Hannibal Bridge Company v. United States
Decision Date | 15 May 1911 |
Docket Number | No. 100,100 |
Citation | 221 U.S. 194,31 S.Ct. 603,55 L.Ed. 699 |
Parties | HANNIBAL BRIDGE COMPANY and the Wabash Railroad Company, Plffs. in Err., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wells H. Blodgett, R. Burnham Moffat, James L. Minnis, and George A. Mahan for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 195-197 intentionally omitted] Assistant Attorney General Harr for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 197-199 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a criminal information against the Hannibal Bridge Company, the Wabash Railroad Company, and the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, under the 18th section of the river and harbor appropriation act of Congress of March 3d, 1899 (30 Stat. at L. 1121, chap. 425).
That section is as follows:
Proceeding under the above statute, certain vessel owners, masters, pilots, and others interested in the navigation of the Mississippi river, represented to the Secre- tary of War, by petition, that the bridge over that river at Hannibal, Missouri, had become and was an unreasonable obstruction to free navigation by reason of the location of the then-existing draw openings, the entire absence of guide-fences or sheer booms, and the presence of artificial deposits of stone about the piers of the bridge, which they believed had increased the current through the draw openings to a dangerous extent. The Secretary was asked by the petitioners to exercise the powers granted to him by the above act, and after due hearing of all interested persons or corporations, require such alterations to be made in and about the bridge as would render navigation through it reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed.
The matter was referred by the War Department to an officer of the Engineer Corps of the Army, for report. That officer, after examination, reported that, from personal observation and experience, especially during the great flood of June, 1903, he was satisfied that the bridge was an unreasonable obstruction to navigation, by reason of the wrong location of the draw spans, the absence of guard fences or sheer booms, and the deposit of riprap in considerable quantities about the piers and abutments. The report recommended certain changes in order that navigation through the bridge might be reasonably safe, easy, and unobstructed. In these recommendations the Chief of Engineers concurred. 'The character of this bridge as an unreasonable obstruction to navigation is,' the report stated, 'so generally understood, and has been so well established by former hearings, that further hearings would appear to be superfluous; but, as the alteration of the structure so as to make it reasonably safe for navigation will be expensive, and on that account will probably be antagonized by its owners, I believe it would be best to hold another hearing, at which all parties in interest may be heard; the said new hearing to take place as soon as practicable.'
Subsequently, under date of March 10th, 1906, there was issued by the War Department an official communication to the bridge company, as follows:
Similar notices were given to the Wabash Railroad Company and the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, respectively, each notice being signed by '...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Philadelphia Company v. Henry Stimson
...367; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177, 54 L. ed. 435, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356; Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 194, 55 L. ed. 699, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603. In Gibson v. United States, supra, the construction of a dyke in the Ohio river under the authority of ......
-
Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York
...525; Union Bridge Company v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 377-388, 27 S. Ct. 367, 51 L. Ed. 523; Hannibal Bridge Company v. United States, 221 U. S. 194, 205, 31 S. Ct. 603, 55 L. Ed. 699; Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U. S. 367, 414, 49 S. Ct. 163, 73 L. Ed. 426; United States v. Grimaud, 22......
-
Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC
...through legislation or an administrative proceeding. See, e.g., id., at 420–421, 37 S.Ct. 158 ; Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 194, 205, 31 S.Ct. 603, 55 L.Ed. 699 (1911) ; Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470, 478–482, 26 L.Ed. 1143 (1882). The same is true for franchi......
-
Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. United States
... ... Virginia. February 20, 1913 ... The ... complainant, Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Company, is the owner ... in fee of certain property bordering on the Southern branch ... of the ... structure has been placed in a navigable stream, such as a ... bridge, or lock and dam, as an improvement to the navigation ... of a stream wholly within its borders, ... v. United States, ... 204 U.S. 364, 27 Sup.Ct. 367, 51 L.Ed. 523; Hannibal ... Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 194, 31 Sup.Ct ... 603, 55 L.Ed. 699; Philadelphia ... ...