North Shore Boom and Driving Company v. Nicomen Boom Company

Background

Two Washington companies that build log booms fought over overlapping rights in the same stretch of a navigable river. The first company organized in April 1900, filed a plat with the State, got permission from the War Department, and erected a boom at a cost of about $16,000, expecting to extend it later. The second company organized in 1903, filed its own plat, and began work inside the first company’s claimed area; it says it also obtained a War Department statement saying the Government would not object if navigation was not unreasonably harmed. The state court found the two proposed booms could not both operate and concluded the second company had not complied with Washington law, so it enjoined that company from building its boom.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether this dispute raised a federal question that would allow review. The Court noted several River and Harbor Acts passed by Congress and explained the 1899 law forbids obstructions not affirmatively authorized by Congress and omits any reference to state authorization. This case was a private dispute and the state court had decided the second company lacked state authorization. Because the federal statute did not make the state-law question itself a federal issue here, and the Federal Government did not bring the case, the Court found no federal question to review and dismissed the writ of error.

Real world impact

The dismissal leaves the state court’s injunction in place and prevents the second company from building the contested boom under state law. The decision confirms that, in similar private disputes over river obstructions, state courts decide whether state law permits construction unless the federal government or a clear federal statute creates a federal issue.