Plant Inv Co v. Jacksonville Ry Co
| Decision Date | 05 March 1894 |
| Docket Number | No. 226,226 |
| Citation | 152 U.S. 71,38 L.Ed. 358,14 S.Ct. 483 |
| Parties | PLANT INV. CO. v. JACKSONVILLE, T. & K. W. RY. CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John C. & C. M. Cooper, for appellee.
Mr. Justice FIELD stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes to us on appeal from the decree of the circuit court for the northern district of Florida, sustaining the demurrer to the bill of complaint and dismissing the suit. The bill was brought to enforce the conveyance of certain lands in Florida, pursuant to the contract of the trustees of the internal improvement fund of Florida, made pursuant to certain statutes of that state, with the Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company, a corporation created under its laws, the beneficial results of which contract are claimed by the complainant.
The facts out of which the suit arises are given at length in the bill, and, as there set forth, may be briefly stated, so far as is necessary for the presentation of the question of jurisdiction, upon which the demurrer turned.
The Plant Investment Company, the complainant, is a corporation under the laws of Connecticut, having its principal office at New Haven. The defendants are the Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company, and the trustees of the internal improvement fund of Florida, citizens and residents of that state.
The bill of complaint sets forth: That the general assembly of Florida, by an act of January 6, 1855, 'to provide for and encourage a liberal system of internal improvements in the state,' declared that the lands granted to the state by the acts of congress of March 3, 1845, and September 28, 1850, together with the proceeds thereof, accrued or that might thereafter accrue, should be set apart and made a separate fund, to be called the internal improvement of the state; and that, for the purpose of assuring a proper application of the fund for the objects mentioned, the lands, and the funds arising from the sale thereof, after paying the necessary expenses of selection, management, and sale, should be vested in five trustees, to wit, in the governor of the state, the comptroller of public accounts, the state treasurer, the attorney general, and the register of state lands, and their successors in office, to hold the same for the uses provided in the act; and by its twenty-ninth section, the general assembly reserved the right to grant to such railroad companies, thereafter chartered, as they might deem proper, upon their compliance with the provisions of the act as to the manner of constructing the road and the drainage of the land, the alternate sections of the 'swamp and overflowed lands' for six miles on each side of the line of the road of any such company. That the Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company was incorporated in March, 1878, under the general corporation act of the state, of February, 1874, by the name of the Tampa, Peace Creek & St. John's River Railroad Company. That the legislature of Florida, by act of March 4, 1879, granted to that company alternate sections of the lands given to the state by the act of congress of September 28, 1850, within six miles on each side of the track or line of its road, provided that the company should comply with the specified provisions of the act of January 6, 1855; and further granted to the company, in consideration of the greatly improved value which would accrue to the state from the construction of the road, 10,000 acres of the same class of lands for each mile of road it might construct, such lands to be of those nearest to the line of the road, its branches and extensions,—this last-named grant being made subject to the rights of all creditors of the internal improvement fund, and to the trusts to which the fund was applicable under the act of January 6, 1855. That on the 27th of June, 1881, the Tampa, Peace Creek & St. John's River Railroad Company, by a resolution of its board of directors, changed its corporate name to Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company, and on the 23d of August, 1881, filed a plat of its route with the trustees of the internal improvement fund; and, on the 1st of September, 1881, the trustees passed a resolution reserving from sale for the benefit of the company the even-numbered sections of land for six miles on each side of its line; and, again, on the 21st of September, 1881, acting under the provisions of the act of the legislature of March 12, 1879, 'to amend section 26 of the act 'to provide a general law for the incorporation of railroads and canals,' and to grant aid to railroads and canals incorporated under said act,' they passed a resolution to reserve from sale, to further aid in the construction of the road, a quantity of land in the even-numbered sections within twenty miles of said road sufficient to supply the deficiency existing in the even-numbered sections within six miles of the road.
The bill further avers that, in 1883, the complainant entered into a contract with defendant company to construct the southern division of its road, to extend from the waters of Tampa bay, in Hillsborough county, to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar
......Moss, 6. How. 31, 12 L.Ed. 331; Bradley v. Rhines'. Adm'rs, 8 Wall. 393, 19 L.Ed. 467.'. . . In. Plant Investment Co. v. Key West Railway Co., 152 U.S. 71, 77, 14 Sup.Ct. 483, 28 L.Ed. 358, it was held that a. Circuit Court of the United States has ......
-
Smith v. Packard
...... day of its date upon four car loads of machinery and other. articles constituting a plant for the manufacture of shoes,. property of the partnership, at West Pullman, Ill., whither. it had just been transported from Washington C.H., ...81, 11 Sup.Ct. 912, 35 L.Ed. 654;. Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 3 L.Ed. 240; Bank. v. McNair (C.C.) 56 F. 323; Plant Inv. Co. v. Jacksonville, T.& K.W.Ry.Co., 152 U.S. 71, 14 Sup.Ct. 483, 38 L.Ed. 358; New Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U.S. 411, 14 Sup.Ct. 905, 38 L.Ed. 764; Bradford v. Jenks, ......
-
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Sundry Ins. Cos.
...... bring his actions in the state court as assignee and because. of the assignment? A policy of insurance is a chose in. action. Plant Inv. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K.W. Ry. Co., 152 U.S. 71, 14 Sup.Ct. 483, 38 L.Ed. 358. 'The. contents of a contract, as a chose in action,' says. ......
-
Farr v. Hobe-Peters Land Co.
......County. of Black Hawk, 105 U.S. 659, 665, 26 L.Ed. 1136;. Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U.S. 730, 735, 8 Sup.Ct. 686, 31 L.Ed. 574; Plant Inv. Co. v. Key West Ry., . 152 U.S. 71, 76, 14 Sup.Ct. 483, 38 L.Ed. 358; New. Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U.S. 411, 432, 14 Sup.Ct. 905,. 38 ......