Otter Tail Power Co. v. Brastad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In the matter of the application of Otter Tail Power Oo. to the district court for Otter Tail county, to condemn certain land and a perpetual easement of diverting water of the Otter Tail river from flowing past certain land, Edward A. Brastad appeared, filed objections to the appointment of commissioners, and appealed from the award of the commissioners.
Read the full summary
In the matter of the application of Otter Tail Power Oo. to the district court for Otter Tail county, to condemn certain land and a perpetual easement of diverting water of the Otter Tail river from flowing past certain land, Edward A. Brastad appeared, filed objections to the appointment of commissioners, and appealed from the award of the commissioners. The matter was heard before Taylor, J., and a jury which assessed his damages at $425. His motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, he appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in proceedings to take water from the Otter Tail river under power of eminent domain. Appellant owns land abutting upon this stream.
1. It is contended the petition does not show that the condemnation is for an exclusively public use. We think it does. The petition alleges that respondent corporation was organized for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and operating dams, reservoirs, power plants and other instrumentalities in order to furnish electric power for public use and to supply the public with electric light and heat. It further alleges that the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- St. Anthony Falls Water Power Company v. St. Paul Water Commissioners; Minneapolis Mill Company v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Moulton v. Newburyport Water Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Hanford v. St. Paul & Duluth RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- State Ex Rel. Kendall v. MohlerOregon Supreme Court · 1925
- Northern States Power Co. v. OslundSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Choate v. Town of SharonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Pioneer Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.