Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
YADKIN RIVER POWER CO. v. WHITNEY CO., 1909 — 214 U.S. 503 · caselaw · US
General
YADKIN RIVER POWER CO. v. WHITNEY CO.
214 U.S. 503·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
YADKIN RIVER POWER CO. v. WHITNEY CO.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 835.
Motion, to dismiss or affirm.
Submitted May 3, 1909.
Decided May 17, 1909.
Writ of error to review judgment of the state court in a condemnation proceeding dismissed without opinion for want of jurisdiction.
This, was a special proceeding commenced by plaintiff in' error to condemn land on which to establish a water power and erect an electric light plant. The' state court dismissed the proceedings, and among other- things as stated in its opinion, held, construing its own statutes and basing its decision upon one of a similar case in the Supreme Court of the United States, Denver Co. v. Ailing, 99 U. S. 480, that the plaintiff in error has not the power of eminent domain; but, that in accepting its new charter from the legislature,- it accepted it in the status in which. it was at the time of the renewal of its old charter with such changes only as were specifically made in the reenacting statute. At the time it accepted its new charter, it had lost all rights which it had ever acquired,-if it had ever acquired any by express legislative enactment, the legislature of North Carolina having taken away the power of eminent domain from such, companies.
. Mr. Thomas Patterson, Mr. Burton Craige, Mr. Thomas J. Jerome and Mr. W. A. Way for defendhnt in error in support of the motion.
Mr. Frederick: M. Leonard for plaintiff in error in opposition thereto.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.