State v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 02 November 1914
• Docket Number: 1905
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

150 N.W. 463

28 N.D. 621

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ON RELATION OF JOHN H. TRIMBLE, J. H. Cook, and W. R. Banks, Drain Commissioners of Bottineau County, and S.E. Brady, A. W. Gantz, and H. T. Lee, Drain Commissioners of McHenry County, All Together Forming the Joint Board of Drain Commissioners of the Counties of Bottineau and McHenry v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation

No. 1905

Supreme Court of North Dakota

November 2, 1914

On Rehearing January 8, 1915.

Mandamus to compel the removal of a bridge from the channel of an unnavigable stream. Appeal from the District Court of Bottineau County, Burr, J. Judgment for petitioner. Defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Watson & Young, for appellant (Geo. A. Kingsley, of counsel).

The stream over which defendant's bridge is built is unnavigable. Defendant owned the banks and soil; it had the possession of the water flowing over it and the right to make reasonable private use of same. All such streams, within a reasonable degree, are private property. 38 Cyc. 995, 996 and cases cited; Rev. Codes 1905, § 4707; Stur v Beck, 6 Dak. 71, 50 N.W. 486, affirmed in 133 U.S. 541 33 L.Ed. 761, 10 S.Ct. 350.

The drainage board may only acquire a right of way for drains either by purchase or condemnation. It has no right to authorize its dredging contractor to enter upon such private property until the right of entry has been secured. Laws 1907, chap. 93, amending §§ 1819-1823, 1827, 1829, 1831, 1832, 1835, 1840, 1849; State ex rel. v. Soo R. Co.

The defendant's bridge and piling were lawfully built, and defendant had the right to use the same and the same could not be taken away, or the bridge removed, even by condemnation proceedings, without full pay for same. St Helena Water Co. v. Forbes, 62 Cal. 182, 45 Am. Rep 659; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674; Stenger v. Tharp, 17 S.D. 13, 94 N.W. 402.

The right of defendant to use such stream is not an easement, but an incident to and a part of the land itself, and can only be lost by adverse right, grant, abandonment, or prior legal appropriation. Hanford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. 43 Minn. 104, 7 L.R.A. 722, 44 N.W. 1144; Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. 23 Minn. 114; Carli v. Stillwater Street R. & Transfer Co. 28 Minn. 373, 41 Am. Rep. 290, 10 N.W. 205; Union Depot, Street R. & Transfer Co. v. Brunswick, 31 Minn. 297, 47 Am. Rep. 789, 17 N.W. 626; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 19 L.Ed. 984; Bell v. Gough, 23 N.J.L. 624; Delaplaine v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 42 Wis. 214, 24 Am. Rep. 386.

Such property is subject to the law of eminent domain. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Butler, 159 U.S. 87, 93, 40 L.Ed. 85, 87, 15 S.Ct. 991; Society for establishing useful manufactures v. Morris Canal & Bkg. Co. 1 N.J.Eq. 157, 21 Am. Dec. 41; Gardner v. Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. 162, 7 Am. Dec. 526; Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 184; Moore v. Browne, 3 Dyer, 319b; Luttrel's Case, 4 Coke, 86; Glyn v. Nichols, Comb. 43, 2 Shower, K. B. 507; Prickman v. Trip, Comb. 231.

Where such property is sought to be taken or used in an adverse manner to the rights of the owner, just and full compensation must be made. Martin v. Tyler, 4 N.D. 278, 25 L.R.A. 838, 60 N.W. 392; Bigelow v. Draper, 6 N.D. 152, 69 N.W. 570; Const. § 210; Rev. Codes 1905, § 2947, subdiv. 3, § 5958, subdiv. 1; 1 Rorer, Railways, 444; Old Colony & F. River R. Co. v. Plymouth County, 14 Gray, 155; Johnson v. Jordan, 2 Met. 234, 37 Am. Dec. 85; St. Helena Water Co. v. Forbes, 62 Cal. 182, 45 Am. Rep. 659; Rumsey v. New York & N.E. R. Co. 133 N.Y. 79, 15 L.R.A. 618, 28 Am. St. Rep. 600, 30 N.E. 654.

These plaintiffs were trespassers, because they had not acquired the right to enter upon defendant's property. "Every unauthorized entry upon the land of another is a trespass." 38 Cyc. 985, 995, and cases cited; Wood v. Snider, 187 N.Y. 28, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 912, 79 N.E. 859; 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 308-400, 454; 40 Cyc. 542-846; United States v. Sears, 55 F. 268; United States v. Debs, 65 F. 210.

The fee owner of land has the right to use the surface, and everything permanently situated beneath or above it. Rev. Codes 1905, § 4798; Bigelow v. Draper, 6 N.D. 152, 69 N.W. 570; State Const. § 210; United States Const. art. 14, § 1; Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 1837, 1838, 7574, 7575; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 561, 50 L.Ed. 596, 26 S.Ct. 341, 4 Ann. Cas. 1175; State ex rel. Fadley v. Henry County, 157 Ind. 96, 60 N.E. 939.

Geo. A. Bangs and Geo. A. Robbins, for respondents.

The fact that a ditch is constructed over and along a natural course, so that the waters are confined in the artificial channel, does not change its character as a water course. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 350; Schwartz v. Nie, 29 Ind.App. 329, 64 N.E. 619; Walley v. Wiley, Ind.App. , 104 N.E. 318.

The owner of the bed of such a stream is no more the owner of the water in it than he is of the air around and above it. He may use both in a reasonable manner. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 4787-4709, § 4798, subdivs. 5, 9, 11; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. Drainage Dist. 142 Iowa 607, 121 N.W. 193; 14 Enc. Laws of Eng. 604; Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353, 20 L. J. Exch. N. S. 212, 15 Jur. 633, 10 Eng. Rul. Cas. 179; Gaved v. Martyn, 19 C. B. N. S. 732, 34 L. J. C. P. N. S. 353, 11 Jur. N. S. 1017, 13 L. T. N. S. 74, 14 Week. Rep. 62; Roberts v. Gwyrfai [1899] 2 Ch. 608, 68 L. J. Ch. N. S. 757, 64 J. P. 52, 48 Week. Rep. 51, 81 L. T. N. S. 465, 16 Times L. R. 2, 25 Eng. Rul. Cas. 401.

The natural rights of a riparian proprietor impose corresponding obligations on all others; and thus it is wrongful for a lower riparian owner to pen the water back and obstruct the flow. Robinson v. Byron, 1 Bro. Ch. 588; 1 Wood, Nuisances, 94, 609; Gould, Waters, § 212, p. 416; 1 Lewis, Em. Dom. § 67; State v. Close, 35 Iowa 570; Abbott v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 83 Mo. 276, 53 Am. Rep. 581; Hayes v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 177 Mo.App. 201, 162 S.W. 266; Veazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me. 486; McCleneghan v. Omaha & R. Valley R. Co. 25 Neb. 531, 13 Am. St. Rep. 508, 41 N.W. 350; Fairbury Brick Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 79 Neb. 854, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 542, 113 N.W. 535; Smith v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 81 Neb. 186, 115 N.W. 755; Mills v. Hall, 9 Wend. 315, 24 Am. Dec. 160; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. People, 212 Ill. 109, 72 N.E. 219; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. Drainage Dist. 142 Iowa 607, 121 N.W. 193; Cary v. Daniels, 5 Met. 238; Pollock C. B. in Dickinson v. Grand Junction Canal Co. 7 Exch. 282, 21 L. J. Exch. N. S. 241, 16 Jur. 200; Lord Wensleydale in Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 349, 29 L. J. Exch. N. S. 81, 5 Jur. N. S. 873, 7 Week. Rep. 685, 1 Eng. Rul. Cas. 729, 5 Hurlst. & N. 989.

