Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Commonwealth
Philadelphia Electric Co., Appellant, v. Commonwealth Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam, The Philadelphia Electric Company appeals from judgment entered against it in a case stated. The sole question is whether plaintiff, a public utility corporation, is entitled to compensation for expense incurred in relocating conduits, substructures and two lamp standards in streets of the City of Philadelphia, due to a change in grade made necessary in those streets by the construction of the Delaware River Bridge connecting the cities of Philadelphia and Camden.
Plaintiff bases its claim upon the Act of July 9,1919, P. L. 814, (providing for construction of the bridge) Avhieh states in section 1 that the Commonwealth and the City of Philadelphia shall contribute to the cost of construction, and in section 2 that, “The term ‘cost of construction’......shall include......the cost of acquisition of the ground for the site of said bridge and the *544 approaches thereto, including any franchises, easements, rights, or damages incident thereto or consequent upon the taking thereof.” Section 5 authorizes the commission “to purchase......such lands, structures, rights of way, franchises, easements, or other interests in lands, including lands under water and riparian rights, of any person, railroad, or other public or private corporation or municipality, necessary for the building of said bridge and the approaches thereto.”
Despite appellant’s assertion that its claim is for damages incurred directly, we are of opinion that any loss suffered by it in making the relocations above referred to was consequential, being merely incident to the construction of the bridge. As stated by the court below: “There was no taking of any portion of the plaintiff’s property, it was not deprived of its easement and the only damage of which it complains is the cost of relocating its conduits and light standards [in the streets] to make them conform with the new [established] grade.”
We recently held in McGarrity, Admr., v. Com. of Pa., 311 Pa. 436 , that the Act of July 9,1919, supra, does not impose a liability upon the Commonwealth for consequential damages resulting from the erection of the bridge in question, inasmuch as such intention was not clearly expressed in the title of the statute. The damages suffered in the present case being consequential, there can be no recovery by appellant.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Delaware River Port Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
- Delaware River Joint Commission Case
- Equitable Gas Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
- New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Delaware River Joint Commission
- State Highway Commission v. Southern Union Gas Co.
- Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Most recent
- City of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Electric Co.
- Equitable Gas Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Kingston Urban Renewal Agency
- Anderson Appeal
- State Highway Commission v. Southern Union Gas Co.
- Delaware River Port Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.