Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co. v. Monongahela Bridge Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 3, 1898

Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co. v. Monongahela Bridge Co., 184 Pa. 180 (Pa. 1898)

39 A. 56; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 877

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchet, Pee, Sterrett, Wjlltams

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam,

By agreement duly filed, trial by jury was dispensed with *188•• and the decision of this case submitted to the court below under the provisions of the act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109.

A careful consideration of the record has convinced us that the general conclusion reached by the learned president of the ■common pleas is correct, and hence there was no error in entering judgment in favor of the defendant. In any view that can be reasonably taken of the facts the plaintiff company was not - entitled to recover. We find nothing in any of the questions involved in the specifications of error that requires special no"tioe.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Company v. Monongahela Bridge Company
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Contracts—Bridges—Acquisition of bridge by city—Corporation—Street' railway companies. A street railway company advanced a large sum of money to a bridge company to enable the latter to reconstruct its bridge, so that trolley cars could be run over it. The contract under which the money was advanced provided that the debt was to be liquidated by tolls at a certain specified rate. The contract was to expire at the end of forty years, and if at that time the amount advanced had not been paid by tolls, the unpaid portion should be canceled. After the bridge had been reconstructed, and at- a time when-both parties were willing to carry out the contract, the city within whose limits it was situated commenced proceedings in the court of common pleas to condemn it, under the Act of Assembly of May 26,1893, P. L. 154, authorizing cities .... to purchase, maintain, use and condemn bridges,, etc., but afterwards determined to acquire the control of the bridge by the purchase of the entire capital stock of the bridge company, which it did, and held it in its own name, with the exception of thirteen shares placed in the names of certain city officials. Subsequently the street railway company brought an action against the bridge company to recover the portion of the money advanced which had not been repaid by tolls under the agreement. Held, that, whether the case should be treated as one against the legally constituted bridge company, of which the city was the stockholder, or as substantially a suit against the city as the purchaser of the mere physical structure of the bridge, plaintiff was not entitled to recover.