James Achison, Plaintiff In Error v. Jonathan Huddleson

Decision Date01 December 1851
Citation53 U.S. 293,13 L.Ed. 993,12 How. 293
PartiesJAMES C. ACHISON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JONATHAN HUDDLESON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

53 U.S. 293
12 How. 293
13 L.Ed. 993
JAMES C. ACHISON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JONATHAN HUDDLESON .
December Term, 1851

THIS case was brought up from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.

It was originally a suit brought in the County Court of Alleghany County, in Maryland, by Jonathan Huddleson, superintendent of that part of the United States Road within the limits of the state of Maryland, against Stockton, Falls, Moore, and Achison, trading under the firm and style of Stockton, Falls & Co., who were the contractors for carrying the mail across the Alleghany Mountains.

The acts of Congress and of the states through which the Cumberland Road passes, were set forth in 3 How., 151, 720. A brief summary is all that is now required.

In 1832, the state of Maryland passed an act relative to the Cumberland Road, proposing to collect certain tolls upon it for the purpose of keeping it in repair. This act contained the following:

'And provided further, That no tolls shall be received or

Page 294

collected for the passage of any wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States, or any cannon or military stores belonging to the United States, or to any of the states composing this Union.'

The Congress of the United States, by an act approved July 3d, 1832, entitled 'An act making appropriations for certain internal improvements for the year 1832,' gave the assent of Congress to the provisions of the aforesaid act of the Legislature of Maryland, in the words following, to wit: 'And of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Maryland, entitled 'An act for the preservation and repair of that part of the United States road within the limits of the State of Maryland, passed the twenty-third day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two;' to which said acts the assent of the United States is hereby given, to remain in force during the pleasure of Congress.'

It was admitted by agreement of counsel that Stockton, Falls & Co., during the whole time for which the charge for the transit of stages upon the said United States road was made, were the carriers of the United States mails, in four-horse post-coaches, under a contract with the Postmaster-General of the United States, two articles of which looked to the transportation of passengers with the mail.

On the 10th March, 1843, the Legislature of Maryland passed an act, the first three sections of which were as follows:

'Sect. 1. Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, that from and after the passage of this act there shall be demanded and received by the toll-collectors on that part of the United States road, within the limits of the State of Maryland, from the owner or owners of every passenger or mail coach or stage passing the gates on said road, the sum of four cents for every passenger carried in the same, for every space of ten miles on said road, and so in proportion for every greater or less distance, which shall be taken and received in lieu of the tolls now established by law on all coaches or stages with four horses passing over said road, and which shall be collected, paid out, and expended as other tolls on said road are collected, paid out and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Cunningham v. Potts
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • December 4, 1925
    ......        Plaintiff cites: Edwards v. Bodkin, 249 F. 562, 161 C. C. ...S. 625, 16 S. Ct. 1073, 41 L. Ed. 287; Achison v. Huddleson, 12 How. 293, 13 L. Ed. 993; ......
  • State ex rel. Goshen Irrigation District v. Hunt, Secretary of State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 5, 1936
    ...... property and that plaintiff was created for a public purpose. and property ...720, 3 HOW 720,. 11 L.Ed. 800, Achison v. Huddleson, 53 U.S. 293, 12. HOW 293, 13 ......
  • Wheeling & E. G. R. Co v. Town Of Triadelphia
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 12, 1905
    ...any governmental purpose. Searight v. Stokes, 3 How. 151, 11 L. Ed. 537; Neil v. Ohio, 3 How. 720, 11 L. Ed. 800; Achison v. Huddleson, 12 How. 293, 13 L. Ed. 993. Upon the formation of the state of West Virginia, that portion of said road lying within this state passed under its control, a......
  • Wheeling & E.G.R. Co. v. Town of Triadelphia
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 12, 1905
    ......Decree for defendants, and plaintiff. appeals. Reversed. . . ...Ohio, 3 How. 720, 11 L.Ed. 800;. Achison v. Huddleson, 12 How. 293, 13 L.Ed. 993. Upon ...For all these, the writ of error is. the process for review. In chancery causes ......
  • 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