Manigault v. Springs
1905 U.S. LEXIS 992, 26 S. Ct. 127, 199 U.S. 473 (1905)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state's sovereign police power, when exercised to promote the common weal or general good of the public, is paramount to and may permissibly impair private contract rights without violating the Contract Clause of the Constitution.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Manigault owned a rice plantation adjacent to Kinloch Creek, a tributary of the Santee River in South Carolina.
- In August 1898, Manigault entered into a contract with defendants Springs et al., in which the defendants agreed to remove an existing dam and ensure Kinloch Creek remained open and unobstructed.
- Relying on this agreement, Manigault purchased an additional millsite whose value was dependent on water access through the unobstructed Kinloch Creek.
- In 1903, the South Carolina General Assembly passed a statute specifically authorizing the defendants by name to construct and maintain a new dam across Kinloch Creek.
- The stated purpose of the 1903 statute was to drain and protect bordering lowlands from overflow, thereby enhancing their taxable value and preventing them from becoming abandoned and valueless.
Procedural Posture:
- Manigault filed a bill in equity in the United States Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking an injunction to prevent Springs and others from constructing the dam.
- The defendants demurred to the bill, arguing that even if the facts alleged were true, they did not state a valid claim for relief.
- The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Manigault's bill.
- Manigault appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute authorizing the construction of a dam for the public welfare, such as reclaiming swamp lands, unconstitutionally impair the obligation of a prior private contract that required the waterway to remain unobstructed?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brown
No, the state statute does not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of the contract. The interdiction of statutes impairing the obligation of contracts does not prevent the State from exercising powers vested in it for the promotion of the common weal or general good of the public. This sovereign authority, known as the police power, is paramount to any rights under contracts between individuals, as private parties cannot, by entering into contracts, estop the legislature from enacting laws for the public good. The reclamation of swampy and overflowed lands is a proper exercise of the police power in its broader sense of providing for the general welfare of the people. Furthermore, the incidental damage to the plaintiff's land, such as minor overflow requiring the raising of dikes, does not constitute a 'taking' of property requiring compensation under the Due Process Clause, as it does not amount to a practical destruction or material impairment of the land's value.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad scope of the state's police power, extending its justification beyond traditional public health, safety, and morals to include the promotion of the 'general welfare,' such as economic development and land improvement. The decision establishes that the Contract Clause is not an absolute bar to state action and that all private contracts are implicitly subject to subsequent legislation enacted under the state's police power. This creates a crucial balancing act for courts, weighing the sanctity of contracts against the state's legitimate interest in promoting public good, and clarifies that only direct appropriations, not consequential damages from public works, constitute a compensable taking.
