Univ. of Minn. v. St. Paul & N.P. Ry. Co.

Decision Date28 February 1887
Citation36 Minn. 447,31 N.W. 936
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA v ST. PAUL & N. P. RY. CO. AND OTHERS.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The evidence in this case is not returned, but the findings of fact by the trial court are held sufficient to support its legal conclusions that, when the condemnation proceedings set forth in the record were instituted, the land in controversy had not been accepted or acquired by the university, or appropriated for its use, and that the threatened injury to the educational interests of the latter was not such as to warrant the court in restraining by injunction the construction of defendant's line of railroad.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county.

Condemnation proceedings.

W. J. Hahn, C. K. Davis, and Gilfillan, Belden & Willard, for University of Minnesota, appellant.

D. A. Secombe, for St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The only substantial grounds upon which a claim for the relief sought can be based are (1) that the lots in question had, prior to the condemnation proceedings, been appropriated in behalf of the state for the use of the university; and (2) that the construction of the particular line of railroad in question, for which these lots are so taken, would prove so injurious to the university, whose buildings are located on lands in the vicinity, as to warrant the court in restraining the construction and operation of the road over the proposed line.

These questions were to be determined by the facts found upon the evidence in the case. As the evidence relating to these subjects is not returned, our inquiry is necessarily limited to the sufficiency of the findings of facts to warrant the legal conclusions. We are agreed that, upon both of these questions, the findings of the trial court are conclusive.

1. The court finds that, as appears from the records of the regents of the university, the professor of agriculture had recommended “that authority be granted to the executive committee to purchase lots adjoining the horticultural grounds, for the erection of a farm-house, and the necessary outbuildings, if it should be thought best to do so.” This appears to have been in June, 1882. The communication was accordingly referred to the executive committee for their action. This committee was composed of four or five members; and subsequently two of the members of the committee negotiated for and purchased seven lots, viz., lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, in block 13, in St. Anthony city, including the three lots in controversy, at the agreed price of $4,900, and a deed obtained therefor, running to one of them, purporting to convey the same to him, January 21, 1884; and the title thereto still remained in him at the commencement of these condemnation proceedings. It is further found “that the purchase money belonged to the university, and the title was taken in the name of one of the two members referred to, by their mutual arrangement,” to facilitate the transfer of such portion of said property as might be desirable to sell. “A verbal report of said purchase was made to the regents, but no action was ever taken thereon.” It also appears “that the professor of agriculture of said university desired to have erected upon lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, of block 13, a cottage for the assistant superintendent of agriculture, and a barn in which to keep two or more...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT