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

Washington Bridge Company, Appellant, v. William Stewart, James Stewart, And John Glenn

1845 • 44 U.S. 413 • Taney Court
In Washington Bridge Company v. William Stewart, James Stewart, and John Glenn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bridge company had the right to charge tolls for crossing its bridge. The Stewarts and Glenn argued that they were not liable for paying such tolls because their land abutted the river on which the bridge was built. The Court held that while it is true that landowners have certain rights over rivers running through or adjacent to their property, these rights do not...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 Taney Court
Term: 1845
44 U.S. 413
11 L. Ed. 658
1845 U.S. LEXIS 436
Argued: Jan 21, 1845

Washington Bridge Company, Appellant, v. William Stewart, James Stewart, And John Glenn

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Washington Bridge Company v. William Stewart, James Stewart, and John Glenn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bridge company had the right to charge tolls for crossing its bridge. The Stewarts and Glenn argued that they were not liable for paying such tolls because their land abutted the river on which the bridge was built. The Court held that while it is true that landowners have certain rights over rivers running through or adjacent to their property, these rights do not extend so far as to prevent others from building bridges across them and charging reasonable fees for passage over those bridges. Thus, in this case, the appellants were required to pay reasonable tolls when crossing Washington Bridge Company's bridge.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Washington Bridge Company v. William Stewart, James Stewart, and John Glenn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bridge company had an exclusive right to build a toll bridge over the Potomac River. The majority opinion held that no such exclusive right existed; however Justice McLean dissented from this decision. He argued that Congress had granted an exclusive privilege for building bridges across navigable waters in order to protect navigation rights and promote commerce on those waterways. In his view, this grant of authority should be interpreted as including an implied promise not to authorize any other similar works without first compensating the original builder for their investment in constructing it. Therefore he concluded that allowing another party to construct a competing bridge would constitute taking away property without due process or just compensation which is prohibited by law and thus unconstitutional.

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