# Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 21, 1856 · 59 U.S. 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416603

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Pennsylvania v. the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 21, 1856
- **Citations:** 59 U.S. 421; 18 How. 421; 15 L. Ed. 435; 1855 U.S. LEXIS 714
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Grier
- **Judges:** Nelson, McLean, Daniel, Wayne, Grier, Curtis
- **Cited by:** 366 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416603

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “especially as it respects adjudication upon the private rights of parties ... [an] act of congress cannot have the effect and operation to annul the judgment of the court already rendered, or the rights determined thereby____ When they have passed into judgment t…
- holding that 88 the Port Preference Clause prohibits only ‘‘positive legisla- tion by [C]ongress’’ that gives ‘‘a direct privilege or prefer- ence to the ports of any particular State over those of another,’’ not federal enactments that merely confer ‘‘inciden- tal advantages’…
- holding that the Port Preference Clause prohibits only “positive legislation by [C]ongress” that gives “a direct privilege or preference to the ports of any particular State over those of another,” not federal enactments that merely confer “incidental advantages” on one port o…
- holding that an injunction should be dissolved when the Case: 21-1712 Document: 57 Page: 22 Filed: 02/23/2022 OPTICURRENT, LLC v. POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. 5 right forming the basis of the injunction was later modi- fied

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice GRIER.
I concur .with the majority of this court, that in cases, where •this court has original Jurisdiction, an interlocutory or preliminary injunction may be awarded, in vacation, by any judge of the court. I differ with the majority in declining to punish a wanton contempt of the process of the court.
I concur with my brother McLean, that congress cannot an- . nul or vacate any decree of this court; that the assumption .of such a power is without precedent, and, as, a' precedent for the future, it is of dangerous example. ' ■

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416603. Public record. Not legal advice.