Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Township of Shirley
This text of 6 A. 221 (Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Township of Shirley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The contract of the defendants which the plaintiff seeks to en[346]*346force is clearly ultra vires. The act of assembly prescribes the maimer in which public roads shall be laid out and become a charge on the townships in which they are located. The towing path of the plaintiff had not in law become a public highway. It remained the property of the canal company. The townships in which it is located had no power to enter into this agreement for the use of it as a public road. If the supervisors can legally bind the townships in this case, they can exercise the same power in regard to the use of every private road in the townships. It is wholly unlike the cases of supplying a temporary jail or place of holding court, on the destruction of the established buildings.
No statute gives to the officers of a township the power claimed, and it is clearly contrary to public policy to thus enlarge their powers by construction.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 A. 221, 3 Sadler 341, 18 Week. No. 397, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-canal-co-v-township-of-shirley-pa-1886.