Scott County Macadamizde Road Company v. State of Missouri Ex Rel Hines

Decision Date20 December 1909
Docket NumberNo. 52,52
Citation215 U.S. 336,30 S.Ct. 110,54 L.Ed. 221
PartiesSCOTT COUNTY MACADAMIZDE ROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. T. D. HINES, Prosecuting Attorney of Cape Girardeau County
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Edward S. Robert, Douglas W. Robert, William L. Becktold, R. G. Ranney, and Giboney Houck for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 336-337 intentionally omitted] Messrs.

M. A. Dempsey, T. D. Hines, R. L. Wilson, and Harry Alexander for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 337-339 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit brought in pursuance of a statute to enjoin the plaintiff in error from maintaining toll gates upon a road alleged to be a public highway. The defendant justifies under a charter granted by a special act of February 24, 1853, which contained the following section: '8. The privileges granted in this charter shall continue for fifty years; provided, that the county courts of the counties of Cape Girardeau and Scott may, at the expiration of twenty years, or any time thereafter, purchase said road at the actual cost of construction, and make it a free road.' Mo. Law 1853, pp. 337, 338. The defendant says that it has not received the cost of construction, and sets up the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, § 10, the 14th Amendment, and other less material clauses. The reply is that the right to take tolls expired on February 24, 1903, when the fifty years contemplated by the charter had elapsed. There was a trial and a judgment for the relator, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and the case was brought here. 207 Mo. 54, 105 S. W. 752, 13 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 656.

The plaintiff in error contends that the privileges refered to in § 8 are but three; the life of the corporation brought into being by the charter, the exclusive right to maintain a toll road, granted by § 2, and the right to take higher tolls than those allowed to toll companies organized under a general act then in force; but that it cannot be deprived of its right to take tolls except by a purchase of the road at the actual cost of construction. It says that the provision for the right to purchase at the expiration of twenty years 'or at any time thereafter' imports that the right to make the road free, even after fifty years, can be gained only by purchase, and that the clause makes a contract and creates a right of property which it is beyond the power of the state to impair or take away. The supreme court of Missouri...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., 34073.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 8 Septiembre 1936
    ...229 U.S. 39; Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, 76 Fed. 296; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234; Scott County Road Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63; Owensborough v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 U.S. 58; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Ingraham, 228 F......
  • State ex Inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co., 31441.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Octubre 1932
    ...Detroit, 229 U.S. 39; Louisville Tr. Co. v. Cincinnati, 76 Fed. 296; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234; Scott Co. Rd. Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63. When the term is fixed the rights of the grantee will cease at the expiration of the te......
  • State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. City of California v. Missouri Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 8 Septiembre 1936
    ...Detroit, 229 U.S. 39; Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, 76 F. 296; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa 234; Scott County Road Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. Owensborough v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 U.S. 58; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Ingraham, 228......
  • State ex inf. Shartel, ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Octubre 1932
    ...... Missouri Utilities Company, a Corporation Supreme Court of Missouri October ...v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa 234; Scott Co. Rd. Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike ...224;. Simpson v. Stoddard County, 173 Mo. 421;. Peterson v. Kansas City, 23 ......
  • 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