Galveston Wharf Co v. City of Galveston

Decision Date02 January 1923
Docket NumberNo. 19,19
PartiesGALVESTON WHARF CO. et al. v. CITY OF GALVESTON et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. J. W. Terry, of Galveston, Tex., for appellants.

Mr. Frank S. Anderson, of Galveston, Tex., for appellees.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court dismissing a bill in equity for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the bill states no federal question. The ground appears by the decree and also by the certificate of the Judge. Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231 (the Judicial Code) § 238, 36 Stat. 1087, 1157, amended by Act of January 28, 1915, c. 22, § 2, 38 Stat. 803, 804 (Comp. St. § 1215).

The bill alleges a contract embodied by consent in a decree of April 1, 1869, that compromised a suit brought by the city against the present plaintiff, the Galveston Wharf Company, plaintiff in error, concerning flats in Galveston Bay. It is enough to state the general features of the arrangement. The title of the Wharf Company to certain lands was established, but it was provided that the City should become owner of one-third of the Wharf Company's stock, which was to be increased to that end, and of an undivided one-third of the Wharf Company's property, in trust for the present and future inhabitants of Galveston—all to be inalienable except by a four-fifths vote of all the qualified voters. This was confirmed by the Legislature in 1870. There was a later contract of March 9, 1905, not now material except that it again confirmed the decree of 1869, and has been performed up to the date of the bill.

But in May, 1920, the City, which is self-governing, amended its charter by giving itself power to purchase condemn and operate the various means and instrumentalities of public service such as gas and electric lighting plants, dock and wharf railway terminals, docks, wharves, and other things named, including the property jointly owned by the Galveston Wharf Company and the City, for the purpose of owning and operating any such public service and distributing it, with provision as to the mode of exercising eminent domain. By another amendment details were arranged in case the City should acquire the joint property by purchase or condemnation and by still another the City was authorized to compel a partition of the same property when authorized by a majority of its qualified voters, and to that end to prosecute a suit. It is alleged that end purpose of a partition would be a sale of one-third of the property upon a majority vote of the citizens, whereas the contract required a vote of four-fifths; and that a condemnation equally would impair the obligation of contracts and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1934
    ...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. Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472, 44 S.Ct. 369, 68 L.Ed. 15 Laws of 1920 (New York), chapters 942—94......
  • Gardner v. City of Dallas
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 26, 1936
    ...Munic.Corp. (2d Ed.) 172 (970). 2 Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 659, 24 L.Ed. 1036; Galveston Wharf Co. v. Galveston, 260 U.S. 473, 43 S.Ct. 168, 67 L.Ed. 355; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205; Cincinnati v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 223 U.S. 390,......
  • Greenup County v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • May 16, 1947
    ...at will. Contributors to Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20, 38 S.Ct. 35, 62 L.Ed. 124; Galveston Wharf Co. v. Galveston, 260 U.S. 473, 43 S.Ct. 168, 67 L.Ed. 355. It is superior to property rights (Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 23 L.Ed. 449) and extends to all p......
  • State of Georgia v. City of Chattanooga
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1924
    ...be resumed at will. Pennsylvania Hospital v. Philadelphia, 245 U. S. 20, 38 Sup. Ct. 35, 62 L. Ed. 124; Galveston Wharf Co. v. Galveston, 260 U. S. 473, 43 Sup. Ct. 168, 67 L. Ed. 355. It is superior to property rights (Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367, 371, 23 L. Ed. 449), and extends t......
  • 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