Edward Minturn, Complainant and Appellant v. James Larue, Carlisle Patterson, and John Fouratt
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | NELSON |
| Citation | 16 L.Ed. 574,23 How. 435,64 U.S. 435 |
| Parties | EDWARD MINTURN, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. JAMES B. LARUE, CARLISLE P. PATTERSON, AND JOHN R. FOURATT |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1859 |
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
Minturn filed his bill against the defendants, claiming a right, under the authorities of the town of Oakland, to establish a ferry, exclusively, between the city of San Francisco and the city of Oakland. The bill prayed for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from running the steamboat San Antonio or any other steamboat or vessel between the two places. The defendants demurred to the bill, and the Circuit Court sustained the demurrer. The complainant appealed to this court.
The case was argued by Mr. Johnson for the appellant, and by Mr. Stanton for the appellees.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of California.
The bill was filed by the complainant in the court below to restrain the defendants from running a ferry between the city of San Francisco and the city of Oakland, on the opposite side of the bay, and which, it is claimed, is in violation of the exclusive
Page 436
privileges belonging to him under the authority of law. The authority, as set forth in the bill, is derived from the charter of the town (now city) of Oakland. The 3d section of the charter (passed May 4, 1852) provided that 'the board of trustees shall have power to make such by-laws and ordinances as they may deem proper and necessary;' among other things, 'to lay out, make, open, widen, regulate, and keep in repair, all streets, roads, bridges, ferries,' &c., 'wharves, docks, piers, slips,' &c.; 'and to authorize the construction of the same;' 'and with a view to facilitate the construction of wharves and other improvements, the lands lying within the limits aforesaid, (that is, of the corporation,) between high tide and ship channel, are hereby granted and released to said town.'
It is admitted, if the authorities of the town of Oakland possessed the power under the charter to grant an exclusive right of ferries between that place and the city of San Francisco, the complainant has become vested with it. The question in the case, therefore, is, whether or not the power was conferred by this 3d section of the charter.
It is a well-settled rule of construction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkins v. City Of Richmond, (No. 1.)
...103; Clark v. Davenport, 14 Iowa, 404; Clark v. Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199. 87 Am. Dec. 423: Minturn v. Larue, 64 U. S. (23 How.) 435. 16 L. Ed. 574; Bank, etc., v. Chillicothe, 7 Ohio, 31, pt. 2, 30 Am. Dec. 185: Collins v. Hatch, 18 Ohio, 523, 51 Am. Dec. 465; Sharpe v. Speir, 4 Hill (N. Y.......
-
Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas City, 672
...30 F. 324; Saginaw Gaslight Co. v. City of Saginaw, 28 F. 529, 540; Long v. City of Duluth, 49 Minn. 280, 51 N.W. 913; Minturn v. Larue, 23 How. 435; Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791. It was upon the principles we have conceded, and upon the authorities just cited, that the court below seems t......
-
State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
...in their exercise by the existence of exclusive privileges. The rule and the reason for it are expressed in Minturn v. Larue, 23 How. 436 [16 L. Ed. 574];Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791 [25 L. Ed. 921];Ohio v. Cincinnati Gaslight & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262;Parkhurst v. City of Salem [23 Or.......
-
State ex rel. County Attorney & Fullerton v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
...be paralyzed in their exercise by the existence of exclusive privileges. The rule and the reason for it are expressed in Minturn v. Larue, 64 U.S. 435, 23 HOW 435 at 436 (16 L.Ed. 574); Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791 (25 L.Ed. 921); Ohio v. Cincinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262; P......
-
Hopkins v. City Of Richmond, (No. 1.)
...103; Clark v. Davenport, 14 Iowa, 404; Clark v. Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199. 87 Am. Dec. 423: Minturn v. Larue, 64 U. S. (23 How.) 435. 16 L. Ed. 574; Bank, etc., v. Chillicothe, 7 Ohio, 31, pt. 2, 30 Am. Dec. 185: Collins v. Hatch, 18 Ohio, 523, 51 Am. Dec. 465; Sharpe v. Speir, 4 Hill (N. Y.......
-
State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
...in their exercise by the existence of exclusive privileges. The rule and the reason for it are expressed in Minturn v. Larue, 23 How. 436 [16 L. Ed. 574];Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791 [25 L. Ed. 921];Ohio v. Cincinnati Gaslight & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262;Parkhurst v. City of Salem [23 Or.......
-
State ex rel. County Attorney & Fullerton v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
...be paralyzed in their exercise by the existence of exclusive privileges. The rule and the reason for it are expressed in Minturn v. Larue, 64 U.S. 435, 23 HOW 435 at 436 (16 L.Ed. 574); Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791 (25 L.Ed. 921); Ohio v. Cincinnati Gas-Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262; P......
-
Rachels v. Stecher Cooperage Works
...the corporation. 45 L. R. A. 680; 43 Mo. 353; 135 N.Y. 404; 10 Mo. 559; 31 Mo. 185; 108 Mo. 559; 16 How. 534; 9 Mo. 507; 130 Mo. 10; 23 How. 435; 64 L. R. A. 376; 24 L.Ed. 1036; 32 L.Ed. 842. A contract of a corporation that is outside the object of its creation is of no validity. 82 Mo.App......