SOUTH COVINGTON & C. ST. RY. CO. V. NEWPORT, 259 U. S. 97 (1922)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 259 U. S. 97
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/259/97/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/259/97/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co. v. Newport, 259 U.S. 97 (1922)
South Covington & Cincinnati Street
Railway Company v. City of Newport
No. 203
Argued April 13, 1922
Decided May 15, 1922
259 U.S. 97
Syllabus
The bill alleged that the plaintiffs were corporations operating electric street cars and distributing electric current under perpetual franchises in the city; that, under supervision and direction of the city authorities, they constructed a high tension wire to obtain necessary additional current from another company; that, afterwards, the city council, by resolution, directed speedy removal of the wire, declaring it dangerous to life and property, contrary to the fact, and that, unless restrained, the city would forcibly remove and destroy it, thereby interfering with the operation of plaintiffs' railway, lighting, and power systems, and causing them irreparable damage, in violation of their rights under the Contract Clause of the Constitution and the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and prayed that the resolution be declared null and the city, it officers, etc., be enjoined from enforcing it.
Held:
(1) That the bill set up a substantial federal question and conferred jurisdiction on the district court. P. 259 U. S. 99. Des Moines v. Des Moines City Ry. Co., 214 U. S. 179, distinguished.
(2) That the jurisdiction, having attached, could not be defeated by an answer denying the city's intention to enforce the resolution except through an order of court. P. 259 U. S. 100.
Reversed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing for want of jurisdiction a bill to restrain the defendant city from forcible removal and destruction of an electric wire.