Hamilton v. Annapolis & Elk Ridge Rail Road

Eccleston, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The court decline expressing any opinion in regard to the motion to dismiss this appeal because they think the complainant is not entitled to the relief asked for by him, even if the decision upon this motion, should be against the appellee. The two sums assessed by the juries as damages, to be paid by the appellees to the complainant, with the interest thereon, having been fully paid, in obedience to the decree of the chancellor, and satisfaction having been entered for the same, as appears by the record, there is no longer any controversy between the parties in relation to the damages so assessed. The questions remaining for our consideration, are: 1st.

Whether the complainant is entitled to the house claimed by him, which the appellees erected at the junction of their road with the Baltimore and Washington rail road ? 2ndly. If the complainant is not entitled to the said house ; then, whether he has a right to an injunction to restrain or prevent the using of that house as a tavern ? On the first question, to sustain the complainant’s right to the house, it has been contended that it had never been used as a warehouse for the storage of goods or articles intended for transportation; that there was no necessity for such a warehouse or depot at that place ; and the only use made of the building in connection with the rail road, was, for passengers occasionally to pass through or remain in. That the charter did not authorise the erection of a building for the convenience or protection of passengers simply.

The act of 1836, ch. 298, is that which incorporates this company; and the 5th sec., makes the act of 1826, ch. 123, from the 14th to the 23d section, inclusive, a part of the charter of the company. - ⁵⁶⁰ We have been referred particularly to the 14th section of 1826, ch. 123, for the purpose of showing that the appellees had a right to condemn land, on which to build warehouses and other works, necessary for the construction and repair of the road, but not to erect a house or houses for the protection or convenience of passengers. This section gives the company the right to “enter upon and use, and excavate any land which may be wanted for the site of said road, or the erection of warehouses or other works necessary to said road, or for other purposes necessary or useful in the construction or repair of said road or its works.” It is insisted that a correct interpretation of this language will not authorise the erection of a building for the use of passengers only. Such a building is not included in the expression of “warehouses or other works necessary to said road, or for other purposes necessary or useful in the construction or repair of said road or its works.” We need not stop- to enquire, whether this view of the section here alluded to, be correct or not. This fourteenth section is not the only one which contains a grant of power to the company on this subject.

The seventeenth section of the same act is equally a part of the charter. And here the company are expressly authorised “to have, use or occupy any lands, materials or other property in order to the construction or repair of any part of said road or roads, or their works or necessary buildings.” The important enquiry, therefore, is, whether the house in controversy, is a building necessary to the construction of the rail road. By the constructions of the road, we wish to be understood as meaning to include its existence as a road, with all its essential appurtenances. It stands at the terminus of the road, at its junction with the Baltimore and Washington rail road.

Persons from the surrounding country, some having a short distance to travel, others many miles, in their own vehicles', over common roads, intending to take the cars for Annapolis, cannot be expected at all seasons of the year, whether the roads are in bad or good order, to arrive precisely when the cars are ready to start. Although the hour of starting may ⁵⁶¹ be published and generally known, accidents or special circumstances of some kind, may, and often will, occasion unavoidable delay. A change in the hour of leaving, will sometimes render it necessary for persons to wait at the junction. Nor can it be expected that the trains from Baltimore and Washington will be so arranged as to arrive just in time for the passengers to pass immediately from them to the cars, in readiness, to go at once to Annapolis.

Under such circumstances, it is not only a convenience, but indispensably necessary to have a building at such a point, for the protection of travellers from exposure to bad weather. And therefore, clearly within the language of the seventeenth section, which provides for necessary buildings. We cannot subscribe to the doctrine that such a house at this place is less a matter of absolute necessity, than a warehouse for the storage of goods, or a depot in which to preserve the cars from exposure to the weather, at any point on the road; and it has been conceded on the part of the appellant, that under the charter, the company have the right to build a warehouse or a depot. It has been said in argument that this is a private corporation.

And authorities have been referred to for the purpose of establishing the position, that the company can claim no “rights except such as are specially granted, and those that are necessary to carry into effect the powers granted; and that all grants of authority to them must be strictly construed.” It is not perceived that these principles are at all impugned by deciding that the company were authorised to erect the building now in dispute. The charter, in express terms, having given the right to construct necessary buildings, the only question to be settled is, whether a house is necessary, not convenient merely, but absolutely necessary for the protection of passengers from inclement weather, at the Junction, as it is usually called. Of which necessity, we entertain no doubt. The case of Rail Road vs. Berks county, 6 Barr., 70, was much relied upon for the purpose of sustaining the position, that the house in controversy, is not one of those necessary ⁵⁶² buildings which is provided for by the 17th sec. of 1826, ch. 123.

The main question in the case referred to, was designed to ascertain what species of property owned by the rail road company, was subject to taxation. It is well known that in such controversies, the courts are strongly disposed to favor the pretensions of the State; and it is not to be supposed that they will release from taxation, any property which is not clearly exempt by law. And yet on this occasion, an office used for the sale of passenger-tickets, and for the accommodation of passengers, was held not liable to assessment. On page 73, the court of common pleas declared, that the workshop in South-East Ward is liable to taxation, but that the passenger depot is not.

That so much of the property in North-East Ward as is occupied for the purposes of a freight depot, wood and coal-yard, coal-shutes and an oil office, is not subject to assessment. And that the depot in Centre Township, and the water stations in Upper Bern, are not liable to taxation. On page 75, the Supreme court say: “The judge was right in determining that the water stations and depots of the rail road were not taxable. We understand depots so exempt from taxation, as the offices, the oil houses, and places to hold cars, and such buildings and places as may fairly be deemed necessary and indispensable to the construction of the road.

Warehouses, coal-lots, coal-shutes, machine shops, wood-yards and such places, form no part of the construction of the road. They are only indispensable to the profits to be made by the company, and are legitimate subjects of taxation within the act of 1844. They are not appertinent to the road, but to the business done upon it. So far then, as this opinion changes the opinion of the common pleas, on the case stated, the judgment is reversed, but no further.” Thus it appears that the Supreme court affirm the decision of the court below in exempting the office or depot for the accommodation of passengers.

And this exemption is based upon the ground that it is appertinent and indispensable to the- road. That we are right in this view of the decision, ⁵⁶³ must be evident from, an attentive examination of the case as reported. In the statement of facts set forth on page 70, part of the property in South-East Ward is said to be occupied “for an office for the sale of passenger tickets, and for the accommodation of the passengers.” Judge Jones, of the common pleas, when speaking of this same property, says : “And the passenger depot, which is not liable to taxation.” After assenting to the decision below, which exempts “water stations and depots,” Judge Burnside, in delivering the opinion of the appellate court, proceeds to say : “We understand depots so exempted from taxation, as the offices, the oil houses and places to hold cars, and such buildings and places as may fairly be deemed necessary and indispensable to the construction of the road.” In the words depots and offices here used, certainly is included the building which, in the statement of facts, is called “an office for the sale of passenger tickets, and for the accommodation of the passengers and in the opinion of Judge Jones, “the passenger depot,” This, if possible, is rendered more manifest by referring to the kinds of properly which the Supreme court decide not to be exempt: which are “warehouses, coal-lots, coal-shutes, machine shops, wood-yards, and such places.” Some of these were held to be excused from taxation by the inferior court, and so far their opinion was reversed, but no further. We have been thus particular in the examination of this case, because we differ very widely from the view taken of it in argument.

It may also be proper to remark, that the question, for what purpose a rail road company may condemn land ? is a very different one from, what property of such a company is not subject to taxation ? Another position taken to sustain the complainant’s right to the house, is, that it stands upon ground which was condemned under the second inquisition; which proceeding was not sanctioned by the charter, and therefore void. The argument on this subject is based upon the hypothesis, that at the in ⁵⁶⁴ stance of the appellees, the first jury having condemned land for the site of the road, entirely across the farm of the complainant, to the Baltimore and Washington road, the appellees had exhausted all their powers, under the chatter, to condemn his land for the use of their road ; and therefore they can claim no rights under the action of the second jury. In .support of this view, the case of Moorhead, et al., vs. Little Miami R. R. Co., 17 Ohio R., 340, was cited.

In that case the company caused the line of their road to be surveyed by their engineer, who returned his survey to the board of Public Works. They did not proceed to make their road upon the line so located, but afterwards, with