Edward Minturn, Complainant and Appellant v. James Larue, Carlisle Patterson, and John Fouratt

Decision Date01 December 1859
Citation16 L.Ed. 574,23 How. 435,64 U.S. 435
PartiesEDWARD MINTURN, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. JAMES B. LARUE, CARLISLE P. PATTERSON, AND JOHN R. FOURATT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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 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 grants by the Legislature to corporations, whether public or private, that only such powers and rights can be exercised under them as are clearly comprehended within the words of the act or derived therefrom by necessary implication, regard being had to the objects of the grant. Any ambiguity or doubt arising out of the terms used by the Legislature must be resolved in favor of the public. This principle has been so often applied in the construction of corporate powers, that we need not stop to refer to authorities.

Now, looking at the terms of the grant in this case, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 cases
  • Hopkins v. City Of Richmond
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1915
    ...v. Nantucket, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 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;......
  • State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1913
    ...purposes be paralyzed 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 ;Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791 ;Ohio v. Cincinnati Gaslight & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262;Parkhurst v. City of Salem 32 Pac. 304;Sag......
  • Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas City, 672
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 14, 1896
    ... ... deed and the complainant in the foreclosure suit, appeals, ... because ... Duluth, 49 Minn. 280, 51 N.W. 913; Minturn v ... Larue, 23 How. 435; Wright v. Nagle, ... ...
  • Rachels v. Stecher Cooperage Works
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1910
    ...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 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. 661;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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