City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL Prom the circuit court of the united states FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. On April 3, 1886 (Laws 1885-6, c. 511, p. 1174), the legislature of Kentucky chartered the Ohio Valley Telephone Company, fixing no limit to its corporate existence.
Read the full summary
APPEAL Prom the circuit court of the united states FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. On April 3, 1886 (Laws 1885-6, c. 511, p. 1174), the legislature of Kentucky chartered the Ohio Valley Telephone Company, fixing no limit to its corporate existence. Its principal office was to be at Louisville, but the company was empowered to construct and maintain within the State and elsewhere telephone lines, exchanges and systems, and authorized “to purchase or to acquire and dispose of real estate, apparatus, patents, licenses, rights and franchises relating to such business; to borrow money, and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Lamar
1. Under the present constitution of Kentucky street franchises cannot be granted for longer than twenty years and then only to the highest bidder, after public advertisement by the city authorities. But in 1886, when the Ohio Valley Telephone Company was chartered, the legislature . not only had the sole right to create corporations and to grant franchises but, without municipal consent, it could have authorized the company to use any and all streets in the city of Louisville. Instead, however, of exercising this plenary power, the charter declared that the company might maintain its…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Blair v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- The West River Bridge Company v. DIXSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- City Railway Co. v. Citizens' Street RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Milhau v. . SharpNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by84 opinions
- City of Owensboro v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Russell v. SebastianSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- New York Electric Lines Co. v. Empire City Subway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Harris County Toll Road AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 2009
79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.