GREEN BAY AND MISSISSIPPI CANAL COMPANY
v.
PATTEN PAPER COMPANY
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 denied a petition for rehearing in a dispute between the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company and the Patten Paper Company over water rights on the Fox River. The Court clarified that its prior decision preserved the Canal Company's right to use surplus waters created by its dam and canal, but that questions concerning riparian owners' rights to waters in non-navigable portions of the stream below the improvement were outside the federal court's jurisdiction and must be determined by state courts. The Court established that while state courts may adjudicate disputes among riparian owners over water use in non-navigable sections, they cannot interfere with federal control of the surplus water power created by the federal public improvement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Shieas delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a petition, by the defendants in error, for a rehearing of the case of Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co. and others, decided at the present term, and reported in 172 U. S. 58.
The reasons set forth in the petition and accompanying brief seem to go upon a misapprehension of the scope, and meaning of the decision of this court.
Thus it is made matter of complaint that this court did not deal with questions concerning the division of the waters of Fox Eiver after they had spent the force or head given them by the dam and canal, and had passed into a non-navigable portion of the stream below the improvement; and it is suggested that we overlooked the fact that a private dam had been constructed between islands three and four. But those are questions to which the jurisdiction of this court doés not extend, and hence could not be considered by us. The purport of our decision was to preserve to the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company the use of the surplus waters created by the dam and canal. After such waters had flowed ovér the dam and through the sluices, and had found their way into the unimproved bed of the stream, the rights and disputes of the riparian owners must be determined by the state courts.
Again, apprehensions are expressed lest the decision in the present case may be construed so as to injure parties using water powers at other places in the river, and who are not represented in the present controversy.
We are not ready to' presume that the authorities of the United States will either permit or make changes in the places where the surplus waters are to be used by the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company, so as to deprive other parties of the water powers they have been using for so many years, unless such changes are found to be necessary and proper in the regulation and delivery of the surplus waters created by the public improvement. But such, questions are not now before us.
While the courts of the State may legitimately take cognizance of controversies between the riparian owners, concerning the use and apportionment of the waters flowing in the non-navigable parts of the stream, they cannot interfere by mandatory injunction or otherwise with the control of the surplus water power incidentally created by the dam and canal now owned and operated by the United States.
The petition for a rehearing is
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1936)…that the mode and extent of the use and enjoyment of such property by the Canal Company” fell within the sole control of the United States. See Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254; Green Bay Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 173 U. S. 179. In United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53, the United States had condemned land in Michigan, lying between the St: Marys River and the ship canal strip of the Government, in order to improve navigation. The riparian owner, under revoca…
-
The Cal. Or. Power Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 239 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1956)…such in the flow of the stream below the dam. It may well be that such water ceases to be surplus water once it has passed the Government dam. See Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 1898, 172 U.S. 58, 19 S.Ct. 97, 43 L.Ed. 364; Id., 1899, 173 U.S. 179, at page 190, 19 S.Ct. 316, 43 L.Ed. 658. Or it may be that such water retains its identity as surplus water in the general stream flow until additional water has been added to the stream either through springs in the river bed or through the accum…1 / 2
-
The Chemehuevi Tribe OF Indians v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 489 F.2d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1973)…r the expenses of the improvement.150 Seven years later, the Court applied this principle in the second Green Bay case, Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company v. Patten Paper Company, 172 U.S. 58, 19 S.Ct. 97, 43 L.Ed 364 (1898), rehearing denied, 173 U.S. 179, 19 S.Ct. 316, 43 L.Ed. 658 (1899), to uphold the right of a grantee of the United States to lease the surplus water power from Government navigation works to other private parties, against a claim by certain riparian owners that they were entitled…
Authorities Cited
- Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 142 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1891)
- Green BAY & Miss. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1898)