City of St. Paul v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20738.,20738.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF ST. PAUL v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. et al.

139 Minn. 322

166 N.W. 335

CITY OF ST. PAUL

v.CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. et al.

No. 20738.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 8, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Chas. C. Haupt, Judge.

Action by the City of St. Paul against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A city, in the exercise of its police power, may compel a railway company to construct and thereafter maintain a bridge for the purpose of carrying a street over its tracks, if a bridge is necessary to enable the public to cross such tracks safely and conveniently.

The city cannot divest itself of any part of its police power by contract, or otherwise.

A judgment against a municipality, not rendered as the judicial act of a court, but entered pursuant to a stipulation of the officers of the municipality, is void if such officers lacked power to bind the municipality.

A stipulation as to a matter of law which affects public interests is not binding upon the courts.

A stipulation that no obligation rested upon defendants to repair the bridge over their tracks here in question stated a conclusion of law, and a judgment to that effect entered pursuant thereto, without the judicial action of a court, is not a bar to a subsequent action by the city to compel defendants to repair such bridge. The subject-matter cannot be removed from the domain of the police power of the city by such a stipulation and judgment.

There is no basis in the record for the contention that a part of the bridge was built outside the street and upon land owned by the Omaha Company. J. B. Sheean, Geo. W. Peterson, and M. L. Countryman, all of St. Paul (Moore, Oppenheimer & Peterson, of St. Paul, of counsel), for appellants.

O. H. O'Neill, of St. Paul, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

In 1915 it became necessary to reconstruct the southerly span of the bridge which carries Westminster street in the city of St. Paul over the tracks of defendants, and the city passed an ordinance requiring defendants to rebuild it. They refused to do so, and thereupon the city rebuilt it and then brought this action to recover the expense incurred. The city recovered a judgment in the district court and defendants appealed.

The defendants rest their case upon the proposition that the city is estopped and barred from maintaining this action by a judgment entered in the district court on May 17, 1899.

To understand the situation a brief reference to the proceedings which resulted in that judgment is necessary. Pursuant to negotiations between officers of the city and officers of the several railway companies, an agreement was formulated, in 1880, which provided that whenever the city should direct that a street be carried over the tracks of railway companies within the city by a bridge, the railway companies interested should build the abutments for the bridge and the superstructure over their tracks, and that the city should build the approaches to the bridge and should maintain the bridge and keep it in repair after it was constructed. By its terms this agreement appears to apply to and include all railway companies having tracks within the city. It was signed by the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, the predecessor in interest of the Great Northern Railway Company. The original agreement seems to have been lost, and whether it was signed by any of the other railway companies is not clear and there is no finding as to this fact. It does not appear that the city council ever authorized or directed the execution of the agreement by the city, nor that any city officer ever signed or executed it on behalf of the city. However this may be, the city and the railway companies, or a part of them, proceeded to act under the agreement. In 1881 the city notified defendants to build a bridge over their tracks on Westminster street, and defendants, apparently acting under the agreement, built the bridge now in controversy and completed it in 1882. Thereafter the city maintained the bridge and kept it in repair until 1898. In 1898 the city brought an action to compel defendants to make repairs upon the bridge then necessary. The defendants in their respective answers set forth the agreement above mentioned and asserted that by virtue thereof the duty to repair the bridge rested upon the city, and not upon them. The defendants also asserted that their tracks were located in a deep ravine; that the contour of the ground made a bridge necessary irrespective of the location of the railway tracks; and that for that reason no duty rested upon them to construct or maintain a bridge except as imposed by the above agreement. The cause came on for trial and the evidence was taken, but the cause was never submitted to the court for decision. While it was still pending, the city council passed an ordinance which provided for the settlement of various controversies with the railway companies and contained the following provision concerning this action:

‘The corporation attorney is hereby authorized and directed to stipulate for and procure the entry of final judgment to the effect that no duty rests upon either or any of said railway companies the maintain or keep in repair the bridge described in said proceedings and known as the Westminster Street bridge, and in and by said judgment affirming and determining that a certain contract between the city of St. Paul and the said St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, bearing date August 23, 1880, is as to said St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, its successors and assigns, a valid and binding contract between said city and said railway company. Said contract is in words and figures following.’

The ordinance then set forth in full the above-mentioned agreement. Pursuant to the ordinance the city attorney entered into a stipulation with the defendants which recited the pendency of the action, the passage of the ordinance and its acceptance by the defendants, the making of the agreement, and then continued:

‘And whereas, upon the evidence received upon the trial of this action, the city of St. Paul, the petitioner herein, is willing to concede that no obligation or duty rests upon either or any of the defendant companies in this proceeding to maintain or keep in repair the said Westminster Street bridge, and by the terms of said ordinance has directed its corporation attorney to stipulate for and procure the entry of final judgment in favor of said railway companies, as provided in said ordinance: Now, therefore, it is hereby stipulated that judgment may be ordered in favor of said St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, said Great Northern Railway Company, and said Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway...