State ex rel. Smith v. Duluth Street Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
IJpon the relation of Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, the district court for St. Louis county granted its writ of quo warranto directing the Duluth Street Railway Co. to show by what warrant it assumed to exercise any right, privilege, immunity or franchise under or by virtue of the legislative act of 1881 (Ex.
Read the full summary
IJpon the relation of Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, the district court for St. Louis county granted its writ of quo warranto directing the Duluth Street Railway Co. to show by what warrant it assumed to exercise any right, privilege, immunity or franchise under or by virtue of the legislative act of 1881 (Ex. Sess.) c. 200. The respondent answered and alleged that, by resolutions and ordinances and actions brought, the village of Duluth, the city of Duluth and the state of Minnesota repeatedly and in 'various ways asserted the continued existence and validity of respondent’s franchise…
1Opinion of the Court
Dibell, C.
Quo warranto on the relation of the attorney general questioning the right of the respondent, Duluth Street Railway Co., to occupy the streets of Duluth. There was judgment for the respondent. The state appeals from the order denying its motion for a new trial and from the judgment.
The street railway company claims the right to occupy the streets of Duluth by the grant contained in Sp. Laws 1881, (Ex. Sess.) p. 212, c. 200, approved November 17, 1881.
Section 1 grants to the Duluth Street Railway - Co. “during the term of its charter, the exclusive right and privilege of constructing *316…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Detroit Citizens' Street Railway Co. v. Detroit RailwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- State ex rel. County Attorney v. Des Moines City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Long v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- City of Duluth v. Duluth Street-Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Wilmington City Railway Co. v. Wilmington & Brandywine Springs Railway Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1900
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Mathews v. HoudersheldtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922