Luxton v. North River Bridge Co.Annotate this Case
153 U.S. 525 (1894)
U.S. Supreme Court
Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894)
Luxton v. North River Bridge Company
Submitted January 5, 1894
Decided May 14, 1894
153 U.S. 525
Congress, under the power to regulate commerce among the states, may create a corporation to build a bridge across navigable water between two states, and to take private lands for the purpose, making just compensation.
The Act of July 11, 1890, c. 669, to incorporate the North River Bridge Company, and to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Hudson River between the States of New York and New Jersey, is constitutional.
This was a petition by the North River Bridge Company, incorporated by the Act of Congress of July 11, 1890, c. 669 (the material part of which is copied in the margin *) for the
appointment under that act of commissioners to assess damages for the appropriation and condemnation, for the approaches to
its bridge across the Hudson or North River, between the States of New York and New Jersey, of land of Sarah Luxton
in the city of Hoboken and the County of Hudson in the latter state. Upon the order of the circuit court appointing commissioners, she sued out a writ of error, which was dismissed by this Court at the last term because that order was not a final judgment. 147 U. S. 147 U.S. 337. The commissioners afterwards made an award and report, assessing her damages at the sum of $2,000, to the acceptance of which she objected upon the ground that the act of Congress was unconstitutional, and particularly that Congress could not confer the right of eminent domain upon the company. But the court overruled the objection, and adjudged that the award be approved and confirmed and remain of record in the office of its clerk, and that, upon payment or tender of the sum awarded, the company might enter upon and take possession of the land for the purpose for which it was condemned. She thereupon sued out this writ of error.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.