Texas Ry Co v. Interstate Transp Co

Decision Date07 January 1895
Docket NumberNo. 95,95
Citation15 S.Ct. 228,155 U.S. 585,39 L.Ed. 271
PartiesTEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. INTERSTATE TRANSP. CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The Texas & Pacific Railway Company was organized under an act of congress approved March 3, 1871, and several supplementary acts. In 1881 it acquired the railroad and franchises of the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of the state of Louisiana. Its main line of railroad extends from New Orleans to El Paso, Tex., and, as part of it, has a bridge, costing $300,000, across the Atchafalaya river, and which river is wholly within the state of Louisiana. The bridge has a draw of about 253 feet in the span, making a channel on each side of the center of the draw of about 126 feet. The bridge is a legal structure, and is essential to enable the railway company to perform its public duties.

The Interstate Transportation Company, a corporation of the state of Louisiana, owned and controlled certain steam towboats and barges on the lower Mississippi river and tributaries, and carried on for hire the business of towing said barges loaded with coal and other heavy cargoes.

On March 29, 1890, the railway company filed, in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Louisiana, its bill of complaint against the transportation company. The allegations of the bill substantially were that on February 19, 1890, when the waters of the Atchafalaya river were at an unusually high stage, which condition still continued, the towboat Lambert, owned and controlled by the defendant company, while undertaking to pass through the draw of said bridge, which draw had been duly opened for the passage of the steamer, struck with its tow of barges the bridge seat at the eastern end of the draw, inflicting considerable injuries on the bridge, and threatening its destruction; that said accident was caused by the attempt of the towboat to carry through said draw upon the unusual flood waters of the river more barges than at one time could be safely and surely handled in such circumstances; that the railway company at once notified the defendant company of the accident, and warned it of the danger of such conduct, and the manifestly irreparable injury that would come from the same if the bridge should be in any wise disabled; that the officers and agents of the defendant company would make no effort to prevent a repetition of said conduct, nor give any assurance that the said conduct and method, which were manifestly tortious and unlawful, would not be repeated; that within the previous week, while the flood waters of the river were still higher and the current still swifter and more dangerous, defendant's towboats had been passing or attempting to pass through said draw with six barges in one tow, threatening to strike and destroy said bridge, and this at a time when none of said towboats have power to control and guide any tow exceeding two barges with safety.

The bill further averred that at high water, like that which prevailed at the time of the filing of the bill, it was unlawful, dangerous, and unnecessary for the towboats of the defendant company to pass through the draw with more than two barges in tow; that, while the draw is of ample width for all the navigation of the stream, yet that, if the defendant company, for its own convenience and profit, undertakes to carry through more than said number of barges, the high water and currents will or may at any moment swing the long tows in a direction across the opening of the draw, and tend to strike and destroy the bridge; that the injury thus inflicted could not be compensated by actions for damages at law, nor could the defendant company, owing to the inadequacy of capital, respond in damages for the great loss that would be occasioned by the destruction of the bridge and the consequent suspension of traffic on the line of the railroad; that said high water and violent currents and flood were continuing, and might increase, and will exist for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • April 3, 1909
    ... ... 142; Fisher v. Cushman, 103 F. 860, 43 ... C.C.A. 381, 51 L.R.A. 292 ... In ... Texas & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Interstate Transportation ... Co., 155 U.S. 585, 589, 15 Sup.Ct. 228, 39 ... ...
  • Ogden Livestock Shows, Inc. v. Rice
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1945
    ... ... See ... also Sumner County v. Interurban Transp ... Co. , 141 Tenn. 493, 213 S.W. 412, 5 A. L. R. 765, in ... which the court held that while ... Goodrich Transit Co. , 153 Wis. 92, 140 N.W. 1094, ... Ann. Cas. 1917B, 935; Texas & P. R. Co. v ... Interstate Transp. Co. , 155 U.S. 585, 15 S.Ct. 228, ... 39 L.Ed. 271, ... ...
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1921
    ... ... 502, 122 N.W. 1087; ... Henderson v. Hoppe, 103 Ga. 684, 30 S.E. 653; ... Texas & P. R. Co. v. Interstate T. Co., 155 U.S ... 585, 15 S.Ct. 228, 39 L.Ed. 271; Lockwood v ... ...
  • State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1914
    ... ... Railroad, 151 Mo. 482; Health Department v. Trinity ... Church, 145 U.S. 32; Texas v. Interstate Co., ... 155 U.S. 585. (6) The question of reasonableness of the ... ordinance ... ...
  • 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