Turnpike Company v. Illinois

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRADLEY
Citation24 L.Ed. 651,96 U.S. 63
PartiesTURNPIKE COMPANY v. ILLINOIS
Decision Date01 October 1877

96 U.S. 63
24 L.Ed. 651
TURNPIKE COMPANY
v.
ILLINOIS.
October Term, 1877

Page 64

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.

This was a proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto, instituted on the 13th of October, 1873, in the St. Clair County Circuit Court, Illinois, by the people of the State of Illinois, on the relation of one Bowman, against the St. Clair County Turnpike Company, charging it with unlawfully holding and exercising, without warrant therefor, the franchise of maintaining a toll-gate near Cahokia Creek, upon a street in the city of East St. Louis, called Dyke Avenue, and collecting tolls for passing through the same on said street. The company justified under its charter, or act of incorporation, and several supplements thereto. The plaintiff replied that the land occupied by Dyke Avenue had been dedicated by the owners thereof to the city of East St. Louis, as a public street, and that the legislature, by an act passed March 26, 1869, had granted to the said city exclusive power and control over said Dyke Avenue, and imposed upon it the sole right and duty of granding, filling up, paving, sewering, and otherwise improving and keeping said street in repair, and the right to abate and remove obstructions therefrom. The company demurred, and insisted that this last-mentioned act of the legislature impaired the obligation of the contract made with itself in and by its said charter and the supplements thereto. The County Court, and the Supreme Court of the State, on appeal, held the justification of the company to be insufficient, and gave judgment of ouster.

The company then sued out this writ of error.

The statutes of Illinois bearing upon the question are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Mr. John W. Noble and Mr. John C. Orrick for the plaintiff in error.

The object of the supplement to the charter was to confer a benefit on the company, and, upon the same terms, to add to the franchises previously existing. Pruffett et al. v. Great Western Railroad Co., 25 Ill. 353; Commonwealth v. Hancock Free Bridge Co., 2 Gray (Mass.), 58; Attorney-General v. Germantown, &c. Turnpike Co., 55 Pa. St. 466; Canal Bridge v. Gordon, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 297; Willink v. Morris Canal, 3 Green (N J.), Ch. 377.

Admitting that the right granted to the corporation by the

Page 65

supplement of 1861 was that of the toll-gate on Dyke Avenue, that right, by virtue of the seventeenth section of the charter, continued as long as the corporation; and its purchase by the State was as much a condition precedent to its extinguishment as is the purchase of any other right conferred by the charter. An attempt to extinguish it in any other manner impairs the obligation of the contract contained in the charter, and is unconstitutional and void.

Mr. James K. Edsall, Attorney-General of Illinois, contra.

If the Supreme Court of Illinois was correct in its construction of the act of 1847, and that of 1861, the franchise to collect tolls on Dyke Avenue expired in 1872; and this court will not inquire whether that construction was correct or not. Insurance Company v. The Treasurer, 11 Wall. 204; Kennebec Railroad v. Portland Railroad, 14 id. 23.

The construction given to those acts was the true one. Sedgwick, Const. Law, 338, 339, 342; Angell, Highways, 358; Angell & Ames, Corp. 66; 2 Kent, Com. 276, 298; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Canal Com'rs, 21 Pa. 9; Canisius v. Merril, 65 Ill. 67; Chesnutwood v. Hood, 68 id. 132; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge et al., 11 Pet. 420; Dubuque & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Litchfield, 23 How. 66; Stormfellz v. Turnpike Company, 13 Pa. St. 555.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

The question before us is, whether any contract was set up by the defendant company, now plaintiff in error, in its justification, which has been impaired by the subsequent legislation of the State.

The charter of the company, as set out in its plea of justification, was an act of the legislature of Illinois, approved Feb. 13, 1847, entitled 'An Act to incorporate the Saint Clair County Turnpike Company.'

By the first section of this act it was enacted as follows:——

'That all such persons as shall become stockholders, agreeably to the provisions of this act, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 22, 1913
    ...indispensable to them.” See, also, to same effect: Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400, 26 Sup. Ct. 427, 50 L. Ed. 801;Turnpike Co. v. People, 96 U. S. 63, 24 L. Ed. 651. [2] As a corollary to this rule is another, well settled by authority, to the effect that all grants and franchises are to b......
  • City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 3,320.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • May 31, 1893
    ...latter. The point under discussion is expressly decided by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63. In that case a turnpike company was created a body corporate, to continue for 25 years, with power to construct and maintain a certain turnp......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., No. 34073.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1936
    ...76 Fed. 296; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234; Scott County Road Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63; Owensborough v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 U.S. 58; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Ingraham, 228 Fed. 392; Smith v. Osceola, 178 Iowa, 200; Grand R......
  • State ex Inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co., No. 31441.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 5, 1932
    ...76 Fed. 296; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234; Scott Co. Rd. Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63. When the term is fixed the rights of the grantee will cease at the expiration of the term, 26 C.J. 1040; Owensboro v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., No. 34073.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1936
    ...76 Fed. 296; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234; Scott County Road Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63; Owensborough v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 U.S. 58; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Ingraham, 228 Fed. 392; Smith v. Osceola, 178 Iowa, 200; Grand R......
  • State ex Inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co., No. 31441.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 5, 1932
    ...76 Fed. 296; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234; Scott Co. Rd. Co. v. Hines, 215 U.S. 336; Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63. When the term is fixed the rights of the grantee will cease at the expiration of the term, 26 C.J. 1040; Owensboro v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 ......
  • State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 22, 1913
    ...indispensable to them.” See, also, to same effect: Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400, 26 Sup. Ct. 427, 50 L. Ed. 801;Turnpike Co. v. People, 96 U. S. 63, 24 L. Ed. 651. [2] As a corollary to this rule is another, well settled by authority, to the effect that all grants and franchises are to b......
  • State ex rel. County Attorney & Fullerton v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 22, 1913
    ...be indispensable to them. See, also, to same effect: Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, (26 S.Ct. 427, 50 L.Ed. 801); Turnpike Co. v. People, 96 U.S. 63, (24 L.Ed. 651). As a corollary to this rule is another, well settled by authority, to the effect that all grants and franchises are to be st......
  • 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