Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Bd. of Water Com'rs of City of St.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1894 |
| Citation | 58 N.W. 33,56 Minn. 485 |
| Parties | MINNEAPOLIS MILL CO. v. BOARD OF WATER COM'RS OF CITY OF ST. PAUL. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER-POWER CO. v. SAME. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. The rights of riparian owners on navigable or public streams of water are subordinate to public uses of such water, and the rights of these appellants under their charters are equally subordinate to such public uses.
2. The public have the right to apply the waters of a navigable stream to public uses without making compensation to riparian owners.
3. The navigation of the stream is not the only public use to which these public waters may be applied. The right to draw from them a supply of water for the ordinary use of cities in their vicinity is such a public use, and this right is not affected by the fact that consumers are charged for water used, as a means of paying the cost of maintaining the plant.
4. In thus taking water from navigable streams or lakes for ordinary public uses, the state is not controlled by the rules which obtain between riparian owners as to the diversion from, and return of water to, its natural channels.
5. Certain provisions in respondent's charter, relating to compensation for damages arising out of the taking and diversion of water, construed. Held, that those provisions were not intended to provide for compensation to riparian owners on navigable or public streams.
Appeals from district court, Hennepin county; Thomas Canty, Judge.
Action by the Minneapolis Mill Company against the board of water commissioners of the city of St. Paul for an injunction, and an action by the St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Company against the same defendant for the same relief. The two actions were tried together, and both dismissed. From orders denying a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Benton, Roberts & Brown, for appellants.
Leon T. Chamberlain and Walter L. Chapin, for respondent.
These cases were tried together in the court below, and, when plaintiffs (appellants here) rested, both actions were dismissed, upon defendant's motion. From orders refusing new trial, appeals were taken. Appellants are corporations created in 1856 by acts of the territorial legislature, and authorized to build and maintain dams in the Mississippi river at the falls of St. Anthony, about 10 miles above St. Paul, for the development of a water power, and for the use and sale of such power. One of these corporations, owning the shore on the east side of the river, erected a dam to the proper point in the river channel, and the other, owning the east shore, built its dam so as to connect the two, thus forming a power which has ever since been maintained and used. In 1883 the legislature authorized the city of St. Paul to purchase, and there was purchased, the property and franchises of a private corporation theretofore engaged in supplying said city with water. A board of water commissioners was created by the same act, and that board, a branch of the city government, is the present respondent. By the provisions of an amendatory act (Sp. Laws 1885, c. 110, § 5 et seq.) the board was authorized and empowered to add to its sources of supply, and to draw water from any lake or creek, and, in general, to do any act necessary in order to furnish an adequate supply of water for the use of the city. The manner in which it should acquire the right to extend its works so as to connect with any body of water deemed necessary for an increased supply, was specified, and in section 7 it was provided that “after making compensation as hereinafter provided to the owners of or the persons interested in the lands so to be taken and for damages by reason of diverting the water of any stream, creek, or body of water, said city shall have an easement therein.” In section 8, provision was made for the appointment of commissioners to assess the damages sustained by the owners of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by Head v. Slotness
...of those public rights does not constitute a taking of riparian property. This principle is illustrated by Minneapolis Mill Co. v. St. Paul Water Works, 56 Minn. 485, 58 N.W. 33, in which it was held that a city could properly use a navigable stream for its water supply without paying compe......
-
Otter Tail Power Co. v. Brastad (In re Otter Tail Power Co.)
...Ed. 104;St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Commissioners, 168 U. S. 349, 18 Sup. Ct. 157, 42 L. Ed. 497, affirming 56 Minn. 485, 58 N. W. 33; Farnham, Waters & Water Rights, § 85; Gould on Waters, § 246; Lewis, Eminent Domain, §§ 87, 88, 93. [4] 4. In is contended that the ......
-
Otter Tail Power Company v. Brastad
...L.Ed. 1004; St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Commissioners, 168 U.S. 349, 18 S.Ct. 157, 42 L.Ed. 497, affirming 56 Minn. 485, 58 N.W. 33; Waters & Water Rights, § 85; Gould, Waters, § 246; Lewis, Eminent Domain, §§ 87, 88, 93. 4. It is contended that the petition is too v......
-
Sanborn v. People's Ice Company
... ... remove any water from the same for any purpose whereby the ... level of ... 191; ... Bigelow v. Shaw, 65 Mich. 341; Mill River v ... Smith, 34 Conn. 462; Flaten v. City of ... compensation to the riparian owner. Minneapolis Mill Co ... v. Board of Water Commrs., 56 Minn. 485, ... ...