Illinois & St. Louis Railroad & Canal Co. v. St. Louis
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
This cause is, at present, before the court on the motion of the complainant for the allowance of a temporary injunction, to prevent the erection by the elevator company, under an ordinance of the city of St. Louis, of a grain and package elevator upon a portion of the public wharf of the city.
Read the full summary
This cause is, at present, before the court on the motion of the complainant for the allowance of a temporary injunction, to prevent the erection by the elevator company, under an ordinance of the city of St. Louis, of a grain and package elevator upon a portion of the public wharf of the city. The complainant is a corporation created by the state of Illinois for the purpose of mining and selling coal, with authority to construct and operate a railroad from its mines to a point in that state opposite St. Louis; and with authority, also, to establish and maintain a ferry from its lands in…
1Opinion of the Court
DILLON, Circuit Judge.
The ordinance of the city of St. Louis, adopted February G, 1872, the validity of which presents the main question for consideration, in terms describes the place upon which the elevator building therein mentioned is to be erected as a “portion of the public wharf of the said city.” It is material to understand-with precision what is meant by the public wharf in St Louis. The history of the acts of the city in respect to the wharf appears in the papers and documents on file. On March 1,1851, the mayor was authorized by joint resolution to make arrangements to perfect the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Davis v. . the Mayor, C., of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- City of Brooklyn v. . Brooklyn City R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Painter v. PainterOhio Supreme Court · 1849
- Corporation of Brick Presbyterian Church v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Milhau v. . SharpNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Conradt v. MillerDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1905