Porter v. Dawson Bridge Co.

Citations

• 157 Pa. 367
• 27 A. 730
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1426

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Bridges — Tolls—Acts of April 17, 1876, April 29, 1874.</p> <p>Under the act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 90, as amended by the act of April 17, 1876, P. L. 34, a bridge company cannot charge, in addition to the toll for vehicles, a toll for passengers carried by the vehicle, upon the ground that such passengers are foot passengers.</p> <p>Statutory penalties — Tolls—Bridges—Police regulation — Public policy— Excessive fines— Constitutional law — Art. 1, § 13.</p> <p>Where an act imposes penalties upon bridge companies for overcharge of toll, the legislative intent is not to reward the persons subjected to the overcharge, but to repress the unlawful practice for purely public reasons, and for that purpose one penalty judicially declared, is sufficient. The courts will not encourage the practice of accumulating a large number of penalties and bringing one action to recover the whole mass.</p> <p>Defendant, a bridge company, demanded and collected from plaintiif, at five different times, certain sums as tolls due for driving over defendant's bridge, with a two or a four horse vehicle, at various times preceding the several dates of payment. In these sums wore included charges for the passengers carried in the vehicle at the rate of two cents for each passenger. During the period of the charges plaintiff carried five hundred and seventy-nine passengers. Plaintiff claimed to recover ten dollars penalty for each overcharge as provided by the act of April 17, 1876, P. L. 90. In the lower court he recovered a verdict and judgment for $5,760. Defendant appealed. Held, that as only five payments had been made, defendants should only be subjected to five penalties.</p> <p>It seems that in such a case it is perhaps doubtful whether any more than one penalty should be allowed.</p> <p>Query whether the rate claimed would not have been an excessive fine and therefore unconstitutional.</p>