Weyl v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
| Decision Date | 09 April 1889 |
| Citation | 42 N.W. 24,40 Minn. 350 |
| Parties | Charles J. Weyl and others v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of St Paul.
Judgment reversed.
Flandrau Squires & Cutcheon, for appellant.
Kueffner & Fauntleroy, for respondents.
The defendant owns and operates a line of doubletrack railway between the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. At the station called "Merriam Park," in the first-named city, there is a spur track running west of the station-house, terminating at the east line of Cleveland avenue, which avenue crosses appellant's tracks at right angles. Upon this spur track, and near the avenue, there stood 10 or 12 box cars at the time of the accident herein involved. An employe of the plaintiffs, driving a pair of mules attached to a lumber-wagon, attempting to cross the tracks on Cleveland avenue, was caught by a locomotive drawing the fast-mail train, thrown out of the wagon, the wagon demolished, and the team so frightened that it ran away. From a judgment based on the verdict of a jury in plaintiffs' favor the defendant appeals.
There is but one question in the case, and that is whether, from the admitted facts and his own version of the affair, the employe was guilty of contributory negligence, although the appellant insists that, upon the record, we should determine that an ordinance of the city of St. Paul, introduced in evidence by plaintiffs, which prohibits a greater rate of speed than four miles an hour within the city limits, is so manifestly unnecessary and unreasonable as to be void. The question is not before us. It is true that the train which overtook plaintiffs' servant was running within the limits, 28 miles an hour at least, and it is also true that defendant offered to show that at least 66 regular trains were running over this line of road each day and evening; that these trains carried upon an average 3,500 people; that, in addition to these trains, over 3,000 tons of freight had to pass every day; and that, if the ordinance in question and its counterpart in Minneapolis were complied with by the trainmen, two hours and ten minutes would be consumed in making the run from depot to depot, a distance of 10 miles. The offer was not broad enough. This same ordinance was held valid, prima facie, in Knobloch v. Chicago, Mil. & St. Paul Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 402, (18 N.W. 106.) It is not so palpably and manifestly unreasonable and oppressive, such an abuse of discretion and arbitrary exercise of the power of the city council, upon its face, as would justify the court in setting it aside. An ordinance of this character may restrain trade, and yet be necessary and reasonable as a police regulation. The rapid transaction of business by the railway company may be hindered and trammelled by an ordinance controlling and regulating the rate of speed with which railway trains may be sent over and through the streets and populous portions of our towns and cities, but, when necessary for the proper protection of life and property, the celerity and dispatch with which business may be accomplished is but secondary. The proposition of counsel did not include an offer to show, nor was there any testimony tending to prove, that the locality in question was sparsely settled, and its streets of such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial