Cuyahoga River Power Company v. City of Akron

Decision Date20 March 1916
Docket NumberNo. 465,465
PartiesCUYAHOGA RIVER POWER COMPANY, Appt., v. CITY OF AKRON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Carroll G. Walter, John L. Wells, Charles A. Collin, R. Golden Donaldson, and Wade H. Ellis for appellant.

Messrs. Charles F. Choate, Jr., and Jonathan Taylor for appellee.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a bill in equity, brought by an Ohio corporation against a city of Ohio, to prevent the latter from appropriating the waters of the Cuyahoga river and its tributaries above a certain point. It alleges that the plaintiff was incorporated under the laws of Ohio for the purpose of generating hydroelectric power by means of dams and canals upon the said river, and of disposing of the same; that it has adopted surveys, maps, plans, and profiles to that end, has entered upon, located, and defined the property rights required, has instituted condemnation proceedings to acquire a part at least of such property, has sold bonds and spent large sums and has gained a paramount right to the water and necessary land. The bill also alleges that the city has passed an ordinance appropriating the water, and directing its solicitor to take proceedings in court for the assessment of the compensation to be paid. The district court dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction on the ground that it presented no Federal question, because, if the plaintiff had any rights, they could be appropriated only by paying for them in pursuance of the verdict of a jury and a judgment of a court. It made the statutory certificate, and the case comes here by direct appeal. 210 Fed. 524.

It appears to us that sufficient attention was not paid to other allegations of the bill. After setting out various passages from the statutes and Constitution of Ohio, and concluding that the city has no constitutional power to take the property and franchises that the plaintiff is alleged to own, or any property for a water supply, it alleges that the city does not intend to institute any proceedings against the plaintiff, but intends to take its property and rights without compensation; that it is building a dam and has taken steps that will destroy the plaintiff's rights; that it is insolvent; that the purpose of the ordinance and certain statutes referred to is to appropriate and destroy those rights without compensation; that the defendant purports to be acting under the ordinance, and that in so acting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Screws v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1945
    ...764; Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278, 288, 289, 33 S.Ct. 312, 315, 57 L.Ed. 510; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Akron, 240 U.S. 462, 36 S.Ct. 402, 60 L.Ed. 743; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Tafoya, 270 U.S. 426, 434, 46 S.Ct. 331, 332, 70 L.Ed. 664; Hopkins v. Southern Californi......
  • Kennedy v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 19, 1986
    ...contained in the First, Second, Third, and Eighth Claims of plaintiffs' Complaint. SO ORDERED. 1 Cuyahoga-River Power Co. v. City of Akron, 240 U.S. 462, 36 S.Ct. 402, 60 L.Ed. 743 (1916), cited by plaintiffs in their papers, is not to the contrary, as Justice Holmes' opinion in that case m......
  • Ligon v. State of Md.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • November 23, 1977
    ...of their constitutional rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. City of Akron, 240 U.S. 462, 464, 36 S.Ct. 402, 60 L.Ed. 743 (1916); Mosher v. City of Phoenix, 287 U.S. 29, 32, 53 S.Ct. 67, 77 L.Ed. 148 (1932); M. J. Brock & Sons, In......
  • Fraternal Order of Police Youngstown Lodge No. 28 v. Hunter
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • April 16, 1975
    ...Coastline R. R. Co. v. City of Goldsboro, N. Carolina) 232 U.S. 548 (34 S.Ct. 364, 58 L.Ed. 721); Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. City of Akron, 240 U.S. 462 (36 S.Ct. 402, 60 L.Ed. 743) The trial court noted that the rule as to residency by the Civil Service Commission prior to the adoption of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • FEDERAL COURTS AND TAKINGS LITIGATION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 No. 2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...(66) See, e.g.. Muhlker v. N.Y. & Harlem R.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544, 548 (1905). (67) Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. City of Akron, 240 U.S. 462, 463-64 (1916) (reinstating a federal question injunction action in which the company alleged that the city planned to appropriate its water rights w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT