Groff v. Bird-in-Hand Turnpike Co.

Citations

• 128 Pa. 621
• 18 A. 431
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 826

Syllabus

<p>1. Property devoted to public use, including franchises, may be taken under the right of eminent domain for other public uses, but it cannot be so taken without legislative authority expressed in clear terms or necessarily implied.</p> <p>2. In construing a grant of corporate authority, the fact that a particular power is omitted from those enumerated in the charter, is to be given the effect of a prohibition against its exercise, unless there be an imperative implication of its inclusion.</p> <p>3. A turnpike company, incorporated under the act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 73, by a charter which specifies the termini of its roadway but is silent as to the intermediate route, cannot appropriate an existing public highway, merely to avoid the expense of acquiring a new route through private property.</p> <p>4. That such existing highway is in bad condition for travel, is no just ground for the exercise of the right, upon a proposal to substitute a better road therefor; it is the necessity for the new use, not the inadequate condition of the old road, that is the test of the power.</p> <p>5. Whether the act of April 29,1874, would authorize the issue of a charter granting an express power to take other corporate property or franchises, except incidentally and to such an extent only as would not destroy or impair the existing public use, not decided.</p> <p>6. The rule that only irreparable injuries may be enjoined, has no application to acts, especially corporate acts, entirely without authority, for which there is no adequate measure of damages at law; and equity will enjoin the unauthorized appropriation of a public road by a turnpike company, though irreparable damage 'may not result therefrom to any one.</p>