Court Opinion

ID: 9417023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:00:49.609861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:35.224530
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Bbadley
dissenting.
■I am obliged to dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. The Missouri River is, by common acceptation, the western' boundary of Iowa; and- the fair construction of the charter of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, which adopts that boundary as its eastern terminus, is, that the road was to extend from the Missouri' River westwardly. The subsequent express authority given to construct a bridge across the river, in my judgment, confirms this view of the subject; and as a mandamus is a severe remedy, requiring a clear right and clear duty to support it, I think' it ought not' to be granted in this case, especially as it requires the company to use the bridge as a part of their continuous line'with all their trains,: which may impose much inconvenience" on thein, without corresponding benefit to the public;.....■