State ex rel. Smith v. Van Reed

• Decision Date: 13 March 1914
• Docket Number: 18,599 - (314)
• Citation: 145 N.W. 967,125 Minn. 194
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LYNDON A. SMITH v. EFFIE K. VAN REED; SAME v. CLARENCE LESURE and Others; SAME v. JOHN H. KNAPP and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 967

125 Minn. 194

STATE ex rel. LYNDON A. SMITH v. EFFIE K. VAN REED;

SAME v. CLARENCE LESURE and Others;

SAME v. JOHN H. KNAPP and Others

Nos. 18,599 - (314)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

March 13, 1914

In the matter of the application of the state of Minnesota, by its attorney general, to the district court for Ramsey county for the condemnation of certain lands, Effie K. Van Reed Louis S. Tainter and others, trustees under the will of Andrew Tainter, deceased, Vallie A. Knapp and others trustees under the will of John H. Knapp, deceased, and others, appeared specially for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that Laws 1913 c. 257, was unconstitutional, and objected to the proceedings, and prayed that the petition for condemnation be dismissed. From an order, Catlin, J., denying the motions of objectors to dismiss the proceedings, they appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Eminent domain.

1. The power of eminent domain inheres in the state as an attribute of its sovereignty, and is vested in the legislature. The only limitations upon this power are that private property can be taken only for a public use and that just compensation to the owner must be first paid or secured.

Eminent domain -- University of Minnesota.

2. The University of Minnesota is a public institution maintained and conducted by the state in the exercise of its governmental functions, and the taking of private property for the purposes of the university is a taking for a public use.

Act constitutional.

3. Chapter 257, Laws 1913, authorizing the construction of a railway connecting the university farm with the street-car system of the city of Minneapolis, and with the belt-line railway operated by the Minnesota Transfer Railway Co., is constitutional.

Freeman & Freeman and L. K. Eaton, for appellants.

Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, and R. G. O'Malley, Special Counsel, for respondent.

OPINION

TAYLOR, C.

For the purpose of providing facilities for transporting persons, supplies and materials between the university farm and the university campus, and from intermediate points to either the campus or the farm, and from either the campus or the farm to intermediate points, the state seeks to condemn the right of way for a railway connecting the university farm with the street-car system of the city of Minneapolis, and with the Belt Line Railway, operated by the Minnesota Transfer Railway Co. The authority therefor is found in the following statute: "The board of regents of the State University is hereby authorized to provide adequate means for safe, convenient and rapid transportation of persons, supplies and materials between the university farm and the university campus and the transportation of persons from intermediate points to either the university campus or the university farm and from the university campus or university farm to intermediate points and for the transportation of supplies and materials to and from the university farm by means of a connection with the Belt Line Railway operated by the Minnesota Transfer Railway Company; and to that end the said board of regents is hereby authorized to acquire by gift, purchase, condemnation or otherwise, such rights of way as may be deemed necessary, and to construct, maintain and operate lines of railway thereon and to make such contract or contracts with any railway company or companies for trackage rights, track connections and motive power or for the hiring of rolling-stock or for the operation of the same as may be found necessary or expedient in carrying out the provisions and intent of this act." Chapter 257, p. 354, Laws 1913; section 3059, G.S. 1913.

The attorney general duly made an application to the district court, in the name of the state, for the appointment of commissioners to appraise and assess the damages to the several property owners on account of the taking of such right of way. At the hearing, certain property-owners challenged the jurisdiction of the court, and insisted that the above statute is unconstitutional, and that the power of eminent domain cannot be used in the manner and for the purpose contemplated. All such contentions were overruled, and commissioners were appointed to assess and determine the damages. The objecting property owners appealed.

1. The power of eminent domain, or the right to take private property for public purposes, inheres in the state as an attribute of its sovereignty, and is vested in the legislature. The legislature can take private property against the will of the owner only for public use and after just compensation to the owner has been paid or secured. Except as restricted and controlled by these two requirements, the power of the legislature to take private property is unlimited and its determination so to do conclusive. Whether the use be public and whether proper compensation has been made are judicial questions, the final determination of which rests with the courts. All other questions involved in the taking of private property are of a legislative nature; and the determination of such questions by the legislature, or by an agency established by and acting under the authority of the legislature, is final and cannot be reviewed by the courts. School District No. 40, Rock County v. Bolstad, 121 Minn. 376, 141 N.W. 801; Langford v. County Commrs. of Ramsey County, 16 Minn. 333 (375); Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T.F.R. Co. 18 Minn. 139 (155); In re St. Paul & Northern Pac. Ry. Co. 37 Minn. 164, 33 N.W. 701; Commrs. of State Park v. Henry, 38 Minn. 266, 36 N.W. 874; State v. Rapp, 39 Minn. 65, 38 N.W. 926; Fairchild v. City of St. Paul, 46 Minn. 540, 49 N.W. 325; Knoblauch v. City of Minneapolis, 56 Minn. 321, 57 N.W. 928; Fohl v. Common Council of Village of Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67, 82 N.W. 1097; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Village of Hartland, 85 Minn. 76, 88 N.W. 423; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 87 Minn. 146, 91 N.W. 300; State v. Board of County Commrs. of Polk County, 87 Minn. 325, 92 N.W. 216.

2. The legislature has expressly authorized the construction of the proposed railway, and the condemnation of "such rights of way as may be deemed necessary" therefor. The first question presented is whether the taking of land for a right of way between the University campus and the University farm is appropriating it to a public purpose.

The University of Minnesota is in no sense a private corporation. It is a state institution established, controlled and carried on by the state itself. It had its beginning in chapter 3, Laws 1851, enacted by the second territorial legislature. This act provided "that there shall be established in this territory an institution, under the name and style of the University of Minnesota," the object of which shall be "to provide the inhabitants of this territory with the means of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the various branches of literature, science and the arts." The act also provided where the university should be located, of what it should consist, and for a board of regents to handle its business affairs, and to institute, conduct and govern it. The act also provided that the regents should...