
    GETZ VS. PHILADELPHIA & READING R. R. CO.
    The approval of a bond given by a railroad company to secure damages for land taken, does not determine the question, whether the railroad company has the right under its charter to appropriate the land.
    Certiorari to Common Pleas of Berks County. No. 43 .January Term, 1879.
    The Philadelphia and Reading R. R. Co. were about to construct a track, raised 30 inches above the street, to connect with a bridge so as to obtain access to the rolling mill oí Seyfert, McManus & Co. across Canal street in front of Getz’s property, and took a small dwelling house on his lot. Getz filed a bill in equity to restrain them, but the Court dissolved the injunction on the railroad company’s filing a bond for the damages of Getz. The bond was approved by the Court and Getz then took certiorari, complaining of the action of the Court in entertaining jurisdiction of the application to approve of the bond, and in approving of the bond.
    
      A. G. Green and H. W. Bland, Esqs
    
    , for plaintiff in error argued that this was taking Getz’s property for the benefit of the rolling mill, and was unlawful; Lambertson vs. Hogan, 2 Barr 24; Brown vs. Hummel, 6 Barr 86; Palairet’s Appeal, 17 P. F. S., 488. Whatever power is not expressly given to a corporation is withheld; Commonwealth vs. Erie and N. E. R. R. Co., 3 C. 339; Diligent Fire Engine Co. vs. Commonwealth 25 S. 261. The charter of the West Reading Railroad, Act March 20, 1860, P. L. 471, does not give it the power to build branches. The power of the P. & R. R. R. Co. under the Acts of April 13, 1846, Sect, 17 P. L. 322; April 12, 1864, P. L. 396, March 24, 1865, P. L. 759 and March 19, 1872, P. L. 445, would not cover this case; Pittsburgh vs. Penna. R. R. Co, 12 Wr. 355. Certiorari is proper to inquire whether the Court had jurisdiction; Commonwealth vs. Northampton County, 7 P. F. S. 452; Ruhlman vs. Commonwealth, 5 Binn. 24; Hummell’s Case, 9 Watts 431; Commonwealth vs. Beaumont 4 Rawle 366; Schuler vs. Northern Liberties and Penn Twp. R. R. Co., 3 Wharton 555.
    
      George F. Baer, Esq., contra,
    
    argued that on a certiorari the Court will only see whether the proceedings are regular, and will not go into the merits.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court below, on March 24th, 1879, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

The proceedings brought up on the record are regular on their tace. The approval of the bond is not a subject of review in this court. The question whether the Railroad Company had authority to enter upon the land of Hiram L. Getz & Co., to make the branch cannot be decided on this certiorari. If the company had the right; the bond was an essential prerequisite to the exercise of it. The approval of the bond settled nothing as to the right. It decided merely the question of the sufficiency of the sureties and the amount of the bond. These other matters are not before us.

Writ of certiorari quashed.  