Skip to main content
· 6/22/1908

Shreveport Traction Co. v. City of Shreveport

Citations

  • 122 La. 1
  • 47 So. 40
  • 129 Am. St. Rep. 345
  • 1908 La. LEXIS 400

Syllabus

<p>1. Constitutional Law — Obligation of Contracts — Impairment.</p> <p>Corporations and individuals are entitled to the same protection under the contract clause of the federal Constitution.</p> <p>2. Same — Ordinance.</p> <p>An ordinance granting a right accepted and acted upon by the grantee becomes an irrevocable contract. The right cannot be amended or diminished without the consent of the grantee.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point see Cent. Dig. vol. 10, Constitutional Law, §§ 292-324.]</p> <p>3. Same — Police Phifer — Surrender.</p> <p>It is generally true of governmental power, especially the police power, that it cannot be surrendered or alienated.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 10, Constitutional I»aw, § 286.]</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>The power retained after the grant does not include the authority to repeal, change, or modify the right granted.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 10, Constitutional Law, §§ 292-324.]</p> <p>5. Same — Right to Charges and Tolls.</p> <p>An ordinance, granting the right to a street railway company to-run its cars on terms and conditions stated, by its acceptance confers a right, and thereafter the city council cannot lower the fare to be charged over the objection of the company.</p> <p>If it were to do so it would impair the obligation of the contract. Cleveland v. Cleveland City R. R„ 194 U. S. 517, 24 Sup. Ct. 756, 48 L. Ed. 1102; Detroit v. Detroit, 184 U. S. 368, 22 Sup. Ct. 410, 46 L. Ed. 592; Knoxville v. Knoxville, 189 U. S. 434, 23 Sup. Ct. 531, 47 L. Ed. 887.</p> <p>The first authority cited directly reaffirms the • other two; all three are pertinent. They announce the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States.</p> <p>In each of these decisions the agreement between the municipality and the street railway was treated as binding.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, sen Cent. Dig. vol. 10, Constitutional Law, §§ 372-377.]</p> <p>6. Same — Righ

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding that “Defendants’ misrepresentations to customers that their funds would be used for trading Forex, or their failure to inform customers that their funds were used to pay [Defendants’] business expenses and … personal expenses, are material[.]”
  • defendants used invested funds to pay expenses and to pay returns to other customers instead of trading

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breaux

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.