US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

NEWARK V. CENTRAL R. CO., 267 U. S. 377 (1925)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 267 U. S. 377 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Newark v. Central R. Co., 267 U.S. 377 (1925)

Newark v. Central Railroad Company of Jew Jersey

No. 351

Argued November 21, 24, 1924

Decided March 2, 1925

267 U.S. 377


1. New Jersey, by empowering a railroad company to have as many tracks within its specified right of way as it might deem necessary, and to erect suitable bridges to accommodate them, including draw bridges over navigable waters crossed, impliedly consented that, in the maintenance and improvement of the railroad, a draw bridge over Newark Bay, originally constructed with two tracks, might be replaced by a better one accommodating four tracks upon substantially the same location. Ls.N.J. 1860, c. 64. P. 267 U. S. 381.

2. Both state and federal governments having consented to this replacement, it is unnecessary to decide whether the acts of Congress and approval of the plans by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of War would be sufficient without the consent of the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 267 U. S. 378

state, or whether the legislation of Congress supersede the laws of the state respecting navigable waters wholly within New Jersey. P. 267 U. S. 384.

3. The replacement in question as not within Ls.N.J. 1914, § 4, c. 123, as amended; requiring approval by the state Board of Commerce and Navigation of plans for waterfront development undertaken since the passage of that act. P. 385.

4. Nor was approval necessary by the Port of New York Authority, a body corporate and politic created by compact between New Jersey and New York with the consent of Congress. P. 267 U. S. 386.

5. The fact that the railroad's bridge was not included in the comprehensive plan for the development of the Port of New York (embracing Newark Bay), adopted pursuant to the said compact, does not make it unlawful or deprive the company of power to construct it. Id.

297 F. 77, 287 id. 196, affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Appeal affirming a decree of the district court which dismissed a bill brought by the City of Newark to enjoin the Railroad Company from constructing a bridge over Newark Bay. Jersey City and the State of New Jersey intervened as complainants. The Port of New York Authority, a body politic established by compact for the development of the Port of New York District, including Newark Bay, was made a defendant and answered, leaving its duties in the matter to the decision of the court. The bill was dismissed on motion of the railroad upon the ground that it did not state a cause of action. The two cities and the state appealed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 267 U. S. 379

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™