Hudson County Water Company v. Robert Carter
| Citation | 209 U.S. 349,52 L.Ed. 828,14 Ann. Cas. 560,28 S.Ct. 529 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | No. 184,184 |
| Parties | HUDSON COUNTY WATER COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. ROBERT H. McCARTER, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Gilbert Collins and Richard V. Lindabury for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 350-351 intentionally omitted] Mr. Robert H. McCarter for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 352 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an information alleging that the defendant (the plaintiff in error), under a contract with the city of Bayonne, in New Jersey, has laid mains in that city for the purpose of carrying water to Staten island, in the state of New York. By other contracts it is to get the water from the Passaic river, at Little Falls, where the East Jersey Water Company has a large plant by which the water is withdrawn. On May 11, 1905, the state of New Jersey, reciting the need of preserving the fresh water of the state for the health and prosperity of the citizens, enacted that 'it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation to transport or carry, through pipes, conduits, ditches, or canals, the waters of any fresh water lake, pond, brook, creek, river, or stream of this state into any other state, for use therein.' By a second section a proceeding like the present was authorized, in order enforce the act. Laws of 1905, chap. 238, p. 461. After the passage of this statute the defendant made a contract with the city of New York to furnish a supply of water adequate for the borough of Richmond, and of not less than 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thereupon this information was brought, praying that, pursuant to the above act and otherwise, the defendant might be enjoined from carrying the waters of the Passaic river out of the state. There are allegations as to the amount of water and the probable future demand, upon which the parties are not wholly agreed, but the essential facts are not denied. The defendant sets up that the statute, if applicable to it, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, that it impairs the obligation of contracts, takes property without due process of law, interferes with commerce between New Jersey and New York, denies the privileges of citizens of New Jersey to citizens of other states, and denies to them the equal protection of the laws. An injunction was issued by the chancellor (70 N. J. Eq. 525, 61 Atl. 710), the decree was affirmed by the court of errors and appeals (70 N. J. Eq. 695, 65 Atl. 489), and the case then was brought here.
The court below assumed or decided, and we shall assume, that the defendant represents the rights of a riparian proprietor; and, on the other hand, that it represents no special chartered powers that give it greater rights than those. On these assumptions the court of errors and appeals pointed out that a riparian proprietor has no right to divert waters for more than a reasonable distance from the body of the stream or for other than the well-known ordinary uses, and that for any purpose anywhere he is narrowly limited in amount. It went on to infer that his only right in the body of the stream is to have the flow continue, and that there is a residuum of public ownership in the state. It reinforced the state's rights by the state's title to the bed of the stream where flowed by the tide, and concluded from the foregoing and other considerations that, as against the rights of riparian owners merely as such, the state was warranted in prohibiting the acquisition of the title to water on a larger scale.
We will not say that the considerations that we have stated do not warrant the conclusion reached; and we shall not attempt to revise the opinion of the local court upon the local law, if, for the purpose of decision, we accept the argument of the plaintiff in error that it is open to revision when constitutional rights are set up. Neither shall we consider whether such a state as the one before us might not be up held, even if the lower riparian proprietors collectively were the absolute owners of the stream, on the ground that it authorized a suit by the state in their interest, where it does not appear that they all have released their rights. See Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 142, 46 L. ed. 838, 844, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 552. But we prefer to put the authority, which cannot be denied to the state, upon a broader ground than that which was emphasized below, since, in our opinion, it is independent of the more or less attenuated residuum of title that the state may be said to possess.
All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached. The limits set to property by other public interests present themselves as a branch of what is called the police power of the state. The boundary at which the conflicting interests balance cannot be determined by any general formula in advance, but points in the line, or helping to establish it, are fixed by decisions that this or that concrete case falls on the nearer or farther side. For instance, the police power may limit the height of buildings in a city, without compensation. To that extent it cuts down what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
...constitutional principle, however, as the court, through Mr. Justice Holmes, stated in Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355, 28 S.Ct. 529, 531, 52 L.Ed. 828 (1908): All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighbo......
-
Asah v. N.J. Dep't of Educ.
...Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. , 459 U.S. 400, 411, 103 S.Ct. 697, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983) (quoting Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter , 209 U.S. 349, 357, 28 S.Ct. 529, 52 L.Ed. 828 (1908) ).25 With respect to Counts Seven and Eight, as noted in this Court's June 30, 2017 Opinion, courts within ......
-
State v. Clausen
... ... Company, against C. W. Clausen, as State Auditor, to ... sought by mandamus to compel the county treasurer of Spokane ... to collect an ... Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, ... ...
-
Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins
...interstate commerce was merely a mental condition and not an actual condition. A mere desire to do an interstate business is not enough. 52 L.Ed. 828. In case at bar the appellant was engaged in an interstate business strictly, its whole purpose in coming into the state of Mississippi was t......
-
Table of Cases
...Hudson & Goodwin, United States v., 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812), 581, 905, 1465 Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 28 S.Ct. 529, 52 L.Ed. 828 (1908), Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 96 S.Ct. 2488, 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976), 876 Hughes v. Oklahom......
-
Palazzolo, Lucas, and Penn Central: the Need for Pragmatism, Symbolism, and Ad Hoc Balancing
...and accompanying text. 265. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 128 (1978) (quoting Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355 (1908)). 266. See, e.g., Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928) (enjoining the application of the zoning scheme to plaintiff becau......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...40 (1960) (Government’s complete destruction of a materialman’s lien in certain property held a “taking”); Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355 (1908) (if height restriction makes property wholly useless “the rights of property . . . prevail over the other public interest” and co......
-
The Intersection of Constitutional Law and Environmental Litigation
...156. U.S. CONST. art 1, § 8, cl. 1, 3. 157. See Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). 158. See Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908). 159. See Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 340 U.S. 179 (1950). 160. See Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979). 161. S......