Hudson County Water Company v. Robert Carter, No. 184
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 209 U.S. 349,52 L.Ed. 828,14 Ann. Cas. 560,28 S.Ct. 529 |
| Parties | HUDSON COUNTY WATER COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. ROBERT H. McCARTER, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey |
| Docket Number | No. 184 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1908 |
v.
ROBERT H. McCARTER, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey.
Page 350
Messrs. Gilbert Collins and Richard V. Lindabury for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 350-351 intentionally omitted]
Page 352
Mr. Robert H. McCarter for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 352 intentionally omitted]
Page 353
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from the Passaic river, at Little Falls, where the East Jersey Water Company has a large plant by which the water is withdrawn.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
Page 354
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
Page 355
owners of the stream, on the ground that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
...is a well-established 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 All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited ......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc Burns International Security Services, Inc v. National Labor Relations Board 8212 123, 71 8212 198, Nos. 71
...connection between the two employing entities is a naked transfer of employees. Justice Holmes in Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355, 28 S.Ct. 529, 531, 52 L.Ed. 828 (1908), summarized the general problem this way: 'All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their......
-
Duplantier v. U.S., No. 79-2351
...demean the weighty arguments advanced by the plaintiffs. We are reminded of Mr. Justice Holmes' statement in Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355, 28 S.Ct. 529, 52 L.Ed. 828 (1908), recently quoted with approval by Mr. Justice Rehnquist in Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 4......
-
Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, No. 549
...to state restriction cannot remove them from the power of the state by making a contract about them.' Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 357, 28 Sup. Ct. 529, 52 L. Ed. 828, 14 Ann. Cas. 560; Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 189 U. S. 434, 438, 23 Sup. Ct. 531, 47 L. Ed. 887; Ras......
-
United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
...is a well-established 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 All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited ......
-
Serrano v. Aetna Ins. Co., No. 14944
...making a contract about them. The contract will carry with it the infirmity of the subject matter." Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 357, 28 S.Ct. 529, 531-32, 52 L.Ed. 828 13 We have long held that a proper respect for a coordinate branch of government requires the exerci......
-
20TH Century Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, No. B147464.
...making a contract about them. The contract will carry with it the infirmity of the subject matter." (Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter (1908) 209 U.S. 349, 357, 28 S.Ct. 529, 52 L.Ed. 27. Now Family Code section 771. 28. Technically, Insurance Code section 2071 mandates the one-year limitations ......
-
Mendly v. County of Los Angeles, No. B073226
...to state restriction, cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about them." (Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 357 [28 S.Ct. 529, 531, 52 L.Ed. 828] (1908).)' [Citation.]" (Interstate Marina Development Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d ......
-
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......
-
State Water Ownership and the Future of Groundwater Management.
...Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (shrimp); West v. Kan. Nat. Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911) (natural gas); Hudson Cnty. Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908) (water); Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) (game birds), overruled by Hughes, 441 U.S. 322; see also Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 2......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...Paper Co., 172 U.S. 58, 68–82 (1898); Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141, 152–65 (1900). 167. See Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 356–58 (1908). 168. See Id. at 356 (“[F]ew public interests are more obvious, indisputable, and independent of particular theory than the inter......
-
Limiting Federal and State Enforcement of the Clean Water Act: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment 'Takings' of Private Property
...parties admitted that a Pennsylvania statute, the Kohler Act, completely destroyed both the Pennsylvania Coal Company’s mineral estate 4. 209 U.S. 349 (1908). 5. Id . at 355. 6. Id . at 355-56. 7. Id . at 356. 8. 260 U.S. 393 (1922). ch06.indd 150 4/30/09 10:10:48 AM limiting federal and st......