Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. The court stated the case as follows : . Congress formed the purpose, many years ago, of supplying the cities of Washington and Georgetown with water from the Potomac River, «.t the Great Palls, in the State of Maryland.1 A controversy having arisen between the Secretary of the Interior — charged with the expenditure of public moneys appropriated for that purpose — and the Great Palls…
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. The court stated the case as follows : . Congress formed the purpose, many years ago, of supplying the cities of Washington and Georgetown with water from the Potomac River, «.t the Great Palls, in the State of Maryland.1 A controversy having arisen between the Secretary of the Interior — charged with the expenditure of public moneys appropriated for that purpose — and the Great Palls Manufacturing Company, as to the compensation, if any, which the latter was entitled to receive for certain land and water rights,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice HablaN
The bill alleges that the land and water rights described hi the published notice of the Attorney General are substantially-those which would have been taken if the United States had adopted and executed Plan A, as described in the report of the arbitrators in 1863. In respect to that plan, the arbitrators decided that if it were adopted and executed the plaintiff would be entitled to receive $63,766, and, in addition, to retain the right of using the remainder of the water, by means of proper canal and bulkhead appliances on the Virginia shore of the river. While the company contends that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Gordon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- United States v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
3Cited by78 opinions
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- United States v. LynahSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Schillinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.