Contributors To Pennsylvania Hospital v. City of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 05 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 349,349 |
| Parties | CONTRIBUTORS TO PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Owen J. Roberts, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John P. Connelly and Mr. Ernest Lowengrund, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants in error.
Whether contract obligations were impaired in violation of rights of the plaintiff in error protected by the Constitution of the United States as the result of the decision below, is the sole question we are called upon to decide on this record. It thus arises:
The plaintiff in error, a charitable institution was organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and in 1841 it established on a tract of land in the city of Philadelphia a hospital for the care and cure of the insane. Solicitous lest the opening of streets, lanes and alleys through its grounds might injuriously affect the performance of its work, in 1854 a committee of the managers of the hospital memorialized the Legislature on that subject and this resulted in the passage of a law specially forbidding the opening of any street or alley through the grounds in question without the consent of the hospital authorities. The act was conditioned upon the hospital making certain payments and furnishing ground for a designated public street or streets and these terms were accepted by the hospital and complied with. In 1913 the city, within the authority conferred upon it by the state, took the necessary preliminary steps to acquire by eminent domain land for the opening of a street through the hospital grounds and to prevent the accomplishment of this result the present suit was begun by the hospital to protect its right of property and its alleged contract under the act of 1854 (P. L. 385). As the result of proceedings in the state court the purpose of the city was so shaped as to cause it to seek to take under the right of eminent domain, not only the land desired for the street, but the rights under the contract of 1854 and there was a judgment against the hospital and in favor of the city in the trial court which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the judgment which is under review on this writ of error. 254 Pa. 392, 98 Atl. 1077.
The conclusions of the court were sustained in a per curiam opinion pointing out that there was no question involved of impairing the contract contained in the act of 1854 since the express purpose of the city was to exert the power of eminent domain not only as to the land proposed to be taken, but as to the contract itself. The right to do both was upheld on the ground that the power of eminent domain was so inherently governmental in character and so essential for the public welfare that it was not susceptible of being abridged by agreement and therefore the action of the city in exerting that power was not repugnant either to the state Constitution or to the contract clause of the Constitution of the United States.
It is apparent that the fundamental question, therefore, is, did the Constitution of the United States prevent the exertion of the right of eminent domain to provide for the street in question because of the binding effect of the contract previously made excluding the right to open the street through the land without the consent of the hospital. We say this is the question, since if the possibility were to be conceded that power existed to restrain by contract the further exercise by government of its right to exert eminent domain, it would be unthinkable that the existence of such right of contract could be ren- dered unavailing by directing proceedings in eminent domain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trimont Land Co. v. Truckee Sanitary Dist.
...431 U.S. 1, 23, fn. 20, 97 S.Ct. 1505, 1518 fn. 20, 52 L.Ed.2d 92 and authorities cited therein; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia (1917) 245 U.S. 20, 38 S.Ct. 35, 62 L.Ed. 124; Butchers' Union, etc., Co. v. Crescent City, etc., Co. (1884) 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652, 28 L.Ed. 585; Avco C......
-
Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, 549
...4 Sup. Ct. 652, 28 L. Ed. 585; Douglas v. Kentucky, 168 U. S. 488, 18 Sup. Ct. 199, 42 L. Ed. 553; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20, 23, 38 Sup. Ct. 35, 62 L. Ed. 124. Nor can existing contracts between private individuals preclude exercise of the police power. 'One whose......
-
United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson
...S.Ct. 718, 41 L.Ed. 1165; Cincinnati v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390, 32 S.Ct. 267, 56 L.Ed. 481; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20, 38 S.Ct. 35, 62 L.Ed. 124; Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U.S. 106, 44 S.Ct. 471, 68 L.Ed. 934; De Laval Steam Turbine Co.......
-
Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
...51 L.Ed. 231; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390, 32 S.Ct. 267, 56 L.Ed. 481; Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20, 23, 38 S.Ct. 35, 62 L.Ed. 124; Galveston Wharf Company v. Galveston, 260 U.S. 473, 476, 43 S.Ct. 168, 67 L.Ed. 355; Georgia v. Chattanoo......
-
Table of Cases
...(1980), 1490 Consumers Energy Co. v. FERC, 367 F.3d 915 (D.C. Cir. 2004), 1621-22 Contributors to Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20, 38 S.Ct. 35, 62 L.Ed. 124 (1917), 962 Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, to Use of Soc. for Relief of Distressed Pilots, The......
-
VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
...of the doctrine, see WRIGHT, supra note 167, at 203-13. (308) In Contributors to the Pennsylvania Hospital v. City of Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20 (1917), the Court cast this point as a matter of settled There can be now, in view of the many decisions of this court on the subject, no room for ......
-
Economic Rights: the Contracts and Takings Clauses
...[45] Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. (1 Otto) 367, 371-77 (1876). [46] See, e.g., Contributors to Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20, 23-24 (1917). [47] 164 U.S. 403, 416-17 (1896). [48] 125 S. Ct. 2655, 2673 (2005) (O'Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Tho......
-
United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey-state Promises and the Contract Clause: an Untimely Resurrection
...135. 372 U.S. 726 (1963). 136. See Linde, supra note 82, at 185. 137. See generally Contributors to Pa. Hosp. v. City of Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20 (1917). 138. For example, in W.B. Worthen Co. v. Thomas, 292 U.S. 426 (1934), discussed supra note 83, the state, by exempting life insurance pr......