Weems Steamboat Company of Baltimore City v. People's Steamboat Company
The complainant (the above-named petitioner) commenced this suit in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia against the defendant the People's Steamboat Company and its officers and agents, for the purpose of obtaining an injunction restraining the corporation defendant from using certain wharves on the Rappahannock river, in the state of Virginia, of some of which the complainant was the owner in fee, and of others the lessee of the exclusive use from the owners. The complainant contended that it had the exclusive right to the use of such wharves, either as owner or lessee, and that the defendant illegally, and against the will of the complainant, insisted upon using them to carry on its business, although offering to pay the complainant what was the reasonable value of the defendant's use of such wharves.

The corporation and the individual defendants filed joint and separate answers, setting up a claim of right to the use of such wharves upon compensation being made therefor, and the case came before the court on motion of complainant for a temporary injunction, as prayed for in the bill of complaint. The court, without then passing upon any other question, ordered that the matter be referred to a special master for the purpose of taking such evidence as might the submitted to him by either party, or which he might find necessary to take, bearing upon the title to the several wharves mentioned in complainant's bill and claimed by complainant, and to ascertain what rights passed to complainant with the acquisition of such wharves, and whether or not the wharves were public or private wharves. Pursuant to this order of reference, hearings were had before the master, who returned the evidence taken before him with his opinion in favor of granting the injunction as prayed for by the complainant, on the ground that the wharves in question were private wharves, owned or leased by the complainant, who had the exclusive right to their use. The facts found by the master were not overruled, but his conclusions of law were not concurred in by the court, and the preliminary injunction was refused. The case was then submitted to the court for trial upon all the evidence taken, and the bill was dismissed with costs. 141 Fed. 454.

The complainant appealed from the decree of dismissal to the circuit court of appeals for the fourth circuit, where it was affirmed upon the opinion of the circuit court.

The complainant then applied to this court for a writ of certiorari to bring the case here, which petition was granted, and the case has been submitted to this court upon the briefs of respective counsel.

Messrs. George Weems Williams, St. George R. Fitzhugh, and Nicholas P. Bond for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 347-349 intentionally omitted]

Messrs. William D. Carter and Ellerbe W. Carter for respondents.

Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham:

[Argument of Counsel from pages 349-351 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court: 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision