Railway Company v. Renwick

Supreme Court

Railway Company v. Renwick

102 U.S. 180, 26 L. Ed. 51, 12 Otto 180, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2020

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 29, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 102 U.S. 180 (Railway Company v. Renwick) 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.

Bluebook

Railway Company v. Renwick, 102 U.S. 180, 26 L. Ed. 51, 12 Otto 180, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2020 (1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Mb. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the-.'opinion of the court.

Although the Supreme Court of Iowa decided that Congress, under the power to regulate commerce, had jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, and having exercised that power in the way specified in sect. 5254, Rev. Stat., all State legislation in conflict therewith was void, still the question remains, whether, if a riparian proprietor improves his property with a view to its use in connection with the river, without complying with *183 this act of Congress, a railroad company, under the power of eminent domain granted by the State, can appropriate his improvements to its own use without his consent and without making him'compensation. This, we think, is a Federal question giving us jurisdiction, but it is a question on which we do not cáre to hear argument. The controversy is not between the public and the riparian owner as to his right to keep, up his improvements. The public does not complain, but the railroad company wants the improvements. In the hands of the company they .will be just as much a nuisance, so far as the public is concerned,' as they can be if kept up by the owner. As between these two parties the improvements are. the property of the riparian proprietor, and if the company wants them for its own use it must make compensation. So the ¡court below has decided, and to our minds its decision was clearly right. While in Iowa it has been held that the State owns the lands lying along, the river between high and low water mark, care was taken in the act of March 18, 1874, to provide that it should not be lawful for any person or corporation to construct or operate any railroad or other obstruction between the shore and the river without compensation to the shore owners. The second section of the act is good, eve'n though the first may conflict with what Congress had before doné.

The motion to dismiss is denied, but that to affirm granted.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mb. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the-.'opinion of the court.

Although the Supreme Court of Iowa decided that Congress, under the power to regulate commerce, had jurisdiction over the Mississippi River, and having exercised that power in the way specified in sect. 5254, Rev. Stat., all State legislation in conflict therewith was void, still the question remains, whether, if a riparian proprietor improves his property with a view to its use in connection with the river, without complying with *183 this act of Congress, a railroad company, under the power of eminent domain granted by the State, can appropriate his improvements to its own use without his consent and without making him'compensation. This, we think, is a Federal question giving us jurisdiction, but it is a question on which we do not cáre to hear argument. The controversy is not between the public and the riparian owner as to his right to keep, up his improvements. The public does not complain, but the railroad company wants the improvements. In the hands of the company they .will be just as much a nuisance, so far as the public is concerned,' as they can be if kept up by the owner. As between these two parties the improvements are. the property of the riparian proprietor, and if the company wants them for its own use it must make compensation. So the ¡court below has decided, and to our minds its decision was clearly right. While in Iowa it has been held that the State owns the lands lying along, the river between high and low water mark, care was taken in the act of March 18, 1874, to provide that it should not be lawful for any person or corporation to construct or operate any railroad or other obstruction between the shore and the river without compensation to the shore owners. The second section of the act is good, eve'n though the first may conflict with what Congress had before doné.

The motion to dismiss is denied, but that to affirm granted.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 U.S. 180, 26 L. Ed. 51, 12 Otto 180, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/railway-company-v-renwick-scotus-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack