Silliman v. Hudson River Bridge Company Coleman v. Same

• Decision Date: 01 December 1861
• Citation: 1 Black 582,66 U.S. 582,17 L.Ed. 81
• Parties: SILLIMAN v. HUDSON RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY. COLEMAN v. SAME
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

66 U.S. 582

1 Black 582

17 L.Ed. 81

SILLIMAN v. HUDSON RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY.

COLEMAN

v. SAME.

December Term, 1861

Both these cases came up on certificates of the judges of the Circuit Court that they were divided in opinion on certain points raised at the trial.

The questions on which the judges divided in the court below are mentioned in the opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson. The arguments of counsel here were mainly on the merits of the cause; but this court being also divided, nothing was determined except the points of practice noted at the head of this report.

Mr. Beach, of New York, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, for complainants.

Mr. Pruyn, of New York, for defendants.

Mr. Justice NELSON.

These were suits in equity, in which the bills were filed in October, 1856, to obtain a decree for an injunction perpetually restraining the defendant from erecting a bridge across the Hudson river, at Albany, authorized by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York, passed on the 9th day of April, 1856. The defendant answered both bills, to which general replications were filed and proofs taken, and the causes brought on for hearing, and heard together, upon pleadings and proofs.

And upon the hearing of each of the said causes, the following questions occurred, to wit:

First. Whether or not th court, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has the power perpetually to restrain the erection of the bridge across the Hudson river, at Albany, proposed to be erected by the defendants in the manner provided for or authorized by the acts of the Legislature of the State of New York, mentioned in the pleadings and proofs herein, in case the plaintiff, being the owner of vessels holding coasting licenses, shows, to the satisfaction of the court, that such bridge, if erected, will materially obstruct, delay, or hinder such vessels in the navigation of said river, while engaged in commerce between said State of New York and other States.

Second. Whether or not the evidence in this case shows that the bridge in controversy will, if erected, constitute a material obstruction and impediment to the navigation of the Hudson river for the vessels of the plaintiff, mentioned in the pleadings and proofs.

Third. Whether or not the defendant is entitled to a decree dismissing the bill, on the ground that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law for all injury he may sustain by reason of the erection of the said bridge, should the same be...