Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co.

29 Barb. 589, 1859 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 203
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 2, 1859
StatusPublished

This text of 29 Barb. 589 (Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co., 29 Barb. 589, 1859 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 203 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1859).

Opinion

By the Court, Clerks, J.

The defendants agreed with the plaintiffs, in substance, as follows: To allow them to transport coal on the Delaware and Hudson canal, in the same manner, and with the same facilities, as they themselves (the canal company) or any other persons may enjoy ; providing specially for a rate of tolls, to be established on the 1st of May in every calendar year, by ascertaining the quantity of lump coal belonging to the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, which at that period they shall have contracted to sell, and to deliver at Eondout, by transportation on their canal, during the year. The avérage price per ton of those sales shall then be ascertained. From this average price $2.50 shall be deducted, and one half of the remainder shall be the toll per ton to be charged to the plaintiffs for the transportation of their coal during the said calendar year. So far„the arrangement is very definite, and scarcely admits of any misconception.

But the agreement subsequently provides if the quantity of lump coal, which, on the 1st of May, shall have been sold, shall be less than one half of the estimated sales for the year, then the toll, during that year, shall be calculated on the average price per ton at which the sales shall have been actually made. Of course, in that, contingency, no' average could be struck until the expiration of the year.

There are other stipulations relating to the toll, but these are the only provisions to which it is important for us to advert.

It is under the contingency referred to in this latter-clause, that the difficulty, which has produced this action, has arisen. We at once perceive that under the first clause, where the sales .contracted for by the canal company, before the.first of May, equal or exceed one half of the estimated sales of the whole year-, the toll can be fixed at that time, and consequently they become entitled to payment of it, after the weighing of each cargo at Eddyville, where the weigh-lock is situated. But the Pennsylvania Coal Company contend when the quan[591]*591tity of coal contracted for by the canal company, before the 1st of May, is less than one half of the estimated sales for the whole year, and the rate of toll by the terms of the last mentioned clause cannot be fixed until the expiration of the year, that they are not bound to pay any toll until that time.

In the one case the toll can be precisely ascertained on the 1st of May, and payment therefor enforced in the ordinary way; in the other'it is plain that it is incapable of calculation until the expiration of the calendar year. This inability, from the want of adequate data, in fact, occasioned the necessity of the provision, which both parties have alike recognized by inserting it in their contract.

The canal company insist, however, that they have a right to enforce immediate payment, on account, by a proximate estimate of the tolls, not venturing to deny that they can only at the expiration of the year be precisely ascertained.

But can this be granted in the absence of any express provision permitting it? Under any circumstances, can payment for the use of any thing, for the purchase of any property, for any service, or for any other benefit, be enforced, until the amount shall be absolutely ascertained ? As a general rule, no one is obliged' to perform a contract until its nature, limit and conditions are ascertained and prescribed. Eo debt can be legally demanded until its amount is capable of being estimated. If A. engages B. to go to Borne, and promises to pay all the expenses which he incurs on the route, B.- cannot compel payment of any portion of his expenses until he completes the journey, unless he has taken the precaution to have it expressly understood that A. shall pay him the several portions of the outlay as they are incurred. I can discover no essential difference on the point involved between such a case and that now before us, except that the latter relates to tolls, which, it is said, necessarily imply immediate payment, ,1s there, indeed, any peculiar virtue in the word “toll,” which gives it so potent an effect as to lift any contract, in which it is employed, above the ordinary rules of construction ? And [592]*592after sifting this case thoroughly, and disengaging it from all irrelevant topics, we shall find that this is the only question that remains for consideration.

Does the word “ toll,” which is employed throughout this agreement, import, ex vi termini, an instant collection, as soon as the weight of the cargo is ascertained at the usual place P “ Toll ” is a Saxon word, originally signifying a payment in towns, markets and fairs, for goods and cattle bought and sold there. It is defined in the Institutes to be a reasonable sum of money due to the owner of the fair or market, upon sale of things tollable, within the same. It is now, also, popularly applied to the charges which canal and rail road companies require for the transportation of goods, payable no doubt at once, in all cases, where there is no right or arrangement importing the contrary—precisely as goods sold are presumed to be sold for cash, unless by express terms, or from the circumstances of the case, the transaction shows a credit. The word means nothing more than a compensation for the privilege or service granted or rendered ; and the period of payment depends entirely, as in every other case, upon the express or implied understanding of the parties. The right of the canal company, in this respect, is not at all enlarged by the charters which it has received from the states of Pennsylvania and New York. It is, indeed, permitted by these charters to exact certain tolls and rates, not exceeding three pents per mile, for every ton of ascertained burden in every vessel. But even in such cases, where the rate is fixed, the toll cannot be exacted until the burden is ascertained, so that the amount payable must be certain before it can be demanded. Nothing appears in these charters impressing on the word “ toll ” a signification which, ex vi termini, imports an immediate right of collection, where the terms of the contract are inconsistent with it. They do not, in other words, contain any immunities to the company, shielding them from the effect of the ordinary meaning of the language, or the ordinary consequences of the want of circumspection apd care in [593]*593the preparation of their contracts. The employment of the word toll,” therefore, does not, ex vi termini, give the canal company any right to the collection of it before its amount is ascertained. And as I have already intimated, the contract itself contains nothing from which it can be satisfactorily and legally inferred, that the parties intended, in the contingency contemplated in this clause of the agreement, that the tolls should be payable before the expiration of the year. To be sure, immediate payment is provided for in the first clause; but this is no reason why we should legally infer that this was intended' on the happening of the contingency mentioned in the provision under consideration. Indeed, the presumption is at least as much in favor of the opposite supposition. In the one, immediate payment was expressly provided for, because the amount could be ascertained with certainty; in the other, it may be fairly assumed that immediate payment was dispensed with, and payment postponed until the expiration of the year, because the amount could not be ascertained with certainty until that time.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Barb. 589, 1859 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-coal-co-v-delaware-and-hudson-canal-co-nysupct-1859.