Hanford v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs, claiming to be the owners of certain land in St. Louis county, brought this action in-the district court for that county to restrain the defendant from constructing a railway track in front of their land and between it and the dock line in the Bay of St. Louis, thus cutting them off from access to navigable water.
Read the full summary
Plaintiffs, claiming to be the owners of certain land in St. Louis county, brought this action in-the district court for that county to restrain the defendant from constructing a railway track in front of their land and between it and the dock line in the Bay of St. Louis, thus cutting them off from access to navigable water. The action was heard before Stearns, J., upon the pleadings and an agreed statement showing the facts to be as follows: In September, 1869, the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Co. (to all of whose franchises, rights, and property the defendant has succeeded) filed…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
In 1869 the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, to whose rights this defendant succeeded, commenced proceedings in the county of St. Louis to condemn for its use for railroad purposes lands in that county, some of them lying near to or touching upon the Bay of St. Louis, or on Superior Bay, or on Lake Superior. The petition by which the proceedings were instituted described the land more particularly involved here by describing certain lines and then continuing: “Including all the premises between the lines so described and the said Bay of St. Louis,” so that the land thus described…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Yates v. MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Storer v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Dutton v. StrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Delaplaine v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co. v. BrunswickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- State v. KorrerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- First Construction Co. v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- State v. Longyear Holding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.