Bridge Company v. United States
Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
Citation | 26 L.Ed. 1143,105 U.S. 470 |
Parties | BRIDGE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
On the 5th of February, 1868, the General Assembly of Kentucky passed an act to incorporate the Newport and Cin- cinnati Bridge Company, with power to build a bridge across the Ohio River between Newport and Cincinnati. This charter provided 'that the said bridge shall be constructed so as nto to obstruct the navigation of the Ohio River further than the law of the United States authorize.'
On the 3d of April, in the same year, the General Assembly of Ohio enacted a statute authorizing the creation and organization of corporations to build bridges across the same river. This act, in order that the bridges to be built might not obstruct navigation, provided that they should be erected 'in accordance with the provisions of an act of Congress approved July 14, 1862, entitled 'An Act to establish certain post-roads,' or of any act that Congress may hereafter pass on the same subject.' its eleventh section is as follows:——
' .
On the same day this act was passed, the Newport and Cincinnati Bridge Company was organized under it in Ohio to build a bridge between Cincinnati and Newport. Afterwards, on the 16th of April, 1868, the Kentucky and Ohio companies, pursuant to provisions in their respective charters, were consolidated, and became one corporation, with the general powers which the divisional companies originally possessed.
The material provisions of the act of July 14, 1862, c. 167, entitled 'An Act to establish certain post-roads' (12 Stat. 569), are as follows:——
' .
' .
On the 3d of March, 1869, Congress passed a resolution entitled 'A resolution giving the assent of t e United States to the construction of the Newport and Cincinnati bridge.' 15 Stat. 347. It is as follows:——
After the passage of this resolution, the consolidated company began the erection of a brawbridge with a pivot draw, and expended a large amount of money in the undertaking, but before it was completed, Congress passed the act of March 3, 1871, c. 121, the fifth section of which (16 id. 572) is as follows:
' . ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Washington Water Power Co. v. F.E.R.C.
...stretch of the river, interstate or intrastate. In Pennsylvania, this court, citing Newport & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. United States, 15 Otto 470, 480, 105 U.S. 470, 480, 26 L.Ed. 1143 (1881), held that "the supervision and control by Congress of navigable waterways 'is continuous in its na......
-
Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC
...37 S.Ct. 158 ; Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 194, 205, 31 S.Ct. 603, 55 L.Ed. 699 (1911) ; Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470, 478–482, 26 L.Ed. 1143 (1882). The same is true for franchises that permit companies to build railroads or telegraph lines. See, e.g., Unite......
-
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Can.
...surrendered unless it was manifestly so intended. Every doubt should be resolved in favor of the government.Newport & C. Bridge Co. v. U.S., 105 U.S. 470, 480, 26 L.Ed. 1143 (1881). It is an "elementary principle" that "[e]xclusive rights to public franchises are not favored. If granted, th......
-
Coyle v. Smith
...L. Ed. 798; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46, 23 L. Ed. 59; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324, 24 L. Ed. 224; Bridge Co. v. U. S., 105 U.S. 470, 26 L. Ed. 1143; Packer v. Bird, 137 U.S. 661, 11 S. Ct. 210, 34 L. Ed. 819; Manchester v. Mass., 139 U.S. 240, 11 S. Ct. 559, 35 L. Ed. ......
-
VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
...at 1374 (quoting Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2137 (2016)). (605) Id. at 1375 (citing Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470 (1882), and other cases). But cf. id. at 1379 ("[0]ur decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purp......
-
PATENTS, PUBLIC FRANCHISES, AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.
...commerce-clause authority to require the bridge's removal in the first place. Id. (73.) Id. at 417. See also Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470, 480 (1881) ("Congress, which alone exercises the legislative power of the government, is the constitutional protector of foreign and inter-......
-
Takings, trade secrets, and tobacco: mountain or molehill?
...the federal guarantee. See, e.g., Montana Co. v. St. Louis Mining and Milling Co., 152 U.S. 160, 169 (1894); Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470, 502 (1881); see also, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427 (1982). (42.) Pumpelly, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 1......