The State of Pennsylvania v. the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, Et Al
Decision Date | 01 December 1855 |
Citation | 59 U.S. 421,18 How. 421,15 L.Ed. 435 |
Parties | THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THE WHEELING AND BELMONT BRIDGE COMPANY, ET AL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Witness the Honorable Roger B. Taney, chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, this 28th day of June, A. D. 1854.
Attest, WM. THOMAS Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The writs of injunction being served upon the company by leaving a copy at its office and with its president and secretary, and also upon the managers of the company, they proceeded to erect the bridge notwithstanding the injunction, and it was completed in November.
At December term, 1854, the complainant, by her counsel, having given previous notice to the company, filed a motion for a sequestration against the company, for a contempt of court in disobeying the injunction, and a motion for an attachment against the officers personally for their contempt in disobeying the injunction. The motions were as follows:——
Motion for Sequestration.
And now, to wit, at the December term, 1854, comes the State of Pennsylvania, by her attorney-general, and moves the court to order and direct a writ to be issued against the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, to sequestrate its estate, real, personal, and mixed, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof, its privileges and franchises, goods, chattels, rights, credits, moneys, and effects, for a contempt of court, by breach of and disobedience to the lawful writ, process, orders, decree, and commands of the supreme court of the United States.
The breaches and disobedience to said writ, process, orders, decree, and commands aforesaid, are stated and charged specifically as follows:——
1. That after service upon the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, by the marshal of the District of Columbia, of a copy of a writ of injunction issued out of said court, pursuant to an order of allowance made on the 26th day of June, 1854, by the Honorable R. C. Grier, one of the judges of the said supreme court, the said company have disobeyed said writ of injunction, and are engaged in doing and performing acts, and have caused and procured acts to be done, in disobedience of said injunction and of the process and authority of said court.
2. That after service upon said company by the marshal aforesaid, of a copy of the decree entered by said supreme court at the adjourned term of May, 1852, in the case of The State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company and others, said company have disobeyed said decree.
3. That since the service of the writ of injunction and decree as aforesaid upon said company, said company have stretched, suspended, and placed, and caused and procured to be stretched, suspended, and placed, iron cables, ropes, wires, or chains, over and across the eastern channel of the Ohio River, between Zane's Island and the main Virginia shore, at Wheeling, in disobedience of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Burley, Bankruptcy No. LA 80-08761-RO.
.... . . (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. . . . " 3 State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 18 How. 421, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1855); 7 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.166 and cases cited at n. 4 United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S......
-
No Oilport! v. Carter, Civ. A. No. C80-360M
...but rather federal action favoring the ports of one State over all the ports of another State. State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1855); Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. United States, 340 U.S. 216, 71 S.Ct. 264, 95 L.Ed. 225 Furth......
-
PERRY-BEY v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VA., Civil Action No. 2:08cv100.
...or involves `the supervision of changing conduct or conditions.'" Id. at 1139 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1856); and United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932)). As this Court noted abov......
-
ex parte Jenkins
...of rules of decision for Article III courts was an invalid usurpation of the judicial power); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1855) (recognizing that an act of Congress cannot annul a judgment of the Supreme Court that finally determi......
-
Table of Cases
...Bridge Co., 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 14 L.Ed. 249 (1852), 864 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L.Ed. 435(1856), Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922), 250, 968-69, 971, 984 Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 ......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...at 589–90 (Taney, C.J., dissenting). 44. 54 U.S. at 579 (Taney, C.J., dissenting). 45. See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421 (1856) (Wheeling Bridge II). 46. Wheeling Bridge II, 59 U.S. at 429 (quoting 10 Stat. 112 (1852)). 47. See Monroe, supra note 30, at 150. 48.......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...Rev. 101 (2001). 62. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. 518 (1852). 63. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421 (1856). 64. Luxton v. N. River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894). 65. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U.S. 365 (1897). 66. Wilson v. Sh......