TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Des Moines v. Des Moines City Railway Co.

City of Des Moines v. Des Moines City Railway Company

City of Des Moines v. Des Moines City Ry. Co., 214 U.S. 179 (1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 17, 1909
Docket
No. 171
Judges
Holmes
Citations
214 U.S. 17929 S. Ct. 55353 L. Ed. 9581909 U.S. LEXIS 1905
Syllabus
A resolution of a municipal council, directing a street railway company to remove and replace tracks and wires, and, in case of failure to comply, instructing the City Solicitor to take such action as he deems advisable to enforce the resolution, amounts only to direction to bring a suit; and, even if contract rights should be violated if the resolution Wre enforced, the resolution does not of itself amount to an ordinance or law impairing the obligation of contracts and the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin its enforcement.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Holmes

Me. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill brought in the Circuit Court by an Iowa corporation against a city of Iowa. The ground of jurisdiction is that a resolution of the City Council of that city is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and if carried out will take the property of the corporation without due process of law, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Circuit Court granted an injunction against the enforcement of the resolution, and the defendant appealed to this court.

The plaintiff, the appellee, sets up, under a certain ordinance, a right unlimited as to time to construct, maintain and operate an electric, street railway in and over the streets, alleys and bridges of Des Moines. The resolution alleged to impair these rights is as follows:

“ Whereas: Questions have been raised as to the rights of the Des Moines City Railway Company and the Interurb'an Railway Company to maintain their tracks and operate their lines upon and along and over the streets and bridges and public places of the City of Des Moines; and “Whereas.: It is essential to the preservation of the rights of the City of Des Moines that such questions be determined as speedily as possible.

*184 “Be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of Des Moines: That said companies be and they are hereby ordered to remove all of their tracks, poles and wires from the streets, bridges and public places of the City óf Des Moines, and to restore and repair the surface and pavement where paved of all of the streets along which they are now operating their lines, and said companies are hereby ordered to commence said removal within twenty-five days after the passage of this resolution.

“Be it Further Resolved: That should the said Railway Companies fail to commence such removal within the time above specified, the' City Solicitor be and he is hereby instructed to take such action as he shall deem advisable and necessary to secure the'enforcement of the above resolution.

“Be it Further Resolved: That the City Clerk be and.he is hereby instructed to serve a certified copy of this resolution upon the Des Moines City Railway Company and the Interurban Railway Company forthwith.”

We are of opinion that this is not a law impairing the rights alleged by the appellee, and therefore that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court cannot be maintained. Leaving on one side all questions as to what can be done by resolution as distinguished from ordinance under Iowa laws, we read this resolution as simply a denial of the appellee’s claim and a direction to the City Solicitor to resort to the courts if the appellee shall not accept the city’s views. The resolution begins with a recital that questions as to the railway company’s rights have been raised, and ends with a direction to the City Solicitor to take action to enforce the city’s position. The only action to be expected from a City Solicitor is a suit in court. We cannot take it to have been within the meaning of the direction to him that he should take a posse and begin to pull up the tracks. The order addressed to the companies to remove their tracks was simply to put them in the position of disobedience, as ground for a suit, if the city was right.

Decree reversed, with direction to dismiss the bill.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 21911: 21913: 11916: 11918: 21921: 11922: 11923: 11925: 11927: 11939: 119102026peak 1910 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list