State ex rel. City of Faribault v. Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State ex rel. City of Faribault v. Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad

108 N.W. 822, 98 Minn. 536, 1906 Minn. LEXIS 636

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 29, 1906

DocketNos. 14,777-(176)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 N.W. 822 (State ex rel. City of Faribault v. Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. City of Faribault v. Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad, 108 N.W. 822, 98 Minn. 536, 1906 Minn. LEXIS 636 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions of law in this case are determined by State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, 28 N. W. 3, 59 Am. 343, State v. Minn. Transfer Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 108, 83 N. W. 32, 50 L. R. A. 656, State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., supra, page 380, and State v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., supra, page 429.

The principal controversy of fact concerns the necessity for the construction of such a viaduct as is required by the permanent writ of mandamus granted by the trial court. That writ left open the exact details of the plans and specifications, so that the only essential question left open for review is the propriety of the court’s finding that a new construction was necessary. The use by the public was not, as defendant insists, merely sporadic or in any sense continuous or insignificant. The street in question led from a principal business street of the city, across the track of the defendant and the Straight [537]*537•river, immediately adjoining it, to a part of the city in which was situated the •State Institution for the Deaf, the Shattuck School, and a brewery. There was much direct and some incidental traffic on the street. The facts justified the •conclusion of the court that the character of the use of the street by the public .rendered the contemplated viaduct reasonably necessary.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The questions of law in this case are determined by State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, 28 N. W. 3, 59 Am. 343, State v. Minn. Transfer Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 108, 83 N. W. 32, 50 L. R. A. 656, State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., supra, page 380, and State v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., supra, page 429.

The principal controversy of fact concerns the necessity for the construction of such a viaduct as is required by the permanent writ of mandamus granted by the trial court. That writ left open the exact details of the plans and specifications, so that the only essential question left open for review is the propriety of the court’s finding that a new construction was necessary. The use by the public was not, as defendant insists, merely sporadic or in any sense continuous or insignificant. The street in question led from a principal business street of the city, across the track of the defendant and the Straight [537]*537•river, immediately adjoining it, to a part of the city in which was situated the •State Institution for the Deaf, the Shattuck School, and a brewery. There was much direct and some incidental traffic on the street. The facts justified the •conclusion of the court that the character of the use of the street by the public .rendered the contemplated viaduct reasonably necessary.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.W. 822, 98 Minn. 536, 1906 Minn. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-city-of-faribault-v-wisconsin-minnesota-pacific-railroad-minn-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack