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

• Decision Date: 14 February 1902
• Citation: 89 N.W. 1,85 Minn. 416
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CITY OF ST. PAUL v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

85 Minn. 416

89 N.W. 1

STATE ex rel. CITY OF ST. PAUL

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

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 14, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; George L. Bunn, Judge.

Application by the state, on the relation of the city of St. Paul, for a writ of mandamus against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and relator appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When an appeal is taken from the award of the commissioners in condemnation proceedings by a railway company to secure a right of way, and judgment is finally entered for damages to the owner, and granting the land to the company, the title to the property thus acquired dates from the date of the filing of the award.

2. Where a railroad company took possession of the right of way and constructed its tracks thereon pending such proceedings, and thereafter the owner of the adjoining property platted the land, and lots, blocks, and streets were laid out and described with reference to such right of way and tracks, and a street was laid out across the same, held, the filing of such plat did not, by dedication or otherwise, affect such right of way. Held, also, that the railroad company did not waive its priority of right in such right of way by the purchase of additional grounds for the widening of its right of way, described in the deed of conveyance according to such plat.

3. When such railroad company constructed a bridge over its tracks and right of way so acquired, in pursuance of an agreement with the public authorities that in consideration thereof the city would build the approaches and thereafter maintain the bridge, and such contract was carried out, and the bridge was maintained by the city for many years, held, the railroad company could not be required to waive the contract, and repair and maintain the structure. James E. Markham, Arthur J. Stobbart, and Thomas McDermott, for relator.

Thomas Wilson, for respondent.

LEWIS, J.

In 1869 the St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's Falls Railroad Company was incorporated to build a railroad from St. Paul to Stillwater, and in 1871 commenced proceedings of condemnation to acquire a right of way 100 feet in width through the land in question, and during the same year the roadbed was graded and the track laid. Commissioners were duly appointed to assess damages to the property condemned, and on September 18, 1871, they filed their report and award, from which the owner appealed to the district court, wherefrom it was subsequently removed to the United States circuit court, where on June 29, 1876, judgment was duly rendered in favor of the owner for damages, and granting to the railroad company its right of way, and on September 15, 1877, the judgment was paid. In 1872 the then owner of the property platted the same, dedicating to the public the Edgerton street involved in this case. In 1880 the defendant railway company succeeded to all interests, rights, and property, real and personal, of the St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's Falls Railroad Company, and in 1886 commenced condemnation proceedings to acquire certain property for the purpose of widening its right of way through a portion of the land described in such plat; but the proceedings were dropped, and the land was acquired by deed dated July 27, 1886. This additional territory was taken possession of by defendant, who occupied it with its tracks, extending them across Edgerton street for a considerable distance beyond the first acquired right of way of 100 feet; and in the year 1887-88 defendant built a bridge on Edgerton street, over and across its grounds and railroad, under the following agreement and understanding with relator: That if defendant would build the bridge proper, according to plans and specifications prepared by relator, the city would build the approaches thereto, and thereafter maintain and keep it in repair at its own expense. Relator commenced this proceeding to compel the defendant company to repair the roadway and sidewalks of the bridge. Judgment was entered in defendant's favor, and relator appealed to this court upon various propositions, of which the following are essential to consider: Does the title in defendant company to the 100-foot strip of right of way date from the filing of the award by the commissioners in 1871? Did the filing of the plat in 1872 by the then owner of the land, and the subsequent acquisition of the additional right of way, have the effect of dedicating to the public the street in question, so that whatever rights the railroad company may have acquired by such condemnation proceedings became subject thereto? If the right acquired by defendant under the original...