PROSSER
v.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
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 addressed whether the Northern Pacific Railroad Company could construct railroad lines for two miles below the high water mark of Puget Sound harbor and whether the State of Washington could establish harbor lines limiting such construction. The Court held that while Congress had power to grant railroad companies rights to necessary lands below high water mark, the broader question of whether such grants authorized monopolistic harbor occupation could not be decided in this suit, and affirmed that states may establish harbor lines through their legislatures or harbor commissions to protect navigation without violating federal law. The decree was reversed and the bill dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of future litigation if active measures were taken to injure the railroad's claimed rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gray,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
It may be admitted that the Congress of the United States, while the present State of Washington was a Territory, had the power, in chartering a corporation to construct and maintain a railroad from Lake Superior to the Pacific Coast, to grant to the corporation such title or rights in lands below high water mark of tide waters of the Territory, as might be necessary or convenient for the building, maintenance, use and enjoyment of such structures as might be required for commerce and transportation on the railroad and by sea, and for transferring goods and passengers between the railroad and seagoing vessels. Shively v. Bowlby, just decided, ante 1 ; In re New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 77 N. Y. 248; In re Staten Island Rapid Transit Co., 103 N. Y. 251.
The more serious question, whether the grant of Congress to the Northern Pacific Kailroad Company of the right to construct a railroad to the waters of Puget Sound can be construed as authorizing the corporation to lay out its railroad for two miles, below high water mark, along the shore of a harbor, so as' practically to monopolize the use of the waters of the harbor, and of the lands under them, cannot properly be decided in this suit, and we express no opinion upon it.
There can be no doubt that a State may, by its legislature, or through a board of harbor commissioners, establish, for the protection and benefit of commerce and navigation, harbor lines in navigable waters, not inconsistent with any legislation of Congress, limiting the building of wharves and other structures upon lands not already built upon. Yesler v. Wash. Harbor Commissioners, 146 U. S. 646; Weber v. Harbor Commissioners, 18 Wall. 57; Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389, 393; Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53: People v. New York & Staten Island Ferry, 68 N. Y. 71; State v. Sargent, 45 Conn. 358. Such harbor lines, in order to fulfil their purpose, must be established according to a genei’al system, having in view not only the convenience of approach to the water from the shore, but the effect of the daily ebb and flow of the tide in keeping clear or filling up the harbor.' The establishment of general harbor lines, of itself, takes or injures no one’s property, and cannot, consistently with the interests of the public, or with the principles of equity, be restrained by injunction. If the State of Washington, or the city of Tacoma, or any public officer or private individual, shall hereafter take active measures, or bring suit, so as to injure or affect the supposed title or rights of the plaintiff, or its use and enjoyment thereof, the dismissal of this bill will not stand in the way of a full and fair trial of the title and rights claimed.
Decree reversed, and hill dismissed, without prejudice.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Jackson were not present at the argument and took no part in the decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Pers. Injury Clinic, Inc. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1912)…eneral system of harbor lines, for the protection of commerce and navigation, is not of itself an injury to property and cannot be restrained. Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Commissioners, 146 U. S. 646, 656; Prosser v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 152 U. S. 59, 64, 65. But it has also been recognized that a different question arises when active measures are taken against an. individual proprietor to maintain a location of limits in alleged violation of his private rights and thus to prevent him from enjoy…
-
Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1897)…t the damages to be awarded in such proceedings. The recording of the map, therefore, did not of itself entitle the owners of lands to any compensation or damages. Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 321; Prosser v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 152 U. S. 59; In re Pittsburgh District, 2 W. & S. 320; In re Forbes Street, 70 Penn. St. 125; In re Furman Street, 17 Wend. 649; Forster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577; Steuart v. Baltimore, 7 Maryland, 500, 516. The act throughout clearly manifests the intention of…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weber v. The Bd. of Harbor Comm'rs, 18 Wall. 57 (U.S. 1873)
- Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389 (U.S. 1874)
- Yesler v. Wash. Harbor Line Comm'rs, 146 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1892)