Overton Bridge Co. v. Means
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court for Dawson county. Heard below before Hamer, J. There is no statutory provision in this state for the sale of a highway or bridge; and if it is the property of a corporation to the extent of having the mere right of tolls, that would not make it salable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court for Dawson county. Heard below before Hamer, J. There is no statutory provision in this state for the sale of a highway or bridge; and if it is the property of a corporation to the extent of having the mere right of tolls, that would not make it salable. (Seymour v. M. & T. Co., 10 O., 476, 480.) Property essential to corporate franchises was formerly inalienable because all corporations were created directly by the legislature, thus being recognized as public, while a special trust was reposed in the corporators. A different system of incorporation prevails in…
1Opinion of the CourtPost, J.
The plaintiff, The Overton Bridge Company, is a corporation organized for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a toll bridge over the Platte river near the village of Overton, in Dawson county. In the fall of 1886 it entered into a contract with the defendant Means, in pursuance of which the latter erected the bridge in controversy, on the range line between the ranges 19 and 20. Soon after the completion of said bridge the proper authorities of Dawson and Phelps counties opened a road along said range line and over said bridge, and said bridge has been used by the public ever since as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Louisville Water Co. v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1883
- City of Palestine v. BarnesTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Cline v. ClineOregon Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Gardner v. Mobile & Northwestern RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- City of Decatur v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Connor v. Tennessee Cent. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901