Case Name: Ledlie v. Monongahela Navigation Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1847-09-20
Citations: 6 Pa. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ledlie v. Monongahela Navigation Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Ledlie v. Monongahela Navigation Company.
The 10th section of the act of 1836, incorporating the Monongahela Navigation Company, is supplied by the 5th section of the act of 1839; and the company is authorized by the latter act to collect tolls on so much of the work as may have been completed.
In error from the District Court of Allegheny county.
Sept. 14. This was an action by the defendants in error to recover tolls from the defendant for the use of their works. A point was reserved whether a report of commissioners and license from the governor were necessary before proceeding to collect tolls.
In the act of 1836, sect. 10, under which the company was chartered, it was provided that so soon as twenty miles of the navigation had been completed, the company should give notice to the governor, who should appoint persons to examine if the work had been properly done; and upon their report in the affirmative, the governor might authorize the company to collect tolls.
In the act of 1839, sect. 5, which is a supplemental charter, it was provided, when the navigation, or any portion thereof, shall be completed, the company shall be authorized to receive reasonable tolls.
By the 12th section, so much of the former act as is thereby altered or supplied, is repealed.
The court (Grier, P. J.) was of opinion the act of 1839 repealed the provision in the act of 1836, above mentioned, and gave judgment for the plaintiff, and this was the error assigned.
Shader, for plaintiff in error.
There was no inconsistency between the two acts, but both may be read together. There is therefore no reason to hold the former act repealed by the latter; especially as this provision is a common one in similar charters, and consistent with the policy of the state.
Williams, contra.
There is a manifest inconsistency in allowing tolls to be collected for so much of the work as has been completed, and in not allowing them until twenty miles has been completed. It is a grant of a new franchise, and hence repealed the former restricted one, by the express terms of the 12th section.
Sept. 20.

Opinion:
Burnside, J.
The supplement to the act entitled " An act to authorize the governor to incorporate a company to make a lock navigation on the river Monongahela," passed the 24th June, 1839, was a direct grant and charter from the legislature. It repealed all portions of the original act, which the supplement altered and supplied. It cured all defects and irregularities in the proceedings of the commissioners. It changed the name, style, and title of the company; permitted the company to alter the height 'of the dhms from four and a half to eight feet from pool to pool below Brownsville; and it authorized the company, when the navigation of any portion of it was completed, to receive such rates of toll per mile, as, at their discretion, might be just and reasonable, subject to the control and regulation of the legislature.
In pursuance of this enactment, the moment the first dam and lock was completed, the company had a right to demand and receive a reasonable toll per mile from all persons navigating the pool of the dam.
The supplement changed the plan of executing the work, and authorized the company to demand and receive toll without the license of the governor. The legislature have laid down a plain rule, and it becomes the duty of the people using the navigation to obey it. It is the province of the courts to enforce that obedience.
Judgment affirmed.