Volume 277 — Pennsylvania State Reports

<p>Railroads — Switch — Abandonment of switch — Relocation of main line — Act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 12 — Damnum absque injuria.</p> <p>1. There is no implied duty on a railroad company to maintain perpetually a switch track it has constructed for the accommodation of a neighboring property.</p> <p>2. Where a railroad company changes the location of its right-of-way and tracks as authorized by the Act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 12, and does so in a lawful way, and such change necessitates the abandonment of a switch constructed on the property and for the accommodation of a manufacturing corporation, such corporation’s loss is damnum absque injuria.</p> <p>3. Where a railroad company has constructed such a switch, it may remove the rails, etc., when it abandons the switch, without accounting for the same to the owner of the land.</p> <p>4. Where the owner has had the benefit of the switch for thirty-two years, he cannot recover what he originally expended in its construction; especially is this so in an action of trespass and where there is no evidence as to the value of the property removed, or of any damage done by the removal.</p>

Appeal, No. 9, May T., 1923, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Commonwealth Docket, 1920, No. 75, for plaintiff, on case tried by court without jury, in suit of Commonwealth v. Weirton Steel Co. Appeal from tax settlement. Before Hargest, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Judgment for plaintiff for $6,396.25 on case tried by the court without a jury. See 25 Dauphin Co. R. 151; 10 Pa. Corporation R. 538. Defendant appealed.

<p>Wills — Construction—Legacy — Accumulations — Illegal directions — Construction in favor of heir — Doubtful meaning.</p> <p>1. Where a testator provides that a legacy shall be paid out of income to be accumulated, or out of principal if necessary, and the direction to accumulate is held to be illegal, the legacy must be paid out of principal, even though the legatee receives a part of the income intended to have been accumulated, and this would have been sufficient to pay the legacy if applied for that purpose.</p> <p>2. The possible meaning of a testator cannot be given effect as against the language used in his will.</p> <p>3. The rule is of universal application that, in the construction of a will of doubtful meaning, every intendment is to be made in favor of the heir or next of kin.</p>

<p>School law — Conveyance of children — Act of May 20,1921, P. L. 1088.</p> <p>1. Under section 1408 of the School Code, as amended by the Act of May 20, 1921, P. L; 1038, 1041, a school district may provide a private school conveyance to carry children to and from the school which they attend.</p> <p>2. If a private school conveyance is provided, it is sufficient if the children are carried between an appropriate shelter properly located, and the school they attend.</p> <p>3. The carriage of children by private school conveyances is public transportation, although they are used only by such children.</p> <p>Contracts — Construction—General words — Fjusdem generis— Surplusage.</p> <p>4. Tbe ejusdem generis doctrine applies only to tbe general words in a writing,, wbicb follow others specifically enumerated.</p> <p>5. In construing a contract or statute no words are to be treated as surplusage unless this is necessary in order to reach a reasonable conclusion as to its meaning.</p> <p>Appeals — Moot question — Future conduct of litigant.</p> <p>6. An order or decree which relates to the future conduct of a litigant cannot be held to raise only a moot question, because, pending the appeal, the defendant is complying with it.</p>

<p>Appeal, No. 239, Jan. T., 1923, by Mary E. Moran et al., from decree of C. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1922, No. 1030, overruling exceptions to application for charter, in re Mount Sharon Cemetery.</p> <p>Exceptions to application for charter. Before Broom-all, J.</p> <p>The opinion of the 'Supreme Court states the facts.</p> <p>Exceptions dismissed. Mary E. Moran et' al., except-ants, appealed.</p> <p>Error assigned was dismissing second exception, quoting portion of opinion relating thereto.</p>