Case Name: W. W. GROFF ET AL. v. BIRD-IN-HAND TURNP. Co.
Court: Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1891-10-05
Citations: 144 Pa. 150
Docket Number: No. 92
Parties: W. W. GROFF ET AL. v. BIRD-IN-HAND TURNP. Co.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 150–158

Head Matter:
W. W. GROFF ET AL. v. BIRD-IN-HAND TURNP. Co.
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFFS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY.
Re-argued May 18, 1891
Decided October 5, 1891.
[To be reported.]
A turnpike company, incorporated under the act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 78, by a charter which specifies the termini of its roadway but is silent as to the intermediate route, cannot appropriate an existing public highway between the termini, to avoid the necessity of acquiring a new route through private property: Groff’s App., 128 Pa. 621, affirmed: Mr. Chief Justice Paxson and Mr Justice Green dissenting.
Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
No. 92 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, Equity Docket No. 2, page 271, C. P. in Equity.
After the opinion was filed in Groff’s App., 128 Pa. 621, the petition of the defendant company, joined in by nine other turnpike companies, was filed, praying for a re-argument of the cause; whereupon, on May 7, 1890, an order was made for a re-argument before a full bench.
In the former report of the case, the facts as found by the master were stated fully, but it is suggested that the following facts appearing should not have been omitted, to wit:
Application was first made to the governor for a charter of incorporation of the Bird-in-Hand Turnpike Company, to construct and maintain a turnpike between two points named on the “Old Philadelphia Road,” with express power to occupy said road between such termini. After a hearing and argument for the company, and on behalf of taxpayers opposed to the grant, the governor refused to issue the charter applied for. Another application was then made for incorporation “ for the purpose of constructing and maintaining an artificial road, or turnpike of stone, gravel and earth, to commence at a point at the terminus of the Bridgeport & Horse Shoe turnpike, in East Lampeter township, in the county of Lancaster, and end at the township line between East Lampeter and Leacock townships, in the county of Lancaster, near the village of Bird-in-Hand, a distance of about three and one half miles. The whole of said proposed road is situated in Lancaster county.”
The terminal points mentioned were on the old Philadelphia road. Upon this application, a charter was granted on September 21,1885, under the act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 73, and duly recorded in the recorder’s office for Lancaster county on September 23,1885. It was stated in the appellee’s paper-book that a string drawn from one of the terminal points to the other would lie on the bed of the old Philadelphia road for the whole distance, save at one point where private property projected a little further in one direction than at other points.
The company was organized, and, by October 5, 1885, when the plaintiffs’ bill in this case was filed (about two weeks after the charter was obtained)^ it had commenced the construction of its turnpike on the bed of the old Philadelphia road, and had expended about nine thousand dollars in the work. No preliminary injunction being awarded on the filing of the bill (so far as appeared from the paper-books), the company continued its work, and on the completion of the road, at a cost of about twenty thousand dollars, applied to the Court of Quarter Sessions for the appointment of viewers and for an order authorizing the erection of toll-gates, under clause 5, § 30, act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 86. The application was held over until the final disposition of the pending bill in equity.
Mr. W. U. Sensei (with him Mr. J. Say Brown, Mr. B. F. Davis and Mr. S. M. Souser), for the appellants.
In addition to the authorities cited on the former argument, counsel cited: Pittsb. Junction R. Co.’s App., 122 Pa. 531; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Haller, 82 Ill. 212 ; Boston & Alb. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 579; Boston & Me. R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 124 Mass. 373 ; Cheshire v. County Commissioners, 118 Mass. 392; Fall River I. Works v. Railroad Co., 5 Allen 221; Cleveland etc. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. 325 ; Commonwealth v. Canal Co., 21 Pa. 127; New York etc. R. Co. v. Young, 33 Pa. 175.
Mr. S. M. North (with him Mr. 8. S. Reynolds, Mr. D. McMullen and Mr. Owen B. Jenkins), for the appellee.
That, the termini of the road having been fixed by the charter, its intermediate location was left to the discretion of the directory, counsel cited: New York etc. R. Co. v. Young, 38 Pa. 175; Cleveland etc. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. 325; Pittsb. etc. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. 583; § 2, act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 555. That a turnpike road was a public highway and could not be closed against public use: Pittsb. etc. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. 586; and here was no destruction of an existing use : Cane v. Plankroad Co., 2 Ohio 419; Mills on Em. Dom., § 34; Angell on Highways, 3d ed., 98; nor was the payment of tolls an interference with the public use: Mills on Em. Dom., § 34; McClenachan v. Curwin, 3 Y. 362, 373; Cleveland etc. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. 325; Struthers v. Railway Co., 87 Pa. 282.

Opinion:
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Mitchell:
The re-argument and further consideration have failed to change our views, and we therefore adhere to the opinion and judgment heretofore filed in this case.