Citation network
Charles River Bridge Vs. Warren Bridge
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1837
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Charles River Bridge v. WarrenSearch
-
Bridge - 36 U.S. 420 (1837) U.S. Supreme Court Charles River Bridge v. WarrenSearch
-
Bridge, 36 U.S. 11 Pet. 420 420 (1837) Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. ProprietorsSearch
-
the Constitution of the United States unless it also impairs the obligation of contract. The case of Satterlee v. MatthewsonSearch
-
every other case without exception. Public grants are to be construed strictly. In the case of The United States v. ArredondoSearch
-
of the Court, and the principle recognized that, in grants by the public, nothing passes by implication. Jackson v. LamphireSearch
-
Beatys v. TheSearch
-
The Providence Bank v. BillingsSearch
-
and Pittmen, 4 Peters 514, cited. In the case of The Providence Bank v. BillingsSearch
-
not violate the Constitution of the United States unless it also impairs the obligation of a contract. In Satterlee v. MatthewsonSearch
-
The same principles were reaffirmed in this Court in the late case of Watson and others v. MercerSearch
-
both in England and by the decisions of our own tribunals. In the case of the Proprietors of the Stourbridge Canal v. WheeleySearch
-
in this Court, and the rule of construction above stated fully established. In the case of the United States v. ArredondoSearch
-
the public, nothing passes by implication. The rule is still more clearly and plainly stated in the case of Jackson v. LamphireSearch
-
The same rule of construction is also stated in the case of Beaty v. LesseeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
analogous to this, and in which the question came more directly before the Court is the case of the Providence Bank v. BillingsSearch
-
Stark v. McGowanSearch
-
are applied to private contracts. In the argument, great reliance was placed on the case of the Stourbridge Canal v. WheeleySearch
-
Lord Tenterden. A corporate power to impose a tax on the land of the company, as considered in the case of Beaty v. LesseeSearch
-
be taken, in whole or in part, for public purposes on condition of making compensation. In the case of Chadwick v. TheSearch
-
by this Court, they would do indirectly, what the law prohibits them from doing directly. In the case of Osborn v. BankSearch
-
to the commercial prosperity of a country. If it had not been otherwise laid down, in the case of Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
A reference to the points adjudged will show that it does not. The case of Satterlee v. MathewsonSearch
-
of Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
there was an intermediate grantee between him and the State could not weaken his right. In the case of Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
the State law must act upon the contract. The act of the Legislature complained of in the case of Sturges v. CrowninshieldSearch
-
discharged from his obligation by a surrender of his property. And so, in the case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. WoodwardSearch
-
of the corporation, alter its charter in a material part, it being a private corporation. In the case of Terrett v. TaylorSearch
-
cannot repeal a statute creating a private corporation, and thereby destroy vested rights. The case of Green v. BiddleSearch
-
parties to the original suit, whether private persons, or the State itself. This was decided in the case of Cohens v. StateSearch
-
for that clause of the Constitution is strictly confined to the parties on the record. So it was held in Osborn v. BankSearch
-
of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, and in the Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky v. WisterSearch
-
in order to exclude any narrow construction of them. So the Court admitted the doctrine to be in Attorney General v. LordSearch
-
of interpretation. The fishery was a royal fishery in gross, and not appurtenant to the territory of Rout. Ward v. CresswellSearch
-
and commented on by Mr. Justice Bayley in delivering the opinion of the court in the case of the Duke of Somerset v. FogwellSearch
-
and the case, as decided, is a direct authority the other way. Page 36 U. S. 596 The case of Blankley v. WinstanleySearch
-
Martin v. CommonwealthSearch
-
sense and common justice stood in any need of authority to support it. Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in the case of Boulton v. BullSearch
-
of the act, was ultimately sustained in the King's bench by a definitive judgment in its favor. See Hornblower v. BoultonSearch
-
equally just and liberal has been repeatedly recognised by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. In the case of Richards v. DaggettSearch
-
Inhabitants of Somerset v. InhabitantsSearch
-
Whitney v. WhitneySearch
-
Holbrook v. HolbrookSearch
-
Stanwood v. PeirceSearch
-
of others, Courts of law will give them a large construction if it arise from necessary implication. Coolidge v. WilliamsSearch
-
and most favorably for the public. The first case is the Company of Proprietors of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal v. HustlerSearch
-
The next case is the Proprietors of the Stourbridge Canal v. WheeleySearch
-
afterwards chief justices of King's bench), arguendo, as counsel, in the great case of the East India Company v. SandysSearch
-
opposed, as well as of those who maintained the grant of the exclusive trade, in the case of the East India Company v. SandysSearch
-
construction in support of the patent, as Lord Chief Justice Eyre said, ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Boulton v. BillSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial