Railroad Company v. Ellerman

Citation26 L.Ed. 1015,105 U.S. 166
PartiesRAILROAD COMPANY v. ELLERMAN
Decision Date01 October 1881
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. John S. Cadwalader and Mr. Thomas L. Bayne for the appellants.

Mr. Charles N. Hornor for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court.

The New Orleans, Mobile, and Texas Railroad Company, one of the appellants, and the principal defendant below, is a corporation of the State of Alabama, by the original name of the New Orleans, Mobile, and Chattanooga Railroad Company, which has constructed a line of railroad from Mobile to New Orleans. It was authorized by its charter 'to obtain by purchase or grant from any person or corporation, and afterwards maintain, manage, use, and enjoy, any railroad property, and the appurtenances thereto, or any steamboats, piers, wharves, and the appurtenances thereto, that the directors may deem necessary, profitable, and convenient for the corporation to own, use, and manage in connection with its railroads.' Session Acts of Alabama, 1866.

The General Assembly of Louisiana, on Aug. 16, 1868, passed an act which recognized the company as a body corporate, and authorized it to exercise its franchises in Louisiana, and expressly conferred upon it power 'to construct, establish, or purchase in the State of Louisiana, and thereafter to own, maintain, and use, suitable wharves, piers, warehouses, steamboats, harbors, depots, stations, and other works and appurtenances connected with and incidental to said railroad and the business of said company, and by the directors of said company deemed necessary and expedient for said company to own and manage.'

In 1869 that State further enacted 'that the said company, with the consent of the owners of lands fronting on any navigable watercourse, or after such lands have been acquired by the company by purchase, release, donation, or in any other manner, in accordance with the laws of the State of Louisiana, may erect, construct, and thereafter maintain and use wharves, warehouses, depots, or other buildings and structures in and upon the margins, or upon that portion of the margins reserved to public use, of any and all navigable rivers, bayous, or water-courses in the State of Louisiana, wherever the same may be deemed, by a majority of the directors of the company, necessary and requisite for the legitimate and convenient transaction of the business of the company.'

On March 6, 1869, the General Assembly of Louisiana passed a joint resolution, having the force of law, granting to the company 'the right to enclose and occupy for its purposes and uses, in such manner as the directors of said company may determine, that portion of the levee, batture, and wharf in the city of New Orleans, between the street laid out between Pilie Street and the Mississippi River, and from Calliope Street to the lower line (about three hundred and fifty-five feet below Calliope Street) of the batture rights owned by said company, and no steamship or other vessel shall occupy or lie at said wharf, or receive or discharge cargo thereat, except by and with the consent of said company; and all steamships or vessels discharging or receiving cargo at said wharf for said company, or any steamships or vessels using said wharf, by and with the consent of said company, and not receiving or discharging cargo at or occupying any other wharf in the city of New Orleans, shall be exempt from payment of all levee and wharf dues to the city of New Orleans. Said wharf shall be maintained and kept in repair by said company.' All laws and parts of laws, and all ordinances and parts of ordinances, conflicting with the provisions of the joint resolution were thereby repealed.

At the date of the passage of the joint resolution the company was the owner by previous purchase of the land described in it, and in possession, using it for the purposes of a depot and for other railroad purposes, and as a wharf, appropriate structures having been built for that use. A portion of this property was leased in June, 1875, by the receivers of the railroad, appointed under proceedings to foreclose, for twelve months, at the sum of $7,200, to Roberts and Witherspoon, who were made defendants to the bill, the use and employment of the wharf granted by such lease consisting 'in the morring of vessels coming to the consignment, custody, or care of the parties of the second part (the lessees) or to either of them, and the loading and unloading of cargoes upon all vessels of this kind with the full consent of the parties of the first part, exempt from wharf and levee dues, according to the terms of the said resolution.'

The object of the bill filed by Elerman, the appellee, was to enjoin the execution of this contract, and the use and employment of the wharf described therein in the manner contemplated by it. His claim is based on a contract between himself and the city of New Orleans, entered into June 29, 1875. It purports to be a grant from the city to him, for a term of four years and eleven months from the date of the contract for building and repairing the wharves and levees according to certain specifications on file, and for the payment of debts contracted on account of them, and for transferring the revenues of the same for the said term, agreeably to the terms of a certain ordinance and resolution of the city, all which are set out in the contract. The specifications state the particulars of the required repairs and extensions of the wharves. The subject-matter of the ordinance is declared to be the sale of 'the revenues of the wharves and levees of the city of New Orleans, collectible under existing ordinances upon all ships, vessels, steamships, steamboats, flatboats, and water-craft of any and every description, upon the terms and conditions' therein set forth. The purchaser was to assume certain specified liabilities of the city, connected with the wharves, and it was provided that the sale should be awarded to the bidder who would assume to discharge the obligations set forth, in consideration of the transfer of the revenues assigned, in the shortest time. The purchaser should be subrogated to all the rights and privileges of the city, to sue for and collect the revenues; and it was understood and agreed that 'the city only undertakes to transfer only such rights as she possesses, and the purchaser takes the said revenues subject to all the rights now held by other persons by way of lease, privilege, contract, or by law, and the purchaser shall, in reference to them, be subrogated only to the rights of the city.' It was provided that the purchaser should take possession of the wharves, landings, and levees in the condition in which the same might be at the time, and should repair the same and keep them in good order and condition during the term stipulated. It was further provided that if, from over-powering force, the city should not be able to protect the transferee in receiving the said revenues, or if they should by any such cause be diminished over one-third,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • Queensboro Farms Products v. Wickard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 13, 1943
    ...People of State of California v. San Pablo, etc., R. R., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876, 37 L.Ed. 747; New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166, 173, 174, 26 L.Ed. 1015; Cf. Cover v. Schwartz, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 541, 546, and cases there cited; Altvater v. Freeman, May 24, 1943,......
  • State ex rel. Wausau St. Ry. Co. v. Bancroft
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1912
    ...v. Haben, 22 Wis. 660;Mills v. Charleton, 29 Wis. 400, 9 Am. Rep. 578;Wahlschlager v. Liberty, 23 Wis. 362;New Orleans M. & T. R. Co. v. Ellerman, 105 U. S. 166, 26 L. Ed. 1015; Act of Congress July 26, 1866, c. 262, 14 Stat. 253 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1437); Boquillas Land, etc., Co. v.......
  • Kardo Co. v. Adams
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 18, 1916
    ... ... District Judge ... Three ... corporations, the American Ball Bearing Company, the Packard ... Motor Car Company, and the Peerless Motor Car Company, were ... each the owners ... Co., 122 U.S. 1, 14, 7 ... Sup.Ct. 1043, 30 L.Ed. 1128; Graham v. La Crosse Railroad ... Co., 3 Wall. 704, 710, 711, 712, 18 L.Ed. 247; ... Reynolds v. Stockton, 43 N.J.Eq. 211, ... complain. Of such an one it was said by Mr. Justice Matthews, ... in Railroad v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166, 174 (26 L.Ed ... 'The ... only injury of which he can be heard in a ... ...
  • United States v. Rock Royal Noyes v. Same Dairymen Leagueass v. Same Metropolitanmilk Producers Bargaining Agency v. Same 8212 828
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1939
    ...523, 49 S.Ct. page 238, 73 L.Ed. 483. 30 Cf. N.Y. Co-Operative Corporations Law, Consol.Laws, c. 77. 31 New Orleans, M. & T. Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166, 26 L.Ed. 1015; Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 480, 58 S.Ct. 300, 304, 82 L.Ed. 374. 32 Order, Article VII, Section ......
  • 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