Williamsport R. Co. v. Phila. R. Co.

Citations

• 141 Pa. 407
• 21 A. 645
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1079

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. In the taking of land for the construction of a railroad, the appropriation, as against the landowner, is valid and effective when compensation for the taking and the injury thereby is made or secured: Levering v. Railroad Co., 8 W. & S. 459; McClinton v. Railway Co., 66 Pa. 404; Dim-mick v. Brodhead, 75 Pa. 464; Gilmore v. Railroad Co., 104 Pa. 275; Buffalo etc. R. Co. v. Harvey, 107 Pa. 319.</p> <p>2. But, as against a rival corporation, the act of locating a route for a railroad is the appropriation of the land covered by the line to the purposes of the construction and operation of the railroad, by virtue of the power of eminent domain; and there can bo no appropriation prior to the location of such line.</p> <p>3. The making of a location, so as to give title to one railroad company as against another, however, involves some corporate action on the part of the company establishing and adopting some definite route: an engineer alone, by surveying and marking a line, cannot make a location and effect a valid appropriation of the land.</p> <p>4. Wherefore, when the chief engineer of a railroad company surveyed and staked out the centre line of a jnoposed railroad, and returned a map thereof to the office of the company, but no action was taken by the board of directors adopting the location, the act of the engineer conferred no title as against a rival corporation.</p> <p>5. In such case, in the absence of a location of its right of way by corporate action, a railroad company has no standing to ask for an injunction restraining another company from proceeding regularly to appropriate land for its roadway, even though the land in question may be owned by the plaintiff company.</p> <p>6. When, in abill in equity praying for such an injunction, the defendant answered denying that the plaintiff had “ ever made a valid and legal location of the line of its railroad ” upon the land in question, such denial distinctly raised the question wh