Covington & Cincinnati Elevated Railroad & Transfer & Bridge Co. v. Kentucky
This text of 154 U.S. 224 (Covington & Cincinnati Elevated Railroad & Transfer & Bridge Co. v. Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COVINGTON AND CINCINNATI ELEVATED RAILROAD AND TRANSFER AND BRIDGE COMPANY
v.
KENTUCKY.
Supreme Court of United States.
Mr. William H. Jackson, (with whom was Mr. W.H. Wadsworth on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William J. Hendrick, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky, and Mr. William Goebel for defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.
This case differs from the last only in the fact that the plaintiff in error was not incorporated until 1886, and subsequently to a general law of the State declaring that all charters and grants of or to corporations shall be subject to amendment or repeal at the will of the legislature. Conceding that these words became a part of its charter, and hence that no contract was impaired by the legislation of 1890, such legislation is still open to the objection found to exist in the former case, that it is in conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky is, therefore,
Reversed, and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, MR. JUSTICE FIELD, MR. JUSTICE GRAY, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE concurred in the judgment of reversal, for the like reasons as in the case of Covington Bridge v. Kentucky, ante, 204, 223.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
154 U.S. 224, 14 S. Ct. 1094, 38 L. Ed. 970, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covington-cincinnati-elevated-railroad-transfer-bridge-co-v-scotus-1894.