Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Tranbarger
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the due process and impairment of contract provisions of the Federal Constitution of a statute of Missouri requiring owners of railroads to afford outlets for water across their rights of way, are stated urthe opinions The Act of Missouri, of March 14, 1907, is an ex post facto law; it also impairs the contract between State and railroad.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the due process and impairment of contract provisions of the Federal Constitution of a statute of Missouri requiring owners of railroads to afford outlets for water across their rights of way, are stated urthe opinions The Act of Missouri, of March 14, 1907, is an ex post facto law; it also impairs the contract between State and railroad. The act takes property without due process or compensation. The police power of a State does not justify act of 1907 . nor is the act a proper exercise…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pitney
Tranbarger, owner of 60 acres of farming land in Calla-way County, Missouri, brought this action against the Railroad Company in a Missouri state court to recover damages and a penalty under §1110 of the Missouri Revised Statutes of 1899, as amended by act of March 14, 1907, Sess. Act's, p. 169, of which the portion now pertinent is as follows: •
“It shall be the duty of every corporation, company or person owning or operating any railroad or branch thereof in this State, and of any corporation, company or person constructing any railroad in this State, within three months after the completion…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Hurtado v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Buttfield v. StranahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. City of GoldsboroSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by196 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- New York Central Railroad Company v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Hadacheck v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
191 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.