Case Name: The Union Railway Company and the Chester Traction Company v. the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1898-10-17
Citations: 188 Pa. 115
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 200
Parties: The Union Railway Company and the Chester Traction Company v. the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
The Union Railway Company and the Chester Traction Company v. the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company, Appellant.
October 17, 1898 :
Railroads — Street railways — Grade crossings- — Equity—Act of June 19, 1871.
A court of equity will not authorize the construction of a grade crossing by an electric railway company over a stream railroad in a city of twenty-five thousand inhabitants, where it appears that at the proposed crossing one hundred passenger trains and nearly the same number of freight trains pass in twenty-four hours; that the electric railway carries over three million passengers in a year; that the electric railway company has a grade crossing only twenty feet from the proposed crossing, and another crossing four squares distant; that the proposed crossing is sought by the electric railway company solely to promote convenience in operating its road; that it is reasonably practicable to avoid the grade by an overhead crossing.
Argued Feb. 9, 1898.
Appeal, No. 200, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Delaware Co.,.June T., 1896, No. 5, on bill in equity.
Before Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
Reversed.
Bill in equity under tlie act of June 19,1871, for a decree to regulate the construction and maintenance of a grade crossing. Before Clayton, P. J.
The facts of the case and the decree of the court are similar to those in Chester Traction Company v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Company, ante, p. 105.
Error assigned was the decree authorizing and regulating the crossing.
J. B. Ilannum, for appellant.
IF. B. Broomall, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
There is but little difference in the facts of this case, from those in No. 199, January term, 1897, between the same par ties, ante, p. 105, in which a decree has been this day handed down. The plaintiff proposes to construct a crossing on Edgmont avenue, a north and south street, though not a straight one, as is Welsh street in the other case; it already has a grade crossing on Market street, only twenty feet from the proposed avenue crossing, and another on Potter street, four squares east. This one is sought solely to promote convenience in operating their road; the danger to the public and the injury to the steam road are just as great as in the other case ; besides, it is reasonably practicable to avoid the grade by an overhead crossing.
The decree of the court below is reversed and injunction dissolved at costs of appellee.