
    [Philadelphia,
    January 5,1836.]
    THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF SPRING GARDEN and Others against THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE INCORPORATED DISTRICT OF THE NORTHERN LIBERTIES.
    The public wharf or landing place, called “ The Hay-scales Landing” in the Northern Liberties, of the city of Philadelphia, and the public wharf or landing place on the south of and adjoining Callowhill street, in the same district, were, by the act of the 16th of March, 1819, vested in the board of commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, in trust for the use of the public generally; and neither the district of Spring Garden, nor the township of Penn, nor the unincorporated part of the Northern Liberties, has any right to any part of the value or income of those wharves or landing places or either of them.
    This case came before the court in pursuance of an act of the Legislature passed on the 12th day of April, 1828, (Pamphlet Laws, 356;) reciting that by an act passed on the 16th of April, 1819, certain wharves and landing places in the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, were vested in the commissioners thereof, and that it had been represented to the Legislature that the control and benefit of the said wharves, &c. ought not to be exclusively in the said commissioners, and therefore providing that it should be lawful for the commissioners and inhabitants of the Kensington District of the Northern Liberties, the commissioners of the district of Spring Garden, and the supervisors of the public roads and highways in the unincorporated townships of the Northern Liberties and Penn, to apply by petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, for the Eastern District, praying the court to inquire into the merits or claims of the districts and townships aforesaid to any part or portion of the value or income of the said wharves and landing places, and to make such order in the premises as justice and equity may require.
    The act then directed the method of proceeding to be pursued, and the relief to be given by the Supreme Court, if they should consider the claim of the petitioners well founded.
    
      By an act passed on the 6th day of April, 1833, (Pamphlet Laws, 188,) the Supreme Court was authorized to take cognizance of the case on the,application of either of the said districts or townships.
    The claim of the several districts and townships to participate in the income and benefits of these wharves, arose from an act passed on the 20th of February, 1768, entitled, “ An Act for raising by way of lottery, the sum of 2000 pounds, for purchasing a public landipg in the Northern Liberties, and paving the streets of the City of Philadelphia,” the preamble of which was as follows:
    “Whereas, it has been represented to the Assembly of this province, by petition from sundry' inhabitants of the city of Philadelphia and Liberties thereto adjoining, that the few public landings at the north end of said city and in the said Liberties thereof, are scarcely sufficient for the accommodation of its present inhabitants and the king’s barracks. And whereas, it hath been also represented from the commissioners for pitching and paving the streets, lanes, and alleys, of the city of Philadelphia, that the moneys granted or lent for pitching, paving, and keeping clean the said streets, &c. for some time past have all been expended; that the annual taxes on the inhabitants amounted to no more than scarcely sufficient to pay ■scavengers, and make the necessary repairs in the pavements, and that a considerable part of the said city remains still unpaved to the great inconvenience as well of travellers as of the inhabitants of the said city.”
    The act then proceeded to direct the method of raising money by a lottéry, and directed the appropriation thereof as follows:
    “And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that after the payment of the sums due to the fortunate adventurers in the said lottery, and defraying the costs and expenses attending the same, the neat sum of money remaining in the hands of the treasurer aforesaid, shall be applied in manner following, that is to'say, two thousand pounds thereof for, and towards purchasing a landing in the Northern Liberties nearly opposite the barracks, and improving the same with the landing at the end of Callowhill Street, as hereinafter is directed, and the remainder to be paid to the city commissioners, for pitching and paving the streets, lanes, and .alleys of the city of Philadelphia, or to their treasurer, the better to enable them so to pitch, pave, and keep clean-the streets, lanes, and alleys aforesaid.
    And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, in trust for the public, by and with the consent and approbation of the justices of the peace of the said county, in their court of Quarter Sessions, shall and they are hereby required and enjoined, to buy a landing nearly opposite the said barracks, and receive the deeds thereof in trust for the public, and further, to build or cause to be built thereon, a good wharf, and a pier for the. use of the public. And the said county commissioners for the time being, or a majority of them, with the approbation of any three justices of the peace for said county, are hereby enjoined and required for ever hereafter, to have the care, direction, and management of the said landing, in letting the same out to any person or persons for the purposes of repairing and improving the same from time to time, for ever hereafter as the said commissioners and justices or a majority of them for the time being, may judge most for the public good.
    And whereas, the honourable the proprietaries of the province of Pennsylvania, have continued Callowhiil street in the Northern Liberties aforesaid, into the river Delaware; and as a public landing place at the end of the same street, may hereafter prove very advantageous and beneficial to the public. Be it therefore further enacted by the authority aforesaid,'That the said county commissioners, or a majority"of them, with the consent and approbation of any three justices of the peace of the county aforesaid, shall for ever hereafter have the same power and authority for the improving and letting the same landing place at the end of Callowhiil street aforesaid, for the uses and purposes aforesaid, as to, them are hereby given and granted with respect to the landing place nearly opposite to the said barracks, hereby intended to be purchased.”
    At the time of the passage of this act, the “ township of the Northern Liberties” comprehended within its geographical limits, the territory lying between the rivers Delaware and Schuylkill, north of the city of Philadelphia, extending northward to the present northern boundary of the townships, and included the present incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, the incorporated district of Spring Garden, the incorporated district of Kensington, and the unincorporated townships of the Northern Liberties and Penn.
    Under the authority of the acts of 1828 and 1833, the commissioners of the district of Spring Garden, and the supervisors of the public roads and highways in the unincorporated townships of the Northern Liberties and Penn, presented their petition to this court at December Term, 1833, setting forth some of the provisions of the acts of 1768 and 1828, and praying that a citation might be issued to the commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, and to the commissioners and inhabitants of the Kensington district of the Northern Liberties, requiring them to appear and show cause why the court should not make such order in the premises as justice and equity should require, &c.
    On the 16th December, 1833, an answer was filed on the part of the commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties; the material parts of which were as follows:
    That by an act of Assembly passed on the 12th day of April, 1828, which is partially recited in the petition aforesaid, the now petitioners and the district of Kensington were authorized to apply to this court, praying the same to inquire into the merits of the claims of the said now petitioning districts and townships and the district of Kensington, to any part or portion of the value or income of two certain public wharves or landings in the said act, particularly designated by name or locality, and to make such order in the premises as justice and equity might require. •
    In the petition aforesaid, it is alleged that a landing in the- Northern Liberties and other wharves, (which landing and wharves are no otherwise therein described than as having been purchased with a fund or the proceeds thereof, raised by lottery, by virtue of an act of Assembly passed the 20th February, 1768,) and the fund produced from the said landing and wharves, are now vested by act of Assembly, in the commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, saving to all other parties their rights therein.
    . But it is not alleged in the said petition that the said now petitioning district and townships, have any claims to any part or portion of the value or income of any wharves or landings, nor is the nature, origin, extent, or character of such claim, (if any such there be) therein set forth, nor are the facts or circumstances stated whereon any such claims are supposed to be founded, nor do the now petitioning district and townships pray your honourable court, to inquire into the merits of any such claims.
    For which, and divers like imperfections therein, the said commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, are advised that the said petition is wholly insufficient; and they do therefore humbly demand the judgment of this honourable court, whether they shall be enforced, or ought in justice and equity to be required to make any other or further answer thereunto, and pray to be dismissed with their reasonable costs, in this behalf wrongfully sustained.
    Wm. M. Meredith,
    Charles Naylor,
    
      For the Northern Liberties.
    
    At the same time the following answer was filed on the part of the Kensington district:
    The said commissioners and inhabitants of the Kensington district of the Northern Liberties in answer to the said citation say — • That admitting the facts set forth in the said petition upon which the citation to them is founded — and of the several acts of Assembly in the said petition recited, and reserving to themselves the right to question whether the said district of Spring Garden and unincorporated Penn township, have any claim to a portion in said landings or the fund arising or which has arisen therefrom, further say, that the said Kensington district is now and always has been a component part of the Northern Liberties — and is both in law and equity entitled to a portion or share of the public landings or the funds which have arisen or may arise therefrom. They therefore pray the court to make such order in the premises as justice and equity may require.
    C. Goodman,
    
      Solicitor for Kensington district, JV. L.
    
    J. P. Norris, Jr.
    
      December 16 th, 1833.
    An amended petition of the commissioners of the district 'of Spring Garden, and of the supervisors of the public roads and highways in the unincorporated townships of the Northern Liberties and Penn, was afterwards filed, setting forth,
    That by an act of Assembly passed the 20th day of February, A. D. 1768, the sum of two thousand pounds were raised by way of lottery, and appropriated to the purchase of a landing within the township of the Northern Liberties, and for the improvement of the same.
    That by the same act, the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia were directed, with the consent of three justices of the peace of the said county, to purchase with the sum afoi-esaid, a landing within the said Northern Liberties in trust for the public; and such landing called the “ Hay Scales Landing” at the end of Noble street, was accordingly so purchased and conveyed to the said commissioners in trust for the public in the same year. This landing under the powers conferred by the said act, was subsequently leased, and great rents and large sums of money were received by the said commissioners therefrom. That in pursuance of an act of Assembly of the 4th of April, 1796, which authorized the said county commissioners out of said landing fund, to purchase other landings within the township of the Northern Liberties, and hold them “ under the like trusts” as the before mentioned public landing, a part of said moneys were, in the year 1802, invested in the purchase of the landing on the south side of Callowhill street, and a part remained or afterwards accumulated in the hands of the said county commissioners.
    That by an act of Assembly passed the 23d of March, 1803, and its several supplements, a small part of the said township of the Northern Liberties was incorporated by the name, style, and title of “ The commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties,” and by another act passed March 16th, 1819, the said landings and the funds arising from the rents and income thereof, were transferred to the commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, saving the rights of all other parties: That the said commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties received on the 25th of February, 1820, from the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, the sum of seven thousand eight hundred and eight dollars and one cent, being the accumulated balance of said public landing fund, and have since then received other large sums of money, the rents of and income from the said landings and public landing fund, all which sums of money they have appropriated to their sole use and benefit, refusing to allow any of the other inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties to participate therein, or to derive any advantage from the use of the said landings. That your petitioners represent the inhabitants of the district of Spring Garden, and the townships of' the Northern Liberties and Penn, which are included within the geographical limits of the former township of the Northern Liberties, for the use of the inhabitants of which the said landings and rents and income thereof were held in trust, and are entitled to a rateable share and proportion of and in the landings and public landing fund aforesaid, and the income and moneys derived therefrom, to enable them to purchase and improve public landing places within their respective limits for the use of the public, agreeably to the intention and purpose of the Northern Liberties, to the east, and along the river Schuylkill, which bounds the said district of Spring Garden and township of Penn, to the west.
    Your petitioners therefore, respectfully pray, that under the provisions of the acts of Assembly, passed on the 12th day of April, A. D. 1828, and on the 8th day of April, 1833, a citation and reasonable notice may be given to the said commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, and to the commissioners and inhabitants of the Kensington district of the Northern Liberties, notifying them to appear before this honourable court, on Monday the 23d December, 1833, to show cause, why the said court should not proceed to inquire into the claims of your petitioners to a rateable portion or part of said landings, and public landing fund, and the rents, income, and interest thereof, why an account should not be taken of the same, and to order and decree that such share shall be granted, conveyed, transferred and paid to your petitioners, or applied for their use and benefit, and why appraisers and auditors be not appointed, to appraise and value the said landings, and any other landing or landings, purchased by the said commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, out of the funds arising from the same, and to proceed as in said act of April 12th, 1828, is directed, and such other relief give in the premises as equity and justice may require.
    H. J. Williams,
    Eli K. Price,
    
      For the Petitioners.
    
    
      December 16, 1833.
    The answer of the commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, to the amended petition, set forth as follows:
    That the hay scale landing, and- the landing south of Callowhill street, mentioned in the said petition, were purchased with public money by virtue of the act of 1768, and its supplements, and were heretofore held by the county commissioners in trust for the public, and not exclusively or particularly for the inhabitants of any county, township, or other portion of the commonwealth. The said landings and the funds arising from them, were always subject to the disposal of the General Assembly of the commonwealth, until the passage of the act of 1819, to be presently referred.to.
    During the period of'nearly half a century, which elapsed between the years 1768 and 1819, the legislature repeatedly exercised the right of controlling the management and directed the mode of letting out the said landings, of selling such part as they thought fit, and of disposing of the funds arising therefrom ; several acts of Assembly having been passed in that interval, for these various purposes, to which your respondents beg leave to be considered as referring.
    Down to the year 1819," the said landings were, by the legislature placed and continued under the immediate government of the county commissioners, assisted by any three justices of the peace of the county, who were not required to be residents of or appointed for any particular part of the county.
    In fact, your respondents aver that until long after the year 1819, it was never doubted but that the legislature had at the time of the passing the act of that year, mentioned in the petition, the full and entire authority to dispose of the' said landings and the funds arising therefrom, as the absolute property of the commonwealth.
    Your respondents further represent that in the year 1768, and until the year 1808, the township of the Northern Liberties included within its bounds, the whole territory as stated in the petition aforesaid. In October, 1808, the court of Quarter Sessions of the county of Philadelphia, erected the western part of the Northern Liberties, into a new township called Penn; a part of which was, in the year 1813, incorporated as the district of Spring Garden, and the remainder is still known as the township of Penn; and by the 13th section of an act passed on the 1st day of April, 1811, it was (inter alia) enacted that the township of Penn, should be, for all intents and purposes, separated from the Northern Liberties.
    Your respondents further represent, that on the 16th oí March, 1819, the funds accruing under the provisions of -the act of 1768, aforesaid, were invested in,
    1. The hay scale landing, part of which had been sold in the year 1801, under the authority of the legislature.
    
      2. The landing south of Callowhill Street.
    3. The landing at the foot of Shackamaxon Street, in the now district of Kensington.
    And the county commissioners had also in their hands, a sum in cash, as stated in the said petition; but the said fund had not accrued enth'ely from the hay scale landing, and the landing south of Callowhill Street, as is alleged in the said petition, a large part thereof having arisen from the public landing at the end of Callow-hill Street, which the county commissioners by the act of 1768, had been authorized to improve and let, for the same uses as were pr-ovided in regard to the hay scale landing, and in the new disposition of the fund directed by the act of 1796, (mentioned in the said petition), the surplus income of the said landing at the end of Callowhill Street, was included.
    By the act of March 16th, 1819, (referred to in the said petition,) the hay scale landing, and the landing south of Callowhill Street, were expressly by name vested in your respondents, who were thereby directed (when the funds arising therefrom should be sufficient, beyond repairs and improvements, for that purpose,) to purchase and improve other landings within the township of the Northern Liberties, which then included and still includes, the incorporated district, the Northern Liberties, the present district of Kensington, and the present unincorporated part of the township of the Northern Liberties, but no part of the district of Spring Garden, or township of Penn.
    A saving clause, (similar, as your respondents are advised, to that which is generally inserted in acts of assembly, by which grants are made of corporeal hereditaments to individuals or corporations,) was inserted in the said act of 1819, saving to all persons their rights in the estates thereby vested in your respond^ ents as above stated; but your respondents do absolutely deny that the petitioners, or any one or more of them, or the inhabitants residing within the bounds of the said districts and townships as they existed prior to the division of the Northern Liberties, had any right or claim whatever in, or to the said landings, or the funds arising therefrom, or any other or greater use thereof, than was and is enjoyed by them in common with all the good citizens of this commonwealth, not only of the said public landings, but of all other public landings, and of all the public highways also throughout the state.
    
      The legislature had clearly the right which they exercised, of vesting the said landings in your respondents. It was no extraordinary act of authority, for it hath been usual, when a portion of territory hath been incorporated, to vest in the corporation the public landings, and all the trusts necessarily connected with the care and management of them and, the public street's and highways, within the bounds of the district incorporated.
    Thus by the act of 1820, incorporating the district of Kensington, all public landings at the ends of streets then laid out or thereafter to be laid out within the said district, and all landings, wharves, &c. whereof any person was seized in trust for the use of the inhabitants thereof, were vested in the commissioners of the said district; a saving clause being added which is in terms the same as that in the act of 1819, above referred to.
    Under this act of 1820, the commissioners of the district of Kensington, among other public landings, became possessed of the one at the foot of Shackamaxon Street, which was paid for out of the landing fund of 1768, and which they hold for their own emolument, clear of all obligation to invest the proceeds in the purchase of other landings in the township of the Northern Liberties or any where else.
    •As another instance your respondents represent that the western extremity of Coates’ Street, and another landing north of the same, both within the bounds of the incorporated district of Spring Garden, were heretofore dedicated to public use, as public landings; and that long since the passage of the act of 1828, referred to in the petition, to wit, on the twelfth of March, 1830, the commissioners of the district of Spring Garden procured the passage of an act vesting both the said public landings in the said commissioners, with power to improve, rent, dispose of, and in all respects to control and govern the sanie, without saving the rights of any body.' The omission of the saving clause, and the extensive powers conferred upon the commissioners, being, as your respondents are advised, very unusual, if not unprecedented.
    Your respondents do not claim to be so highly favoured as either of the districts which have been mentioned. In regard to the public landings mentioned in the petition, they are legally and equitably, absolutely vested in your respondents, no otherwise in trust for the public than as all the estates of like nature, which your respondents or any similar corporation holds, are in trust for the public. — your respondents being a public body, created and existing solely for managing the estates held for the inhabitants of the incorporated district and the administration and discharge of the public trusts,which are by law confided to them. In regal’d to the surplus income of the said landings, the legislature has directed your respondents to invest the same from time to time, at their discretion, in the purchase of other landings within certain bounds.
    Your respondents have faithfully obeyed and intend to persevere in obeying this injunction, and are always ready and willing to render an account of their proceedings in this behalf to the public authorities of the commonwealth, who alone are entitled to demand it.
    Your respondents do humbly submit that they are in no way bound, nor can be required to render an account to the now petitioning townships and districts, or any of them.
    The inhabitants residing in the said townships and districts, aré in the enjoyment, for their own benefit and emolument, of all the public landings within their respective limits.
    Your respondents do earnestly and respectfully deny that the inhabitants of said townships and districts are in law, justice, or equity entitled to take in effect the fund of 1768, with its accumulation, now actually vested by law in your respondents, and divide the same among their respective boards of commissioners and supervisors of roads, to be expended for any pui-poses which the said commissioners and supervisors respectively may think proper, thus without any warrant or colour of right for so doing, totally diverting the said fund from the purposes for which it was originally raised from the people of this commonwealth, and violating the sacred and chartered rights of your respondents.
    And until some better reason shall be assigned therefore, than the-fact that your respondents represent a district which is of small territorial extent in comparison wfith the aggregate bulk of the townships and districts here arrayed against them — your respondents must beg leave humbly to continue to deny that the said townships and districts are in law, justice, or equity, entitled to demand that the public landings in question shall'be appraised, and that your respondents to whom they do now by law actually and confessedly belong, shall be compelled to purchase them over again from those to whom they never did belong, and who never had any right or claim in or to them, and this too, while all other public landings, so far as is known, in the commonwealth, situated within the bounds of any corporation, and especially of the districts aforesaid, have been fully vested by the legislature in such corporations, on more favourable terms than those which have been annexed to the grant of the landings in question to your respondents.
    Your respondents observe many allegations in the said petition which are entirely unfounded, but which they do not deem it necessary for them at this time to notice particularly, but beg that they may be considered as expressly denying every statement in the said petition, which they have not in this answer admitted to be true.
    Wherefore your respondents humbly pray to be hence dismissed, with their reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.
    Wm. M. Meredith,
    Charles Naylor,
    
      For the Incorporated District of JNI Liberties.
    
    
      December 23, 1833.
    At the same term the following replication was filed:
    The replication of the Commissioners of the District of Spring Garden and of the supervisors of the public roads and highways in the unincorporated townships of the Northern Liberties and Penn, repliants, to the answer of the commissioners and inhabitants of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, respondents.
    The repliants above named now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to themselves all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception to the manifold errors and uncertainties, imperfections and insufficiencies, in the said answer of the respondents, for replication thereto or unto so much thereof as they are advised, is material for them to make reply, say: — ■
    That reserving the truth and sufficiency of 'all matters in their said petition alleged, all which they are ready to maintain and prove, as may be directed by this Honourable Court, and praying as in their petition they have already prayed ; they deny that the said landings in the said petition mentioned, or in the said answer referred to, or any of them were purchased with public monies, or that they or any of them were held by the county pommissioriers in trust for the public generally, or that they, or any of them, were subject to the absolute disposal of the general assembly of'this commonwealth — but aver and declare that the hay scale landing", and the landing south of Callowhill Street, were purchased 'with monies raised by virtue of the act of 1788, under a pledge, therein expressly set forth, that, the same shall be exclusively appropriated to the purchase of landings in the townships of the Northern Liberties for the convenience of the inhabitants of the samé and for the improvement of the landings so purchased, and of that at the foot of Callowhill Street; — and that all and every part of the said landings, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and all the funds derived and obtained therefrom, with their interest and accumulation were always held and admitted to be held by the county commissioners, and ought now to be held by the respondents exclusively in trust for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties, as the same existed and was laid out in the years 1768 and 1796.
    Your repliants admit that the legislature exercised, as well they might, the right to control the management, and the leasing of the Said landings — and to authorize a sale of such part thereof as they thought beneficial to those interested in the trust; but they expressly deny that the legislature at any time exercised the power or claimed the right to dispose of the said landings, or any part thereof, or of the funds derived therefrom, or any part thereof, in any manner.or way in the slightest degree affecting or interfering with the trusts of the same as hereinbefore stated.
    And your repliants' further say, that the respondents often have admitted and agreed, that before the said act of 1819, the said landings, and the funds derived therefrom, were held by the county commissioners in trust for the' inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties; and that since the said act of 1819, they the said respondents hold them subject to the. same uses and trusts.
    And your repliants further replying, deny that the township of 'the Northern Liberties included, from the year 1768, to the year 1808, within its bounds the whole territory of which it had formerly been composed — and in fact say, as they have before said, that the said township of the Northern Liberties included the whole territory stated in the petition, from the year 1768, until the year 1803, when the inhabitants of that portion thereof, now included within the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, were constituted a corporation, by the name, style and title of “ the commissioners and inhabitants of that part of the township of the Northern Liberties lying between the west side of Sixth Street and the Delaware River, and between Vine Street and the Cohocksinck Creek;” and so continued until the year 1819, when the inhabitants of the said district obtained a new act of incorporation, continuing for some time the former officers, and confirming all the rules, regulations, and ordinances by them heretofore made- — by virtue of which said several acts of assembly, the said incorporated district of the Northern Liberties was, and has continued to be, since the year 1803, totally and entirely separated from the township of the Northern Liberties.
    Your repliants admit, that in October, 1808, the court of Quarter Sessions of the county of Philadelphia, created the western part of the former township of the Northern Liberties into a new township called “ Penn,” a part of which was in 1813, incorporated as the district of Spring Garden, and that the remainder is still known as the township of Penn — but they utterly deny that the said township of Penn was separated from the township of the Northern Liberties, by the act of 181J, for any purpose except in relation to the elections to be therein held, after the passage of the said act, or that the said district or townships represented by your repliants, were for any purposes affecting their rights to the landings or landing fund herein referred to, separated from the township of theNorthern Liberties; and'they aver that the said district of Spring Garden, and the township of Penn, and the present Northern Liberties, for all purpose’s necessary to support this application, have always continued to be,' and still are, a part of the township of the Northern Liberties as the same existed in 1768.
    And your repliants further replying, in fact say, that they know nothing in relation to the landing or the funds derived and proceedings therefrom mentioned by the respondents, except what is stated in their petition — since the act of 1819, whereby the respondents were appointéd trustees as before stated; they have never givefi, but have always refused to give, any account of the said landings, or of the rents and profits thereof, or of the sums received from the county commissioners, or of the interest and accumulation thereof, nor have they, although the funds have been amply sufficient, ever applied the same, or any part thereof, to any'of the purposes for which they were to hold in trust, but have appropriated them to uses and purposes contrary to, and in violation of the provisions of the several acts of assembly, in the petition aforesaid, and in this replication, mentioned and referred to.
    Your repliants admit, as theyjiave before admitted, that by the act of March, 1819, the landings aforesaid in the said petition mentioned, were transferred to the respondents upon the trusts for ' which they were originally-designed, and that a clause (which is ' undoubtedly usual under similar circumstances) is therein contained, saving nevertheless to all and every person and persons, bodies public and corporate, his, her, and their rights in all and every part (inter alia) of the estates above referred to — other than so far as it vests the trust thereof in the hands of the commissioners of the said incorporated district. — Your repliants insist that the object of this clause was to prevent the assumption of the very rights now claimed by the respondents, to hold and enjoy the said landings as their absolute property — and that it is of the neglect and disregard of this provision, in the said act contained, that they, among other • things, complain. — They moreover deny, that the landing fund in the hands of the county commissioners in 1819, was paid over to the said respondents, in accordance with the directions of any act of assembly whatever, or that they have any title or right whatever to the same, or its interest or accumulation, This fund was transferred by the county commissioners-to the said respondents, under a belief that they were authorized so to do by the said act of 1819, and this is all that was intended to be admitted by your repliants in their petition — but no such authority was by the said act given.
    Your repliants know nothing of the landing at the end of Shackamaxon Street, nor of the allegations in relation thereto in the said answer of the respondents contained, and can therefore neither admit nor deny them. If they shall be considered at all material to the present controversy they pray that they may be proved and maintained according to law, and as this ■ honourable court may award.
    
      As to the landing at Coates Street on the Schuylkill, and that of the north referred to by the respondents — your repliants represent that they were laid out many years since as public landings by Tench Francis, then the owner of a large tract of land in that vicinity, (since included within the boundaries of the district of Spring Garden,) for the common use of the owners and occupiers of that estate — no one had either the right, ability or inclination to improve them so as to render them serviceable as landings, and they remained for many years useless to those for whom they were intended. The commissioners of'the district of Spring Garden, were then requested by the owners and occupiers of the property aforesaid, to take these landings under their charge, and' as an evidence of their wishes, released to them all their interest therein. Upon these facts being laid before the legislature, they passed the act of twelfth of March, 1820, not by the procurement of your repliants, or of any one else, but as your repliants verily believe, because, as in their corporate capacity — the commissioners of the district of Spring Garden represented the very persons entitled to these landings; as they had been requested to accept releases of their rights and take them under their care, the legislature thought it -just, equitable and expedient — no saving clause was inserted, because there was no rights to save. Since the passage of this act, the said commissioners, under the powers conferred on them, have erected wharves on one of these landings at a great expense, and paid for them from their corporate funds, raised by taxes upon the district of Spring Garden. They have had no public landing fund from which to defray these expenses — no trust estates have been transferred to them, to be applied to these objects — all the public landings they possess, have been purchased and paid for from their corporate estates, or granted to them by individuals — and they have heard no charge by any one interested in them, that the act aforesaid was either contrary to their wishes or in violation'of their rights. As no semblance or pretence of claim to any part of these landings has been suggested in the respondents, your repliants cannot perceive the relevancy or materiality of any reference thereto.
    Your repliants assert that there are'many landings at the ends of streets, within the limits of the district and townships they represent, which, if purchased and improved, would be of great public accommodation and advantage — but the legislature has never in their cases, thought it expedient to give them these landings, unless with the consent of the individuals owning the soil, or after providing for a full and adequate compensation. The object of the landing fund, was to enable the inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties to make this compensation, and a proper application of the monies belonging to it since 1819, would have procured for their use, the most valuable and important positions. Among other grievances occasioned by the breach of trust of which your repliants complain, they will now be under the necessity of paying double or treble the amount, which, in 1819, or soon after, would have made all the requisite purchases.
    The respondents have, in the mean time, contrary to the conditions of the said trust, procured to be vested in them every landing at the end of the streets, within their corporate limits, and although thus so amply supplied, have never condescended to attend to the wants or wishes of any of the Cestuis que trust, whose property they have applied for their own private use and benefit.
    Wherefore, your repliants aver and will prove, that the said answer is uncertain, untrue, and insufficient to be replied unto by your repliants, without that any matter or thing whatever, in the'said answer contained, material and effectual in the law to be replied unto, and confessed and avoided, traversed or denied, is true — all which matter, and things these repliants are and will be ready to aver and prove, as this honourable court shall award — and humbly pray as they have already prayed.
    H. J. Williams, ) „ n .... '
    „ n .... Él, K. Price, ' For P^ners.
    
    
      February 20, 1834.
    The following rejoinder was filed :
    The rejoinder of the. commissioners and inhabitants of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties to the replication of the commissioners, &c. of Spring Garden, and the supervisors of the unincorporated township of the Northern Liberties — respectfully sheweth:
    That the rejoinants do entirely and absolutely deny all the statements and allegations contained in the said replication, which are inconsistent with or contradictory to any part of the answer heretofore made by the rejoinants to the petition in this case, and the rejoinants do Hereby re-aftirm and aver to be true all the facts set forth in their said answer.
    And for rejoinder to the several new but irrelevant matters in the said replication, or so much thereof as they are advised it is material for them to rejoin to, the rejoinants say,
    1st. That the rejoinants have never at any time admitted or agreed that before the said act of 1819, the said landings and the funds derived therefrom were held by the county commissioners in trust for the inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties, nor that since the said act of 1819, they, the said rejoinants so held them.
    2d. That the landing fund in the hands of the county commissioners in 1819, was paid over by them to the rejoinants in pursuance of the provisions of the act of 1819, before mentioned, and that such payment vvas authorized by that act.
    
      3d. The rejoinants deny that the incorporated district of the ' Northern Liberties has ever ceased (for any of the purposes material in this.case) to be a part of the township of the Northern Liberties.
    4th’. The rejoinants aver that all the landings at the ends of streets, within the limits of the district of Spring Garden and Kensington, are vested in the respective corporations of those districts-, and that they all became so vested without expense to either of the said corporations.
    5th. The rejoinants deny, that all the landings at the ends of the ■ streets, within their corporate limits, have been purchased out of the landing fund in question ; they have never misapplied or misappropriated that fund, or any part of it, nor in any respect, violated the laws of the land, under the sanction of which they hold the same, and the landings from which it has arisen, as set forth in the act of 1819, before mentioned.
    Wherefore your rejoinants aver and will prove that the said replication is uncertain, untrue and .insufficient, and again humbly pray this honourable court, as in their answer they have heretofore already prayed.
    Wii. M. Meredith,
    Charles Naylor,
    
      For the Incorporated District of N. Liberties.
    
    
      February 20, 183-1.
    The questions arising upon these pleadings were argued at considerable length, by Mr. Miles, Mr. Price, Mr.J. M. Read and Mr. Williams, for the several petitioners, and by Mr. Goodman and Mr. W. M. Meredith, (with whom was Mr. Naylor,) for the defendants.
    For the petitioners, it was contended that upon the true construction of the several acts of assembly relating to the township of the Northern Liberties, which were cited and commented upon, the district and townships which once formed part of the old township of the Northern Liberties, though now divided for municipal purposes, were equally entitled, with the incorporated district, to the profits of the landing places. The legislature never could have intended that this large fund should be devoted exclusively to the comparatively small space occupied by the defendants, while the remaining fronts on the Delaware, and the whole front on the Schuylkill were unprovided for. It was clearly the intention that tolls should be taken at the respective wharves and applied to the use of some part or the whole of the township. Now in 1768 the legislature sat in Philadelphia; and the framers of the act knew that the wharves in the city were rented by the corporation, and the rents and profits applied to the ease of the taxes throughout the city. Such was the intention with respect to the township. Spring Garden and Kensington have both landing places, one on the Delaware, the other on the Schuylkill, to pay for which they are entitled to share in this fund. If the words of the acts are to be taken literally, the unincorporated part of the township of the Northern Liberties would be entitled to the whole. This was the case of a divided township, but the principle in respect to the common property is the same as in the case of the division of an empire; and there it is well settled that existing rights are not forfeited. 2 Rutherford’s Inst., b. 2, c. 10, s. 15. Grotius, b. 2, c. 9, s. 9. Puffendorf, b. 8, c. 12, s. 5. Domat, b. 1, tit. 15, s. 8. Vattel, b. 1, c. 20, s. 246. 3 Kent’s Com. 245, 9 Cranch, 52, 4 Wheaton, 94,95. The trust, therefore, was intended, for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the old township; and there is nothing in the act of 1819 to lead to the conclusion that the legislature intended to alter it. But even if they so intended, this court cannot admit the validity of an act which would divert the fund from its original and proper objects. To this point were cited The Dartmouth College case, (4 Wheat. 518, 629, 663.) Terret v. Taylor, (9 Cranch, 50, 332.) Commonwealth v. Jarret, 7 Serg. dp R. 460.) Whitman v. Lex, (17 Serg. dp R. 88.) Estep v. Hinchman, (14 Serg. dp R. 457.) The following authorities were also referred to in the course of the argument. Clifford v. Belsterling, (2 Serg. dp R. 108.) Angel on Corporations, 503. 3 Penn. Rep. 384. 17 Serg. R- 404. 1 Vernon, 42,55. 2 Vernon 431. Com. Dig. Chancery, 4 W. 13. 1 Roper 92. Livingston v. Moore, (7 Peters’ Rep. 546.) Case of Camac’s Road, (1 P. A. Browne, 164.) 2 Madd. Chan. 125. M’Girr v. Aaron, (1 Penn. Rep. 49.) Hampshire v. Frantiin, (16 Mass. Rep. 83.) 2 Kent’s Com. 223. 2 Atkyns, 87. »
    For the defendants, it was argued,
    1. That the money raised by the act of 1768, was public money, and as such, absolutely subject to the control of the legislature.
    2. That the landings originally purchased by the county commissioners, were expressly in trust for the public generally, and not for the inhabitants of any particular part of the commonwealth.
    3. That the -landing subsequently purchased by the county commissioners out of the proceeds of the same fund, was, in like manner, held by them in trust for the public.
    
    
      4. That none of the acts of Assembly passed between 1768. and 1819, made any change in this respect.
    5. That by the act of 1819, the landings were vested in the commissioners of the Northern Liberties, and that the legislature had the right of'so vesting them.
    6. That the commissioners of the Northern Liberties held the landing, under the act of 1819, in trust for the public at large, so far as that all the inhabitants of the commonwealth were authorized to use the landings, paying the regular tolls for such use; that the commissioners of the Northern Liberties had, under the act of 1819, the right to receive the income and manage the renting, &c. of the landings. The direction as to the manner of investing the surplus income, was a mere legislative direction, and created no trust for any body.
    7. The complainants (nor any other part of the territory of the old Northern Liberties, not included in the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties) never were cestui que trusts of these landings. There never was any .express trust declared for them. The landings were not bought with their money, and thei'e was, therefore, no resulting trust for them. There was no trust by implication, for their benefit. They are absolutely without the shadow of a right. As to the township of Penn, and district of Spring Garden, they are not even included within the bounds of the territory, within which, by the act of 1819, the commissioners of the Northern Liberties were directed to expend the surplus income. In 1819, Penn and Spring Garden were not within the township of the Northern Liberties.
    The legislature have always been in the habit, in erecting municipal corporations, of vesting in such corporations the public landings within their bounds. They gave to Spring Garden the valuable public landing at the foot of Coates street. They gave to Kensington the public landings at the ends of streets within that district. The legislature have done no more than this, in favour of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, and why should they have done less?
    The defendants’ counsel cited the following cases: Ehrenzeller v. Union Canal Company, (1 Rawle, 181,) Kissler v. Kissler, (2 Watts, 323,) Barter v. The Commonwealth, (3 Penn. Rep. 259,) Easton Road Case, (3 Rawle, 195,) Irvine v. The Turnpike Company, (2 Penn. Rep. 470,) Rung v. Shoneberger, (2 Watts. 23.)
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kennedy, J.

The proceeding has been instituted in this case, under a special act of the legislature, passed the 12th of April, 1828, for the purpose of having it enquired into and determined by this court, whether or not the complainants have a right to any part or portion of the value or income of the public wharf or landing place, called the hay scale landing, and the public wharf or landing on the south of and adjoining Callowhill Street, which lie within the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, and are held in trust by the board of commissioners thereof. That the legal title to these wharves and landing places was vested, and still continues to be so, in the board of commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties by the thirty-sixth section of an act of assembly, passed the 16th of March. 1819, is admitted; but the great question raised is, for whose use was it so invested 1 The complainants contend that it was for the use and benefit of all those who were inhabitants within the geographical limits of what was called and known by the name of the Northern Liberties in 1768, or the township of the Northern Liberties in 1796, or should at any time become such, after the first of these dates. The commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties allege, on the other hand, that it was vested in them for the use of the public generally, and not particularly for the use of the inhabitants of what was then called the Northern Liberties, or the township of the Northern Liberties at any time, more than for the use of the inhabitants of any other part of the State.

As to the claim of the complainants, notwithstanding their counsel have advocated it with greal zeal and earnestness, and refer to many acts of assembly, as well as books on municipal and international law, in support of it, we still think that they have failed to sustain it.

Among the acts of assembly referred to, none appear to have any bearing upon the question to be solved, unless, perhaps, it may be those of the 20th of February, 1768, (1 Smith’s L. 278,) the 4th of April, 1796, (3 Smith’s L. 274,) the 28th of March, 1803, (4 Smith’s L. 35,) the 1st of April, 1811, 13th section, (5 Smith’s L. 255,) the 22d of March, 1813, (6 Smith’s L. 37,) the 16th of March, 1819, (7 Smith’s L. 177,) and the 6th of March 1820, (7 Smith’s L. 260.) I do not, however, consider it necessary to notice them all; because the act of the 20th of February, 1768, which the complainants make the foundation of their claim, when construed according to the natural import of its terms, and what would seem to have been the intention of the legislature, does not bear them out. They have endeavoured to show that by this act the wharves and public landing places in question, were declared and established to be for the use of the inhabitants of what was therein called the Northern Liberties, and afterwards, the township of the Northern Liberties, in the act of the 4th of April, 1796. For this they rely chiefly upon the title and preamble of the act. The title is, “An act for raising, by way of lottery, the sum of five thousand two hundred and fifty pounds, for the purchasing a public landing in the Northern Liberties, and paving the streets of the city of Philadelphia;” and the preamble thereof, so far as relied on, is in these words, “Whereas it has been represented to the assembly of this province, by petition from sundry inhabitants of the city of Philadelphia, and Liberties thereto adjoining, that the few public landings at the north end of the said city, and in the said Liberties thereof, are scarcely sufficient for the accommodation of its present inhabitants and the king’s barracks, &c., to provide for which, Be it enacted,” &c. Now, if the enacting part of the act had not, in express terms, declared that the landing therein mentioned should be purchased for a different use from that which, it is contended by the counsel for the complainants, the title and preamble thereof indicate, there might have been perhaps, some show of plausibility, at least, in drawing the conclusion which they have done. But the tenth section of the act; as originally published, or the second section thereof, as published in 1 Smith’s L. 278, 279, enacts and declares, “ that the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, in trust for the public, by and with the consent and approbation of the justices of the peace of the said county, in the court of Quarter Sessions, shall, and they are thereby required and enjoined to buy a landing nearly opposite the said barracks, and receive the deed thereof, in trust/or the public; and further to build, or cause to be built thereon, a good wharf and a pier, for the use of the public.” And by the next succeeding section, it is further made the duty of the said commissioners, with the approbation of three Justices of the Peace of the county, to take care of the landing, by letting it out for the purpose of repairing and improving it for ever thereafter, as the said commissioners and justices, or a majority of them, for the time being, may judge most for the public good.

