19 A.2d 278 | Pa. | 1941
The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, appellant, as permitted by certain consent ordinances, constructed conduits for wires and other appliances in streets in the City of Philadelphia.1 Pursuant to the Act of June 12, 1931, P. L. 575,
In March, 1934, the Commission notified appellant that the Commission "had entered into a contract for the construction of a subway in Philadelphia from Eighth and Race Streets to Sixth Street and an underpass in Fifth Street between Cherry and Callowhill Streets, and that in case the existing manholes, conduits and cables of your petitioner were found to interfere with this construction, as the work progressed, the Commission would require your petitioner to remove or relocate its structures to the extent necessary to permit the subway and underpass construction to be made." The subway and underpass were part of the establishment and construction of railroad or other facilities for the transportation of passengers across said Delaware River Bridge, as provided by the Act. Appellant acknowledged the notice, denied the right of the Commission to compel compliance without compensation and stated that it would perform the work "under protest and hold the Commission liable for compensation therefor." After completing the work, appellant applied for *122 viewers to assess the damage. On motion of the Commission the application was dismissed on the ground that the damage was consequential and that the legislature had not required payment for such damage. This appeal followed.
Appellant contends that it is entitled to compensation under the Act of 1931, and that the refusal to appoint viewers to assess its damages, in the circumstances stated, results in taking its property without just compensation, prohibited (1) by the Constitution of Pennsylvania, (2) by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and (3) by the contract clauses of both federal and state constitutions.
The Commission, in this Commonwealth, acts as the agent of the Commonwealth. The portion of the bridge and the approaches to it in the City of Philadelphia are part of the highway system of Pennsylvania: Com. ex rel. Smith v. Clark,
The appellant contends that the right to the compensation claimed is conferred in Article V of the Compact, 1931, P. L. 580,
Appellant may not complain that, in requiring relocation of facilities within street lines, the purpose of the Commission was to provide adequate bridge approaches to enable the Commission to contract with another utility for street car transportation over the bridge; Article I, clause (b), authorizes the Commission to establish such service: compareBell Telephone Co. v. Pa. P. U. C.,
The regulation and control of the streets of Philadelphia by the city is subject to the paramount authority of the Commonwealth in the exercise of which the Commonwealth may confer jurisdiction over streets on another agency created by it for public purposes: Tranter v. Allegheny County Authority,
Order affirmed at appellant's costs. *125