GLOUCESTER WATER SUPPLY COMPANY
v.
CITY OF GLOUCESTER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Gloucester Water Supply Company challenged a Massachusetts statute that authorized the City of Gloucester to purchase the company's water supply plant and required valuation by commissioners, arguing that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause and federal contract protections. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal on the merits and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, applying the same reasoning it had just established in the parallel case of Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion .of the court.
In the main, this case is like that of Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport, just decided.
The Gloucester Water Company was engaged in supplying the city of Gloucester and its inhabitants with water under a non-exclusive charter and a non-exclusive hydrant contract made with the city. Under the authority of a statute enacted in 1895, similar in tenor to the act of 1894 considered in the Newburyport case, the Gloucester company s'old its plant to the city of Gloucester. After the sale the company petitioned for the appointment of commissioners to value the property. Objections were made by both parties to the award, and the objections were reserved for consideration to the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. That court accepted the award for the sum of $576^544 with interest. 179 Massachusetts, 365. Thereafter the present suit in equity was instituted in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, the bill filed containing substantially, similar allegations to those made in the Newburyport case. Similar relief was also sought, except that there was no claim that the commissioners had not made an allowance for the unexpired term of the hydrant contract. After the decision in the Newburyport case the Circuit Court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the bill on the merits.
For the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in the Newburyport case, the decree of the Circuit Court is reversed at appellant’s' costs, and the case remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction. •
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laurent v. Anderson, 70 F.2d 819 (6th Cir. 1934)…90, 93, 94; Iberville, etc., Co. v. Monongahela Co. (C. C. A. 5) 168 F. 12, 17. National hanks were first created by the Act of February 25, 1863, 12 Stat. 665. Third National Bank v. Buffalo German Insurance Co., 193 U. S. 581, 589, 24 S. Ct. 524, 48 L. Ed. 801. That act contained no provision corresponding to section 66. The act was repealed by the Act of June 3, 1864, 13 Stat. 102, 118. There being no national banks at that time, it was sought by the latter act to encourage state banks to reincorporate u…
-
Heiden v. Cremin, 66 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1933)…h later case, Earle v. Carson, 188 U. S. 42, the court at page 47, 23 S. Ct. 254, 47 L. Ed. 373, said this policy was one of the “essential features’,’ of the act. In Third National Bank v. Buffalo German Ins. Co., 193 U. S. 581, 592, 24 S. Ct. 524, 48 L. Ed. 801, the court states this policy as being to encourage investment in such stock by facilitating transfers thereof. Also see McDonald v. Dewey, 202 U. S. 510, 533, 534, 26 S. Ct. 731, 50 L. Ed. 1128, 6 Ann. Oas. 419; and Bullard v. Bank, 18 Wall. 589, 5…