Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 07 July 1891
• Citation: 49 N.W. 205,46 Minn. 505
• Parties: Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern Railway Company
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

49 N.W. 205

46 Minn. 505

Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern Railway Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 7, 1891

Action brought in August, 1890, in the district court for Hennepin county, to restrain the defendant from maintaining and operating its railway along Lake street, in the village, and from maintaining a passenger station, water-tank, and other buildings which occupied part of the street just west of its intersection with a street called "Broadway." Trial before Young, J., who ordered judgment, denying the relief asked as to buildings occupied by defendant, its lessor, the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co., and by the latter's predecessor and grantor, the First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., ever since their erection by the latter company in 1867. A new trial was refused, and the plaintiff appealed. The declarations of Walker, one of the persons who platted the town-site of Wayzata, in 1855, were offered to be proved at the trial, to show the extent and purpose of the dedication of that part of Lake street which appears on the plat to border on Lake Minnetonka. The offer was rejected, the plaintiff excepting.

Order reversed.

Rea Miller & Torrance, for appellant.

Benton & Roberts, for respondent.

OPINION

Gilfillan, C. J.

The decision of this case by the court below cannot be sustained on the ground upon which the court seems to have based it, -- that of equitable estoppel. So far as the findings show, the defendant's predecessor, in 1867, without any right, but as a mere trespasser, entered upon Lake street, and erected some of its buildings upon it, which have ever since there remained, and been used and occupied by defendant's predecessors and defendant. It is not found that the company ever claimed to have acquired a right to occupy any part of Lake street with its buildings; and the plaintiff never had any reason to suppose that the company claimed to be occupying the street by right, any further than the mere fact of occupancy would furnish such reason. One who enters upon and possesses land of another without right -- a mere trespasser, and knowing that he is such -- cannot, no matter to what use he may put it, nor how much he may improve or expend upon it, claim that the owner is estopped, by mere delay in ousting him, to seek any remedy, legal or equitable appropriate to the case. In such case, so long as the latter remains the owner, such...