Cameron v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 January 1895
• Docket Number: No. 9188.,9188.
• Parties: DONALD J. CAMERON v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

60 Minn. 100

DONALD J. CAMERON v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY.¹

No. 9188.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 18, 1895.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Fill more county, Whytock, J., denying its motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

The certificate of foreclosure sale in 1877 to trustees, and the conveyance from those trustees to the Southern Minnesota Railway Company, were recorded in Fillmore county February 13, 1886. The other facts are stated in the opinion.

H. H. Field and Wells & Hopp, for appellant.

Gray & Thompson and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This action was commenced in March, 1893, to recover possession, and damages for the detention, of a strip of land 100 feet in width, across a 40-acre tract, and of certain lots abutting said strip, all embraced within the limits of the plat of the village of Fountain, in Fillmore county. An examination of the record and the briefs of counsel satisfy us that the determination of the case depends upon the single question whether the defendant had, before the commencement of the action, acquired title to the premises by adverse possession. There is practically no conflict in the evidence. It appears that in June, 1870, the plaintiff being the owner of one undivided half, and Wyckoff and Holley being the owners of the other undivided half, of the tract referred to, they all joined in platting it as the village of Fountain. Upon this plat there was laid out the 100-feet strip now in dispute, running diagonally through the tract, having no designation as to the purpose for which it was so laid out. At this time the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company was engaged in constructing its railroad westerly through the southern tier of counties in this state, and had surveyed its line through this tract. All the owners who joined in the plat were interested in the construction of the road, — Wyckoff and Holley, as officers of the company; and the plaintiff, as agent for the contractor who was constructing the road, — and the land was evidently platted in the expectation that the railway company would acquire and use the 100-feet strip for its right of way, and locate a station at that place. Subsequently, and during the same year (1870), the railway company built its road over and upon this 100-feet strip, by the permission and license of the plaintiff, with the understanding that it was to be purchased and paid for by the company afterwards, when it was able to do so, the company being at that time short of funds. Leaving out of consideration questions as to the subsequent construction of additional tracks on this strip, and as to the extent and duration of the occupancy of the abutting lots, it may be stated generally that the railway company continued in the possession of the premises, using them for railway purposes, until all its property and franchises were sold in February, 1877, under a decree of foreclosure, to certain trustees, who immediately conveyed the same to another corporation, called the Southern Minnesota Railway Company, which entered into possession of the premises, and used and occupied them for railway purposes, precisely as had been previously done by the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company, and continued in such occupancy and use until it sold out, in January, 1880, to the defendant, which immediately went into possession, and continued their occupancy and use the same as before. Neither the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company nor either of its successors ever took any steps towards purchasing or paying for the land, and during all this time plaintiff remained passive; asserting no claim for either compensation for or possession of the premises until 1884, when he demanded of defendant that it purchase and pay for the land so occupied, which it has failed to do. The plaintiff had no notice — at least, no actual notice, and no constructive notice from anything of record in Fillmore county — of the change of ownership and possession of the road from the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company to the Southern Minnesota Railway Company, but did learn in 1880 or 1881 of the transfer to the defendant. There is no evidence that either the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company, the Southern Minnesota Railway Company, or the defendant ever acquired any right, by license or otherwise, from Wyckoff and Holley, the owners of the other undivided half of the...