State ex rel. Princeton v. Dist. Court of Hennepin County

Decision Date20 December 1929
Docket NumberNo. 27862.,27862.
Citation179 Minn. 90,228 N.W. 444
PartiesSTATE ex rel. PRINCETON v. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY et al.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Geo. G. Chapin, Herbert P. Keller, and Bruce J. Broady, all of St. Paul, for relator.

Boutelle, Bowen & Flanagan, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

STONE, J.

This matter is before us on the petition of E. R. Princeton for a writ of prohibition to the district court of Hennepin county preventing the trial there of an appeal from an order of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, hereinafter referred to as the commission.

The petitioner is a resident of Hastings in Dakota county. Under the name of "Hastings-St. Paul Bus Company" and the authority of a certificate of convenience and necessity issued by the commission, he has operated during all of the times now in question, and continues to operate on regular schedule, motorbusses for the carriage of passengers from St. Paul to Hastings and between intermediate points on trunk highway No. 53 on the west side of the Mississippi river. The Royal Rapid Corporation, in like manner, operates busses from Minneapolis through St. Paul over trunk highway No. 3 on the east side of the Mississippi through Hastings and on to Red Wing, Winona, La Crosse, and Chicago. May 9, 1929, on the petition of Royal Rapid Corporation, the commission made an order authorizing it to put on two additional daily schedules each way between St. Paul and Red Wing and through intermediate points. That order as such had no effect on service beyond St. Paul and into or through Hennepin county. October 16, 1929, upon the complaint of Princeton that his authorized operation between St. Paul and Hastings on the west side of the Mississippi was unduly and unreasonably interfered with by the new schedules, the order of May 9 was revoked by the commission. The order of October 16 recites that the original schedules of the Royal Rapid Corporation "between Hastings and Minneapolis are not involved in this proceeding," that the additional service authorized between St. Paul and Hastings has not been "fully inaugurated," but that the schedules of the Royal Rapid Corporation have been somewhat rearranged so that additional local service between Hastings and St. Paul is furnished by through busses running from points south and east of Hastings to Minneapolis and return. The appeal now in question is one attempted by the Royal Rapid Corporation from the order of October 16 to the district court of Hennepin county.

1. Appeals under Laws 1925, c. 185, from orders of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission affecting the regulation of motorbusses are taken under section 12. It provides that appeals may be taken by any aggrieved party "to the District Court or the Supreme Court of this state, under the conditions and subject to the limitations and with the effect specified in the Railroad and Warehouse Commission law of this state." The law so adopted by reference is now found in Gen. St. 1923, § 4650, and, so far as now material, is as follows:

"Any party to a proceeding before the commission, or any party affected...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State ex rel. Princeton v. Dist. Court of Hennepin Cnty.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1929
    ...179 Minn. 90228 N.W. 444STATE ex rel. PRINCETONv.DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY et al.No. 27862.Supreme Court of Minnesota.Dec. 20, 1929 ... Original petition for writ of prohibition by the State, on the relation of E. R. Princeton, to be directed to the District Court of Hennepin County and others. Writ issued.Syllabus by the CourtInasmuch as the order of the Railroad ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT