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:
A state's exercise of its police power to promote the common good and general welfare, such as reclaiming land for public benefit, is paramount to private contract rights. Such a legislative act is not an unconstitutional impairment of contract obligations under the Contracts Clause.
Facts:
- In August 1898, Springs et al. entered into a contract with Manigault agreeing to remove a dam across Kinloch Creek by a specific date and to allow the creek to remain open and unobstructed thereafter.
- Manigault owned a rice plantation bordering Kinloch Creek, a navigable tributary of the Santee River.
- Relying on the agreement to keep the creek open, Manigault purchased a nearby millsite whose value depended on water access through Kinloch Creek.
- In 1903, the South Carolina General Assembly passed a statute specifically permitting Springs et al. by name to construct and maintain a dam across Kinloch Creek.
- The stated purpose of the 1903 statute was to drain and reclaim low-lying lands for the public good, thereby enhancing their taxable value and preventing them from becoming abandoned.
- The construction of the dam would obstruct Manigault's navigation on the creek and cause water to back up, potentially requiring him to raise the dikes on his plantation.
Procedural Posture:
- Manigault (plaintiff) filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina, seeking an injunction to stop Springs et al. (defendants) from constructing a dam.
- The defendants demurred to the bill, arguing that even if the alleged facts were true, there was no legal basis for the suit.
- The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Manigault's bill.
- Manigault (appellant) 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 public welfare purposes, such as reclaiming swamp lands, unconstitutionally impair the obligation of a preexisting private contract that required the waterway to remain open?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brown
No, a state statute authorizing a dam for public welfare does not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of a preexisting private contract. The interdiction of statutes impairing the obligation of contracts does not prevent a state from exercising its police powers for the promotion of the common weal or general good of the public. This police power is paramount to any rights under contracts between individuals, as 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 this power for the general welfare. Furthermore, minor, incidental damage requiring a landowner to incur some expense to ward off consequences, such as raising dikes to prevent overflow, does not constitute a 'taking' of property requiring compensation under the Due Process Clause.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the supremacy of the state's police power over private contract rights protected by the Contracts Clause. It broadens the accepted definition of 'police power' beyond just health, safety, and morals to include promoting the 'general welfare,' such as economic development and land reclamation. The decision establishes that individuals cannot use private agreements to prevent a state from legislating for the public good in the future. It also clarifies the distinction between a compensable 'taking' of property, which involves practical destruction or material impairment of value, and non-compensable consequential damages resulting from public works.
