Market Company v. Hoffman
| Citation | 101 U.S. 112,25 L.Ed. 782 |
| Parties | MARKET COMPANY v. HOFFMAN |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
2. Where a number of bidders filed such a bill, the value of the right to sell, which the company claimed and the court below denied, determines the jurisdiction here. Where, therefore, a sale which would have produced more than $2,500 was enjoined by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the company is entitled to an appeal, under the act of Feb. 25, 1879. 20 Stat. 320.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William Birney for the appellant.
Mr. Richard T. Merrick for the appellee.
This was a bill originally brought by James A. Hoffman against the Washington Market Company, praying for an injunction against the company's proceeding to sell a stall in their market, occupied by him, and for a decree establishing his right to retain possession of said stall so long as he chose to occupy it for his business as a butcher. Subsequently the bill was amended by consent, and two hundred and five occupants of other stalls in the market were made complainants with him. The relief then asked was an injunction in favor of each complainant, together with a decree establishing the right of each to the continued occupancy of his stall so long as he might choose to occupy it for his business. After hearing the court by a final decree enjoined the company from selling, or offering for sale, the stands and stalls of the several complainants, or any of them, and also adjudged that the rights of the complainants in their several stalls and stands did not expire, by any valid limitations of the time for the continuance of such rights and interest, in two years from July 1, 1872. From this decree the company appealed.
The first question to be determined is whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to give us jurisdiction of the appeal. Upon this we have no doubt. While it may be true, that if Hoffman was the sole complainant, the amount in controversy would be insufficient to justify an appeal either by him or the company, the case is one of two hundred and six complainants suing jointly, the decree is a single one in favor of them all, and in denial of the right claimed by the company, which is of far greater value than the sum which, by the act of Congress, is the limit below which an appeal is not allowable. It is averred under oath in the pleadings that the sale which the company proposed to make, and the court below enjoined, would have realized to the company more than $60,000. Of this benefit the decree deprives them. It is very plain, therefore, that the appeal is one within our jurisdiction.
Dismissing this, we come directly to the merits of the case. The company, chartered by an act of Congress approved May 20, 1870 (16 Stat. 124), was authorized to erect upon a lot belonging to the United States a market-house with stalls. By the second section of the act it was enacted as follows:——
'And the said company shall, whenever any part or parts of said buildings, stalls, stands, and so forth, for market purposes, are ready for use or occupancy, offer the same for sale at public auction, for one or more years, to the highest bidder or bidders, subject to the payment of an annual rent, the amount of which to be fixed by the mayor and common council of the city of Washington and the directors of this incorporation' [a prescribed public notice being given],
By sect. 14, the corporation was required to pay to the city of Washington the sum of $25,000 annually, in consideration of the privileges granted; and by sect. 12 it was provided that at the expiration of thirty years the city of Washington might take possession of the property, on paying a sum equal to a fair valuation of the buildings and improvements. The property was made to revert to the United States at the end of ninety-nine years.
Such were the provisions of the act of Congress that have any bearing on the present case. In pursuance of the authority given by the second section, the company, on the 25th of May, 1872, offered to the highest bidder, at public auction, the stalls or stands in the market, for the term of two years from the first day of July, 1872; and Hoffman, with the other complainants, or persons under whose bids they claim, became the highest bidders for the several stalls they occupy. They now insist that they are entitled to hold the stalls thus bid off so long as they may choose to occupy them for their own business and pay the rent, notwithstanding the said term of two years has expired, claiming that such are the rights given by the act of Congress to the highest bidders at the auction.
We think this claim is quite unfounded. In our judgment, it has no warrant in any reasonable construction of the charter. The company was authorized and required to sell the privilege of occupying a stall at public auction for a term, or, to use the language of the act, 'for one or more years;' and subsequent sales and leases were required to be made in the same manner. The company was left at liberty to fix the length of the term. They might sell for two years, or ten, or thirty, at their option, but in all cases sales were required to be made for a definite period. No authority was given to create a tenancy at will,—a tenancy at the will of either the company or the bidder at the sale. The prescription to sell 'for one or more years' negatives this. Had it been intended that the sale should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. Empire Natural Gas Co.
...satisfied by the payment of the amount found due to them, and no further proceedings could thereafter be had." In Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 113 (25 L. Ed. 782), some 200 persons occupying market stalls in the market of the Washington Market Company brought suit to enjoin the put......
-
Nichols v. Board of Trustees of Asbestos Workers Local 24 Pension Plan, 82-1959
...(1902); Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. (17 Otto) 147, 152, 2 S.Ct. 391, 395, 27 L.Ed. 431, 433 (1883); Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. (11 Otto) 112, 115, 25 L.Ed. 782, 783 (1879), also demands disapproval of appellants' statutory interpretation. See also NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Cor......
-
Meltzer v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Fla., 75-1423
...with the whole, so as to make all the parts harmonize, if possible, and give meaning to each." Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 1879, 101 U.S. 112, 115-16, 25 L.Ed. 782, 783. 39 We are unconvinced by the State's argument that "Christian virtue" is a shorthand for virtue in a general philos......
-
In re West Coast Cabinet Works, 44249-W
...construed with the whole, so as to make all the parts harmonize, if possible and give meaning to each." Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 1879, 101 U.S. 112, 115, 25 L.Ed. 782; Petition of Public Nat. Bank, 1928, 278 U.S. 101, 104, 49 S.Ct. 43, 73 L.Ed. 202. We are not permitted, in constru......
-
The Mischief Rule
...lacking the involuntariness of seizure and detention which is the very essence of the crime of kidnaping”); Mkt. Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 116 (1879) (“To understand the true meaning of the clause, it is necessary to observe what the subject was in regard to which Congress attempted to ......