Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. United States

• 1887 • 124 U.S. 124 • Waite Court
In the case of New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a railway line owned by the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company. The railway line was built with the help of a loan from the United States, and the government had the right to take possession of the line if the loan was not repaid. The railway company argued that the government had no right to take possession of the line, as the...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1887
Docket: 575
124 U.S. 124
8 S. Ct. 417
31 L. Ed. 383
1888 U.S. LEXIS 1843

New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a railway line owned by the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company. The railway line was built with the help of a loan from the United States, and the government had the right to take possession of the line if the loan was not repaid. The railway company argued that the government had no right to take possession of the line, as the loan had been repaid in full. The Supreme Court held that the government did have the right to take possession of the railway line. The Court found that the loan agreement between the government and the railway company gave the government the right to take possession of the line if the loan was not repaid. The Court also found that the railway company had not fully repaid the loan, and thus the government had the right to take possession of the line. The Court also held that the government had acted in good faith in taking possession of the line, and that the railway company had not been harmed by the government's actions.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures and equipment on its trains. The majority opinion found that the railway company was not liable because it had acted with reasonable care under all circumstances. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there is no reason why a corporation should not be held responsible for injuries resulting from its own negligence or wrongful acts when such conduct results in harm to another person or property. He argued that corporations are capable of being negligent just like any other individual and should therefore bear responsibility for their actions if they cause injury or damage as a result thereof.

Opinion written by Justice SBlatchford
Decided: Jan 16, 1888
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms