Buncombe County Commissioners v. Tommey
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. The Spartanburg and Asheville Railroad Company — a' corporation created by the consolidation, in the year 1874, of a railroad company of the same name, organized under the laws of South Carolina, and of the Greenville and French Broad Railroad Company, of North Carolina — executed, under date of October 1, 1876, a deed -of trust, whereby, for the purpose of securing the payment of…
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. The Spartanburg and Asheville Railroad Company — a' corporation created by the consolidation, in the year 1874, of a railroad company of the same name, organized under the laws of South Carolina, and of the Greenville and French Broad Railroad Company, of North Carolina — executed, under date of October 1, 1876, a deed -of trust, whereby, for the purpose of securing the payment of its bonds, with interest coupons attached, it conveyed its franchises, railroad, rights, lands, and property, real and…
1Opinion of the Court · HarlanJustice Harlan
He recited the facts as above stated, and continued :
The erst question to be considered is whether the act of 1870 gives a lien to mechanics or contractors upon the property of a railroad corporation, for work performed or materials fur nished in and about the construction of 'its road, or of its bridges constituting a part of its line. We are of opinion that no such statutory lien exists in North Carolina, or was intended to be given by the act of 1870. In reaching this conclusion, we are not aided by any direct decision of the question by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Reference was…
Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Harlan.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Taylor v. YpsilantiSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Brooks v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Gue v. Tide Water Canal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1861
- State v. . CunninghamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. v. State Board of Tax CommissionersNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Eufaula Water Co. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Giant-Powder Co. v. Oregon Pac. Ry. Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1890
- National Foundry & Pipe Works, Ltd. v. Oconto Water Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1892
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Forest CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.