Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore case brief
summary
32 U.S. 243 (1833)
CASE FACTS
The city diverted water from it accustomed and natural course. The alleged consequence was that the water in the harbor was rendered so shallow as to render the owner's wharf useless. The owner brought action against the city to recover damages for injuries to the wharf property. The trial court entered judgment for the owner. The court of appeals reversed, and the owner sought review.
DISCUSSION
The Court dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
32 U.S. 243 (1833)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff owner of a wharf appealed a
decision of the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of Maryland,
which reversed the judgment in favor of the owner in an action to
recover damages for injuries to the wharf property arising from acts
of defendant city.CASE FACTS
The city diverted water from it accustomed and natural course. The alleged consequence was that the water in the harbor was rendered so shallow as to render the owner's wharf useless. The owner brought action against the city to recover damages for injuries to the wharf property. The trial court entered judgment for the owner. The court of appeals reversed, and the owner sought review.
DISCUSSION
- The United States Supreme Court dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction.
- The Court found that the provision in the Fifth Amendment declaring that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation was intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States and was not applicable to the legislation of the states.
The Court dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment