Ouachita & Mississippi River Packet Co. v. Estate of Aiken

E.D. Louisiana

Ouachita & Mississippi River Packet Co. v. Estate of Aiken

11 F. 662

DecidedApril 15, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. 662 (Ouachita & Mississippi River Packet Co. v. Estate of Aiken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ouachita & Mississippi River Packet Co. v. Estate of Aiken, 11 F. 662 (E.D. La. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Billings, D. J.

We think the principles of law applicable to this case are correctly stated in the opinion by the circuit judge in Leathers v. Aiken, 9 Fed. Rep. 679. The sole question in this cause into which we ean inquire is this: Viewing the lease as an ordinance simply fixing the rate of wharfage, and excluding all imposition for the support of lights or police, is the rate of wharfage greater than a fair and reasonable compensation for the use of the city’s wharves ? The matter is full of intricate difficulties. We can deal with it only as a judicial question, presented by a case in court with reference to an imposition upon specific property. We cannot take it up and decide it upon the general consideration which would bo proper in case the matter was pending before a legislative body as to permitting such a lease. The case must be heard and decided by us upon evidence; that evidence must come from the bill of complaint, exhibits, and affidavits; and to authorize the granting of the injunction must enable us to say, as a matter of fact, that a greater charge is made against the particular vessels of the complainants therein than is a just wharfage.

We do not find that the evidence submitted to us upon the hearing of this preliminary motion enables us to say this. The motion must, therefore, be refused.

Pardee, C. J., concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Billings, D. J.

We think the principles of law applicable to this case are correctly stated in the opinion by the circuit judge in Leathers v. Aiken, 9 Fed. Rep. 679. The sole question in this cause into which we ean inquire is this: Viewing the lease as an ordinance simply fixing the rate of wharfage, and excluding all imposition for the support of lights or police, is the rate of wharfage greater than a fair and reasonable compensation for the use of the city’s wharves ? The matter is full of intricate difficulties. We can deal with it only as a judicial question, presented by a case in court with reference to an imposition upon specific property. We cannot take it up and decide it upon the general consideration which would bo proper in case the matter was pending before a legislative body as to permitting such a lease. The case must be heard and decided by us upon evidence; that evidence must come from the bill of complaint, exhibits, and affidavits; and to authorize the granting of the injunction must enable us to say, as a matter of fact, that a greater charge is made against the particular vessels of the complainants therein than is a just wharfage.

We do not find that the evidence submitted to us upon the hearing of this preliminary motion enables us to say this. The motion must, therefore, be refused.

Pardee, C. J., concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ouachita-mississippi-river-packet-co-v-estate-of-aiken-laed-1882.