Chicago v. Sheldon
| Decision Date | 01 December 1869 |
| Citation | 19 L.Ed. 594,76 U.S. 50,9 Wall. 50 |
| Parties | CHICAGO v. SHELDON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the case being thus:
The constitution of Illinois ordains that taxes shall be levied so that each person shall pay in proportion to the value of his property; and that where corporate authorities of counties, cities, &c., are authorized to levy and collect taxes for corporate purposes, the taxes shall be uniform in respect to persons and property.
With those provisions in force, as fundamental law, the legislature of the State, in February, 1859, authorized the North Chicago City Railway Company to construct and operate a single or double track of a horse railway on certain streets of the city, 'in such manner and upon such terms and conditions, and with such rights and privileges as the said common council may, by contract with said parties, prescribe.'
On the 23d May, of the same year, the common council passed an ordinance by which they granted to the company permission to lay, for twenty-five years, a single or double track of railway on certain streets of the city, upon certain conditions prescribed; these conditions relating chiefly to the sort of motive power, the purposes for which the railway was to be used, the style and class of car, the sort of track and degree of its elevation, and the rates of fare. Then followed a section thus:
'The said company shall, as respects the grading, paving, macadamizing, filling, or planking of the streets, or parts of the streets, upon which they shall construct their said railways, or any of them, keep eight feet in width along the line of said railway on all the streets wherever one track is constructed, and sixteen feet in width along the line of said railway where two tracks are constructed, in good repair and condition during all the time to which the privileges hereby granted to said company shall extend, in accordance with whatever order or regulation respecting the ordinary repairs thereof may be adopted by the common council of said city.'
After this contract was made, and carried into execution by the railway company, and up to the year 1866, the common council passed several ordinances for the improvement of some of the streets occupied by the company, thereby providing for curbing them with curbstone, grading and paving them with wooden blocks, known as the Nicholson pavement. Under none of these, however, was the railway property of the street railway corporation assessed, except under one passed in the year last named. In that year the proprietors of certain lots fronting on streets where the railway was laid, refused to pay the assessments made on them, upon the ground that the railroad property ought to be assessed. The question between these proprietors of lots and the city was taken to the Supreme Court of the State, in the case of the City of Chicago v. Baer,1 where it was held (the previous case of Chicago v. Larned,2 being considered as in principle asserting that doctrine), that the legislature could not constitutionally grant power to the city to make such a contract as had been here granted to the railway company, that it was void, and that, as a consequence, the city was bound to assess the railroad property. A special tax or assessment of $28,677 was now accordingly imposed upon the property of the railway company, and the collection being treatened, one Sheldon, a large stockholder in the company—the company itself having declined to act—filed a bill in the court below to enjoin the collection, and the court enjoined it accordingly. From that decree the city of Chicago brought the case here, the main question being whether under their contract to keep the road for a certain number of feet 'in good condition and repair,' the company could be made to pay for what was a new curbing, grading, and paving, altogether, there being also some minor questions as to the effect of the decisions already mentioned.
To complete the history of the matter in hand, a fact somewhat collateral to it should be mentioned. It is that in 1864, under the authority of the charter of the railway company, the common council entered into another contract with it in respect to laying tracks in other streets. The grant in this new case was made, 'subject to all the restrictions and conditions, rights and privileges in the previous ordinance of the 23d of May, 1859, to the same company, except as herein otherwise provided.' The fifth section provided, as in the first contract, for keeping the eight and sixteen feet of the street in good condition and repair, but it provided further, and in addition, that, when any new improvement, paving, &c., should be ordered by the common council in any of the streets, the railway company should make the improvement the width of the eight or sixteen feet, as the case might be.
Mr. Tuley, for the city, argued——
That a party, and especially a monopoly, setting up exemption from city assessment, should show its privilege under an express contract; such exemption being against common rights, and not to be favored; that, plainly, no such exemption was contracted for here.
That as the Supreme Court of Illinois had jurisdiction of the parties,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Atl. & N. C. R. Co
...416, 14 L. Ed. 997; Taylor v. Ypsilante, 105 U. S. 74, 26 L. Ed. 1008; Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U. S. 645, 24 L. Ed. 302; Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 50, 19 L. Ed. 594. An excellent statement of the doctrine of stare decisis will be found In Black's Interp. of Laws, 375 et seq., where it......
-
Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Wis.
...by the highest state authorities, no subsequent action by the state Legislature or judiciary can impair its obligation. Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50, 19 L. Ed. 594. A state cannot by amendment of its Constitution or by the adoption of a new Constitution impair the obligation of an existin......
-
Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los Angeles
...568; see, also, New York City Tunnel Authority v. Consolidated Edison Co., 295 N.Y. 467, 68 N.E.2d 445, 448-449. City of Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50, 76 U.S. 50, 19 L.Ed. 594; State ex rel. City of Kansas City v. Corrigan Consol. Street Ry. Co., 85 Mo. 263; City of Kansas City v. Corriga......
-
Hill v. Atlantic & N.C.R. Co.
... ... Kelsey v. Bank, 69 Pa. 426; F. W. Pub. Co. v ... Hitson, 80 Tex. 216, 14 S.W. 843, 16 S.W. 551; ... Sheldon v. Eickemeyer, 90 N.Y. 614. An express ... assent, it is said, is not essential on the part of the ... stockholder or the corporation in order to ... (U. S.) 416, 14 L.Ed. 997; Taylor v ... Ypsilante, 105 U.S. 74, 26 L.Ed. 1008; Boyd v ... Alabama, 94 U.S. 645, 24 L.Ed. 302; Chicago v ... Sheldon, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 50, 19 L.Ed. 594 ... An ... excellent statement of the doctrine of stare decisis will be ... ...
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...it interfered with legislatively granted rights to construct, operate, and maintain a street railway project); City of Chicago v. Sheldon, 76 U.S. 50 (1869) (prohibiting additional obligations on street railway franchisee not provided for under the original grant). See also Published in The......