In Re Adams
This text of 21 N.W.2d 351 (In Re Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case is of the same order as the Hanson Case just decided [ante, 224,
The permit involved allots to the applicant territory lying east of the territory allotted Hanson. The center of operation is Goodrich, some twelve miles east of McClusky and on the same branch line of appellant's road. The territory to be served comprises seventeen full townships, and thirteen fractions of townships of an area approximating four more townships, all in the eastern part of Sheridan county and the southwestern corner of Wells county. In this territory covered by the permit the towns of Martin, Harvey, and Fessenden on the Soo Railroad, and Bowdon, Chaseley, and Denhoff on the branch line of the Northern Pacific are excluded from service under the permit. The only towns which would be served are Goodrich and Hurdsfield, both on the appellant's road.
It is conceded that the decision in the Hanson Case determines this one. We find the testimony is similar, the findings of the commission are similar, and the decision of the district court is similar.
The judgment, therefore, is affirmed.
CHRISTIANSON, Ch. J., and NUESSLE, BURKE and MORRIS, JJ., concur. *Page 244
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 N.W.2d 351, 74 N.D. 242, 1945 N.D. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-adams-nd-1945.