15 N.W. 684 (Minn. 1883), St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of St. Paul

Citation15 N.W. 684, 30 Minn. 359
Opinion JudgeVanderburgh, J. [ * ]
Party NameSt. Paul Union Depot Company v. City of St. Paul
AttorneyGordon E. Cole, for appellant. W. P. Murray and H. J. Horn, for respondent.
Case DateApril 18, 1883
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

Page 684

15 N.W. 684 (Minn. 1883)

30 Minn. 359

St. Paul Union Depot Company

v.

City of St. Paul

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 18, 1883

The city of St. Paul having instituted proceedings for the opening of a street through a portion of plaintiff's land, used by it for depot purposes, plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, to restrain defendant from further proceeding in the matter. The action was tried by the court, Brill, J., presiding, and judgment was ordered in plaintiff's favor as to one piece of land sought to be condemned by defendant, on which was situated plaintiff's engine-house and heating apparatus, and refused as to the rest of the land sought to be condemned. From this judgment plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed.

Gordon E. Cole, for appellant.

W. P. Murray and H. J. Horn, for respondent.

The general grant of power to defendant to take lands for the public use is sufficient to authorize it to take plaintiff's lands for a public street, such use not interfering with the use to which it has been devoted by plaintiff. In re City of Buffalo, 68 N.Y. 167, 175; Mil. & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. City of Faribault, 23 Minn. 167; Mills on Em. Dom. § 46; Pierce on Railroads, 154, 155.

OPINION

[30 Minn. 360] Vanderburgh, J. [*]

The plaintiff corporation was authorized by its charter to acquire, by purchase or condemnation proceedings, such real estate as should be convenient and necessary for the location and construction of depot buildings

Page 685

and appurtenances, and the construction and operation of transfer tracks, so as to unite in one general [30 Minn. 361] union depot, owned and managed by the plaintiff, the several lines of railroad centering in the city of St. Paul. In constructing its depot building upon lands purchased for such purpose, it left an open space 31 feet in width along the north side, which is appropriated and used as a sidewalk and as a passage-way through the block for the ingress and egress of teams and baggage-wagons to and from the baggage-rooms on the east end of the building, located near the termini of numerous railroad tracks entering the depot. The defendant is seeking to lay out a public street on the north side of the depot building, extending through the block upon which it is located from Sibley to Wacouta streets in the city, and to include within it a strip of the plaintiff's land 19 feet in width. The proposed street is to be 38 feet in width. It is conceded that the use of this land for the purposes for which it is opened as a passage-way is necessary for the transaction of plaintiff's business in the receipt and delivery of baggage to and from passenger trains, and that there is no other access to the baggage-rooms for teams and vehicles except upon or across it. This action is brought to restrain the defendant from proceeding in the premises.

The record shows that the business transacted at the depot is very large and increasing, and, as the court finds, "more than 100 trains arrive and depart daily, almost continually coming and going within the day; that the depot is too small for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • 129 S.W. 904 (Mo. 1910), State ex rel. Roland v. Dreyer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 21, 1910
    ...and the public will have the right to cross it at proper times and by suitable means. In St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684, it was held that the city could not take for a street, real estate which the depot company had acquired for its use, where that u......
  • 213 F. 87 (E.D.Okl. 1914), 2031, St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. City of Tulsa
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 10th Circuit Eastern District of Oklahoma
    • April 8, 1914
    ...167; Railroad Co. v. Muder, 49 Mo. 165; Mohawk & H.R. Co. v. Archer, 6 Paige (N.Y.) 83; St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684; New Jersey Southern R. Co. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 39 N.J.Law, The court, in passing on the case, said: 'The theory of the appe......
  • 295 N.W.2d 495 (Minn. 1980), 50171, Matter of City of Shakopee
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • June 13, 1980
    ...railroad depot would substantially impair the prior public use and thus is not allowed. See St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684 (1883); Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway v. City of Faribault, 23 Minn. 167 (1876). And a powerline may be substantially incons......
  • 24 S.W. 478 (Mo. 1893), The Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad Company v. The Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 16, 1893
    ...Railroad v. Railroad, 118 Mass. 391; Railroad v. Railroad, 124 Mass. 368; Railroad v. Williamson, 91 N.Y. 552; Union Depot v. St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684; Central City Horn Railroad v. Railroad, 31 Ill. 523; Hicock v. Hine, 23 Ohio St. 523. The action of the court is assailed becaus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • 129 S.W. 904 (Mo. 1910), State ex rel. Roland v. Dreyer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 21, 1910
    ...and the public will have the right to cross it at proper times and by suitable means. In St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684, it was held that the city could not take for a street, real estate which the depot company had acquired for its use, where that u......
  • 213 F. 87 (E.D.Okl. 1914), 2031, St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. City of Tulsa
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 10th Circuit Eastern District of Oklahoma
    • April 8, 1914
    ...167; Railroad Co. v. Muder, 49 Mo. 165; Mohawk & H.R. Co. v. Archer, 6 Paige (N.Y.) 83; St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684; New Jersey Southern R. Co. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 39 N.J.Law, The court, in passing on the case, said: 'The theory of the appe......
  • 295 N.W.2d 495 (Minn. 1980), 50171, Matter of City of Shakopee
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • June 13, 1980
    ...railroad depot would substantially impair the prior public use and thus is not allowed. See St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684 (1883); Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway v. City of Faribault, 23 Minn. 167 (1876). And a powerline may be substantially incons......
  • 24 S.W. 478 (Mo. 1893), The Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad Company v. The Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 16, 1893
    ...Railroad v. Railroad, 118 Mass. 391; Railroad v. Railroad, 124 Mass. 368; Railroad v. Williamson, 91 N.Y. 552; Union Depot v. St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359, 15 N.W. 684; Central City Horn Railroad v. Railroad, 31 Ill. 523; Hicock v. Hine, 23 Ohio St. 523. The action of the court is assailed becaus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results