Bridge Company v. United States

Decision Date01 October 1881
Citation26 L.Ed. 1143,105 U.S. 470
PartiesBRIDGE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.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:——

'SECT. 11. That any such company may fix or change the span and altitude of any bridge which it may erect and construct across the Ohio River: Provided, that the span of any such bridge be not less than three hundred feet in the clear over the main channel, and not less than two hundred and twenty feet in the clear in one of the next adjoining spans, and the height of the bridge in the centre of the span over than main channel shall not be less than one hundred feet above the surface of the water at low water, measuring for such elevation to the bottom chord of the bridge, and such height above extreme high-water mark as may be provided in any act of Congress now in force, or which may hereafter be passed; but this section shall not apply to any bridge built with a draw, in accordance with the provision of an act of Congress approved July 14, 1862, entitled 'An Act to establish certain postroads,' or any act that Congress may hereafter pass upon the subject.'

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:——

'SECT. 3. And be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for any other railroad company or companies whose line or lines of road may now or shall hereafter be built to the Ohio River above the mouth of the Big Sandy River, in accordance with the terms of the charter or charters of such company or companies, to build a bridge across said river for the more perfect connection of any such roads, and for the passage of trains thereof, under the limitations and conditions hereafter provided.

'SECT. 4. And be it further enacted, that any bridge erected under the privileges of this act may, at the option of the company or companies building the same, be built either as a drawbridge, with a pivot or other form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans: Provided, that if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation than ninety feet above low-water mark over the channel of the said river, nor in any case less than forty feet above extreme high water, as understood at the point of location, measuring for such elevation to the bottom chord of the bridge. Nor shall the span of such bridge covering the main channel of the river be less than three hundred feet in length, with also one of the next adjoining spans of not less than two hundred and twenty feet in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river as near as practicable: And provided also, that if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a drawbridge, the same shall be constructed with a span over the main channel of the river, as understood at the time of the erection of the bridge, of not less than three hundred feet in length, and said span shall not be less than seventy feet above low-water mark, measuring to the bottom chord of the bridge, and one of the next adjoining spans shall not be less than two hundred and twenty feet in length; and also that there shall be a pivot draw constructed in every such bridge at an accessible and navigable point, with spans of not less than one hundred feet in length on each side of the central or first pier of the draw: And provided also, that said draw shall always be opened promptly, upon reasonable signal, for the passage of boats whose construction may not, at the time, admit of their passing under the permanent spans of said bridge, except that said draw shall not be required to be opened when engines or trains are passing over said bridge, or when passenger trains are due; but in no case shall unnecessary delay occur in the opening of said draw after the passage of said engines or trains.'

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:——

'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the consent of Congress be, and the same is hereby, given to the erection of a bridge over the Ohio River from the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, to the city of Newport, Kentucky, by the Newport and Cincinnati Bridge Company, a corporation chartered and organized under the laws of each of the States of Kentucky and Ohio: Provided, that said bridge is built with an unbroken or continuous span of not less than four hundred feet in the clear, from pier to pier, over the main channel of the river, and is built in all other respects in accordance with the conditions and limitations of an act entitled 'An Act to establish certain post-roads,' approved July fourteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two. That said bridge, when completed in the manner specified in this resolution, shall be deemed and taken to be a legal structure, and shall be a post-road for the transmission of the mails of the United States; but Congress reserves the right to withdraw the assent hereby given in case the free navigation of said river shall at any time be substantially and materially obstructed by any bridge to be erected under the authority of this resolution, or to direct the necessary modifications and alterations of said bridge.'

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:

'SECT. 5. That it shall be unlawful for the Newport and Cincinnati Bridge Company, or any other company or person, to proceed in teh erection of the bridge now being constructed over the Ohio River, from the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, to the city of Newport, Kentucky, and the approaches thereto, unless the said bridge shall be so constructed that the channel span of four hundred feet, as now located, shall have under said span a clear headway at low water, of one hundred feet below any point of said channel span, and in such case no draw shall be required in said bridge; all the other spans of said bridge, which cover the Ohio River to low-water mark, shall have a clear headway of not less than seventy feet above low-water mark; and the other spans of the said bridge, extending to each shore, may be made of less elevation than seventy feet above low-water mark, to accommodate a regular grade for the approaches to said bridge. And when the foregoing requirements shall have been complied with by the said Newport and Cincinnati Bridge Company, the location of said bridge, its structures and approaches, shall thereupon be deemed to be legalized, and declared to be lawful structures, and shall be recognized and known as a post-route. The plans for changes in such bridge made necessary by this act shall be submitted by said company to the Secretary of War for his approval. And in the event of the bridge company making the changes provided for in this act, it shall be lawful for the said company, after they shall have made the changes in said bridge, and the approaches thereto, as herein provided, to file their bill in equity, against the United States in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, and full jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon said court to determine: First, whether the bridge, according to the plans on which it has progressed, at the passage of this act, has been constructed so as substantially to comply with the provisions of law relating thereto; and, second, the liability of the United States, if any there be, to the said company, by reason of the changes by this act required to be made, and if the said court shall determine that the United States is so liable, and that said bridge was so being built, then the said court shall further ascertai and determine the amount of the actual and necessary cost and expenditures reasonably required to be incurred in making the changes in the said bridge and its approaches, as hereby authorized or required, in excess of the cost of building said bridge and approaches according to the plan proposed before the changes required by this act to be made. And the said court is hereby further authorized and required to proceed therein to final decree, as in other cases in equity. And it shall be lawful for either party to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Washington Water Power Co. v. F.E.R.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 18 Octubre 1985
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 24 Abril 2018
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 30 Septiembre 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 9 Febrero 1911
    ...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. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 5, April 2021
    • 1 Abril 2021
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 2, December 2020
    • 22 Diciembre 2020
    ...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?
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 53 No. 2, November - November 2000
    • 1 Noviembre 2000
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT