Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City &c. R. Co.,
222 U.S. 237 (1911)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City &c. R. Co., 222 U.S. 237 (1911)

Union Pacific Railroad Company v.

Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company

No. 31

Argued November 2, 1911

Decided December 11, 1911

222 U.S. 237


The object of the provisions in Acts of July 25, 1866, 14 Stat. 244, c. 246, and of February 24, 1871, 16 Stat. 430, c. 67, for the construction of railway bridges across the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers was that the trains of all railroads terminating at the rivers should be allowed to cross on reasonable terms, and for the more perfect connection of railroads running to the bridges on either side of the river, and, the statutes being construed in that light, the approaches on both sides of the river must be regarded as parts of the structures.

A railroad bridge can be of no use to the public unless united with the necessary appurtenances for public accommodation.

A distance of four miles in the scheme of the Union Pacific Railroad may be reasonably within the expression "at or near."

The decree of the Circuit Court affirmed by this Court in 199 U. S. 199 U.S. 160, gave to the Mason City and Fort Dodge R. Co. Company the right to cross the Union Pacific bridge over the Missouri River, and this included the use of main and passing tracks over and approaching the bridge to the extent necessary to constitute a continuous line from the terminus at Council Bluffs to the point at Omaha mentioned therein, but the decree did not give the Mason City Road any rights to use other tracks and terminal facilities of the Union Pacific Railroad.

165 F. 844 reversed.

The facts, which involve the construction of a decree of the Circuit Court in regard to the joint use of railroad tracks between Omaha and Council Bluffs, are stated in the opinion.

Page 222 U. S. 238

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.