23 Minn. 167 (Minn. 1876), Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. City of Faribault

Citation23 Minn. 167
Opinion JudgeCornell, J.
Party NameMilwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. City of Faribault
AttorneyO. F. Perkins, for appellant. Gordon E. Cole, for respondent.
Case DateOctober 17, 1876
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

Page 167

23 Minn. 167 (Minn. 1876)

Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company

v.

City of Faribault

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 17, 1876

This action was brought in the district court for Rice county, to restrain the defendant from carrying into effect an ordinance providing for the opening of a street east and west across plaintiff's depot grounds, in the city of Faribault. These grounds, 1,340 feet in length from north to south, were acquired by the Minnesota Central Railroad Company, (to whose rights the plaintiff has succeeded) by condemnation under its charter. On the trial before Lord, J., it appeared, and was found by the court, that the opening of the proposed street would seriously interfere with the plaintiff's use of its depot grounds for the purposes of its railway, and that the depot grounds were bounded on the north and south by streets running east and west, and were also crossed by a street running east and west. The city claimed the right to open the proposed street under a provision in its charter authorizing the common council "to lay out, open, alter, and vacate public squares, streets, grounds, highways, and alleys, and to widen and straighten the same." Judgment was rendered perpetually enjoining the defendant from opening the proposed street, and the defendant appealed.

Judgment of the court below is affirmed.

O. F. Perkins, for appellant.

Gordon E. Cole, for respondent.

OPINION

Page 168

Cornell, J.

It is conceded that the public easement in the original street became fully extinguished upon its vacation as such, and no point is made that the legal rights of the company in respect to the strip of land now sought to

Page 169

be taken are any other or different than those acquired over the rest of its depot grounds, by condemnation proceedings under its charter. The fact that such strip was formerly subjected to the easement of a public street is, therefore, of no importance whatever in this case.

The entire length, north and south, of plaintiff's depot grounds at this place is only some 1,340 feet, and they are already traversed by three streets, crossing them east and west. Upon the stipulated facts and findings it is perfectly apparent that the opening and maintenance of an additional street across such grounds at the place proposed must greatly endanger the travelling public, make it impracticable for the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP