Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 4/4/1904

Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport

Citations

  • 193 U.S. 561
  • 24 S. Ct. 553
  • 48 L. Ed. 795
  • 1904 U.S. LEXIS 897

Syllabus

<p>Where the contention as to want of jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, arising from the alleged absence of constitutional questions, is well founded, it is the duty of this court not simply to dismiss the appeal, but to reverse the.decree at appellant’s costs with instructions to the Circuit Court to, dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction.</p> <p>Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court does not arise simply because an averment is made that the case is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States if it plainly appears that such averment is not real or substantial but is without color of merit.</p> <p>Where the charter of a water company' is not exclusive, and is subject to repeal, alteration or amendment at the will of the legislature no deprivation of property without due process of law or impairment of the obligation of a contract can arise from an act of the legislature empowering the city to erect its own waterworks.</p> <p>Where the legislature of a State authorizes a city, to erect its own waterworks but on the condition that it purchase the plant of a company then supplying it, at-a valuation to be fixed by judicial proceedings as provided in the act, and the water company institutes proceedings under the act, it. cannot thereafter claim that because certain incorporeal rights, franchises and possible future profits were not allowed for in fixing' the valuation, that its property was taken without due process of law, and, changing its position, cause its voluntary acceptance to become an involuntary one in order to assail the constitutionality of the legislation in question. ■ .</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that courts may dismiss cases “for patent insubstantiality,” including where plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins”
  • examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins”
  • examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”
  • examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”
  • examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins.”
  • examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where the plaintiff allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.