Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.
Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.
| This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legalskeptic(talk | contribs) at 18:30, 26 August 2018 (removed link template from lead citation per WP:SCOTUS/SG; replaced depricated template code). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision. |
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Decided January 5, 1885 | |
| Full case name | Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. |
| Citations | 113 U.S. 9 (more) 5 S. Ct. 441; 28 L. Ed. 889; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1646 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Gray, joined by Waite, Miller, Field, Bradley, Harlan, Woods, Matthews |
| Blatchford took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9 (1885), was a U.S. Supreme Court case considering whether a dam constructed on privately owned land served a public purpose and whether having the owner of the dam compensate any adjacent landowner was a legal form of eminent domain.
Contents
1 Background
2 Decision
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Background
The state of New Hampshire passed a General Mills Act in 1868 which established a permitting process for companies to build dams on non-navigable waterways so long as they compensated any adjacent landowners for flooded property. [1] The Amoskeag Manufacturing Company dammed the Merrimack River at Amoskeag Falls for the purpose of powering their cotton mills. This had the inadvertent result of flooding Head's land along the river for which he was offered compensation.
Head sued claiming the benefit to the company was not a public purpose and that the Equal Protection Clause was being violated because the rights of a major employer was outweighing those of a smaller landowner. When the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the dam was legal,
Head appealed to the federal courts for a writ of error to reverse the judgment.
Decision
Justice Horace Gray, delivered the opinion of the court that regulating riparian water rights was clearly within the purview of the state, that similar regulations were used in other states, that similar laws in New Hampshire went back to 1718, and that the remedy for any financial loss showed that due process of law was being preserved. The court did not find the equal protection claims compelling. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company.
There were no concurring or dissenting opinions but Justice Samuel Blatchford did not participate in the case.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113
References
^ Head v. Amoskeag Mfg Co, 113 U.S. 9 (1885) Justia.com
External links
- Text of Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9 (1885) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Categories:
- United States Supreme Court cases
- 1885 in United States case law
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Waite Court
- Amoskeag Manufacturing Company
- Merrimack River
- Takings Clause case law
- United States water case law
- United States Supreme Court stubs
(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.208","walltime":"0.268","ppvisitednodes":{"value":6235,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":24232,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":18090,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":17,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":2,"limit":500},"unstrip-depth":{"value":0,"limit":20},"unstrip-size":{"value":434,"limit":5000000},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 244.295 1 -total"," 82.17% 200.736 1 Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case"," 56.47% 137.950 1 Template:Infobox"," 40.93% 99.991 1 Template:If_either"," 39.62% 96.801 1 Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case/courts"," 24.28% 59.309 222 Template:If_between"," 19.40% 47.404 1 Template:Short_description"," 17.99% 43.948 1 Template:Pagetype"," 6.71% 16.388 1 Template:SCOTUS-case-stub"," 6.32% 15.448 1 Template:Caselaw_source"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.039","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":1535649,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1322","timestamp":"20181118215110","ttl":3600,"transientcontent":true}}});mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":454,"wgHostname":"mw1322"});});
