39 Minn. 219 | Minn. | 1888
For the sake of brevity we will, in this opinion, designate these two railroad corporations as the St. Louis Company and the Manitoba Company, respectively. This mandamus proceeding was originally commenced against the St. Louis Company, to compel that corporation to construct bridges upon WasBington avenue, Third, Fourth, and Fifth streets north, in the city of Minneapolis, above its railroad tracks, which, running easterly and westerly, now cross those streets upon the same level as the streets themselves. The work proposed also included the construction of approaches to the southerly ends of these bridges, upon these streets, above their present grade, and beyond the lands which the corporation has acquired for its purposes. It was also contemplated that the railroad tracks should be lowered, so as to allow the bridges to be constructed with a less* elevation above the grade of the streets than would otherwise be necessary. The tracks of the Manitoba lie next northerly from and parallel with those of the St. Louis Company, and cross these streets in the same direction. The two systems of tracks are, however, separated, a hundred feet or more, by lands which the Manitoba Company has acquired for its purposes. When this cause came on for trial, a similar proceeding had been commenced against the Manitoba Company to compel that corporation to construct bridges over its tracks and its intervening lands, with approaches at their northerly ends. These separate proceedings against the two corporations contemplated that the work thus charged upon them separately should, when performed, constitute entire and complete bridges over both systems of tracks, with proper street approaches. The proceeding against the Manitoba Company, after judgment against it in the district court, was brought to this court by appeal. Our decision
The appeal of the St. Louis Company will be first considered. Without referring specifically to the 83 assignments of error made by -.this appellant, many of which present questions which were involved -in and determined by the decision in State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, (28 N. W. Rep. 3,) and in the case of the same parties, 38 Minn. 246, (36 N. W. Rep. 870,) we propose to direct at•tention to such of the subjects referred to in these assignments as : seem to us to require particular mention in this opinion.
The allowance of the amendment bringing in the Manitoba Com-.pany as a party respondent was not error. The statute authorizes this practice. Gen. St. 1878, c. 80, § 9; Id. c. 66, § 43. It was ^proper in this case, in order that that company might be concluded .in respect to the proposed changes in the track to which it had or , asserted some right. At the time of the trial of this proceeding against the St. Louis Company, the like proceeding against the Manitoba • Company, above referred to, being then pending, and ready for trial, :the court ordered both cases to be tried together, the St. Louis Company objecting. In this we see no abuse of the discretion of the court, in view of the peculiar nature of these causes, the similarity, and to ;,a large extent the identity, of the questions to be considered, and of the evidence bearing upon them, and of the fact that in determining
It admits of no question that, in general, mandamus may be resorted to as a means of compelling the performance of a duty such as is •claimed by the relator to rest upon this railroad company; and it has been resorted to in this state in cases like that now under consideration. State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, (28 N. W. Rep. 3;) same parties, 38 Minn. 246, (36 N. W. Rep. 870.) It is urged by this appellant, as an objection to the writ in this case, that it prescribes particularly the manner in which the alleged duty shall be performed, instead of allowing the respondent to adopt its own plan for restoring the usefulness and safety of these streets. Where, .as in this case, it has been in no manner determined, either by the law, by the circumstances of the case, or otherwise, how the alleged •duty should be performed, the course suggested by this contention of the respondent would be subject to most obvious objections. It may be assumed that where it is necessary to resort to compulsory process of the courts in such cases, it is because there is a disagreement between the public authorities and the respondent as to' the duty of the latter to do anything, or as to what its duty requires it to do. Neither of the parties thus opposed in interest can determine these .matters of difference. It is for the courts to decide. State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, (28 N. W. Rep. 3.) It is expedient that the thing to be done be effectually determined before a peremptory writ be issued, and that the party upon which the duty .may be found to rest be required to do that specific thing, which, when done, must be accepted as the performance of its duty. If the ■writ were to command generally the performance of the duty of restor
It is said that the accomplishment of the purposes contemplated by this proceeding is contingent upon the Manitoba Company being required to bridge its tracks in accordance with the same plan. This suggests the expediency of one proceeding against both companies; but, as the case stands, and as the Manitoba Company has been required to so proceed, that contingency is not deemed to be a reason for setting aside the determination in this case.
We deem the decisions of this court, above cited, to be decisive of several important points urged by the appellant, such as the duty to construct necessary bridges; the continuous nature of the respondent’s duty in respect to the restoration of the streets; the right to
Again, it is claimed that by force of chapter 185, Sp. Laws 1879, this company is relieved from the duty of constructing the approaches to such bridges, that burden being expressly imposed upon the city. This is entitled “An act to authorize and empower the Minneapolis & St. Louis Bailway Company to construct and operate a branch line of railroad from the city of Minneapolis to some point on the south shore of Lake Minnetonka, and construct and operate branch lines and spur tracks in the city of Minneapolis.” Section 1 authorizes that corporation to construct' “a branch line of railroad from some point on its present line in the city of Minneapolis, ” using any part of, its already existing line for that purpose to Lake Minnetonka.
Chapter 15, Laws 1887, is appealed to as authorizing the respondent to maintain its crossings upon the present grade of these streets. This act cannot be construed as intended to make that radical change in the law contended for by the respondent. We think it was intended only to apply to cases where grade crossings were proper, and not to declare that .all crossings might be at grade. In such cases as •are contemplated by the act it prescribes how the crossing shall be made. The terms of the law do not justify the conclusion that the legislature intended to require, or to allow, all railroad crossings to be upon the grade of the streets, in the most frequented portions of •our large cities where there are many tracks in constant use, as well as at ordinary country highway crossings.
The fact that the respondent formerly laid its tracks, at a considerable expense, upon the grade of the streets, by the authority of the city council, does not exempt it from the duty of bridging when the increased use of both the railway and of the streets renders that necessary. State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, (28 N. W. Rep. 3.)
From the fact that the city has not yet changed the grade of these streets so as to conform to the plan of the proposed bridges it does not follow that this compulsory proceeding may not be maintained. The city authorities had no power to compel these corporations to adopt the plan which they might deem best; and since, as has been decided, it could only be finally determined by judicial decision what the corporations should be compelled to do, it is obvious that any fixing of grade for these bridges, by the action of the city council, prior to the decision of the controversy as to whether the corporations were under obligation to bridge the streets, and, if so, how it
The evidence shows, as we consider, that the city council did adopt the plans and grade shown in the information. These plans having: been reported to the city council by a committee of that body, with the recommendation that the same be adopted by the council, and that the city attorney be instructed to commence proceedings in court-for their enforcement, the action of the council thereupon is expressed in its records by the word “adopted.” This expresses the adoption by the council as its will of what was thus recommended. Whether this was necessary, we do not decide.
Some assignments of error are based upon the fact that this appellant is charged with the duty of constructing those parts of the bridges extending over its own tracks, and the approaches on the south side, without proof that the cost of doing this is a fair, ratable proportion of the cost of the entire work charged upon both companies, and without due regard to the proportionate use made of these street crossings by the two companies respectively. We do not think that the case is such as to have required or justified such an apportionment of the burden as is suggested by the appellant. Although the. duty of these companies, respectively, to bridge over their tracks, arises from the use of the street crossings, the extent of the burden in this respect to be borne by each company is not legally measured by the extent of that use. The necessity being shown, the duty rests as absolutely upon the St. Louis Company to bridge its own track at Washington avenue as it does upon the Manitoba Company in respect to its four or more tracks across that street, even though the use of the latter is four or ten times greater than that of the former. That duty being absolute, and resting upon that company independently of the duty upon the other corporation, it may be required to perform
We have spoken of the duties of these companies as being independent, and not joint. This is not to be confounded with the plan or manner of performance, which, as respects both companies, should, for obvious reasons, be in some sense and to some extent common, or at least similar. In this connection we refer to the point that evidence was received, against the objections of this appellant, not only of the extent of the use of these crossings by the trains of that company, but also by those of the Manitoba Company. This was properly received as bearing upon the question whether a bridging of these tracks had become necessary for the purposes of the public in the use of these streets. The circumstances were such as to justify the conclusion that, whenever a bridge across either system of tracks should become necessary, it would be necessary that it extend over both systems. As bearing upon the needs of the public for bridges upon these streets the evidence was admissible, although what the Manitoba Company might do in the use of its tracks was in no respect to be attributed' to the St. Louis Company as its act. It was admissible, for the same reason that proof might have been made, as was in fact done, of the extent of travel upon the streets. State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 131, (28 N. W. Rep. 3.)
As to the two south spur tracks of the St. Louis Company, leading to certain private warehouses, we see no error in the action of the court. It is left to the option of the company to sink them so as not to interfere with the bridges, or to remove them. That company •cannot complain because the court gave it this option, and did not
There are other questions presented involving the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the court, and the propriety of the-action and determination of the court in matters requiring the exercise of its judgment and discretion, which we will not specifically refer to. We see no substantial error in respect to anything material to this cause. Several of the assigned errors in respect to matters-relating to the proposition requiring the removal, laterally, of the St.. Louis track, it is unnecessary to examine, since the determination in respect to this subject is in favor of this appellant.
Upon the appeal taken by the Manitoba Company, the only point requiring separate and particular mention is that relating to the removal of the St. Louis main track, as proposed by the Manitoba Company, and the use by the St. Louis Company, in lieu of that, track, of the tracks of the Manitoba Company, more than a hundred, feet north of that rq.ain track, and away from the side tracks and station grounds of the St. Louis Company. The original findings- and opinion of the court below upon this point are shown in State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 246, (36 N. W. Rep. 870.) Aft-erwards the court further found in this case that the proposed plan for a removal of the St. Louis track was satisfactory to the relator;, that it was a reasonable plan, and better for each respondent, as well, as for the public, than any other plan proposed to the court. And the court further stated that it would have required this change to be-made were it not for the considerations expressed in this language: “But as we find that the streets can be restored to reasonably good-condition for public travel, in accordance with relator’s plan as modified, without disturbing the location of said main track of the St.. Louis Company, it is our opinion that this court has no power to require that company to change the location of its main track so as to conform to that plan.” The case now presented is not essentially different in this respect from that presented upon the former appeal, of the Manitoba Company, the decision in which is above referred to.. It is not necessary now, as it was not then, to decide whether, under any or under what circumstances, a railroad company can be com
It is said that there is a clerical error in the mandate respecting the grade at a certain point. We do not understand that the record before us is such, as to enable us to correct that error, and application for that purpose may properly be addressed to the court below.
Judgment affirmed.