Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. - 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421 (1856)

Rule:

Although the right of navigation be a public right common to all, yet, a private party sustaining special damage by the obstruction may maintain an action at law against the party creating it, to recover his damages; or, to prevent irreparable injury, file a bill in chancery for the purpose of removing the obstruction. In both cases, the private right to damages, or to the removal, arises out of the unlawful interference with the enjoyment of the public right, which is under the regulation of Congress. If the remedy in a case had been an action at law, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for damages, the right to these would have passed beyond the reach of the power of Congress. It would have depended, not upon the public right of the free navigation of the river, but upon the judgment of the court. With respect to the costs adjudged, a decree is unaffected by the subsequent law. But that part of a decree directing the abatement of an obstruction is executory, a continuing decree. Whether it is a future existing or continuing obstruction depends upon the question whether or not it interferes with the right of navigation. If, in the meantime, since the decree, this right has been modified by the competent authority, so that the bridge is no longer an unlawful obstruction, it is quite plain the decree of the court cannot be enforced. 

Facts:

Defendants erected a bridge, which allegedly inhibited interstate commerce on the river. Plaintiffs were granted an injunction directing the bridge be removed from obstructing the river either by elevating the bridge or abatement. The bridge was blown down by a violent storm, and defendants were preparing to rebuild it according to the original plan. Congress had passed a law declaring the structure to be lawful in its present position and elevation. Defendants sought dissolution of an injunction directing that the obstruction of a bridge be removed, either by elevating the bridge to a height designated or by abatement.

Issue:

Does the power of Congress to regulate commerce include the regulation of intercourse and navigation?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Defendants' motion for dissolution of the injunction was granted. So far as the bridge created an obstruction to the free navigation of the river, in view of the previous acts of Congress, they were to be regarded as modified by the subsequent legislation. Since the original decree, the right was modified by the competent authority, so that the bridge was no longer an unlawful obstruction. There was no longer any interference with the enjoyment of the public right inconsistent with law. The act of Congress did not unconstitutionally give a preference to the ports of one state over those of another.