Carlson v. St. Louis River Dam & Imp. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,017 - (158) |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 1044,73 Minn. 128 |
| Parties | CARL J. CARLSON v. ST. LOUIS RIVER DAM & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
July 11, 1898
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to enjoin defendant from flooding plaintiff's land, and for $500 damages for flooding the same in 1895 and 1896. The cause was tried before Moer, J., without a jury, and judgment was ordered for plaintiff, awarding the injunction prayed for in the complaint, and $15 damages. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
At the trial, defendant offered to prove that Boulder creek flows into the Cloquet river, that the Cloquet river runs into the St. Louis river and the St. Louis river into Lake Superior that upon the Boulder and other tributaries of the Cloquet above defendant's dams, other streams empty into the Cloquet; that on all of said streams there are large quantities of standing pine timber; that there are no facilities for getting said timber to the market except by driving the same down said stream and tributaries; that, as the country has been settled and timber cut down, the extremes of freshets and drouths have been intensified; that during the last five years the annual cut of pine saw logs that has floated down the Cloquet and its tributaries to market has amounted approximately to forty million feet per annum; that all of the logs so cut were intended for and conveyed to market, and that it would have been impossible during said years, and will be impossible in the future, to float said logs in such quantities, or approximating the same, down said Boulder creek and said Cloquet river and its tributaries, without at times using the dam referred to in plaintiff's complaint, for the purpose of gathering a head of water, and venting the same to float the logs over the shoals below said dams; that no more water has been vented from said dams to aid in driving said logs than was reasonably necessary; that defendant has at all times used reasonable care and skill in the use and management of said dams, and in venting the water therefrom, for the purpose of floating logs below said dams; and that defendant has never carelessly or negligently operated said dams; that defendant has vented no more water from said dams than has been necessary to float said logs over the rapids below said dams. The court refused to receive this evidence.
Collecting Water behind Dams in Stream -- Flooding Land below Dam -- Eminent Domain -- Const. art. 1, § 13.
Several miles above plaintiff's land the defendant corporation built two dams across the Cloquet river and one of its tributaries, each 20 feet high, and thereby restrained and collected large quantities of water of said streams, and, by means of sluices, flood gates and locks, discharged said water in large volumes into the channel of said Cloquet river below said dams, whereby said river suddenly rose above its usual, natural and ordinary high-water mark, and thereby overflowed the plaintiff's land, and greatly injured and damaged the same. Held, that this was a taking of the plaintiff's land, within the meaning of Const. art. 1, § 13, which the defendant had no right to do without plaintiff's consent, or without first paying compensation therefor.
Corporation -- Right to Build Dam Subordinate to Right of Riparian Owner.
Conceding without deciding that the defendant corporation, under the power conferred upon it by statute, has the right to build dams across navigable streams for the purpose of aiding in floating logs to market, and to mills during seasons of low water, yet this right is subordinate to that of the riparian owner to have his land free from overflow and damage caused thereby, if such damage is the result of so raising the waters beyond the natural, usual and ordinary high-water mark.
Corporation -- Injunction Proper Remedy.
As the defendant has illegally caused the plaintiff's land to be overflowed, and thereby damaged it, and as it threatens and intends to continue so to do, an injunction is a proper remedy.
Corporation -- Rejection of Evidence no Error.
The trial court committed no error in refusing defendant permission to introduce certain evidence, as it was immaterial.
Clapp & Macartney, for appellant.
The appellant's argument is stated in the third paragraph of the opinion. In support of that contention appellant cited the following cases: Page v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co., 53 Minn. 492; Doucette v. Little Falls Imp. & Nav. Co., 71 Minn. 206; Minneapolis M. Co. v. Water Commrs., 56 Minn. 485; Red River R.M. v. Wright, 30 Minn. 249; Field v. Apple River, 67 Wis. 569; Lawler v. Baring, 56 Me. 443; Thunder Bay v. Speechly, 31 Mich. 336; Middleton v. Flat River, 27 Mich. 533; Buchanan v. Grand River, 48 Mich. 364; Thompson v. Androscoggin, 54 N.H. 545; Eaton v. Boston, 51 N.H. 504; Brown v. Collins, 53 N.H. 442; Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635; Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166; High Bridge v. U.S., 69 F. 320; Gould, Waters, § 90.
Eckman & Stevenson, for respondent.
Neither the state nor any one else can have the right to overflow, or otherwise take or use, private property or property outside of the bed of the stream for any purpose, without making compensation therefor. In re Minnetonka Lake, 56 Minn. 513; Weaver v. Mississippi & R.R. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534; McKenzie v. Mississippi & R.R. Boom Co., 29 Minn. 288; Hackstack v. Keshena, 66 Wis. 439.
The plaintiff owns a farm containing 63 acres, through which flows the Cloquet river, the waters of which are discharged into the St. Louis river and thence flow into Lake Superior. The defendant constructed and owns a dam, 20 feet high extending across said Cloquet river, and there constructed sluices, flood gates and locks on the said dam, 12 feet high, which can be opened and closed by the defendant at will; and, when closed, the water in said river gathers and collects above said dam, and is retained in great quantities. The defendant also built a similar dam, with similar appurtenances, about 10 miles further up said stream, which also gathered said water the same as the other dam. There is a tributary to said Cloquet river called "Boulder Creek," which discharges itself into the Cloquet river above the plaintiff's land. Heretofore the defendant also built across said creek a dam and appurtenances similar to those built by it...
To continue reading
Request your trial