In re Proceedings By St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company
| Decision Date | 04 November 1885 |
| Citation | 25 N.W. 345,34 Minn. 227 |
| Parties | In the matter of the proceedings by the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company to acquire for its uses certain lands in Hennepin county |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company having presented its petition, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, § 14, to the district court for Hennepin county, asking to condemn certain lands therein described, the state appeared and filed an answer, putting in issue the power of the petitioner to condemn, denying that the public use or necessity required the prosecution of the enterprise of the petitioner, and alleging that certain lots described in the petition as belonging to certain individuals therein named were held in trust for, and belonged to, the University of Minnesota, and that the proposed lines of the petitioner are located in such close proximity to the buildings and campus of the university that the construction and operation of the railroad, if permitted, will be very largely, if not entirely, destructive of the usefulness of such buildings and campus for the purposes of the university, and will necessitate the removal thereof to some other locality, at very great cost and expense.
Upon the hearing before Young and Koon, JJ., the petitioner introduced evidence to show the nature and extent of its enterprise, and also to show that the interests of the public required the prosecution thereof. The state offered evidence to prove that the line of petitioner's railway, if constructed where located, will impair the usefulness of the university, interfere with the process of education, make it impossible to erect certain scientific buildings, such as astronomical observatories and chemical laboratories, which it is designed to erect and which are necessary for the purposes of the university, and that, by reason of the construction and operation of the railway along that line the university cannot perform its public functions. On the petitioner's objection this evidence was excluded. A motion by the state to dismiss the proceedings was denied and an order was made appointing commissioners to ascertain and determine the amount to be paid as compensation for taking or injuriously affecting the lands described in the petition. From this order the state appeals.
Order affirmed.
William J. Hahn, Attorney General, for the State.
The motion to dismiss the petition because it was not made to appear that the public interests required the prosecution of the enterprise should have been granted. The burden of showing this fact was on the petitioner. In re N.Y. Cent R. Co., 66 N.Y. 407; Wis. Cent. R. Co. v. Cornell University, 52 Wis. 537. There was no evidence to establish it. The only witness examined was the company's engineer, and his testimony was confined to the location of the road and the amount of money expended thereon.
The court erred in not receiving the evidence offered by the state to show that the university would be injured by the location and operation of the road. Under the statute it was a question for the court to determine whether the public interests require the prosecution of the enterprise. For the purposes of this appeal, all that the state offered to prove must be taken as true. The statute provides that any one whose interests are affected may show cause against granting the prayer of the petition. Laws 1879, c. 35.
D. A Secombe, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Hennepin county appointing commissioners to appraise damages upon the petition of the respondent railway company, in pursuance of Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, § 17.
1. Such order is a final order in a special proceeding, and hence appealable. Among other things it determined that the lands proposed to be taken were required and necessary for the proposed improvement. The question so determined would not again arise or be considered in the course of any subsequent proceedings, but was determined once for all, and affected a substantial right. In re Jones, 33 Minn. 405, 23 N.W. 835.
2. Upon the merits, the first question arises upon the motion of the appellant, the state of Minnesota, to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was not made to appear that the public interests required the prosecution of the enterprise. The controversy grows out of the attempt by the company to appropriate certain lands belonging to the University of Minnesota, situated on the line of the proposed route of the road. The only lands, however, included in the petition which appear to belong to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial