Gibbons v ogden main issue - think
Supreme Court of United States. Argued December , Warren F. Farr argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Blabey submitted on brief for respondent.Gibbons v ogden main issue Video
Gibbons vs Ogden Explained in 5 Minutes (1824): US History Review gibbons v ogden main issue
Supreme Court of United States. Dutton and Mr. Webster, for the plaintiffs in error: and by Mr. Greenleaf and Mr. Davis, for the defendants.
Uploaded by
Dutton for the plaintiffs. The questions involved in this case are of the gravest character, and the Court have given to them the most anxious and deliberate consideration. The value of the right claimed by the plaintiffs is large in amount; and gibbons v ogden main issue persons may no doubt be seriously affected in their pecuniary interests by any decision which the Court may pronounce; and the questions which have been raised as to the power of the several states, in relation to the corporations they have chartered, are pregnant with important consequences; not only to the individuals who are concerned in the corporate franchises, but to the communities in which they exist. The Ogxen are fully sensible that it is their duty, in exercising the high powers conferred on them by the constitution of the United States, to deal with issuee great and bomb animation atomic interests with the utmost caution; guarding, as far as they have the power to do so, the rights of property, and at the same time carefully abstaining from any encroachment on the rights reserved to the states.
Navigation menu
It appears, from the record, that in the yearthe legislature of Massachusetts, gibbons v ogden main issue to the president of Harvard college "the liberty and power," to dispose of the ferry from Charlestown to Boston, by lease or otherwise, in the behalf and for the behoof of the college: and that, under that grant, the college continued to hold and keep the ferry by its lessees or agents, and to receive the profits of it until In the last what is informal year, a petition was presented to the legislature, by Thomas Russell and others, stating the inconvenience of the transportation by ferries, over Charles river, and the public advantages that would result from a bridge; and praying to be incorporated for the purpose of erecting a bridge isdue the place where the ferry between Boston and Charlestown was gibblns kept.
Pursuant to https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/negative-impacts-of-socialization-the-positive-effects/how-did-the-persian-war-affect-greece.php petition, the legislature, on the 9th of March,passed an act incorporating a company, by the name of "The Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge," for the purposes mentioned in the petition. Inthe charter was extended to seventy years, from the opening of the bridge; and at the expiration of that time it was to belong to the commonwealth.
The corporation have regularly paid to the college the annual sum of two hundred pounds, and have performed all of the duties imposed on them by the terms of their charter. Ingibbons v ogden main issue legislature of Massachusetts incorporated a company by the name izsue "The Proprietors of the Warren Bridge," for the purpose of erecting another bridge over Charles river. This bridge is only sixteen rods, at its commencement, on the Charlestown side, from the commencement of the bridge of the plaintiffs; and they are about fifty rods apart at their termination on the Boston side.
Please Sign In or Register
The travellers who pass over either bridge, proceed from Charlestown square, which receives the travel of many great public roads leading from the country; and the passengers and travellers who go to and from Boston, idsue to pass over the Charles River Bridge, from and through this square, before the erection of the Warren Bridge. The Warren Bridge, by the terms of its charter, was to be surrendered to the state, as soon as the expenses of the proprietors in building and supporting it should be reimbursed; but this period was not, in any event, to exceed six years from the time the company commenced receiving toll.
When the original bill in this case was filed, the Warren Bridge had not been built; and the bill was filed after the passage of the law, in order to obtain an gibbons v ogden main issue to prevent ogddn erection, and for general relief. The bill, among other things, charged as a ground for relief, that the see more for the erection of the Warren Bridge impaired the obligation of the contract between the commonwealth and the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge; and was therefore repugnant to the constitution of the United States.
The answer to the supplemental bill admitted that the bridge gibbons v ogden main issue been so far completed, that foot passengers could pass; but denied that any persons but the workmen and the superintendents had passed over with their consent.
In this state of the pleadings, the cause came on for ogdeen in the supreme judicial court for the county of Suffolk, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, at November term, ; and the court decided that the act incorporating the Warren Bridge, did not impair the obligation of the contract with the proproprietors of the Charles River Bridge, and dismissed the complainants' bill: and the case is brought here by writ of error from gibbons v ogden main issue decision.
It is, however, proper to state, that it is understood that the state court was equally divided upon the question; and that the decree dismissing the bill upon the ground above stated, was pronounced by a majority of the court, for the purpose of enabling the complainants to bring the question for decision before this Court.
Welcome to Scribd!
In the argument here, it was admitted, that since the filing of the supplemental bill, a sufficient amount of toll had been received by the proprietors of the Warren Bridge to reimburse all their expenses, and that the bridge is now the property of the state, and has been made a free bridge; and that the value of the franchise granted to the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge, has by this means been entirely destroyed. If the complainants deemed these facts material, they ought to have been brought before the state court, by a supplemental bill; and this Court, in pronouncing its judgment, cannot regularly notice them.
But in the view which the Court take of this subject, these additional circumstances would not in any degree influence their decision. And as they gibbons v ogden main issue conceded to be true, and the case has been argued on that ground, and the controversy has been for a long time depending, and all parties desire a final end of it; and as it is of importance to them, that the principles on which this Court decide should not be misunderstood; the case will be treated in the opinion now delivered, as if these admitted facts were regularly before us.
But as these circumstances do not affect the judgment read article this Court, it is unnecessary to recapitulate them.]
I am final, I am sorry, but it does not approach me. There are other variants?
I can not take part now in discussion - there is no free time. But I will soon necessarily write that I think.
It agree, very much the helpful information
Between us speaking, in my opinion, it is obvious. I recommend to look for the answer to your question in google.com
Many thanks for the information, now I will know.