Transportation Company v. Chicago
Citation | 99 U.S. 635,25 L.Ed. 336 |
Parties | TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. CHICAGO |
Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
This is an action of trespass on the case by the Northern Transportation Company of Ohio against Chicago, Ill., to recover damages sustained by reason of the construction by that city of a tunnel under the Chicago River along the line of La Salle Street. The company offered evidence tending to prove that it possessed a certain lot in Chicago, with dock and wharfing rights and privileges; that it owned a line of steamers running between Ogdensburgh, New York, and Chicago, and touching at intermediate points; that during 1869 and 1870 it had thirteen or fourteen of them employed, five of them arriving and departing each week from its dock on said lot, where it had, at an expense of $17,000, constructed a warehouse and shed used in loading and unloading them, and where its office was located; that its dock extended eighty feet on the south side of the lot which abutted on the Chicago River, a navigable stream; that the city commenced, Nov. 1, 1869, building a tunnel under the river on the east line of the lot at its intersection with the river and La Salle Street, and erected a coffer-dam in front of the dock; that said dam remained until some time in August, 1870; that about Nov. 1, 1869, the city commenced excavating La Salle Street, and excavated it for some distance, blocking up the doors of the warehouse on that street, and leaving free only the entrance on Water Street; that by reason of the construction of said dam plaintiff was unable to bring its boats up to the dock or to land freight and passengers thereat, and was compelled to rent and remove to other docks and sheds; and that the negligent and improper manner in which the work, especially the excavating, was done, greatly damaged and injured the warehouse, and caused the walls to crack, settle, and in several places to fall.
The city offered testimony tending to prove that the work was, without unnecessary delay, well and carefully done; that the coffer-dam as constructed was required for the construction of the tunnel; that the company could during the time have had access with its boats to a portion of the lot; and that the obstructions complained of were unavoidable in the proper construction of the tunnel.
To the following portions of the charge of the court to the jury the plaintiff excepted:——
'The defendant had the right under the law to enter upon La Salle Street and make such public improvements as in the judgment of the city authorities were necessary, and to construct the tunnel in question; and for that purpose to enter upon the portion of the river in front of the plaintiff's lot and construct the coffer-dam there, if it was necessary to enable them to construct the tunnel.'
The plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury 'that even if the city be entitled to lay a coffer-dam along across the river, they had no right to lay it in front of the company's lot and dock, and for any damages which it may have suffered by the coffer-dam being in front of its dock it is entitled to recover in this action;' but the court refused; the presiding judge stating, To which the plaintiff duly excepted.
The court, on motion of the defendant, further charged the jury, To all of which the plaintiff excepted.
There was a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was rendered thereon, and the company sued out this writ of error.
Mr. R. P. Spalding for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Joseph F. Bonfield, contra.
We are of opinion that no error has been shown in this record, though the assignments are very numerous. The action was case to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of the action of the city authorities in constructing a tunnel or passageway along the line of La Salle Street and under the Chicago River, where it crosses that street. The plaintiffs were the lessees of a lot bounded on the east by the street, and on the south by the river, and the principal injury of which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
... ... St. Rep. 58, the suit was assumpsit to ... recover advance money paid by Addler & Company through their ... agent on a contract entered into in the name of said agent ... with the school, ... which must be borne without any right to compensation ( ... Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642, ... 25 L.Ed. 336, 338; Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S ... 269, 41 L.Ed ... ...
-
State, State Road Commission v. District Court
... ... Utah and L. A. Young et al., doing business as L. A. Young ... Construction Company, are defendants. The action filed in the ... district court was brought to enjoin ... [78 P.2d ... been ascertained in advance and paid." (Syllabus) S ... D. Childs & Co. v. City of Chicago , 279 Ill ... 623, 117 N.E. 115, decided in 1917 ... The ... Illinois Constitution, ... United States v. Welch , 217 U.S. 333, 30 ... S.Ct. 527, 54 L.Ed. 787; Transportation Co. v ... Chicago , 99 U.S. 635, 25 L.Ed. 336 ... On the ... side of the line where ... ...
-
Johnson v. City of St. Louis
... ... Dullagham, 27 C.C.A. 298.) ... The ... president of a joint-stock company, the American News ... Company, empowered by the statute of New York, under which it ... was ... [172 F. 33] ... Transportation ... Company v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 645, 25 L.Ed. 336; ... Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566, ... ...
-
Hubbell v. City of Des Moines
...I need not do more than quote from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in support of this view, Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. Ed. 336, in which the court said: “But acts done in the proper exercise of governmental powers, and not directly encroaching up......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...the defendant from liability. See id. at 90–94. That overall approach appeared in several subsequent cases. See Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 640–43 (1879); St. Louis v. Myers, 113 U.S. 566, 567–68 (1885). Even as the Court’s jurisdictional grounds shifted to the due process claims f......
-
The Regulatory Takings Battleground: Environmental Regulation of Land Versus Private-Property Rights
...12 Wall. 457, 551 (1871), or the functional equivalent of a “practical ouster of [the owner’s] possession,” Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642 (1879). Justice Holmes recognized in Mahon , however, that if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to......
-
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: the categorical and other "exceptions' to liability for Fifth Amendment takings of private property far outweigh the "rule".
...(38) Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1028 n.15. (39) Id. at 1014 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642 (1879)). This conclusion is supported by extensive research into Colonial-era law. See FRED BOSSELMAN ET AL., COUNCIL ON ENVTL. QUALITY,......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...(1908). 94. Casement v. Brown, 148 U.S. 615 (1893); Robbins v. City of Chicago, 71 U.S. 657 (1866). 95. N. Transp. Co. v. City of Chicago, 99 U.S. 635 (1878). 96. Angle v. Chi., St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 151 U.S. 1 (1894). 97. See, e.g. , Richards v. Wash. Terminal Co., 233 U.S......