The Binghamton Bridge

Decision Date01 December 1865
Citation70 U.S. 51,3 Wall. 51,18 L.Ed. 137
PartiesTHE BINGHAMTON BRIDGE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

To continue reading

Request your trial
130 cases
  • Wilmington City Railway Co. v. Wilmington & Brandywine Springs Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Chancery of Delaware
    • April 11, 1900
    ... ... Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518; Rice vs ... Foster, 4 Harring. 491; P. W. & B. R. R. Co. vs ... Bowers, 4 Houst. 506; Enfield Toll Bridge Co. vs ... Hartford &c. R. R. Co., 17 Conn. 40, 42 Am. Dec. 716 ... Our own ... courts have recognized and declared the inability of ... ...
  • Jack v. Village of Grangeville
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1903
    ... ... 945, 20 C. C. A. 122; ... Columbus Water Co. v. Mayor of Columbus, 48 Kan. 99, ... 28 P. 1097, 15 L. R. A. 359; Chenango Bridge Co. v ... Binghampton Bridge Co., 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 51, 18 L.Ed ... 137.) In contracting for waterworks to supply itself and its ... ...
  • State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1913
  • Panama R. Co. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 15, 1923
    ... ... the power of Congress is not now open to argument. The object ... of such incorporation, as was said in the Binghamton Bridge, ... 3 Wall. 51, 79, 18 L.Ed. 137, is to avoid incumbering the ... statute book by useless repetition and unnecessary verbiage ... See ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
    • United States
    • ABA General Library The Construction Lawyer No. 41-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...contractor on a railroad construction project). 55. See ely, supra note 46, at 98–103, 142–45, 184–86, 212–16. 56. In re Binghamton Bridge, 70 U.S. 51 (1865). 57. N. Ohio Traction & Light Co. v. Ohio ex rel. Ponitius, 245 U.S. 574 (1918) (county could not terminate at will the right to cons......
  • CHAPTER 3
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...one would construe the contract in terms of the parties’ intent, as revealed by language and circumstance. See In re Binghamton Bridge, [70 U.S. 51, 74] (1866) (“All contracts are to be construed to accomplish the intention of the parties”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section(s) 202(......
  • The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
    • United States
    • ABA General Library The Construction Lawyer No. 41-2, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...NOWAK, TREATISE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE, §§ 15.8(a) & 15.8(b)(iii) (Westlaw 2020). 10. See In re Binghamton Bridge, 70 U.S. 51 (1865); Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 68 U.S. 116 (1863). 11. 54 U.S. 307 (1851). 12. Id. at 340–41. Spring 2021 Published in The Constru......
  • CHAPTER 3 CONSTRUCTION OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Insurance Law Deskbook
    • Invalid date
    ...law, one would construe the contract in terms of the parties' intent, as revealed by language and circumstance. See The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51, 74 (1866) ("All contracts are to be construed to accomplish the intention of the parties"); Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section(s) 202......
  • 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