Charles Offield v. New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Company
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McKenna |
| Citation | Charles Offield v. New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Company, 203 U.S. 372, 27 S.Ct. 72, 51 L.Ed. 231 (1906) |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 59,59 |
| Parties | CHARLES K. OFFIELD, Plff. in Err., v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN, & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY |
Messrs. Edward H. Rogers, W. H. H. Miller, and Charles K. Bush for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 372-374 intentionally omitted] Messrs. George D. Watrous and Edward G. Buckland for defendant in error.
This writ of error brings up for review a judgment of the supreme court of errors of the state of Connecticut, rendered in a proceeding under the statutes of that state for the condemnation of two shares of stock owned by plaintiff in error in the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company.
There was a demurrer to the application, which was overruled by the advice of the supreme court of errors, the judgment on demurrer having been reserved, under the practice of the state, for the advice and consideration of that court. 77 Conn. 417, 59 Atl. 510. Upon the hearing judgment was rendered for defendant in error, which was affirmed by the supreme court of errors. 78 Conn. 1, 60 Atl. 740.
Defendant in error is the lessee of the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company, and has acquired all of the shares of stock of the latter road except the two shares owned by plaintiff in error.
That the lease and acquisition of stock are valid under the laws of the state is decided by the supreme court of errors, and it is sought by proceedings under review to obtain the two shares of stock owned by plaintiff in error, under §§ 3694 and 3695 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, which are as follows:
The purpose of the acquisition of the stock is to enable defendant in error to improve the New Haven & Derby Railroad.
It is contended by plaintiff in error (1) that the purpose for which the stock is sought to be obtained is not a public use. (2) That defendant in error has the power and authority to make the improvements mentioned in its application, which would be as advantageous as taking the stock. (3) The proceedings and statutes are in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and impair the contract rights of plaintiff in error as stockholder of the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Clausen
... ... Company, against C. W. Clausen, as State Auditor, to ... making railroad corporations absolutely liable, without ... been upheld in the states of New York and Illinois. Fire ... Department v. Noble, ... 301, 50 L.Ed. 581]; ... Offield v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., ... ...
-
State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.
... ... General, against the Crescent Cotton Oil Company. Relief ... denied and relator appeals ... Cumming Cas. Pri. Corp. 148; Thomas v. Railroad Co., ... 101 U.S. 71, 25 L.Ed. 950; Ryne v. Mfg ... Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 10 ... L.Ed. 274; New York L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Conn., 129 ... Pa. 463, 18 ... Co., 92 Tenn. 420, 21 S.W. 893; ... Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Raymond, 70 Mich. 485, 38 ... ...
-
Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
...14 See, also, New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650, 673, 6 S.Ct. 252, 29 L.Ed. 516; Offield v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R. Co., 203 U.S. 372, 27 S.Ct. 72, 51 L.Ed. 231; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390, 32 S.Ct. 267, 56 L.Ed. 481; Pennsylvania Hosp......
-
Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York
...531, 26 S. Ct. 301, 50 L. Ed. 581, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174; and even minority shares of stock in a Railway Company, Offield v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 203 U. S. 372, 377, 27 S. Ct. 72, 51 L. Ed. 231. The kind of property to be taken by the federal government under its right of eminent domain ......
-
Municipal Condemnation of Mortgage Loans
...security are inseparable; the mortgage alone is not a subject of transfer.")32. See Offield v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906) (eminent domain condemnation of corporate stock), Brown v. Kennedy, 82 U.S. 591 (1872) (condemnation of secured debt and the related mo......