Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 24 November 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 9738,9738 |
Citation | 78 S.D. 168,99 N.W.2d 439 |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Parties | GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY and Chicago and North Western Railway Company, Defendants and Appellants. |
Churchill, Churchill & Sauer, Huron, Edgar Vanneman, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.
Anthony Kane, John C. Smith, St. Paul, Minn., H. F. Chapman, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff-respondent.
In this eminent domain proceeding the Great Northern Railway Company seeks to acquire an easement across the right of way owned by the Omaha Railway Company and leased by the Chicago and North Western Railway Company. The issues were submitted to the trial court on defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied. Thereafter the amount of damages was stipulated and defendants have appealed from the order denying their motion to dismiss and from the judgment. For clarity the plaintiff-respondent will be referred to as 'plaintiff' or 'The Great Northern' and defendants-appellants will be referred to as 'defendants' or 'The Omaha'.
The tracks of the Great Northern and the Omaha parallel each other as they extend easterly out of the City of Sioux Falls. The Great Northern owns two tracts of land of approximately 51 acres situated within the corporate limits of the city. This land is cut off and separated from the Great Northern right of way only by the tracks and right of way of the Omaha. The land was formerly used by the Great Northern as a source of gravel. In its petition for condemnation the Great Northern alleges that
Upon refusal of the defendant companies to grant an easement across their right of way the Great Northern, by application, invoked the jurisdiction of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission under the provisions of SDC 28.1101 and 52.0801(6). On May 7, 1956, the Commission approved the location, plans and specifications of said crossing and authorized its construction.
On defendants' further refusal to grant an easement the Great Northern filed a second application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission under the following provisions of our code:
'52.0825 Right of way for spur tracks. Every railroad company owning, leasing, or operating a line of railroad in this state shall have power to condemn property for the right of way of spur tracks designed to reach o serve industries or industrial enterprises, such as mills, mines, smelters, factories, warehouses, and other manufacturing and industrial enterprises, for which regular scheduled passenger or freight train service is not performed, and for transportation for which only a switching charge, if any, is made, upon obtaining the consent of the Public Utilities Commission to the construction of such spur tracks, and the construction of such spur tracks, when the consent thereto of the Public Utilities Commission has been obtained, is hereby declared to constitute a public use.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Benson v. State
...The "use by the public" standard continues to be the law of this jurisdiction. See Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 78 S.D. 168, 175-176, 99 N.W.2d 439, 443 (1959); Frawley Ranches, Inc. v. Lasher, 270 N.W.2d 366, 369 (S.D. [¶ 43.] Examination of this constitution......
-
Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. McCarty
...(7th Cir.1996) (regarding public utilities' powers to take property rights from railroads); Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 78 S.D. 168, 99 N.W.2d 439, 443 (1959) (one railroad could use eminent domain to cross another railroad's property to construct spur line b......
-
Simpson v. Low-Rent Housing Agency of Mount Ayr
...& N.W. Ry. Co., Supra; Burger v. City of Beatrice, 181 Neb. 213, 147 N.W.2d 784, 788 (1967); Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 78 S.D. 168, 99 N.W.2d 439, 443 (1959). It is also well settled we are not required to treat a legislative declaration of purpose as final......