L. R. Co. Minneapolis v. Nicolin (In re ST)

• Decision Date: 19 May 1899
• Citation: 76 Minn. 302,79 N.W. 304
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: In re MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. v. NICOLIN.

76 Minn. 302

79 N.W. 304

In re MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO.MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO.

v.NICOLIN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 19, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; Francis Cadwell, Judge.

In the matter of the application of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company to condemn land. From an order granting the motion of one Nicolin to dismiss the petition, the railroad company appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

A railway company is authorized by Gen. St. 1894, §§ 2645, 2646, to acquire land by condemnation for a right of way for a spur track from its main line to its gravel pit, for the purpose of obtaining necessary gravel to enable it to safely maintain and operate its railroad. Such a taking of land is for a public purpose or use. Albert E. Clarke, for appellant.

H. J. Peck, for respondent.

START, C. J.

A petition on this matter was filed in the district court of the county of Scott by the railroad company to condemn a right of way for an extension of its existing spur track to afford access to a gravel pit. The landowner appeared, and moved the trial court to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not state facts authorizing the condemnation of the property; and from an order granting the motion and dismissing the petition the petitioner appealed. The petition alleges, with other facts, the following: The petitioner is a railway corporation duly organized under the laws of this state, and owns and operates a line of railway from Minneapolis to Angus, Iowa, and a branch line from Hopkins to Morton, in this state. It conducts and carries on a large and important traffic as a common carrier in the transportation of passengers and freight. In order to maintain and operate its roadbed in a safe condition for the transaction of such business, it is a necessity that the petitioner should have access to gravel pits; gravel being a necessity for ballasting its tracks, and keeping its roadbed in a safe condition for use. The petitioner has no gravel nearer than Pilot Mound, Iowa, distant 238 miles from Minneapolis. In order to obtain a supply of gravel for use upon its roadbed, the petitioner has secured the right to remove gravel from a gravel pit in Scott county, and now has and operates a spur track from its main line to a point less than 300 feet distant from such gravel pit. To reach the gravel pit, however, it is necessary to extend the existing spur track over the land of the respondent, Anna M. Nicolin, 284 feet, with whom the petitioner has made an unsuccessful effort to agree for the right to use the land required for such extension. If these facts show that the proposed taking is for a public purpose or use, and there is legislative warrant for the taking, the order of the trial court was wrong; otherwise, right.

1. It is maintained on behalf of the landowner that the proposed taking is not for a public purpose or use, but for the sole benefit of the stockholders of the company, and for the benefit of their property, and further that, if land can be condemned for the proposed use, then there is no reason why the company may not condemn land for a gravel pit or ties or stone or fuel. None of the suggested cases is in point, except the taking of land by the exercise of the power of eminent domain for a gravel pit. Whether land may be taken for the latter purpose, we do not...