The riparian owner has the right to protect his easement, and to remove obstructions which interfere with the flow of the water in its natural state, whether they be natural or artificial. Gould, Waters, §§ 365, 366, pp. 671, 672; 2 Farnham, Waters, 464, 464a, 480, 812; Darlington v. Painter, 7 Pa. 473; Dyer v. Depui, 5 Whart. 584; Kauffman v. Griesemer, 26 Pa. 407, 67 Am. Dec. 437; Heath v. Williams, 25 Me. 209, 43 Am. Dec. 265; Rockland Water Co. v. Tillson, 75 Me. 170; Pico v. Colimas, 32 Cal. 578; Ware v. Walker, 70 Cal. 591, 12 P. 475; Ames v. Dorset Marble Co. 64 Vt. 10, 23 A. 857; Treat v. Bates, 27 Mich. 390; Prescott v. Williams, 5 Met. 429, 39 Am. Dec. 688; Prescott v. White, 2 Pick. 341, 32 Am. Dec. 266; White v. Chapin, 12 Allen, 521; Cobb v. Massachusetts Chemical Co. 179 Mass. 423, 60 N.E. 790; Scriver v. Smith, 100 N.Y. 471, 53 Am. Rep. 224, 3 N.E. 675; Roberts v. Roberts, 55 N.Y. 275; Chapman v. Thames Mfg. Co. 13 Conn. 269, 33 Am. Dec. 401; Legg v. Horn, 45 Conn. 409; Wright v. Moore, 38 Ala. 593, 82 Am. Dec. 735; Manteufel v. Wetzel, 133 Wis. 619, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 167, 114 N.W. 91; Mason v. Fulton County, 80 Ohio St. 151, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 903, 131 Am. St. Rep. 689, 88 N.E. 401.

Nature has already granted all such rights with respect to a natural stream, such as the one obstructed in this case. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Appanoose County, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1117, 104 C. C. A. 582, 182 F. 291; Cache River Drainage Dist. v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. 255 Ill. 403, 99 N.E. 635; People ex rel. Peeler v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. 262 Ill. 501, L.R.A.1915B, 486, 104 N.E. 381.

The drainage laws are enacted and enforced under the police power of the state. Our law, as an exercise of such power, is constitutional. 2 Farnham, Waters, § 170, p. 900; 14 Cyc. 1025; Erickson v. Case County, 11 N.D. 494, 92 N.W. 841; Soliah v. Cormack, 17 N.D. 393, 117 N.W. 125; Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U.S. 522, 56 L.Ed. 294, 32 S.Ct. 103; Freeman v. Trimble, 21 N.D. 1, 129 N.W. 83.

Mandamus is a common-law remedy; it has no connection with equitable jurisdiction; it is a special proceeding of a civil nature. 3 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 491; 26 Cyc. 140; Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 6741-6746, 7808, 7809, 7832, 7833, 7841; State ex rel. Bickford v. Fabrick, 16 N.D. 94, 112 N.W. 74; Oliver v. Wilson, 8 N.D. 590, 73 Am. St. Rep. 784, 80 N.W. 757; State ex rel. McGregor v. Young, 6 S.D. 406, 61 N.W. 165; Mooney v. Donovan, 9 N.D. 93, 81 N.W. 50.

On appeal the court will sustain the findings upon disputed questions of fact; the findings are the same as a verdict; if there is any evidence to support the findings, they will be sustained on appeal. 15 Cyc. 166; Schuman v. Sanderson, 73 Ark. 187, 83 S.W. 940; Williams v. Buchanan, 86 Ark. 259, 110 S.W. 1024; Trafton v. Quinn, 143 Cal. 469, 77 P. 164; Hannah v. Green, 143 Cal. 19, 76 P. 708; Vigil v. Garcia, 36 Colo. 430, 87 P. 543; Moorhead v. Arnold, 73 Kan. 132, 84 P. 742; McCormick v. Jester, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 306, 115 S.W. 278.

The presumption of the law is that officials do their duty in a regular manner. Rev. Codes...