State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company

• Decision Date: 05 March 1888
• Citation: 36 N.W. 870,38 Minn. 246
• Parties: State of Minnesota ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

36 N.W. 870

38 Minn. 246

State of Minnesota ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota

March 5, 1888

A motion for reargument of this case was denied September 14 1888.

Proceedings by mandamus in the district court for Hennepin county, to compel the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company to construct bridges and approaches over Washington avenue Third street north, Fourth street north, and Fifth street north, in the city of Minneapolis, according to plans proposed and adopted by the relator. Similar proceedings were at the same time instituted against the Minneapolis & St Louis Railway Company, whose tracks are near those of the respondent railway company and cross the same streets. The respondent answered, proposing a plan of crossing and for the construction of bridges and approaches different from that proposed by the relator, but which plan it alleged would be better and more convenient and suitable for the public interests and those of both railway companies. The plan proposed by the respondent involves the lowering of the tracks of both companies and the change of the location of the main track of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company. This main track is the same involved in the case of Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry Co., 35 Minn. 265. This proceeding was tried by Lochren and Rea, JJ., without a jury, and was heard in connection with the proceeding against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company. Upon the facts as found by the court a peremptory writ of mandamus, in conformity with the prayer of the relator, was directed to issue. Respondent appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

The facts as found relating to the proposed plans were in substance as follows: The allegations contained in the alternative writ, to the effect that the bridges and approaches proposed in the relator's plan are necessary, reasonable, and practicable, and have been adopted and approved by the city council of Minneapolis, and that the respondent and the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company are under legal and charter obligations each to construct their share of such bridges and approaches, are true, (excepting as to an immaterial modification made by the court.) The affirmative matters of fact set out in that portion of the respondent's answer which undertakes to set out the facts and reasons why the respondent's plan should be adopted are true, and the court adds, (in the seventh paragraph of the findings:) "And we have no doubt that the plan which is therein indicated, and more fully shown by the offer of the respondent filed at the hearing and map of respondent accompanying the same, (which plan the relator is willing to accept,) would, if accepted and conformed to by the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, be better than any other for both companies and for the public. It would make a short bridge with easy approaches on the principal thoroughfare, Washington avenue, and leave the freight-houses of both companies on the southerly side of the tracks, where the traffic between them and the business part of the city would be convenient and would not incumber any of the bridges. But the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway does not consent to the removal of its track so as to make this plan feasible."

A memorandum was filed with the findings of fact, in which the court say: "The plan presented by the relator * * * appears to be suitable and better than any other that is suggested, if the main track of the St. Louis Company is to remain in its present location, at the crossing of these streets." "The plan and offer of the Manitoba Company, which is satisfactory to the relator, would in our judgment, if agreed to by the St. Louis Company, be better for each company, as well as for the public, than any other which has been presented. It offered to remove its own main tracks, and at its own cost the main track of the St. Louis Company, to the northerly side of its right of way at Washington avenue, lowering the grade of them all at that place 12 feet, and granting to the St. Louis Company in perpetuity the most southerly of such tracks, with the same rights thereto which it has to its present main track, in exchange for such present track of the St. Louis Company, to be taken up and removed entirely. This would make a single short bridge on Washington avenue, with easy approaches, and by giving the Manitoba a crossing for one track near Sixth street over the proposed St. Louis track for the passage of local freight, the freight-houses of both companies can, without any interference with each other, stand on the grounds of the respective companies on the southerly side of all the tracks, and be accessible from the business part of the city without crossing tracks or bridges. The hauling of freight between such business houses and freight-houses is very extensive, and, if the proposed bridges could be relieved from it, counsel for the relator intimated its willingness to forego bridges upon Third and Fourth streets, and practically to close those streets at such crossings. It was urged by the Manitoba Company that this court has the power to adopt its plan, in these proceedings, and to require the removal of the main track of the St. Louis Company to conform to such plan. If we believed that such power existed in the court, we should not hesitate to exercise it, as for the best interest of all concerned. But the absolute rights of persons and corporations in respect to property in land are such that we think the court has no power to compel the St. Louis Company to give up its present track and take the one offered, if it does not choose to do so. If it elects to hold its present track, the court can only compel it to perform its duty to the public in respect to the street crossings."

Order affirmed, and case remanded for further proceedings.

Benton & Roberts, W. E. Smith and M. D. Grover, for appellant, cited People v. N. Y. Central, etc., R. Co., 74 N.Y. 30.

Seagrave Smith, for respondent.

Vanderburgh J. Mitchell, J., dissenting.

OPINION

Vanderburgh, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus, to require the appellant company to bridge certain streets in the city of Minneapolis. The appellant answered to the writ. A trial was had, and judgment was ordered in favor of the relator substantially in conformity with the plan produced on the trial by the relator, and the company appeals. The record shows that a similar proceeding was instituted against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Company, whose tracks cross the same streets, and adjoin those of the appellant on the south. The purpose of these proceedings is to compel each of these companies to build its share of the required bridges across the railway tracks in question, with the proper approaches, abutments, etc., to the end that the streets may be restored to a suitable condition for travel and the safety of the public, as required by the charters of the companies. The foundation of the proceeding is the omission of its duty by the railroad company to restore a street crossed by its railway to a safe condition for crossing, so as not to interfere with its free and proper use. The relator alleges such omission, and points out the changes and measures which it claims to be requisite to restore the street. It is the duty of the court to determine these questions, and, if the claims of the relator are established, the peremptory writ is to issue for the restoration of the street in conformity with the requirements of the alternative writ, or with such reasonable modifications as may be found expedient by the court, not affecting the substance of the relief. People v. Dutchess, etc., R. Co., 58 N.Y. 152, 163. The two cases, it appears, were tried and heard...