The West River Bridge Company, Plaintiffs In Error v. Joseph Dix and the Towns of Brattleboro and Dummerston, In the County of Windham, Defendants In Error the West River Bridge Company, Plaintiffs In Error v. the Towns of Brattleboro and Dummerston, In the County of Windham, and Joseph Dix, Asa Boyden, and Phineas Underwood, Defendants In Error

Decision Date01 January 1848
Citation12 L.Ed. 535,47 U.S. 507,6 How. 507
PartiesTHE WEST RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOSEPH DIX AND THE TOWNS OF BRATTLEBORO' AND DUMMERSTON, IN THE COUNTY OF WINDHAM, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. THE WEST RIVER BRIDGE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE TOWNS OF BRATTLEBORO' AND DUMMERSTON, IN THE COUNTY OF WINDHAM, AND JOSEPH DIX, ASA BOYDEN, AND PHINEAS UNDERWOOD, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

To continue reading

Request your trial
159 cases
  • Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 16 Agosto 2022
    ..."on the theory that the revocation was a seizure of intangible property." Treanor at 792 n.54; see W. River Bridge Co. v. Dix , 47 U.S. (6 How.) 507, 523, 533–34, 12 L.Ed. 535 (1848) ; id. at 543 (Woodbury, J., concurring); 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 340 n.a (4th ed. 1840). ......
  • Louisiana Power Light Company v. City of Thibodaux
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 8 Junio 1959
    ...without substance. Long Island Water-Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685, 17 S.Ct. 718, 41 L.Ed. 1165; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507, 12 L.Ed. 535. Certainly the avoidance of such a constitutional issue cannot justify a federal court's failure to exercise its jurisdictio......
  • Marsh Mining Co. v. Inland Empire Mining & Milling Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 18 Marzo 1916
    ... 165 P. 1128 30 Idaho 1 MARSH MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. INLAND EMPIRE ... Shoshone County. Hon. John M. Flynn, Presiding Judge. . . ...129,. 117 P. 755; Samish River Boom Co. v. Union Boom Co., . 32 Wash. 586, 73 ... were made defendants in the action. . . The. record ...364, 7. L. R. A. 765 25 N.E. 92; West River Bridge v. Dix ,. 47 U.S. 507, 6 HOW 507, ......
  • Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1934
    ...Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 9 L.Ed. 773. And all contracts are subject to the right of eminent domain. West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How. 507, 12 L.Ed. 535.14 The reservation of this necessary authority of the state is deemed to be a part of the contract. In the case last cited, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), 256, 314, 316-17, 326, 385, 568, 1100, 1407, 1548, 1552 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 507, 12 L.Ed. 535 (1848), 954 West Winds, Inc. v. M.V. Resolute, 720 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1983), 52-53 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105, 38 S.Ct. 4......
  • Takings Law, Lucas, and the Growth Management Act
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 16-03, March 1993
    • Invalid date
    ...43. Prior to Pumpelly, the Court recognized that states have an inherent sovereign power of eminent domain, West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (1848), and on two occasions restated without significant analysis the narrow view of takings recognized by state courts. See Legal Tender Ca......
  • What's yours can be mine: are there any private takings after Kelo v. City of New London?
    • United States
    • UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Vol. 24 No. 1, June 2006
    • 22 Junio 2006
    ...(12.) 200 U.S. 527 (1906). (13.) Id. at 529. (14.) See 2A SACKMAN, supra note 5, [section] 7.02[2]. (15.) West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (16.) See, e.g., Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954); Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700 (1923); Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905......
  • What's the Use? the Court Takes a Stance on the Public Use Doctrine in Kelo v. City of New London - Randy J. Bates, Ii
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 57-2, January 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30, 32 (1916); O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244, 253 (1915). 57. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (1848). The narrow interpretation of public use is the "actual use" test. 58. See, e.g., Ryerson v. Brown, 1877 WL 7142 *3-5 (Mich. 1877); Gayl......
  • 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