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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
COVINGTON AND CINCINNATI ELEVATED RAILROAD AND TRANSFER AND BRIDGE COMPANY v. KENTUCKY
154 U.S. 22438 L. Ed. 970·Supreme Court of the United States·1894
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, Mr. Justice Field, Mr. Justice Gray, and Mr. Justice White concurred in the judgment of reversal, for -the like reasons as'in the'case of Covington Bridge v. Kentucky, ante, 204, 223.
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
COVINGTON AND CINCINNATI ELEVATED RAILROAD AND TRANSFER AND BRIDGE COMPANY v. KENTUCKY.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY,
No. 1043.
Argued April 25, 1894.
Decided May 26, 1894.
The judgment in this case is reversed on the authority of Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, ante, 204.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. William H. Jackson, (with whom was -Mr. W. H. Wadsworth on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William J. Hendrick, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky, and Mr. William Ooébél for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice- Brown]
Mr. Justice- Brown
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case differs from the last only in the fact that the plaintiff in error was not incorporated until 1886, and subsequently to a general law of the State declaring that all charters and grants of or to corporations shall be subject to amendment or repeal at the will of the legislature. Conceding that these words became a part of its charter, and hence that no contract was impaired by the legislation of 1890, such legislation is still open to the objection found to exist in the former case, that it is m conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky is, therefore,
Reversed, and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, Mr. Justice Field, Mr. Justice Gray, and Mr. Justice White concurred in the judgment of reversal, for -the like reasons as'in the'case of Covington Bridge v. Kentucky, ante, 204, 223.