Baltimore Co v. Hopkins
Decision Date | 01 April 1889 |
Citation | 32 L.Ed. 908,9 S.Ct. 503,130 U.S. 210 |
Parties | BALTIMORE & P. R. CO. v. HOPKINS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action on the case brought by Hopkins in the supreme court of the District of Columbia against the Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company for injuries alleged by him to have resulted from a nuisance maintained by the railroad company on the public street in front of his door, from the 5th day of October, 1880, to the 5th day of October, 1883, the date of the commencement of the suit, consisting in suffering great numbers of freight cars to remain on said street for an unreasonable length of time; in shifting cars back and forth in an unreasonable manner, with engines making disturbing noises, and giving out volumes of smoke, cinders, etc., the cars being often filthy, and emitting offensive odors, etc. The freight station of the company was situated in square 386, at the original terminus of the road between Ninth and Tenth streets, on Maryland avenue. Hopkins' dwelling-house was in the square opposite on the north side of Maryland avenue, between the same lateral streets. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove the truth of the allegations in his declaration, and the defendant gave evidence in its own defense, and, among other things, to establish that the authorities of the District of Columbia in 1874 inclosed the tracks of the railroad with a line of stone curbing on each side about six inches higher than the adjacent surface of the streets, and that the tracks were elevated so as to be flush with this curbing; that the point between Ninth and Tenth streets was regarded and treated as the termini of two lines of railroad, one coming from Virginia, and the other from Maryland, and that the freight trains habitually stopped there as at the end of the route, to change engines, etc.; and it was claimed on behalf of defendant that it possessed and exercised authority by virtue of grants from the United States to do all that it did do in the premises, the validity of which authority, it is now insisted, was denied by the court.
Among other instructions given by the court, at plaintiff's request, was the following. '(8) The defendant company, under its charter, had no right to convert Maryland avenue, between Ninth and Tenth streets, into a freight-yard, by using the same for loading or unloading its cars, or to incumber said place with cars by leaving them standing there an unreasonable time when not in use, or to use said part of the avenue for making up freight trains or shifting the same, except so far as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of carefully carrying cars out of said station over the different tracks for the purpose of making up freight trains; and, if the jury shall find from the evidence that the defendant company did use said parts of Maryland avenue between the times named in the declaration for such loading or unloading of cars, or incumbered the same by leaving the cars standing there an unreasonable time when not in use, and used the same for making up and shifting its freight trains, (except in so far as was reasonably necessary in connection with the careful carrying of such cars into the freight station, or the careful carrying of such cars out of the station over the different tracks for the purpose of making up freight trains;) and shall further find that such acts on the part of the defendant interfered with the comfortable enjoyment by the plaintiff of his dwelling-house, No. 941 Maryland avenue,—then the plaintiff is entitled to recover.' And by instruction 7 the jury were told that 'the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any annoyances, discomforts, or inconveniences to himself or his family, or for any injury to the use and enjoyment of said dwelling-house, which resulted from such uses of Maryland avenue by the defendant as were reasonably incident to the careful conduct of its through business, and to the maintenance and careful use of its freight depot or station, abutting on the south side of said avenue between said Ninth and Tenth streets south-west.'
And the court gave, on defendant's behalf, these instructions: But refused to give, at defendant's request, among others, the following:
The court also instructed the jury upon its own motion: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milling Co v. Bondurant
...was must be decided upon the record presented here. The validity of a statute as was said in Baltimore & Potomac R. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, 224, 9 Sup. Ct. 503, 507 (32 L. Ed. 908), is drawn in question whenever the power to enact it 'as it is by its terms or is made to read by co......
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...591; Erie R. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 248 U. S. 369, 372, 39 S. Ct. 95, 63 L. Ed. 307, citing and following Baltimore & Potomac R. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, 9 S. Ct. 503, 32 L. Ed. 908; District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227, 9 S. Ct. 508, 32 L. Ed. 922, and United States v. Lynch......
-
Zikos v. Oregon R. Nav. Co.
... ... has been called, is not one to be followed here in view of ... the decisions of the Supreme Court upon this general rule of ... law. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, ... 13 Sup.Ct. 914, 37 L.Ed. 772 ... [179 F. 896] ... The ... argument that the statute is an ... validity of an authority every time an act done by such ... authority is disputed. Baltimore & Potomac R.R. Co. v ... Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210 (9 Sup.Ct. 503, 32 L.Ed. 908); ... Cook County v. Calumet, etc., Canal Company, 138 ... U.S. 635, 653 (11 Sup.Ct. 435, 34 L.Ed ... ...
-
Key v. Doyle
...States within the meaning of the relevant jurisdictional statute. This view underlies the opinion in Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210, 9 S.Ct. 503, 32 L.Ed. 908 (1889), in which an absence of jurisdiction was found for another reason.2 It was made explicit in Parsons v. D......