John Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Company
| Citation | 50 L.Ed. 581,26 S.Ct. 301,200 U.S. 527 |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 172,172 |
| Parties | JOHN STRICKLEY and Ellen Strickley, Plffs. in Err. , v. HIGHLAND BOY GOLD MINING COMPANY |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Arthur Brown and Frank Hoffman for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 527-528 intentionally omitted] Messrs. George Sutherland, Waldemar Van Cott, and E. M. Allison, Jr., for defendant in error.
in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 528-529 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a proceeding begun by the defendant in error, a mining corporation, to condemn a right of way for an a erial bucket line across a placer mining claim of the plaintiffs in error. The mining corporation owns mines high up in Bingham canyon, in West mountain mining district, Salt Lake county, Utah, and is using the line or way to carry ores, etc., for itself and others from the mines, in suspended buckets, down to the railway station, 2 miles distant, and 1,200 feet below. Before building the way it made diligent inquiry, but could not discover the owner of the placer claim in question, Strickley standing by without objecting or making known his rights while the company put up its structure. The trial court found the facts and made an order of condemnation. This order recites that the mining company has paid into court the value of the right of way, as found, and costs, describes the right of way by metes and bounds, and specifies that the same is to be used for the erection of certain towers to support the cables of the line, with a right to drive along the way when necessary for repairs, the mining company to move the towers as often as reasonably required by the owners of the claim for using and working the said claim. The foregoing final order was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 28 Utah, 215, 78 Pac. 296. The case then was brought here.
The plaintiffs in error set up in their answer to the condemnation proceedings that the right of way demanded is solely for private use, and that the taking of their land for that purpose is contrary to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The mining company, on the other hand, relies upon the statutes of Utah, which provide that [Utah, Rev. Stat. 1898, § 3588.] In view of the decision of the state court we assume that the condemnation was authorized by the state laws, subject only to the question whether those laws, as construed, are consistent with the 14th Amendment. Some objections to this view were mentioned, but they are not open. If the statutes are constitutional as construed, we follow the construction of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spahn v. Stewart
...Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685, 687, 17 S.Ct. 718, 41 L.Ed. 1165. It is not material that some reap more benefit than others. Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Company, supra; Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Company v. Alabama I. Co., 240 U.S. 30, 36 S.Ct. 234, 60 L.Ed. 507. Nor is the governm......
-
State v. Clausen
... ... Company, against C. W. Clausen, as State Auditor, to ... 676, 49 L.Ed. 1085]; Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining ... Co., 200 U.S ... ...
-
State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.
... ... General, against the Crescent Cotton Oil Company. Relief ... denied and relator appeals ... & E. Ann. Cas. 1171; Stickley v ... Highland Boy Gold Min. Mill. Co., 200 U.S. 527, 50 L.Ed ... 118; ... Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v ... Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 189, 31 ... ...
-
Washington Water Power Co. v. Waters
... ... 19 Idaho 595 THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHARLES WATERS, BERTHA E ... 1085, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold ... Mining Co., 200 U.S ... ...
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906). We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since. The disposition of this case therefore turns on the questi......
-
CHAPTER 9 ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY CONDEMNATION
...Hous. Auth., 467 U.S. at 239; Hairston v. Danville & W. Ry. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 605-07 (1907); Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 530-31 (1905); Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158 (1896); Nash v. Clark, 75 P. 371, 373 (Utah), aff'd, 198 U.S. 361 (1......
-
ON THE RIGHTFUL DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS.
...of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700. 710 (1923) (upholding right to take property to build a highway): Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 530-31 (1906) (same for a railroad); Searl v. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 133 U.S. 553, 564 (1890) (same for a school); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 1......
-
Enough Is Enough, Unless of Course, It's Not: A Missed Opportunity to Reexamine the Ambiguity of Penn Central.
...stressing "[t]he inadequacy of use by the general public as a 'universal test.'" Id. (quoting Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (32.) See Kelo, 545 U.S. at 480 (explaining no basis for exempting economic development from public purpose). The Court rejected the not......