University of Minnesota v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1887
• Citation: 36 Minn. 447
• Parties: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL & NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY and others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 447

36 Minn. 447

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAvs.

ST. PAUL & NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 28, 1887.

Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to restrain the defendant from constructing a railway across lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, in block 13, in St. Anthony city, (now included in East Minneapolis,) or from further prosecuting proceedings, in which commissioners had already been appointed, to condemn a right of way across the same. The complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner of these lots as well as of lot 8 in the same block, and is also the owner of an adjacent tract of 40 acres, known as the university grounds or campus, upon which the university buildings are situate; that all these lands were acquired by purchase or condemnation, pursuant to law, for the use of the university, and are now held by it for that public use, and "are necessary to the maintenance, existence, and proper and efficient management of the said university, as the same is located and established by the constitution and laws of the state." The complaint further states that the plaintiff is not named in the petition in the condemnation proceedings, and was not served with any notice of the intended presentation thereof to the court, though the defendant well knew that plaintiff was the owner of the lands above described. The complaint contains other averments, to the effect that the defendant is not authorized by law to construct the railway for which it is seeking to take the lands; that the railway can be as advantageously located and built on other lands; and that the construction and operation of the railway on the line in question will prevent the plaintiff from building and maintaining an astronomical observatory which it had located on the only spot on the university grounds available for that purpose, before the defendant began its proceedings.

The action was tried by Young, Lochren, and Koon, JJ., and judgment ordered and entered for the defendant, (Lochren, J., dissenting,) from which the plaintiff appeals.

In the petition in the condemnation proceedings, John S. Pillsbury, in whom the title to lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 in block 13 appeared of record, (and who was one of the plaintiff's board of regents,) was named as the owner of those lots, was made a party, and was served with notice. And Henry H. Sibley, (another of plaintiff's regents,) in whom the title to certain land in blocks 14 and 15 in Regents' addition was of record, was also made a party and served with notice as owner of that land. The state appeared in the proceedings, and answered in respect to all these lands, claiming that they belonged to the university. The answer and the petitioner's reply were in evidence in this case, and the substance of the answer, and of the proceedings thereon in the district court and in this court, will be found in the report of In re St. Paul & Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 227, (25 N. W. Rep. 345.)

Gilfillan, Belden & Willard, for appellant.

D. A. Secombe, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The only substantial grounds upon which a claim for the relief sought can be based are (1) that the lots in question had, prior to the condemnation proceedings, been appropriated in behalf of the state for the use of the university; and (2) that the construction of the particular line of railroad in question, for which these lots are so taken, would prove so injurious to the university, whose buildings are located on lands in the vicinity, as to warrant the court in restraining the construction and operation of the road over the proposed line.

These questions were to be determined by the facts found upon the evidence in the case. As the evidence relating to these subjects is not returned, our inquiry is necessarily limited to the sufficiency of the findings of facts to warrant the legal conclusions. We are agreed that, upon both of these questions, the findings of the trial court are conclusive.

1. The court finds that, as appears from the records of the regents of the university, the professor of agriculture had...