Washington Bridge Co. v. State ex rel. Colborn
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto, filed by the state’s attorney for Fairfield county, on the relation of Sullivan M. Colborn, against the Washington, Bridge Company.
Read the full summary
This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto, filed by the state’s attorney for Fairfield county, on the relation of Sullivan M. Colborn, against the Washington, Bridge Company. The information alleged, that in the year 1799, Congress, pursuant to the constitution of the United States, which empowers that body “ to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states,” constituted the port of Derby, situated on the navigable waters of the llousatonuc river, a port of delivery, annexed to the collection district of New-Haven, which has ever since continued to be and…
1Opinion of the CourtChurch, J.
This information or writ of quo warranto, presented by the state’s attorney against the Washington Bridge Company is not prosecuted on the ground that the *64defendants’ bridge is a public nuisance, obstructing the common and free use of the Housatonuc river, as a navigable stream ; but the point of grievance complained of, is, that the Washington Bridge Company have disregarded a resolution of the General Assembly of May 1845, and have thereby forfeited their chartered rights. That resolve required the company to make and maintain in repair a good and sufficient draw, not exceeding fifty feet…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Commissioners on Inland Fisheries v. Holyoke Water Power Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. People ex rel. GrimwoodIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- Ames v. Lake Superior & Mississippi RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. RowlandTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Columbus Ins. v. CurteniusU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois · 1853
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.