and interests, rights, members, incidents, liberties, privileges, easements, franchises, emoluments, reversions, remainders, rents, issues, profits, hereditaments, and appurtenances, of what name, nature, or kind soever thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, which by force and virtue of the said recited act of assembly, and the provisions thereof, were meant and intended, and of right ought to be, hereby assigned and transferred therewith."

References: v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.