Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff and defendant submitted their controversy to the district court for Hennepin county upon an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which will be found in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff and defendant submitted their controversy to the district court for Hennepin county upon an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which will be found in the opinion. The matter was heard by Hale, L, who, as conclusion of law, ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2,554, and found that plaintiff was not entitled to recover any part of the cost of the bridge except that represented by the architectural features mentioned in the agreed statement, and was not entitled to recover anything on account of the future maintenance of the bridge. The court further found that the…
1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of the -county of Hennepin in a controversy submitted on an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 4286, E. L. 1905. The stated ■facts are substantially as follows:
Within the corporate limits of the city of Minneapolis, the respondent herein, are three meandered lakes — Lake Calhoun, having an area of four hundred sixty acres; Lake of the Isles, having an .area of one hundred seven acres; and Cedar Lake, having an area ■of one hundred fifty acres. Each of these lakes is adapted for use by the public for pleasure boating, ice…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Union Bridge Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Drainage CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commission of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Lamprey v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- State v. KorrerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1Texas Supreme Court · 1934
- State v. HoltMontana Supreme Court · 1948
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. SpragueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- City of Durham v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.