Summary

Louis Brandeis Sears v. City of Akron — Opinion of the Court

The fact that no action may have been taken under the ordinance is immaterial. We need not, therefore, inquire whether plaintiff is in a position to avail himself of the alleged inconsistency.
Sixth. The city insists that it has not appropriated and does not intend to appropriate any property of plaintiff, and that, as to plaintiff, it is not exercising the power of eminent domain. If, as plaintiff contends, the city's whole water development is unauthorized, plaintiff clearly is not entitled to equitable relief.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Sears v. City of Akron — Opinion of the Court

The so-called charter simply conferred upon the company the power to take lands necessary for and to construct thereon, the dams, locks, and other parts of its plant. [4] If by purchase or by right of eminent domain under the charter powers, the company becomes the owner of riparian lands, it acquires the riparian rights of former owners; or it may otherwise acquire from the owners specific rights in the use and flow of the water. But these would be property acquired under the charter, not contract rights expressed or implied in the grant of the charter.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Sears v. City of Akron — Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff contends that the incorporation of the company in 1908 under the general laws constituted a contract by which the State granted it the right to construct and operate a power system in the places designated in the certificate and the right to take property for that purpose and to have the water flow past that property uninterrupted and undiminished; and that the ordinance of 1912 is a law which impairs that contract in violation of article 1, § 10, of the Federal Constitution.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature