American Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co.

Bartol C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the appellant, and prays that the appellees may he enjoined and prohibited from demanding or receiving from the appellant higher rates for transporting coal over the road of the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, than are fixed and prescribed by the Act of 1876, ch. 64. Some of the questions involved in this appeal are the same as those which have been considered in the case of The State vs. The Consolidation Coal Company, at the present term ; and the decision of that case in a great measure governs and concludes this. ²¹ We have there decided. lsi. That the deed dated March 2nd 1876, from the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company to the Consolidation Coal Company, was inoperative and void, for the want of power and authority in the railroad company under its charter to make it. 2nd.

That the latter is a subsisting corporation, vested with the title to its franchises and property, and charged with the performance of its duties and obligations to the public, in the same manner as if the deed had not been executed. 3rd!. That under the reservation in the act of incorporation, the Legislature has the power to alter or amend the charter of the company, and that the Act of 1876, ch. 64, was passed in the exercise of that power and is valid, unless for the reasons assigned by the appellees in this case it is unconstitutional. The question of the constitutionality of the Act was not passed upon in the case of the State vs. The Consolidation Coal Company. In this case the constitutionality of that Act and of the Act of 1876, ch. 80, is assailed by the appellee upon the alleged ground that they are laws impairing the obligation of a contract, prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, and because they are alleged to be repugnant to the provision of the same Constitution, which declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and it is further alleged that they are in violation both of the Constitution of this State and of the United States, which forbid private property to be taken for public use without just compensation.

These objections are based on the alleged fact, that the reduction of the rates of toll and prices of transportation on the railroad prescribed by the Act of 1876, ch. 64, is unjust and unreasonable, and would operate, if enforced, to diminish the revenue and receipts of the company to ²² such an extent, as would he most disastrous to the company, and would prevent it from maintaining the road in a complete, and thorough condition of efficiency and repair, so as to perform its obligations to the public, pay interest on its large bonded debt, and return a fair and proper dividend to its stockholders. It is argued that the power of amending the charter reserved by the Legislature, must be construed as limited by the above considerations, and that the question of what are reasonable rates for transportation is not one to be determined by the