Now, although it may be, as rather seems to be indicated by the preamble of the act, that the legislature was induced or prompted to act upon this subject by a representation made in regard to it by some of the then inhabitants of the city of Philadelphia, and liberties thereto adjoining, stating that the few landings at the north end of the city and in the liberties thereto, were scarcely sufficient for the accommodation of its inhabitants at that time and the king’s barracks* yet it is clear that the legislature did not view the matter as a private grievance, but as one which concerned the public at large; and therefore expressly declared and directed, that the purchase of the landing should not only be in trust /or the public, but that the deed of conveyance from the vendor to the commissioners for it, should also be taken in trust/or the public; and, again, that the commissioners, after having purchased the landing, should not only build a wharf and pier thereon, for the use of the public, but should likewise for ever thereafter, repair and improve the same as they should judge best for the public good. Thus we see that the public is brought to view and designated as the only beneficiary of the landing as often as it is mentioned, or any thing said in relation to it, almost throughout the act, so that it is impossible to impute this repetition and uniformity of the declaration of the trust in favour of the public, to accident or inadvertence on the part of the legislature, or indeed to any thing but settled design. And so it was taken and considered by subsequent legislatures in their action on the subject. In the preamble to the act of the 4th of April, giving further powers to the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, in conjunction with three justices of the peace of the county, over the landings and wharves in dispute, it is stated “ that the public landings on the river Delaware, in the township of the Northern Liberties, may be rendered more serviceable and productive by giving further powers to the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, in whom the same are vested by law for the use of the public.” And so throughout this act they are styled public landings and wharves; and are placed under the control and management of the commissioners of the county and three justices of the same, without regard to or even mention of the inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties. And the 3d section enacts, “ that it shall be the duty of the said commissioners to keep the said landings, wharves, and hay scales, in good and perfect order and repair, and to improve the same from time to time in such manner as will most conduce to the public advantage; and whenever the funds which have arisen, or shall arise therefrom, shall, over and above the said repairs and improvements, be sufficient to purchase other landings or wharves, it shall be the duty of the said commissioners, with the consent and approbation of three justices as aforesaid, to make such purchases within the toivnship of the Northern Liberties, and to improve the same; and the landings or wharves so purchased or improved, shall be held under the like trusts and subject to the same rules and regulations as the before mentioned public landings and wharves.” The circumstance of the commissioners being restrained by this section to the purchase of landings and wharves lying within the township of the Northern Liberties as it then stood, has been laid hold of also by the counsel of the complainants, to show that the legislature intended to appropriate not only the profits arising from all the public landings and wharves then within the township of the Northern Liberties, to the use of the inhabitants thereof, but the profits likewise of all that should thereafter be purchased with the funds arising from those then in being. But, clearly, there is no ground whatever for this construction, because the township is not mentioned for the purpose of showing for whose use the purchases should be made; nor are there any terms of appropriation connected with it.* It is introduced merely to designate the space or bounds within which the commissioners should make the purchases enjoined by the act; and it is also perfectly obvious, that if the township had been introduced as the object for whose use the purchase of the landings and wharves was to be made, the next clause declaring that they “ should be held under the like trusts,” would be worse than useless, because it does not enforce or even comport with such construction, and therefore ought not. to have been inserted; but it having been declared in the preamble of the act that the public landings on the Delaware, then within the township of the Northern Liberties, were vested by law in the commissioners of the county for the use of the public, the words “ like trust,” must be considered as having á direct relation thereto, which renders every part of the section perfectly perspicuous as well as consistent with itself. Seeing, then, that these landings and wharves were held for the use of the public, and not for the inhabitants of any particular township, or county, or section of the state, it cannot be questioned but the legislature had the right as often as théy saw fit, to direct and change the appropriation of the funds or profits arising therefrom; and this was done in 1819, as to the public landings and wharves at the end of Coates street, and at the end of Callowhill street. By the 36th section of the act of the 16th of March, passed in' that year, and referred to above, the title to these wharves and landing places last mentioned, was vested in the board of commissioners and their successors, of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, “for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the said district.” The title to them had previously been vested in the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, for the use of the public. By this same section it is also declared and enacted as follows, that “ the public wharf or landing place, commonly called the Hay scale landing, as also the public wharf or landing place, on the south side of and adjoining Callowhill street, (being the wharves and landing places now in controversy,) heretofore held in trust by the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, shall be and are hereby vested in the board of commissioners of said district, (meaning the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties,) who shall keep the said landings and wharves in good and perfect order and repair, and to improve the same from time to time in such manner, as will most conduce to the public advantage; and whenever the funds which shall arise therefrom, shall, over and above the said repair and improvements, be sufficient to purchase other landing or wharves, it shall be the duty of the said commissioners to make such purchase within the township of the Northern Liberties, and to improve the same.” Thus, although the title for these wharves and landing places, which are the subject of dispute here, is taken from the commissioners of the county of Philadelphia, and vested in the board of commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, yet we see that the legislature studiously avoided making any change whatever in the use of them; and the commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties were thereby expressly required to keep them in good and perfect order and repair, and to improve them from time to time in such manner as should most conduce to the public advantage, without even the slightest allusion to or mention of the inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties; and what renders the design of the legislature at that time to continue the use of these latter wharves and landing places to the use of the public generally, the more striking is, that in the preceding part of the section, they have declared that the wharves and public landings at the ,end of Coates and Callowhill streets respectively, should be held for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the incorporated dis trict of the Northern Liberties, without any direction given to improve them, as should most conduce to the public advantage, as was done in respect to the wharves and landing places in question. There was, however, a change made by this section of the act of 1819, as regarded the place, within which the surplus funds arising from these last mentioned wharves or landing places should be invested by the commissioners in the purchase of other wharves or landing places, by restraining and confining them within the then existing bounds of the township of the Northern Liberties; which clearly excluded the district of Spring Garden and the township of Penn, but included the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties and the district of Kensington; because the township of Penn, which embraces the district of Spring Garden, having been erected and taken off from the township of the Northern Liberties, by a proceeding and order made for that purpose in the Court of Quarter Sessions, of the county of Philadelphia in 1808, and afterwards confirmed and established by the 13th section of the act of Assembly of the 1st of April, 1811, already mentioned, could therefore form no part of the latter in 1819, as it had done previously. And as to the reason for introducing the township of the Northern Liberties in this part of the 36th section of the act of 1819, it is perfectly manifest, that it was done for no other purpose, than to designate and point out to the commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, the place or limits within which they should thereafter invest the surplus funds arising from the Hay-scale landing, and that south of and adjoining to Callowhill street. This being the only reason for mentioning the township of the Noi’thern Liberties, it would then seem to follow of necessity, that its limits at that time were made the measure of the space, within which the investiture of the surplus funds was intended as well as directed to be madq, And here it may be further observed, that the legislature have shown, in this 36th section, as well as in the 35th, immediately preceding, that when they intended to appropriate the use of any wharves, public landings, or other property to the use of the inhabitants of any particular district, township, or part of the state, they did it in express terms and language, susceptible of but one construction; as when they declare that the public wharves or landing places at the end of Coates and Callowhill streets, shall be vested in the board of commissioners and their successors, of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties, “ for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the said district;” and in the 35th section, that the building commonly called the town house, together with the market house and stalls erected in Second street, between Coates street and Poplar lane, shall be vested in like manner in the same commissioners, “ for the use of the inhabitants of the said district.”

It has also been said, in the course of their argument, by the counsel of the complainants, jthat the money with which the wharves and. landing places in controversy were obtained, belonged to the inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties, according to its limits in 1768; or at least was raised by them, and that they thereby acquired a resulting trust in those wharves or landing places: but this is a great mistake, for the money with which they were purchased, so far as any thing has been shown in relation to this point, was raised by a lottery under the authority given by the act of 1768, and therefore must be considered public money according to the principle laid down in Ehrenzeller v. The Union Canal Company, 1 Rawle, 189. It was levied by a species of indirect .voluntary assessment on the public, to which the inhabitants of the township of the Northern Liberties may or may not have contributed ; and whether they did or not, is unknown and wholly immaterial. But, besides, it was expressly declared by the legislature, that the money should be raised for the purpose of being invested . in a purchase, to be made for the benefit and use of the public, and not for the inhabitants of any particular township or district; and unless we disregard the plain meaning of all the acts of assembly bearing on this matter, which seem to be couched in terms so perfectly free from all ambiguity, that it is impossible to misapprehend their true import, we cannot avoid pronouncing a judgment against the complainants.

We are therefore decidedly of opinion, that the public wharf or landing place, called the Hay-scale landing, and the public wharf or landing place on the south of and adjoining Callowhill street, were vested by the act of 1819, in the board of commissioners of the incorporated district of the Northern Liberties in trust for the use of the public generally; and that the complainants, either collectively or separately, have no claims or rights to any part or portion of the value or income thereof. Whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the petitions of the complainants be dismissed, and that they pay all the costs which have accrued in this case.  