State of Washington Ex Rel Grays Harbor Logging Company v. Logging Company, COATS-FORDNEY

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPitney
Citation61 L.Ed. 702,243 U.S. 251,37 S.Ct. 295
PartiesSTATE OF WASHINGTON EX REL. GRAYS HARBOR LOGGING COMPANY and W. E. Boeing, Plffs. in Err., v. LOGGING COMPANY
Docket NumberNo. 132,COATS-FORDNEY
Decision Date06 March 1917

243 U.S. 251
37 S.Ct. 295
61 L.Ed. 702
STATE OF WASHINGTON EX REL. GRAYS HARBOR LOGGING COMPANY and W. E. Boeing, Plffs. in Err.,

v.

COATS-FORDNEY LOGGING COMPANY.

No. 132.
Argued January 23, 1917.
Decided March 6, 1917.

Messrs. W. H. Abel and A. M. Abel for plaintiffs in error.

Page 252

Messrs. William M. Smith, Alexander Britton, Evans Browne, and F. W. Clements for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

The Coats-Fordney Logging Company, defendant in error, instituted a proceeding by petition in the superior court of the state of Washington for Chehalis county against Grays Harbor Logging Company and W. E. Boeing, wherein it sought to condemn and take certain of their lands situate in that county for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a logging railroad as a private way of necessity in order to bring its lumber to market. The proceeding was based upon the following provisions of the constitution and statutes of the state:

Section 16 of art. 1 of the Constitution declares: 'Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the lands of others agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes. No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made, or paid into court for the owner, and no right-of-way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived, . . .' Under this constitutional provision the legislature passed an act (Sess. Laws 1913, chap. 133, p. 412; Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 5857-1 et seq.) which provides that lands for the construction and maintenance of a private way of necessity may be acquired by condemnation, including within the term 'private way of necessity' a right of way over or

Page 253

through the land of another for means of ingress or egress and the construction and maintenance of roads, logging roads, tramways, etc., upon which timber, stone, minerals, or other valuable materials and products may be transported and carried. The procedure is to be the same as provided for condemnation of private property by railroad companies. This refers us to Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 921-931 (5637-5645), whereby it is provided, in substance (§ 921), that any corporation authorized by law to appropriate land for a right of way may present to the superior court of the county in which the land is situate a petition describing the property sought to be appropriated, setting forth the names of the owners and parties interested, and the object for which the land is sought to be appropriated, and praying that a jury be impaneled to ascertain and determine the compensation to be made in money; a notice (§ 922) of the petition stating the time and place where it will be presented to the court is to be served upon each person named therein as owner or otherwise interested; (§ 925) at the hearing, if the court be satisfied by competent proof that the contemplated use for which the land is sought to be appropriated is really a public use, or is for a private use for a private way of necessity, and that the public interest requires the prosecution of such enterprise, and that the land sought to be appropriated is necessary for the purpose, the court may make an order directing the sheriff to summon a jury; at the trial (§ 926) the jury shall ascertain, determine, and award the amount of damages to be paid to the owners and other persons interested, and upon the verdict judgment shall be entered for the amount thus...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...court * * * as laying down the law of the case, this court will not be thus bound.' Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Logging Co., 243 U.S. 251, 256 257, 37 S.Ct. 295, 297, 61 L.Ed. 702. Accordingly, even if it were assumed that no federal question of substance was decided on the se......
  • Brown Shoe Co v. United States, No. 4
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1962
    ...See Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 68 S.Ct. 972, 92 L.Ed. 1212; Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Logging Co., 243 U.S. 251, 37 S.Ct. 295, 61 L.Ed. 702. 16. The Court has, of course, occasionally reviewed varying facets of single antitrust cases on separate appea......
  • San Diego Gas Electric Company v. City of San Diego, No. 79-678
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1981
    ...contemplates further proceedings in the trial court.13 III Ever since this Court's decision in Grays Harbor Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U.S. 251, 37 S.Ct. 295, 61 L.Ed. 702 (1917), a state court's Page 633 holding that private property has been taken in violation of the Fifth and Fourteen......
  • United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land, No. 349.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 26, 1942
    ...was denied where damages remained to be assessed. It was similarly denied in Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Logging Co., 243 U.S. 251, 37 S.Ct. 295, 61 L.Ed. 702, on writ of error to a State court, although in that State an immediate appeal was allowed.13 Here the appeal is from ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...court * * * as laying down the law of the case, this court will not be thus bound.' Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Logging Co., 243 U.S. 251, 256 257, 37 S.Ct. 295, 297, 61 L.Ed. 702. Accordingly, even if it were assumed that no federal question of substance was decided on the se......
  • Brown Shoe Co v. United States, No. 4
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1962
    ...See Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 68 S.Ct. 972, 92 L.Ed. 1212; Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Logging Co., 243 U.S. 251, 37 S.Ct. 295, 61 L.Ed. 702. 16. The Court has, of course, occasionally reviewed varying facets of single antitrust cases on separate appea......
  • San Diego Gas Electric Company v. City of San Diego, No. 79-678
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1981
    ...contemplates further proceedings in the trial court.13 III Ever since this Court's decision in Grays Harbor Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U.S. 251, 37 S.Ct. 295, 61 L.Ed. 702 (1917), a state court's Page 633 holding that private property has been taken in violation of the Fifth and Fourteen......
  • United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land, No. 349.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 26, 1942
    ...was denied where damages remained to be assessed. It was similarly denied in Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Logging Co., 243 U.S. 251, 37 S.Ct. 295, 61 L.Ed. 702, on writ of error to a State court, although in that State an immediate appeal was allowed.13 Here the appeal is from ......
  • 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