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

Texas And Pacific Railway Company v. Southern Pacific Company

• 1890 • 137 U.S. 48 • Fuller Court
In the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Southern Pacific Company, 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over railway routes in Texas. The Texas & Pacific Railway Co., under an Act of Congress from 1871, claimed it had exclusive rights to construct and operate a railroad along a specific route between Marshall and El Paso, TX. However, the Southern Pacific Co., which had been granted similar privileges by California legislation for constructing railroads...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1890
Docket: 1210
137 U.S. 48
11 S. Ct. 10
34 L. Ed. 614
1890 U.S. LEXIS 2062

Texas And Pacific Railway Company v. Southern Pacific Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Southern Pacific Company, 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over railway routes in Texas. The Texas & Pacific Railway Co., under an Act of Congress from 1871, claimed it had exclusive rights to construct and operate a railroad along a specific route between Marshall and El Paso, TX. However, the Southern Pacific Co., which had been granted similar privileges by California legislation for constructing railroads within its state boundaries extending into other states or territories including Arizona and New Mexico (which then included parts of modern-day West-Texas), argued that this did not infringe upon Texas & Pacific's charter as their lines would not intersect nor were they parallel. The court ruled in favor of Southern Pacific Co., stating that while Congress has power over interstate commerce regulation including railways construction across multiple states; it cannot interfere with individual state’s internal affairs unless there is direct conflict with federal law or constitution - which wasn't present here since both companies' charters allowed them to build on different paths without crossing each other's line.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Southern Pacific Company, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the law regarding land grants to railway companies. He argued that Congress intended to grant alternate sections of land on each side of a railroad line, not just one side as interpreted by the majority. According to him, this was evident from both historical context and legislative intent behind such laws. Furthermore, he contended that if there were any ambiguity in these laws or their application, it should be resolved in favor of public interest rather than private corporations'. In his view, granting more lands than necessary would unjustly enrich railroads at public expense while undermining government’s ability to manage its resources effectively for common good.

Opinion written by Justice MWFuller
Decided: Nov 03, 1890
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