Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison
Citations
- 237 U.S. 251
- 35 S. Ct. 551
- 59 L. Ed. 939
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1333
Syllabus
<p>The power of the sovereign State or Nation is perpetual — not exhausted by one exercise — and all privileges granted in public waters are subject to that power; the exercise of which is not a taking of private property for public use but the lawful exercise of a governmental power for the common good'. West Chicago R. R. v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 506.</p> <p>When one acting under.state authority erects anything in navigable waters he does so with full knowledge of the paramount authority of Congress to regulate commerce among the States and subject to the exercise of such authority at some future time by Congress. Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364.</p> <p>The power of the States over navigable waters is subordinate to that of Congress and the State can grant no right to the soil of the bed •of navigable waters which is not subject to Federal regulation. Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 269;</p> <p>The power of Congress extends to the whole expanse of a navigable stream and is not dependent upon the depth or shallowness of the water.</p> <p>The United States is not liable under the Fifth Amendment to compensate the owner of a wharf erected in navigable waters for the removal of that part of the structure outside of the new lines properly established by Federal authority, although the wharf was originally erected within the harbor lines then duly established by both the state and Federal authorities.</p> <p>In this case the action of the Secretary of War in establishing new harbor lines within those previously established was not so wanton and arbitrary as to subject it to judicial review, if such action were subject to review.</p> <p>The mooring of vessels is as necessary as is their movement and can equally be made the basis for increasing the navigability of a river whether for trading vessels or war vessels.</p> <p>The judgment of Congress as to whether a construction in or over a river is or
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that Secretary of War could not be enjoined from redrawing harbor lines effectively forcing owner to remove 200 feet of lawfully constructed wharf that obstructed channel widening and deepening project
- noting after surveying Supreme Court case law that even though a state may make a legal and binding grant to a riparian owner, Congress still has the power to remove structures under the Commerce Clause
- where the court noted its earlier decision in Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs, 229 U.S. 82, 89, 33 S.Ct. 679, 57 L.Ed. 1083 (1913
- no compensation for removal of private wharf located in navigable waters
- no compensation for removal of private wharf located in bed of navigable waterway
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McKenna, Lamar, McReynouds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
78 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Kaiser Aetna v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1979-12-04· cited 940×
- United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co.Supreme Court· 1941-01-20· cited 448×
- United States v. CressSupreme Court· 1917-03-12· cited 427×
- Federal Radio Comm'n v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co. (Station WIBO)Supreme Court· 1933-05-08· cited 338×
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1931-05-18· cited 301×
- Omnia Commercial Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1923-04-01· cited 296×
- United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court· 1941-04-28· cited 161×
- Sanitary District of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1925-01-05· cited 154×
- United States v. Kansas City Life InsuranceSupreme Court· 1950-06-05· cited 151×
- Reichelderfer v. QuinnSupreme Court· 1932-12-05· cited 115×
- William Eugene Owen, as of the Estate of Caroline Pearson Payne v. The United StatesFederal Circuit· 1988-07-18· cited 113×
- Morrison v. WorkSupreme Court· 1925-01-05· cited 106×
- United States v. Commodore Park, Inc.Supreme Court· 1945-03-26· cited 101×
- New Jersey v. SargentSupreme Court· 1926-01-04· cited 95×
- Leslie Salt Co. v. FroehlkeNinth Circuit· 1978-05-11· cited 64×
- Amory v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1947-04-09· cited 59×
- Osborne v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1944-11-24· cited 46×
- United States of America,plaintiff-Appellant v. Alameda Gateway Ltd.Ninth Circuit· 2000-05-26· cited 45×
- Willink v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1916-04-03· cited 40×
- Grant M. Acton v. United States v. W. Clifton v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1969-03-03· cited 38×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court· 1894-03-05· cited 734×
- Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1893-03-27· cited 665×
- Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSupreme Court· 1912-03-04· cited 450×
- United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.Supreme Court· 1913-05-26· cited 448×
- Scranton v. WheelerSupreme Court· 1900-12-03· cited 248×
- Gibson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1897-03-22· cited 230×
- Escanaba Co. v. ChicagoSupreme Court· 1883-03-18· cited 196×
- Pound v. TurckSupreme Court· 1878-01-18· cited 95×
- Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. BriggsSupreme Court· 1913-05-26· cited 89×
- West Chicago Street Railroad v. People Ex Rel. City of ChicagoSupreme Court· 1906-04-09· cited 44×
- Gring v. IvesSupreme Court· 1912-01-09· cited 12×
Other cases named Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.