Cuyahoga River Power Company v. City of Akron

• Decision Date: 20 March 1916
• Docket Number: No. 465,465
• Citation: Cuyahoga River Power Company v. City of Akron, 240 U.S. 462, 36 S.Ct. 402, 60 L.Ed. 743 (1916)
• Parties: CUYAHOGA RIVER POWER COMPANY, Appt., v. CITY OF AKRON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

240 U.S. 462

36 S.Ct. 402

60 L.Ed. 743

CUYAHOGA RIVER POWER COMPANY, Appt.,

v CITY OF AKRON.

No. 465.

Argued October 20, 1915.

Decided March 20, 1916.

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...