BROAD RIVER POWER COMPANY ET AL.
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA EX REL. DANIEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL

U.S. | 1930-12-15
No. 528 (1929 Term)
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Stone'adhere to the views expressed in the opinion heretofore delivered. 281 U. 3. 537. ., • Me. Justice Roberts, considering himself disqualified, took no part in the decision of this case.
282 U.S. 187 Supreme Court of the United States (1930) Caution
Also reported at: 75 L. Ed. 287 · 51 S. Ct. 94 · 1930 U.S. LEXIS 15 · SCDB 1930-007
Cited by 8 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

At the last term the writ of certiorari in this cause was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 281 U. S. 537. A rehearing afterwards was ordered by the Court and the rehearing recently has been had. Upon this further consideration the Court adheres to the .view that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but the members of the Court differ in the reasons which lead to that decision :

Concurrence
Mr. Justice'Van Devanter,

Mr. Justice'Van Devanter,

Mr. Justice McRey-nolds, Mr. Justice Sutherland and Mr. Justice Butler concur in this disposition of the case, upon the rehearing, for the following reasons: The state court found that the petitioners here “did not make a bona fide effort to make the street railway business a success,” but planned to discontinúe ,it. and pursued a course tend ing to depress the business and make it unremunerative; that “ if the street car system had been properly maintained, as it could and should, have been, the same would have been patronized by the public generally”; and that the “ street railway system can be made to yield a fair return if properly managed and properly maintained.” These findings,.although opposed to part of the evidence, have such support in other parts that they should be accepted here. In the presence of such findings, so supported, it is apparent that on the present record petitioners are not in a position to maintain that enforced operation of the street railway system will be in contravention of rights secured by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An essential basis in matter of fact for the right sought to be asserted under that constitutional provision is wanting; and as this is true regardless of whether the electric street' railway franchise be independent or so unified with other franchises as to be interdependent, there is no present need to consider or determine its status in that regard.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Stone'adhere to the views expressed in the opinion heretofore delivered. 281 U. 3. 537. .

• Mr. Justice Roberts, considering himself disqualified, took no part in the decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1931)
    …Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers’ Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service. Comm., 248 U. S. 67, 69, 70; Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22; Broad River Power Co. v. South Carolina, 281 U. S. 537, 540; 282 U. S. 187. As this Court said in Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers’ Mutual Canal Co., supra: “ But where the non-federal ground is so interwoven with the other as not to be an independent matter, or is not of sufficient breadth to sustain the judgment…
  • Demorest v. City Bank Farmers Tr. Co., 321 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1944)
    …1 Scott on Trusts, p. 3. Lockman v. Reilly, 95 N. Y. 64. In New York, power to “direct and control tbe conduct, and settle tbe accounts” of trustees is allotted to tbe Surrogate’s Court. Surrogate’s Court Act § 40 (3). See same case on rehearing, 282 U. S. 187, and Sauer v. New York, 206 U. S. 536, 546; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Vandalia R. Co. v. Indiana, 207 U. S. 359, 367; Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164; Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22; Fox River…
  • Crawford v. Duluth ST. Ry. Co., 60 F.2d 212 (7th Cir. 1932)
    …Iowa v. Old Colony Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 215 F. 307, 313, L. R. A. 1915A, 549, “They cannot force a railroad company to do the impossible.” Nor does Broad R. P. Co. v. South Carolina ex rel. Daniel, 281 U. S. 537, 50 S. Ct. 401, 74 L. Ed. 1023; Id., 282 U. S. 187, 51 S. Ct. 94, 75 L. Ed. 287, apply. That ease is clearly distinguishable by reason of the provisions in the franchise of the corporation and the facts found by the state court as the basis for its decision. Appellants urge that the receiver did no…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw