Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Fall Lake Boom Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Petition to the district court for Lake county for the appointment of commissioners to assess and determine the damages to be paid to the owners of certain lands necessary for the construction and maintenance of certain reservoirs and canals and the diversion of the waters of Birch lake and its tributaries into the valley of the St. Louis river and to the pipe lines and water wheels of petitioner’s water power and electric plants at West Duluth.
Read the full summary
Petition to the district court for Lake county for the appointment of commissioners to assess and determine the damages to be paid to the owners of certain lands necessary for the construction and maintenance of certain reservoirs and canals and the diversion of the waters of Birch lake and its tributaries into the valley of the St. Louis river and to the pipe lines and water wheels of petitioner’s water power and electric plants at West Duluth. The petition was heard before Cant, J., who made findings and denied it. Prom the judgment entered pursuant to the order, petitioner appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
Tbe petitioner and appellant, tbe Minnesota Canal & Power Co., was first incorporated some 20 years ago. Its business as defined in its amended articles of incorporation, or charter, is to generate and distribute electricity for public use, to supply tbe public witb water, and to improve navigation. To accomplish these purposes it is authorized by its charter to construct, maintain and operate dams, reservoirs, canals, power plants, transmission lines, and all other works and appliances necessary or convenient therefor; and to acquire by purchase, condemnation or otherwise, any and…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Rensselaer and Saratoga R.R. Co. v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Bigelow v. DraperNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Portneuf Irrigating Co. v. BudgeIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- State v. HawkOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Petraborg v. ZontelliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Chamberlin v. Detroit Edison Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1968
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.