Osborne v. Adams County
109 U.S. 1 · 1883 U.S. LEXIS 927 · 27 L. Ed. 835 · 3 S. Ct. 150
October 15, 1883
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The Court held that a steam‑powered grist‑mill does not qualify as a work of internal improvement for purposes of the bond‑authorizing statute, relying on the statutory language and the Nebraska Supreme Court’s distinction between water‑power and steam power.
- Headnote 2
The Court denied rehearing, noting that the Nebraska Supreme Court’s recent decision on water‑powered mills did not change the legal rule that steam mills are excluded, and therefore no new authority warranted reconsideration.
- Headnote 3
The Court examined the Nebraska statute authorizing counties to issue bonds for ‘any railroad or other work of internal improvement.’ It concluded that the statute’s class of qualifying improvements excludes facilities that require ongoing fuel purchases and can be relocated, exemplified by a steam‑driven grist‑mill.
- Headnote 4
Nebraska’s highest court held that a grist‑mill powered by water meets the statutory definition because water power is a perpetual, cost‑free resource that can be harnessed only at a fixed site, unlike steam power.
- Headnote 5
The petition for rehearing was filed after the Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion on water‑powered mills. The Supreme Court found that the new decision supported, rather than changed, its prior construction and therefore denied rehearing.
- Headnote 6
The Court interpreted the statute and concluded that a steam‑powered grist‑mill does not satisfy the definition because it needs fuel and is movable, whereas water‑powered mills qualify.
- Headnote 7
The Court held that because a steam grist‑mill requires continuous fuel and can be relocated, it falls outside the class of projects that counties may aid with bonds.
- Headnote 8
The Nebraska Supreme Court, as cited, distinguished water power from steam power, holding that a water‑driven mill meets the statutory requirements for municipal aid.
- Headnote 9
The Court denied rehearing because the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision on water‑powered mills did not alter the established interpretation that steam mills are excluded from the statute.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was decided at the last term of this court, and is reported in 106 U. S., 181. We there held that a steam gristmill was not a work of internal improvement, within the meaning of the statute of Nebraska, approved February 15, 1869, authorizing counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties “ to issue bonds to aid in the construction of any railroad or other work of internal improvement.” It was also said that the court was not justified by anything in Township of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310, or in the decisions of the courts of Nebraska, “in holding that a steam or other kind of grist-mill is of the class of internal improvements which municipal townships in that State are empowered, by the statute in question, to aid by an issue of bonds.”
A petition for rehearing ivas filed near the close of the last term, calling our attention to the fact that the Supreme Court óf Nebraska had then recently decided that a grist-mill operated by water power was a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the before-mentioned statute. The judgment was suspended in .order that appellee might have an opportunity of presenting the full text of the opinion of the State court. That has been done at the present term. The case to which reference is made is Traver v. Merrick County, the opinion in which was not filed in the State court until after the close of our last term.
It is quite true, as claimed by counsel for appellee, that the • State court does, in that case, rule, that a water grist-mill is a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the statute in question. But the court takes care to say :
“ In onr view there is a clear distinction betweén aiding the development of the' water power of the State — a power that is continuing in its nature and may be used without cost'or expense, and must be used at certain points on a stream where a dam can be erected and power obtained — and a mill propelled by steam, that must be attended with' a continuous cost for fuel, and may at any time be moved to another locality.”
So far from the decision of the State court furnishing any ground for a rehearing, it is' an authority in support of that construction of the act of 1867 which excludes steam grist-mills from the class of internal improvements in aid of which counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties- are, by that statute, authorized to issue their bonds.
The rehearing is denied.