OSBORNE
v.
ADAMS COUNTY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed its prior decision that a steam gristmill did not qualify as a "work of internal improvement" under Nebraska law authorizing municipal bonds for internal improvements, and rejected appellee's petition for rehearing based on a subsequent Nebraska Supreme Court decision distinguishing water-powered mills from steam mills, finding that the state court's opinion actually supported the exclusion of steam mills from the statute's scope.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was decided at the last term of this court, and is reported in 106 U. S., 181. We there held that a steam gristmill was not a work of internal improvement, within the meaning of the statute of Nebraska, approved February 15, 1869, authorizing counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties “ to issue bonds to aid in the construction of any railroad or other work of internal improvement.” It was also said that the court was not justified by anything in Township of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310, or in the decisions of the courts of Nebraska, “in holding that a steam or other kind of grist-mill is of the class of internal improvements which municipal townships in that State are empowered, by the statute in question, to aid by an issue of bonds.”
A petition for rehearing ivas filed near the close of the last term, calling our attention to the fact that the Supreme Court óf Nebraska had then recently decided that a grist-mill operated by water power was a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the before-mentioned statute. The judgment was suspended in .order that appellee might have an opportunity of presenting the full text of the opinion of the State court. That has been done at the present term. The case to which reference is made is Traver v. Merrick County, the opinion in which was not filed in the State court until after the close of our last term.
It is quite true, as claimed by counsel for appellee, that the • State court does, in that case, rule, that a water grist-mill is a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the statute in question. But the court takes care to say :
“ In onr view there is a clear distinction betweén aiding the development of the' water power of the State — a power that is continuing in its nature and may be used without cost'or expense, and must be used at certain points on a stream where a dam can be erected and power obtained — and a mill propelled by steam, that must be attended with' a continuous cost for fuel, and may at any time be moved to another locality.”
So far from the decision of the State court furnishing any ground for a rehearing, it is' an authority in support of that construction of the act of 1867 which excludes steam grist-mills from the class of internal improvements in aid of which counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties-are, by that statute, authorized to issue their bonds.
The rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (145 total)
-
Northside Motors OF Fla., Inc. v. Brinkley, 282 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1973)…of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. .” The Fourteenth Amendment is directed solely to state action and individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter thereof. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883). The Supreme Court of the United States has since emphasized and re-emphasized that state action will not be found in the purely private conduct of an individual voluntarily engaged in without some form of active assistance or cooperation on…1 / 2
-
Schreiner v. McKENZIE Tank Lines & Risk Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 408 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ile Article I, Section 2 is self-executing, the appellant’s position would not be assisted if there is a state action requirement that he could not satisfy. The state action requirement has its roots in The Civil Bights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883). The U. S. Supreme Court has noted “that the action inhibited by the first section [Equal Protection Clause] of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield again…
-
Schreiner v. McKENZIE Tank Lines, Inc., 432 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1983)…wrongful.” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13, 68 S.Ct. 836, 842, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948) (footnote omitted). “Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.” The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 3 S.Ct. 18, 21, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883). See Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961). The critical question is whether article I, section 2, of the Florida Constitution was drafted and adopted with the intent to broaden the applicatio…
Previewing 3 of 145 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Twp. of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1876)
- Osborne v. Cnty. of Adams, 106 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1882)