Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis
| Decision Date | 27 October 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,128 - (224 [2] - 14 [3] ) |
| Parties | CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Plaintiff and defendant submitted their controversy to the district court for Hennepin county upon an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which will be found in the opinion. The matter was heard by Hale, J., who, as conclusion of law, ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2,554 and found that plaintiff was not entitled to recover any part of the cost of the bridge except that represented by the architectural features mentioned in the agreed statement, and was not entitled to recover anything on account of the future maintenance of the bridge. The court further found that the taking of the property of plaintiff for the purposes and in the manner stated, with no other compensation than as provided in the order, did not violate, or tend to violate section 13, article 1, of the state Constitution or any provision of section 1, amendment 14, of the Federal Constitution. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Bridge over street crossing.
The rule that a railway company may be required to erect and maintain a bridge to carry its tracks over a street crossing extends to all cases where the public safety, convenience, or welfare require such bridge.
Bridge over artificial waterway.
A waterway, with walks on each side, duly established by public authority for public use, connecting navigable lakes and public grounds, as to the principles applicable thereto, is not distinguishable, either by the fact that it is artificial or by the fact that it is in part a waterway, from a natural waterway or from a landway.
Condemnation proceedings -- expense of bridge.
The rule applicable to crossings of streets and railroads applies to the crossing of a public canal and a railroad, and in proceedings to condemn a right of way for a public canal across a railway right of way, through an embankment, the company is not entitled to be awarded, as damages, the necessary expense of building a bridge to carry its tracks over the canal.
F. W. Root, for appellant.
C. J. Rockwood and Daniel Fish, City Attorney, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of the county of Hennepin in a controversy submitted on an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 4286, R.L. 1905. The stated facts are substantially as follows:
Within the corporate limits of the city of Minneapolis, the respondent herein, are three meandered lakes -- Lake Calhoun, having an area of four hundred sixty acres; Lake of the Isles, having an area of one hundred seven acres; and Cedar Lake, having an area of one hundred fifty acres. Each of these lakes is adapted for use by the public for pleasure boating, ice boating, skating, and other like uses, and is actually used by the public for such purposes. The city of Minneapolis has acquired, for park and parkway purposes, all the lands constituting the shores of Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles, as well as a portion of the shores of Cedar Lake, also large tracts of land located near to said lakes, and such lands are used for park and parkway purposes. The city of Minneapolis has determined to construct, and is now constructing, two canals for public use, one connecting Cedar Lake with the Lake of the Isles, and one connecting the Lake of the Isles with Lake Calhoun. The construction of such canals will greatly enhance the usefulness of said lakes to the public for pleasure boating, ice boating, skating, and like purposes. Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles are separated by a narrow strip of land of varying width, at its narrowest point some six hundred feet wide. The natural surface of this strip of land where the canal is being constructed is about two feet above the level at which the waters are maintained in Lake of the Isles and Lake Calhoun. There is between these two lakes a small natural watercourse in which water flows from Lake of the Isles to Lake Calhoun.
The appellant railway company is the owner of a right of way, a strip of land one hundred feet in width, extending lengthwise along and near the center of the land between Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles. Along this right of way the appellant, long before any steps were taken by the respondent city to construct the proposed improvement, had constructed an embankment, which, at the point where the canal will intersect it, is about sixteen feet in height above the surface of the ground, and about eighteen feet in height above the established surface level of the water in the lakes and in the proposed canal. Upon the surface of this embankment the company laid its rails, and has operated and still operates a commercial railway over and along its said right of way.
To enable it to construct the proposed improvement, consisting of a waterway or canal, with walks upon either side thereof, the city seeks to condemn and take an easement in a strip of land one hundred feet wide, extending across the right of way of the appellant. The taking of this land is for a public purpose, and the city's right to so acquire this strip is conceded by the appellant railway company for the purposes of this appeal. The location of the proposed canal at the point where it crosses the railway tracks is immediately west of the natural watercourse between Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles; the center line of the proposed canal being fifty-nine feet west of the point where the waters flowing in such natural course are carried through the embankment of the railway company in a pipe about three feet in diameter. The canal, when constructed, will take the place of, and permit the closing of, this natural channel.
The construction and maintenance of the waterway and walks through the embankment of the railway company will necessitate the construction of a bridge to carry the railway tracks over the same. The agreed value of the strip of land one hundred feet wide taken from the appellant for the public way is $10, and the cost of the construction of an adequate bridge over the canal and walks is $15,969. To such cost of the bridge is added, for purely ornamental features contained in the plans adopted by the parties hereto, the sum of $2,544. This added cost for ornamental features is assumed by the city. By further agreement of the parties, the city is authorized to take the land involved and construct the proposed improvement. The railway company is to construct the bridge as planned, waiving no claim, however, for damages or compensation to which it is entitled under the law by virtue of such taking as in condemnation proceedings, and the city is obligated to pay all such damages and compensation.
Upon trial of the matters so submitted, the court, upon the admitted facts, assessed the appellant's compensation for the taking and damaging of its property for the construction and operation of the public way in the sum of $2,554, being $10, the value of the land taken, and $2,544, the cost of the ornamental features of the bridge, and disallowed the railway company's claim for the cost of constructing an adequate bridge.
By its appeal the railway company presents for consideration and decision the question whether it is entitled to have included, in the assessment of its damages for the taking and injuring of its property for a public use, the cost of constructing a sufficient bridge made necessary by such use. The contention of the appellant is that the taking of its property for this public use, without making compensation, including not only the value of the land taken, but as well the resulting expense of the construction and maintenance of a bridge, will be a taking, destruction and damaging of private property for public use without just compensation, in violation of section 13, art. 1, Const. (Minn.) and will constitute as well a violation of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This contention is based on the claim that the bridge is made necessary solely through the exercise of the right of eminent domain by the city, and that -- because no question of safety of the crossing of the railway tracks and the public way is involved -- the railway company cannot be required, by an exercise of the police power, to bear the uncompensated burden of building the bridge.
In considering the question thus presented there is no difficulty in determining the nature of the way here involved, established by the city between the lakes and between the surrounding parks and parkways. Such nature clearly appears from the stated facts. Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles are public navigable waters, and the proposed waterway connecting them will, when established, be a public navigable waterway. Such connecting waterway will enhance the usefulness of the lakes in affording opportunity to the public for recreation and pleasure. Such waterway will thereby directly tend to promote the health, happiness, and welfare of the public. When this waterway is established, the fact that it is artificial does not distinguish it, as to the law applicable thereto, from a natural water course. Nor does it differ in nature and applicable rules from a landway. The landway, like this waterway, is artificial, laid out and established to meet the public need and promote the general welfare.
The proposed way has on each side walks, and the bridge in question in part is necessary to permit the establishment and use of these walks crossing under the tracks. By the concession of the right of the city to condemn the railway's property for this use, the reasonable necessity and convenience to...
To continue reading
Request your trial