State ex rel. Minnesota M. R. Co. v. Town of Highland

• Decision Date: 10 January 1879
• Citation: 25 Minn. 355
• Parties: State of Minnesota ex rel. Minnesota Midland Railway Company v. Town of Highland
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

25 Minn. 355

State of Minnesota ex rel. Minnesota Midland Railway Company v. Town of Highland

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 10, 1879

[Syllabus Material]

Alternative writ of mandamus, from this court, to compel the issue, by the town of Highland in the county of Wabasha, of its interest-bearing bonds, to the amount of $ 5,000. The facts stated in the petition and writ are, in substance, as follows:

On and prior to February 1, 1876, the relator was and has ever since been a corporation, duly organized under the laws of the state, and authorized to build, equip, maintain and operate a railway for public use in the conveyance of persons and property, from the city of Wabasha, in the county of Wabasha in a westerly direction, through the counties of Wabasha, Goodhue and Rice, to the city of Faribault, and thence, by way of Mankato and New Ulm, to Big Stone Lake, all in the state of Minnesota. That the construction of such railroad would promote the general prosperity and welfare of the respondent, which was, by Laws 1877, c. 106, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, §§ 92-105,) expressly authorized to aid in such construction, in the manner and to the extent in such act provided.

On March 16, 1878, the relator, desiring aid to the amount of $ 5,000, from the respondent, in the construction of its railway, made and delivered to the town clerk of the respondent a definite proposition in writing, signed by its president and secretary and sealed with its seal, containing a statement that it desired bonds to such amount of $ 5,000, to be payable in ten years, or before maturity at the option of the respondent, with interest at seven per cent. per annum, payable semiannually. The proposition also provided that the bonds should be delivered to the relator when it should have constructed its railway, with the cars running thereon, from the city of Wabasha, through the town of West Albany, to the south line of section 34, in that town, and that the relator, in consideration of such issue of bonds, would construct its railway, and have the cars running thereon, by May 1, 1878, from the city of Wabasha to the south line of section 34, in the town of West Albany, and that, on delivery to it of the bonds, it would deliver to the respondent, at its election, an equal amount of its stock, at par. On receiving the proposition, the town clerk duly filed, endorsed and recorded it.

On March 16, 1878, the relator caused notice to be given, by posting, etc., that after March 21, 1878, a petition to the board of supervisors of respondent, asking it to agree to the proposition, would be presented to the resident tax-payers of the town, for their signatures, to which would be appended a substantial copy of such proposition. On May 13, 1878, the relator delivered to the respondent's town-clerk a substantial copy of the proposition, with the petition thereto appended, asking the board of supervisors to agree to the proposition, which petition bore the signatures of a majority of the resident tax-payers of the town, as shown by the last assessment-roll, such signatures being verified, etc.

It is further stated that the amount of bonds desired, together with the other indebtedness of the town, would not exceed 10 per cent. of its valuation, etc.

The relator began and prosecuted the construction of its railway, from the city of Wabasha, and expended large sums of money and incurred large liabilities in such construction, and on May 1, 1878, had completed it to the point named in its proposition, and had in all respects fully complied with the terms of such proposition. On May 17, 1878, the relator notified the proper authorities of respondent that it had so completed its railway to such point, and had complied with its proposition, and demanded the bonds to the amount of $ 5,000, at the same time tendering certificates of its stock to the same amount. The respondent's authorities refused to issue the bonds.

On the return-day named in the writ, the respondent moved that the writ be quashed.

Motion to quash the writ is accordingly granted.

R. B. Galusha and Young & Newel, for relator, argued among other things, that while, as a condition of receiving aid from the respondent, the relator was bound to complete its railway to the point named in its proposition by May 1, 1878, and had done so, yet that the aid which it asked and to which it was entitled under the agreement which became perfected on May 13, 1878, in accordance with the statute cited in the opinion, was not merely aid in the construction of that piece of road alone, but aid for its entire enterprise -- for the whole line of railway it was authorized to construct, and which had not been completed on May 13, 1878, so that the agreement arrived at and perfected on that day was not open to the objection that it was an agreement to issue bonds in aid of a railway already constructed.

R. B. Galusha and Young & Newel, for relator.

H. D. Stocker and W. J. Hahn, for respondent.

Gould & Snow, for respondent.

OPINION

Berry, J.

Laws 1877, c. 106, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 34 §§ 92-105,) entitled "An act to authorize municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads," authorizes (in section 1) any town in this state "to aid in the construction of any railroad in this state to be constructed by any railroad company for public use, by authority of any law of this state, in the manner" prescribed in subsequent portions of the chapter. Section 2 provides that "the aid to be contributed to the construction of any such railroad," by any town, shall be by its...