International Bridge Co v. People of State of New York
| Citation | 254 U.S. 126,41 S.Ct. 56,65 L.Ed. 176 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 46,46 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CO. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Adelbert Moot and Mrs. Helen Z. M. Rodgers, both of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. James S. G. Ivins, of Albany, N. Y., and Ralph Averill Kellogg, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the People of the State of New York.
[Argument of Counsel from page 127 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit brought by the State of New York to recover penalties from the Bridge Company for failure to place upon its bridge a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians between Squaw Island in Niagara River and the mainland of New York State as required by ch. 666 of the Laws of 1915 of the State of New York. The defendant set up that the act was contrary to the Constitution of the United States in specified respects, but the plaintiff got judgment in the Supreme Court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 223 N. Y. 137, 119 N. E. 351.
The Bridge Company originally was incorporated by a special charter from the State of New York. Laws of 1857, c. 753. As the bridge was to cross the Niagara River from Buffalo to Canada, a similar corporation was created under the laws of Canada, 20 Vict. c. 227, and subsequently the two corporations were consolidated, pursuant to Laws of New York, 1869, c. 550, and a Canadian Act, 32 and 33 Vict. c. 65, subject to all the duties of each of the consolidated companies. By the Act of Congress of June 30, 1870, c. 176, 16 Stat. 173, any bridge constructed across the Niagara River in pursuance of the New York Act of 1857 and any acts of the New York legislature then in force amending the same was authorized as a lawful structure subject to the supervision of the Secretary of War and his approval of the plans. By the New York Act of 1857, 'Said bridge may be constructed as well for the passage of persons on foot and in carriages and otherwise as for the passage of railroad trains,' § 15. And 'whenever said bridge shall be complete for the passage of ordinary teams and carriages' the company may erect toll gates and charge tolls not exceeding certain rates for foot passengers, carriages, &c. The original Canadian act had words similar to those just quoted from § 15, except that it said 'shall be constructed' instead of 'may be,' a fact to which we shall advert again.
Between 1870 and 1874 the bridge was built as required by the charter with one draw across Black Rock Harbor and one across the main channel of the river. It crossed Squaw Island on a trestle, afterwards filled in, but was built as a railroad bridge exclusively without any provision for footpaths or roadways. By the Act of Congress of June 23, 1874, c. 475, 18 Stat. 275, it was declared a lawful structure and an established post route for the mail of the United States. In the year 1899 a plan for rebuilding the bridge with wings for roadways and footpaths was approved by the Secretary of War subject to changes at the expense of the Company if the Secretary should deem them advisable. The rebuilding took place in 1899-1901, but omitted the wings, and this modification was assented to by the Secretary of War.
The Niagara River is navigable at this point. In pursuance of plans for improvement adopted by the United States, in 1906 it acquired from the State of New York the land under Black Rock Harbor, lying on the New York side of Squaw Island, and the adjacent portions of the Erie Canal, both being within the limits of the State and crossed by the bridge. Thereafter the improvements were carried out.
In 1907 the Secretary of War gave notice to the Company that the bridge over Black Rock Harbor and Erie Canal obstructed navigation and that changes were required. The Company submitted plans again showing in dotted lines wings for roadways and footpaths, noting that they were not to be put in at present but that provision was made in the design for their future construction. The plans were approved and the bridge was built without the wings, the completion being reported by his resident representative to the Secretary of War.
By chapter 666 of the Laws of New York for 1915, the charter of the Company was amended so as to require the construction of a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians upon the draw across Black Rock Harbor, the Company being allowed to charge tolls not exceeding specified sums. The Company failed to comply with the requirement and the time limit had expired before this suit was brought to recover penalties imposed by the act. It is found that the construction was necessary for the public interest and convenience; that the cost of the changes is insignificant in comparison with the assets and net earnings of the Company, and that it does not appear that the investment would not yield a reasonable return.
The first objections to the new requirement made by the State are that it impairs the obligation of the contract in the original charter and takes the Company's property without due process of law. The argument is based partly upon a reduction of the tolls from those mentioned in the charter of 1857, made by the Act of 1915. Concerning this it is enough to say that the objection is premature. The clause relating to the construction of the roadway and pathway is distinct from and independent of that which fixes the maximum rates to be charged. The latter might be invalid and the former good. If the rates are too low they can be changed at any time. The only question now before us is whether the additions shall be built. As to that it would be going very far in the way of limiting the reserved right to amend such charters, if it should be held that the State had not the power to require what originally was contemplated in permissive words as part of the scheme. But however that might be, the New York Act authorizing consolidation subjected this consolidated corporation to the duties of the Canadian as well as of the New York charter, and the Canadian Act made the arrangement for foot passengers and carriages a duty. The words that we have quoted plainly impose one. The opinion in Attorney General v. International Bridge Co., 6 Ontario App. 537, 543, implies that they do so by speaking of the abandonment of a portion of the work as probably an abuse of the Act of Parliament, and the same is clearly stated in Canada Southern Ry. Co. v. International Bridge Co., 8 App. Cases, 723, 729.
It is argued that, the Canadian Ac...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BJ Van Ingen & Co. v. Burlington County Bridge Com'n
...there expressed is further buttressed by the language of the Supreme Court in the case of the International Bridge Co. v. New York, 254 U.S. 126, at page 133, 41 S.Ct. 56, 59, 65 L.Ed. 176, as follows: "The Act does not make Congress the source of the right to build but assumes that the rig......
-
United States Department of Energy v. Ohio Ohio v. United States Department of Energy
...under federal law even though such taxa- tion would not be possible without federal approval); International Bridge Co. v. New York, 254 U.S. 126, 133, 41 S.Ct. 56, 58-59, 65 L.Ed. 176 (1920) (congressional approval of construction of bridge by state-chartered company does not make federal ......
-
Asbury Hospital v. Cass County
... ... the State which created it; and, although it may act in ... another ... Corporations, pp ... 173, 174; Commonwealth v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 114 ... Pa. 340, 7 A. 756; Washington ... 387, 388, 389; People of Puerto Rico ... v. Rubert Hermanos, Inc., 309 U.S. 543, ... 310, 28 S.Ct. 65, 52 L.Ed. 222; ... International Bridge Co. v. New York, 254 U.S. 126, 41 S.Ct ... 56, 65 ... ...
-
City of Detroit v. Ambassador Bridge Co.
...First, relying on Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. American Seed Co., 249 Mich. 289, 228 N.W. 791 (1930), and Int'l Bridge Co. v. New York, 254 U.S. 126, 41 S.Ct. 56, 65 L.Ed. 176 (1920), the Court of Appeals held that the trial "court's finding that DIBC was constructed for the purpose of facil......
-
Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas and sovereign immunity: federal facility nonpoint sources, the APA, and the meaning of "in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity."
...(citing 28 U.S.C. [sections] 1331; Gully v. First Nat'l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 116 (1936); International Bridge Co. v. New York 254 U.S. 126, 133 (188) Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 211 (1976); United States......
-
Sovereign Immunity and State Regulation of Federal Facilities and Tribes
.... at 625 (citing 28 U.S.C. §1331; Gully v. First Nat’l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 116 (1936); International Bridge Co. v. New York, 254 U.S. 126, 133 (1920)). 69. Department of Energy , 503 U.S. at 622, 626. 70. Id . at 624. 71. Id . at 626. 72. Id . at 625. 73. Id . at 626-27. ch04.in......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...66. Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24 (1907). 67. Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States, 242 U.S. 409 (1917). 68. Int’l Bridge Co. v. New York, 254 U.S. 126 (1920). 69. Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931). 70. Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936). 71 . Id. at 330–31. 72. W......