E. Shore Land Co. v. Peckham
Decision Date | 18 March 1912 |
Citation | 82 A. 487,33 R.I. 541 |
Parties | EAST SHORE LAND CO. v. PECKHAM et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Willard B. Tanner, Presiding Justice.
Suit by the East Shore Land Company against Fenner H. Peckham and others. On certified constitutional questions from the superior court. Questions answered, and papers remitted for further proceedings.
Henry W. Hayes and Frank T. Easton, for complainant. Harry P. Cross, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
In the above-entitled cause, which is a suit in equity brought in the superior court, the constitutionality of Pub. Laws, c. 569, approved April 27, 1910, has been brought in question upon the record by the complainant's amendment of the third paragraph in its bill of complaint, wherein it is alleged: "That said chapter 569 of the Public Laws passed at the January session, 1910, was and is in conflict with article 5 of the articles in addition to and amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which provides that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,' and is also in violation of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of Rhode Island, which provides that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land,' and is also in violation of section 16 of article 1 of the Constitution of Rhode Island, which provides that 'private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.'" The constitutional questions aforesaid have been certified to this court for hearing and determination by the superior court under the provisions of Gen. Laws 1009, c. 298, § 1.
The act in question is entitled "An act to condemn certain land by the state for metropolitan park purposes" and includes in the description of the lands that may be taken thereunder land belonging to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the respondents undertook to take and condemn, under the provisions of said act, and in the manner therein prescribed, a certain portion of its said land, but that said taking and condemnation were ineffectual and void because of the unconstitutionality of said act hereinbefore alluded to. The portions of said act material to the present consideration read as follows:
Although the complainant had attacked the constitutionality of the act upon three grounds, in the amended paragraph of its bill of complaint aforesaid, at the argument before this court it waived its claim that said act violated the provisions of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The complainant lost nothing by its conduct in so doing, for this court has uniformly concurred in the doctrine announced by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Pet. at page 247, 8 L. Ed. 672: In State v. Paul, 5 R. I. at page 196, Chief Justice Ames, referring to the fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, used the following language: —and added: "The lucid opinion of the late Chief Justice Marshall [hereinbefore cited] is an authority from the highest source upon this point, and fully sustains the above position in regard to it." Very likely the complainant may have intended to invoke the protection of that provision of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which reads as follows: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
The second violation complained of has reference to the Constitution of Rhode Island (article 1, § .10), which relates to certain rights of the accused, and reads as follows: It is to be noted that the language relied upon in the third paragraph of the complainant's bill of complaint as amended, viz., "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land," differs from the words used in the section above quoted, which are, "Nor shall he [the accused] be deprived of life, liberty or property," etc. Concerning this section, in the case of State v. Keeran, 5 R. I. at page 505, Chief Justice Ames, inter alia, made the following statements: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Neil v. Providence Amusement Co.
...This principle has been adopted by this court without a contrary opinion down to the present time. In East Shore Land Co. v. Peckham, 33 R. I. 511, at page 518, 82 Atl. 487, 491, this court "All statutes are presumed to be valid and constitutional, and the burden of proving the unconstituti......
-
Rhode Island Economic Dev. V. Parking Co.
... ... (Downing). The CLA provided that Downing would build, on its adjacent land, a parking garage (Garage B), to service the airport, and, in return, Downing would be granted the ... of eminent domain without appropriate statutory guarantee of payment of compensation); East Shore ... Land Co. v. Peckham, 33 R.I. 541, 82 A. 487 (1912) (due process requires a reasonable ... ...
-
Morrison v. Mccarthy
...16 R.I. 424, 16 A. 901, 3 L.R.A. 295; State v. Kofines, 33 R.I. 211, 219, 80 A. 432, Ann.Cas.1913C, 1120; East Shore Land Co. v. Peckham, 33 R.I. 541, 82 A. 487; Sayles v. Foley, 38 R.I. 484, 96 A. 340. The same rule obtains in other jurisdictions. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 24 L.Ed. 77......
-
Creditors' Serv. Corp. v. Cummings
...State Airport Commission v. May, 51 R.I. 110, 152 A. 225; Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Clarke, 41 R.I. 350, 103 A. 935; East Shore Land Co. v. Peckham, 33 R.I. 541, 82 A. 487. The complainants further contend that the act in question is in violation of article 14, section 1 of the Amendments to the U......