Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
Decision Date | 01 January 1837 |
Parties | The Proprietors of the CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, Plaintiffs in error, v. The Proprietors of the WARREN BRIDGE and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 420-423 intentionally omitted] IN error to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs in error were a corporation created by an act of the legislature of the state of Massachusetts, passed on the 9th of March 1785, entitled 'an act for incorporating certain persons for the purpose of building a bridge over Charles river, between Boston and Charlestown, and supporting the same, during forty years.' The preamble of the act stated, 'whereas, the erecting a bridge over Charles river, in the place where the ferry between Boston and Charlestown is now kept, will be of great public utility, and Thomas Russell, Esq., and others, have petitioned this court for an act of incorporation, to empower them to build the same bridge,' &c. The act authorizes taking certain tolls, prescribed the size of the bridge, and fixed certain regulations by which it would not be permitted to impede the navigation of Charles river; and enjoined certain things to be done, by which the bridge should be kept in good order, and fitted for constant and convenient use. The fifth section of the act provided, 'that after the said toll shall commence, the said proprietors or corporation, shall annually pay to Harvard College or Univeristy, the sum of two hundred pounds, during the said term of forty years; and at the end of the said term, the said bridge shall revert to, and be the property of, the commonwealth; saving to the said college or university, a reasonable and annual compensation for the annual income of the ferry; which they might have received, had not said bridge been erected.'
The bridge was erected under the authority of this act; and afterwards, on the 9th of March 1792, in an act which authorized the making a bridge from the western part of Boston to Cambridge, after reciting that the erecting of Charles River bridge was a work of hazard and public utility, and another bridge in the place proposed for the West Boston bridge, might diminish the emoluments of Charles River bridge; therefore, for the encouragement of enterprise, the eighth section of the act declared, 'that the proprietors of the Charles River bridge shall continue to be a corporation and body politic, for and during the term of seventy years, to be computed from the day the bridge was first opened for passengers.'
The record contained exhibits, relating to the establishment of the ferry from Charlestown to Boston, at the place where the bridge was erected; and also the proceedings of the general courts of Massachusetts, by which the ferry there became the property of Harvard College. Some of these proceedings, verbatim, were as follows:
Further extract from the colony records, filed by the plfs.
The case of the plaintiffs in error is thus stated in the opinion of the court: It appears from the record, that in the year 1650, the legislature of Massachusetts granted to the president of Harvard College 'the liberty and power' to dispose of the ferry from Charlestown to Boston, by lease or otherwise, in the behalf, and for the behoof of the college; and that under that grant, the college continued to hold and keep the ferry, by its lessees or agents, and to receive the profits of it, until 1758. In that year, a petition was presented to the legislature, by Thomas Russell and others, stating the inconvenience of the transportation by ferries over Charles river, and the public advantage that would result from a bridge; and praying to be incorporated for the purpose of erecting a bridge in the place where the ferry between Boston and Charlestown was then kept. Pursuant to the petition, the legislature, on the 9th of March 1785, passed an act incorporating a company by the name of 'The Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge,' for the purposes mentioned in the petition. Under this charter, the company were authorized to erect a bridge 'in the place where the ferry is now kept;' certain tolls were granted, and the charter was limited to forty years from the first opening of the bridge for passengers; and from the time the toll commenced, until the expiration of the term, the company were to pay two hundred pounds, annually, to Harvard College; and at the expiration of the forty years, the bridge was to be the property of the commonwealth; 'saving, as the law expresses it, to the said college or university, a reasonable annual compensation for the annual income of the ferry, which they might have received, had not the said bridge been erected.' The bridge was accordingly built, and was opened for passengers, on the 17th June 1786. In 1792, the charter was extended to seventy years from the opening of the bridge, and at the expiration of that time, it was to belong to the commonwealth. The corporation have regularly paid to the college the annual sum of two hundred pounds; and have performed all the duties imposed on them by the terms of their charter.
In 1828, the legislature of Massachusetts incorporated a company by the name of 'The proprietors of the Warren Bridge,' for the purpose of erecting another bridge over the Charles river. The bridge is only sixteen rods, at its commencement, on the Charlestown side, from the commencement of the bridge of the plaintiffs, and they are about fifty rods apart, at their termination on the Boston side. The travellers who pass over either bridge, proceed from Charlestown square, which receives the travel of many great public roads, leading from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sebastian Bridge Dist. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...... of building a free vehicular bridge across the Arkansas river. from a designated point in Garrison avenue, Ft. Smith, Ark. The act defined the boundaries of ... with a consequent loss of tolls (Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 9 L.Ed. 773; Helena. Waterworks Co. v. Helena, 195 ......
-
Studier v. MPSERB, Docket No. 125765
...its creation.'" Keefe v. Clark, 322 U.S. 393, 397, [64 S.Ct. 1072, 88 L.Ed. 1346] (1944) (quoting Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 548 [36 U.S. 420, 9 L.Ed. 773] (1837)). Thus, the party asserting the creation of a contract must overcome this well-founded presumption, Dod......
-
Opinion of the Justices
...by contract to continue the powers granted. See, however, answer to questions 2 and 3. See Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 9 L.Ed. 773. Question 5 appears to require no Question 6 appears by its terms to require no answer, but it see......
-
Wilmington City Railway Co. v. Wilmington & Brandywine Springs Railway Co.
......R. R. Co. vs. Bowers, 4 Houst. 506; Enfield Toll Bridge Co. vs. Hartford &c. R. R. Co., 17 Conn. 40, 42 Am. Dec. ...5. App. Cas. 473. . . In. Hudson River Telegraph Co. vs. Watervliet Turnpike & R. R. Co., 135 ... intention is plain and unambiguous. Charles River Bridge. vs. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420; Warren Gas ......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...contRact clause: a constitutional histoRy 1 (2016). 47. U.S. const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. 48. See ely, supra note 46, at 147, 190–91. 49. 36 U.S. 420 (1837). 50. 10 U.S. 87, 137 (1810). 51. See 2 Ronald d. Rotunda & John e. noWaK, Rotunda and noWaK’s tReatise on constitutional laW—substance ......
-
Table of Cases
...Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 883, 81 L.Ed. 1279 (1937), 702, 741-42 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420, 9 L.Ed. 773 (1837), 392, Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 123 S.Ct. 1994, 155 L.Ed.2d 984 (2003), 1020 Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for Dist. of ......
-
Tennessee. Practice Text
...Id. 162. 52 Tenn. 495 (Tenn. 1871). 163. Id. at 529 (quoting Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)); accord City of Watauga v. City of Johnson City, 589 S.W.2d 901, 904 (Tenn. 1979) (“A monopoly has been defined to be an exclusive ri......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...(1975). 6. See Murray, supra note 4. 7. See 248 U.S. 132 (1918). 8. Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837). 9. 2 RONALD D. ROTUNDA & JOHN E. NOWAK, TREATISE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE, §§ 15.8(a) & 15.8(b)(iii) (Westlaw 202......