City of International Falls v. Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,410 - (188) |
| Citation | 134 N.W. 302,117 Minn. 14 |
| Parties | CITY OF INTERNATIONAL FALLS v. MINNESOTA, DAKOTA & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Koochiching county to restrain defendant from operating its lines of railway across Fourth street, in plaintiff city, and from constructing any further lines and from in any manner interfering with or obstructing any of the streets or alleys of the city. From an order Stanton, J., denying plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction and vacating the temporary restraining order plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Railway -- right to cross highways and streets.
The legislature has power to grant authority to a railroad company to cross public highways and streets, and authority to construct a railroad between designated points implies authority to cross highways and streets which the railroad intersects. The legislature may require that a franchise be obtained from a city or village before a railroad company is permitted to cross streets in such city or village; but, in the absence of such requirement, a franchise from the city or its consent is not necessary.
Railway -- section 2841, R.L. 1905 -- franchise from city.
R.L. 1905, § 2841, construed, and held, following Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Ry. Co. v. Manitou Forest Syndicate, 101 Minn. 132, not to require a franchise to be obtained from a city or village before a railroad company constructs its tracks across streets in such city or village.
Railway -- section 2916.
R.L. 1905, § 2916, construed, and held not to require such a franchise, or that there be an agreement between the city or village and the railway company as to the manner, terms, and conditions upon which a street may be crossed by the railroad.
Railway -- right to enjoin crossing before condemnation proceedings.
Conceding that under section 2916 a railroad company may and must acquire the right to cross a street in a city or village by condemnation proceedings, equity will not enjoin such crossing before such proceedings are begun; it appearing conclusively that the necessity exists, and that such city or village has at all times an absolute right to compel the railroad company to make the crossing safe for public use.
City has no proprietary right in streets -- eminent domain -- compensation.
A city or village has no proprietary rights in its streets. Whatever rights it has are held merely in trust for the public use. It is not entitled to compensation when a railway company crosses its streets, and the constitutional provision that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first paid or secured does not apply.
Kane & Palmer and Frank Palmer, for appellant.
C. J. Rockwood, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court for Koochiching county denying plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite restraining defendant from building its tracks across any of the streets in the city of International Falls, and especially across Fourth street in said city. The facts, as they appear from the complaint and the affidavits considered on the hearing in the court below, are as follows:
Plaintiff is a municipal corporation under the laws of this state, and as such has the sole and exclusive control of all streets, highways, and alleys within the city. Fourth street is one of the duly indicated and laid-out highways and streets of the city, and furnishes the only outlet for travel between said city and the village of Rainier to the east thereof.
Defendant is a railroad corporation under the laws of this state, authorized to build, maintain, and operate as a common carrier, a line of railroad from a point of junction with the line of the Duluth, Rainy Lake & Winnipeg Railway in the county of Koochiching westerly to the city of International Falls, and to the international boundary in Rainy River; also a line of railroad from the city of International Falls southerly and westerly across the state to the west line thereof.
During the years 1909 and 1910 defendant constructed and has since operated its road into and through the city of International Falls. Its main line crosses Fourth street with three tracks. It proposes to construct and operate four more tracks across said street, sixteen feet apart. It has obtained no authority or permission from the city to lay these proposed tracks or its other tracks across said street. The affidavit of defendant's president, which was not contradicted, showed that it was necessary to the transaction of its business for defendant to construct and operate these tracks.
The question before us is whether defendant was obliged to obtain the consent of the city before constructing its tracks across the city streets.
1. The legislature had the power to grant authority to the railroad company to cross public highways and streets, and authority to construct a railroad between designated points implies authority to cross highways and streets which the road may intersect. A franchise from the city or village, or its consent, is not a prerequisite to the crossing of streets or highways in such city or village, unless the legislature has so provided. The legislature has the power, however, to provide that such a franchise or consent must be obtained, and in such case the railroad company is obliged to procure such a franchise from the city or village, or its consent, as a prerequisite to constructing its tracks across streets or highways within the limits of such city, or village.
These propositions are well settled by the authorities, among which we refer to the following: 33 Cyc. 194; 2 Lewis, Eminent Domain, § 430 (3d Ed.); Canton v. Canton, 84 Miss. 268, 36 So. 266, 65 L.R.A. 561, 105 Am. St. 428; Thompson v. Ocean City, 60 N.J.L. 74, 36 A. 1087; Raritan v. Port Reading, 49 N.J.Eq. 11, 23 A. 127; Northern v. Wilkes Barre, 218 Pa. St. 269, 67 A. 352; Morgan v. Des Moines, 113 Iowa 561, 85 N.W. 902; Elliott, Railroads, § 1099; Chicago v. City, 220 Ill. 310, 77 N.E. 204; People v. North Tonawanda, 70 Misc. 91, 126 N.Y.S. 186. There is a well-recognized distinction between the right to cross a street and the right to occupy it longitudinally, and in stating the law as we have done we have reference solely to the crossing of streets and highways by railroad tracks.
2. The inquiry then is: Has the legislature provided that the consent of a city or village is necessary before its streets may be crossed by railroad tracks?
Section 2841, R.L. 1905, provides that no railway corporation "shall construct, maintain or operate a railway of any kind * * * in or upon any street, alley or public ground of a city or village, without first obtaining from, and compensating said city or village for a franchise conferring such right." It was decided in Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban...
To continue reading
Request your trial