Chicago Co v. State of Nebraska City of Omaha
Decision Date | 11 April 1898 |
Docket Number | No. 178,178 |
Citation | 18 S.Ct. 513,42 L.Ed. 948,170 U.S. 57 |
Parties | CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. STATE OF NEBRASKA ex rel. CITY OF OMAHA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The state of Nebraska, on the relation of the city of Omaha, filed its petition in the district court of the Fourth judicial district of Nebraska on January 19, 1895, asking judgment for the issuing of a writ of mandamus requiring the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company to repair, in accordance with the directions of a city ordinance enacted under certain statutes of the state legislature, the south one-third of the viaduct at Eleventh street in the city of Omaha, a structure forming a part of that street, and spanning a number of railroad tracks, one of which was owned and used by the said company, the others being owned by the Union Pacific Railway Company, and used by it and two other companies. The defendant filed its answer on March 6, 1895, alleging therein, among other things, that the legislature of Nebraska had no power to impose upon the defendant the duty of maintaining or repairing the viaduct, for the reason that to do so would be in violation of the obligations of the contract, hereinafter described, under which the viaduct was constructed, and contrary to the provisions of the constitution of the United States. At the trial of the case, evidence was adduced by both parties; but there was substantially no dispute respecting the facts, the controversy having relation only to the validity, interpretation, and effect of legislative enactments, and to the validity of city ordinances. On May 1, 1895, the court entered judgment in favor of the city, and directed that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue to the defendant company, commanding and requiring it to make the repairs in question, the same to be commenced immediately, and carried forward without unnecessary delay. The defendant, having been denied a new trial, took the case on writ of error to the supreme court of the state, and, upon the affirmance by that court of the judgment of the said district court (66 N. W. 624), sued out a writ of error bringing the case here, alleging in its assignment of errors that the statutes of Nebraska, which were held by the supreme court of that state to be valid, and to require the company to make the said repairs, were repugnant to the constitution of the United States, because they impaired the obligation of contracts, abridged the company's privileges and immunities, deprived it of its property without due process of law, and denied to it the equal protection of the laws, and that the judgment enforcing those statutes was therefore erroneous.
The facts presented are substantially as follows:
The defendant company is a corporation of the state of Illinois, has complied with the laws of the state of Nebraska, so as to be authorized to do business as a railroad company in that state, and maintains a general office therein, and is the grantee of and successor to the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company in Nebraska, a corporation of the state of Nebraska, which company was the lessee of the Omaha & Southwestern Railroad Company, a corporation organized in the year 1869, under chapter 25, Rev. St. Neb 1866. That chapter contains, among other provisions, the following:
* * * '
* * *'
On May 14, 1884, an ordinance of the city of Omaha was approved, granting to the Omaha & Southwestern Railroad Company the right of way through portions of certain streets and alleys, including Eleventh street, in that city. The ordinance was in part as follows:
'Said Omaha and Southwestern Railroad Company shall have the right to construct, maintain and operate a line of railroad along, upon, through and across said portions of said streets and alleys as a part of its line: provided, that said railroad track and tracks are constructed so as to conform to the grade of said street as near as may be, and so as to interfere as little as possible with the travel along and upon said streets: and, provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as interfering with the right of any property owner to recover from said company any damages resulting to private property by reason of the construction of said railroad, and nothing herein granted shall authorize any interference with the tracks of the Union Pacific Railway Company now laid and operated by said Union Pacific Railway Company in any portions of the streets and alleys herein named and enumerated.'
On March 4, 1885, an act of the legislature of Nebraska was approved, entitled 'An act to provide for viaducts, bridges and tunnels in certain cases, in cities of the first class,' whereby it was provided that the mayor and city council of any city of the first class should have power, whenever they deemed any such improvement necessary for the safety and convenience of the public, to engage and aid in the construction of any viaduct or bridge over or tunnel under any railroad track or tracks, switch or switches, in such cities, when such track or switches crossed or occupied any street, alley, or highway thereof, in the manner and extent provided for in the act, and should have the power to pass any and all ordinances, not in conflict with the act, that might be necessary or proper for the construction, maintenance, and protection of the said works.
By virtue of this act, the city of Omaha, which was then a city of the first class, and the Union Pacific Railway Company and the Omaha & Southwestern Railroad Company, the lessor of the defendant company, executed an agreement in writing February 1, 1886, providing, among other things, for the construction of a viaduct on Eleventh street across the tracks of those companies. The agreement was in part as follows:
Under the provisions of this agreement, the viaduct was built, and in 1887 it was opened to the use of the public. On March 30th of that year, a short time before the viaduct was completed, an act of the legislature was approved, entitled 'An act to incorporate metropolitan cities, defining, regulating and prescribing their duties, powers and government.' The act, which took effect from its passage, declared that all cities in the state of Nebraska then having a population of 60,000 inhabitants or more, according to the state census of 1885, and all cities in the state which should thereafter have a population of 60,000 inhabitants or more, should be considered and known as cities of the metropolitan class, and should be governed by the provisions of the act. Laws Neb. 1887, c. 10. At that time the city of Omaha, according to the state census of 1885, had a population in excess of the said number, and under the act was incorporated a city of the metropolitan...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Superior Court of King County
... ... commission to raise rates for telephone service in a city ... above the rates fixed by ordinance granting the franchise to ... 176; Munn v ... Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 24 L.Ed. 77; Chicago, etc., ... R. R. v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155, 24 L.Ed. 94. The authority ... 456, 54 N.W. 958, 20 L. R. A. 79, 35 Am. St. Rep. 580; ... Omaha Water Co. v. Omaha, 147 F. 1, 77 C. C. A. 267, ... 12 L. R. A. (N ... 961; ... C., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U.S. 57, 18 ... S.Ct. 513, 42 L.Ed. 948; Jones, Tel. & Tel ... ...
-
Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, 549
...carriers to establish grade crossings at their own expense, despite contracts to the contrary (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57, 18 Sup. Ct. 513, 42 L. Ed. 948); Page 421 and, likewise, to supersede, by an Employers' Liability Act, the provision of a charter ......
-
In re Arkansas Rate Cases
... ... against the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the state of ... Arkansas to enjoin the enforcement of the freight ... what was said in Chicago, Minneapolis & St. Paul Ry. v ... Tompkins, 176 U.S ... L.Ed. 260; Chicago, etc., R.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 ... U.S. 57, 73, 18 Sup.Ct. 513, 42 L.Ed. 948; Lake ... 1079; Butchers' Union Co. v ... Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 751, 4 Sup.Ct. 652, 28 ... L.Ed. 585; ... ...
-
City of Winston-Salem v. Southern Ry. Co.
...costs be paid by the State agency or municipality requiring the improvement to be made: Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Co. v. State of Nebraska, 1898, 170 U.S. 57, 18 S.Ct. 513, 42 L.Ed. 948; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, supra, 1914, 232 U.S. 430, ......