Green v. Knife Falls Boom Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county, to recover possession of certain logs alleged to be wrongfully detained by the defendant. The answer admits the detention of the logs by the defendant, and justifies such detention under claim of a lien for boomage in accordance with the provisions of Sp. Laws 1872, c. 106. On plaintiff’s motion judgment on the pleadings was directed by Stearns, J., on the ground that Sp.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county, to recover possession of certain logs alleged to be wrongfully detained by the defendant. The answer admits the detention of the logs by the defendant, and justifies such detention under claim of a lien for boomage in accordance with the provisions of Sp. Laws 1872, c. 106. On plaintiff’s motion judgment on the pleadings was directed by Stearns, J., on the ground that Sp. Laws 1872, c. 106, is unconstitutional. Defendant appeals from the judgment. The cause was argued at the April term, and by order of the court was…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The defendant, it appears, first organized as a I boom corporation under the general law. The original articles of incorporation are not disclosed by the record, but it is manifest (and it lis not disputed) that the organization must have been made under Gen. St. c. 34, tit. 2, and that the powers and privileges thereby ae-Iquired could not include either the right to exercise the power of emi-Inent domain, or to take tolls, or to obstruct the navigable portion of Ithe St. Louis river, where the defendant’s booms and works are lo-Icated, so as to prevent the free passage of the logs of other…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bank of Augusta v. EarleSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- City of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Ames v. Lake Superior & Mississippi RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Kimball v. Town of RosendaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Indianapolis v. NavinIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Smith v. Indianapolis Street Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1902
- Black River Improvement Co. v. HolwayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
- State v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- State ex rel. Brun v. OftedalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898