Louisville Co v. Western Union Telegraph Co

• Decision Date: 09 June 1919
• Docket Number: Nos. 176,248,s. 176
• Citation: 39 S.Ct. 513,250 U.S. 363,63 L.Ed. 1032
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. (two cases)
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

250 U.S. 363

39 S.Ct. 513

63 L.Ed. 1032

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

v WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. (two cases).

Nos. 176, 248.

Argued Jan. 22 and 23, 1919.

Decided June 9, 1919.

Messrs. Gregory L. Smith, of Mobile, Ala., and Henry L. Stone and Edward S. Jouett, both of Louisville, Ky., for appellant and plaintiff in error.

Mr. Rush Taggart, of Louisville, Ky., for appellee and defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

These suits, the earlier begun in the District Court of the United States, the later in a court of the State of Mississippi, are bills in equity containing the same allegations and seeking the same relief. They both seek a decree that State judgments of condemnation by emient domain, giving to the telegraph company the right to erect its poles along the railroad's right of way across the State of Mississippi, are void. The State case was decided first and was in favor of the defendant in error. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 107 Miss. 626, 65 South. 650. Then in the District Court the telegraph company pleaded the State decree as a conclusive adjudication and moved that the bill and a supplemental bill be dismissed. Against the supplemental bill it also set up an injunction in its favor granted by another Court of the United States, reported in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (D. C.) 201 Fed. 946, and 207 Fed. 1, 124 C. C. A. 573. The bills were dismissed upon both grounds. 233 Fed. 82, 147 C. C. A. 152. The constitutional questions raised are presented equally in the State case and as we shall deal with them under that, 107 Miss. 626, 65 South. 650, it may be assumed, subject to those questions, that the other decision was right, as we see no reason to doubt.

The Mississippi proceedings in eminent domain are limited in their effect to determining the amount of damages to be paid. If the right to condemn is disputed that is left to be decided by a suit in equity. Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. Oak Grove & Georgetown R. R. Co., 89 Miss. 84, 105-107, 110, 113, 43 South. 292. The railroad company resorted to such a bill in this case. So far as it alleged a failure to comply with the State laws the State decision is conclusive against it, and of course it connot complain of not being given a hearing simply because it is referred for that hearing to a different suit from that in which the value of the property is fixed. The separation is familiar. United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 519, 3 Sup. Ct. 346, 27 L. Ed. 1015. Passing these matters by, the first contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment alleged is that under the Mississippi laws the right could be taken only for a new line, whereas the bill avers that the telegraph company wanted the right not for a new line but for the purpose of maintaining an existing line that it had maintained theretofore under a contract with the railroad now brought to an end. To this the Supreme Court replied that, the judgments being right upon their face, if the telegraph company attempted to use them to maintain an existing line instead of a new one its rights could be determined when the attempt was made. The Fourteenth Amendment knows no difference between the two purposes, and the extent to which the telegraph company is confined to one of them under the State laws is for the State court to decide. No constitutional right is infringed when the State court postpones discussion until the attempt is made. The decree as well as the opinion saves the railroad's right in that event.

It is argued that the judgments are void because they do not fix the exact location of the telegraph poles within the specified right of way. But they allow only one line of poles to be set up, and require it to be erected 'in such manner and at such distance from defendant's (the railroad's) track as in no way to interfere with the operation of trains of said defendants, or with any proper and legitimate use thereof by defendants, or the use by any telegraph or telephone company now existing thereon, and so as not to be dangerous to persons or property, and subject to all the stipulations and agreements in said petition contained.' The petition contains a agreement that if, after the erection of the poles, etc., 'it should become necessary for the said defendant to change the location of its tracks, or...