People of the State of Illinois George Hunt v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Decision Date | 03 February 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 28,28 |
Citation | 46 L.Ed. 440,22 S.Ct. 300,184 U.S. 77 |
Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. GEORGE HUNT, Attorney General, Appt. , v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John H. Hamline, Frank H. Scott, Frank E. Lord, and Edward C. Akin for appellant.
Messrs.John N. Jewett, Benjamin F. Ayer, and J. M. Dickinson for appellees.
This case has been heretofore in this court. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 36 L. ed. 1018, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110. The decree then under review was affirmed in all respects except one, and as to that one the cause was remanded for further investigation of the facts upon which it depended.
The case involved the asserted ownership by the Illinois Central Railroad Company of certain piers, docks, and wharves constructed by it on the lake front of the city of Chicago, east of Michigan avenue.
The state contended that the structures in question were erected, without authority of law, on lands belonging to it, and that the decree now before us was erroneous in not so declaring.
The railroad company contended that the mandate of this court on the former appeal left open for consideration by the circuit court only one question, namely, whether those structures extended beyond the point of practical navigability, having reference to the manner in which commerce in vessels is conducted on Lake Michigan; and that that issue of fact having been found in its favor, the circuit court could not properly have passed any other decree than one confirming the company's title to such structures.
The history of the litigation relating to this property is fully disclosed in Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois, above cited. But it will be appropriate and will contribute to a clear understanding of the present appeal if the essential facts be restated in this opinion.
In the year 1883 an information was filed in the circuit court of Cook county, Illinois, by the People of that state against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, the city of Chicago, and the United States of America. That case was removed into the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, and a motion to remand it to the state court was overruled. 16 Fed. 881. In the same case the city of Chicago filed a cross bill against the state and its codefendants. At the same time there was pending in the circuit court of the United States for the same district an in- formation in equity filed by the government against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, the Michigan Central Railroad Company, the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Company, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and the city of Chicago.
At the hearing of those causes in the circuit court certain maps were used; one being known as the map of 'Fort Dearborn addition to Chicago' made by direction of the Secretary of War, under the authority of an act of Congress approved March 3d, 1819; the other being known as the Morehouse map. Both maps were made part of the opinion of this court in Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois, and for convenience are here reproduced:
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
[Graphic from page 81 is combined with the graphic on page 80] The questions involved in the above suits are indicated by the following extract from the opinion of the circuit court at the original hearing: 33 Fed. 730, 750.
A final decree was rendered in the circuit court on the 24th day of September, 1888. By that decree it was adjudged that the fee of certain streets, avenues, and grounds was in the city of Chicago in trust for public use; and that the city of Chicago, as riparian owner of such grounds on the east or lake front of said city, between the north line of Randolph street and the north line of block 23, each of the lines being produced to Lake Michigan, and in virtue of authority to that end conferred by its charter, had, among other powers, the power to establish, construct, erect, and keep in repair on the lake front, east of such premises, within the lines given, and in such manner as would be consistent with law, public landing places, wharves, docks, and levees, subject, however, in the execution of that power, to the authority of the state by legislation to prescribe the lines beyond which piers, docks, wharves, and other structures, other than those erected by the general government, might not be extended into the waters of the harbor that were navigable in fact, and to such supervision and control as the United States might rightly exercise in and over such harbor, and subject also to the enjoyment by the Illinois Central Railroad Company of the rights then to be defined and described.
It was further adjudged:
'That the Illinois Central Railroad Company is the owner in fee of all the wharves, piers, and other structures erected by it in the city of Chicago, east of Michigan avenue, south of Chicago river, and north of the north line of Randolph street, extended eastwardly as shown upon said Morehouse map, including the station grounds lying west of the slip C, the pier marked C, lying east of slip C, and represented upon the Morehouse map to have been built in 1867. and piers 1, 2, and 3, lying east of pier C last mentioned, and represented upon said map to have been built as follows: Pier 1 in 1872 and 1873, pier 2 in 1881, and pier 3 in 1880, and is also entitled to the use, for the purposes of its business, of the slips marked on said Morehouse map.
'That said company is likewise the owner in fee of all the wharves, piers, and other works made and constructed by it in the city of Chicago, east of its main tracks, between the north line of block 23, in fractional section 15 addition to Chicago, and the center line of Sixteenth street extended, including the pier or line of piling represented upon the said Morehouse map to have been built in 1870, and the station grounds lying west of the said pier and contiguous thereto; also of the wharf or pier projecting into the lake from the grounds last mentioned, and represented upon the said Morehouse map to have been built in 1885; which said wharves, piers, and other works so constructed and so far as constructed by the said Illinois Central Railroad Company, as aforesaid, are lawful structures and not encroachments upon the domain of the state of Illinois or upon the public right of navigation, or upon the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Messinger v. Anderson
... ... the United Realty Company and Rosewell E. Messinger, ... defendants; the ... Although the action in the state ... court had been decided adversely to the ... People, 189 Ill. 439, 447, 59 N.E. 977, and 29 Am. & ... 464, 1 Sup.Ct ... 568, 27 L.Ed. 302; Illinois v. I.C.R. Co., 184 U.S ... 77, 91, 22 Sup.Ct ... The bill was by Ellis against the railroad company, and set ... out that the railroad ... ...
-
Agostini v. Felton
...United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119, 52 S.Ct. 460, 464, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932). Cf. Illinois v. Illinois Central R. Co., 184 U.S. 77, 91-92, 22 S.Ct. 300, 305-306, 46 L.Ed. 440 (1902) (cautioning against entertaining successive appeals of legal questions open to dispute in an initi......
-
State v. City of Tampa
... ... for the people who have the rights of navigating, fishing, ... Cas ... 1914A, 72; Chicago v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 146 ... U.S. 397, 13 S.Ct. 110, ... The grant of submerged ... lands to a railroad company contained in section 6, c. 5595, ... ...
-
Grant v. Fletcher
... ... the defendant therein, George N. Fletcher, in November, 1899 ... The present ... state of Massachusetts, where he had unusually good ... a company for the lumbering of their pine lands and the ... purchase, and which covered the most central and valuable ... portions of what afterwards ... 29; Ills. Cent. R.R. v ... Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 13 Sup.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018; ... L.Ed. 497; Weems Steamboat Co. v. People's Co., ... 214 U.S. 345, 355, 29 Sup.Ct. 661, ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Ed. 1018 (1892):18.1, 18.2(2), 18.4(1), 18.4(4), 18.4(5), 18.5(3), 18.6(1), 18.7(2), 20.4(3) Illinois ex rel. Hunt v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 184 U.S. 77, 22 S. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440 (1902):18.2(2) Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L. Ed. 681 (1823): 20.2(1), 20.6 Kaiser Aetna v. U......
-
§ 18.2 - Tracing the Federal Origins of the Public Trust Doctrine
...rights on the lake, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed that finding. See Illinois ex rel. Hunt v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 184 U.S. 77, 22 S. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440 When viewed in light of all these facts and succeeding judicial determinations, Illinois Central confirms that the Public ......