Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Parsons
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to tlie District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. On the 1st day of Hay, 1894, the defendant in error, Peter Parsons, brought suit against the plaintiff in error, the Texarkana & Ft.
Read the full summary
In Error to tlie District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. On the 1st day of Hay, 1894, the defendant in error, Peter Parsons, brought suit against the plaintiff in error, the Texarkana & Ft. Smith Railway Company, in the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Arkansas, Texarkana division, to recover $925 damages for an alleged unlawful detention of a steamboat and two barges with -which the defendant in error was navigating the Red river, a public navigable river of the United States, by means of a bridge across the river owned and…
1Opinion of the CourtCaldwell, Circuit Judge
The rules of law applicable to this case are well settled. Every citizen has a right to the free navigation of the public waters of the United States, and any interruption or obstruction of this free use by any kind of a structure is, prima facie, a nuisance. But the power of congress to regulate commerce among the states comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States, and the railroads engaged in interstate commerce. Interstate commerce by rail has *411grown to be more extensive and important than that carried on upon the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- City of Georgetown v. THE ALEXANDRIA CANAL COMPANY, &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. Missouri River Packet Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Missouri River Packet Co. v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1880
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cropper v. Titanium Pigment Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- United States v. Norfolk-Berkley Bridge CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1928
- Wagner Electric Corporation v. SnowdenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- National Surety Co. v. Lincoln CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc. v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.