Hobart v. City of Minneapolis

Decision Date15 February 1918
Docket NumberNo. 20751.,20751.
Citation139 Minn. 368,166 N.W. 411
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court


Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Daniel Fish, Judge.

Flora A. Hobart appealed to the District Court from a final order of the Board of Park Commissioners of the city of Minneapolis, confirming the taking of land and assessing damages therefor, and from a final order of the district court affirming the order of the Park Board with an increased award of damages, she appeals, and brings writ of certiorari. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The board of park commissioners of the city of Minneapolis under the authority conferred by chapter 30, Sp. Laws 1889, may condemn for park purposes a tract of land adjoining another tract lying partly within and partly without the municipal limits, theretofore acquired by the city for the same purpose, the two tracts forming one compact whole, though the tract so sought to be taken is outside of and beyond the city limits and not contiguous to the boundary line thereof.

The land so taken and condemned will in that situation be ‘adjacent’ to the city within the meaning of the statute.

The general statutes of the state upon the subject of eminent domain and the proceedings thereunder, subsequently enacted, held not a modification nor an amendment of the special act above cited, and such general statutes are inapplicable to proceedings had thereunder.

Proceedings before a legislative body authorized by statute to take and condemn private property for a public use, in the absence of some showing to the contrary, will be presumed by the courts to have been in compliance with the requirements of the law authorizing the same.

C. A. Pidgeon and Andrew Fawcett, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

C. D. Gould and James D. Shearer, both of Minneapolis, for respondents.


In proceedings by the board of park commissioners of the city of Minneapolis, initiated and conducted under the provisions of chapter 30, Sp. Laws 1889, for the condemnation of certain land for park purposes, there was a final order by the park commissioners, made and entered as provided for by the statute, confirming the taking of the land and the assessment of $28,000 as damages therefor. Appellant herein, the owner of the land, being dissatisfied with the action of the board because of certain alleged irregularities in the proceedings, and because of the alleged inadequacy of the damages awarded by the appraisers, appealed to the district court in the manner provided by the statute. Upon a hearing in that court all objections to the regularity of the proceedings were overruled, and an order entered appointing three disinterested persons to reassess the damages. The appraisers so appointed after full hearing in the premises duly reported an assessment of $31,000, an increase of $3,000 over the amount given by the first assessment. Thereafter and in the due course of procedure the court made its final order, confirming the order of the park board and the increased award of damages. That order is brought to this court for review by an appeal and also a writ of certiorari.

[1][2] It is the contention of appellant that the park board has no authority or jurisdiction to take or appropriate the land in question for park purposes, either under chapter 30, supra, or any other statute of the state, for the reasons: (1) That the land is wholly outside the boundary limits of the city, and not adjacent to lands within such limits which are devoted to park purposes; and (2) that the tract contains more than 40 acres, and therefore is not within the authority conferred by the statute controlling the board in such proceedings.

The purpose in condemning the particular land was to enlarge and extend Glenwood Park as theretofore laid out and established by the park board. That park is composed of a single and compact tract of land lying partly within and partly without the boundaries of the city, and is connected with and forms a part of the general municipal parkway system of Minneapolis. The land in question is immediately contiguous and adjacent to the lands of that park, but does not border on or connect with the boundary line of the city limits.

The statute under which the proceedings were conducted, and which the park board contends confers the right to condemn the particular land, namely, chapter 30, supra, by sections 2 and 3 thereof provides that the park board shall have the authority to devise and maintain parks and parkways ‘in and adjacent to the city of Minneapolis, and from time to time to add thereto, to designate lands and grounds to be used and appropriated for such purpose,’ and to acquire title thereto by gift, purchase or condemnation.

The authority thus granted is clear and specific. The Legislature contemplated that in the formation of the parks and parkways situations might arise where it would be necessary to a well-devised and orderly arranged park that the boundaries thereof be extended beyond the municipal limits, and to that end conferred upon the park board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • City of New Albany v. Lemon
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1925
    ...Co. v. Martin, 183 Iowa, 1009, 1011, 166 N. W. 705;Edwards v. Auditor General, 161 Mich. 639, 644, 126 N. W. 853;Hobart v. City of Minneapolis, 139 Minn. 368, 371, 166 N. W. 411;Reagan v. Boyd, 59 Mont. 453, 461, 197 P. 832;State v. Clarke, 98 Neb. 566, 571, 153 N. W. 623;Parker v. Elmira, ......
  • City of New Albany v. Lemon
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1925
    ... ... Ins. Co. v. Martin (1918), 183 Iowa 1009, 1011, ... 166 N.W. 705; Edwards v. Auditor General ... (1910), 161 Mich. 639, 644, 126 N.W. 853; Hobart v ... City of Minneapolis (1918), 139 Minn. 368, 371, 166 ... N.W. 411; Reagan v. Boyd (1921), 59 Mont ... 453, 461, 197 P. 832; State, ex rel., ... ...
  • Grudnosky v. Bislow
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1958
    ...some Unity of interest with the platted portion in the maintenance of a village government.' (Italics supplied.) In Hobart v. City of Minneapolis, 139 Minn. 368, 166 N.W. 411, which had to do with the validity of the action of the city in acquiring certain lands outside the city limits for ......
  • Knapp v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 15, 1918
    ... ... Co. 116 Minn. 449, 134 N.W. 116, Ann ... Cas. 1913B, 843; Havel v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R ... Co. 120 Minn. 195, 139 N.W. 137; and Gill v ... Minneapolis, St. P.R. & D ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT