Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-09-27

the Stats I.aw---The Northern Pacific
Bridge at Bismarck Progress of the
FXteus 'oa---The superior City Rsii-c.,d
to DO Butt Mkt Year---Eailway Con est
With the City of st. Louis--Lake and
River Boat News, Etc.
The n, y. to be E.ctenIetl to Superior. Ctty
The following dispatch from Duluth an
nounces the completion of an organization for
building the long contemplated extension of
the Northern Pacific railroad from Northern
Pacific junction to Superior City. The ex-
tended line will probably run down the divide
between the st. Louis and Left Hand rivers.
special Telegram to the Globe.
DULUTH, Sept. 25.-Superier City is at last
to have o connection by rail with the outside
world. The Superior & st. Croix railroad COM
pany, organized at Superior August 3lst, has
agreed to build q railroad from the Northern
Pacific Junction to Superior. The new compa-
ny, at the head of which is President Billings
and General Manager Sargent, of the Northern
Pacific, is to receive deed OF oue-third of that
portion of Superior in which the criminal pro-
prietors were interested. James Bardon, Hiram
Walbridge and James B. Power represent
Superior in this new railroad deal. The work
is to be all done before the ciese of 1881, and
will not interfere, it is supposed, with the
building of Z line from Rice's Point to Con-
nor's Point.
TIE 80. p. &c IL. GRd N. p. Right Of Fay
Judge Nelson yesterday heard the argument
on the application of the Northern Pacific
company for an Injunction restraining the st.
Paul & Manitobs company, the Moorhead &
GAINESVILLE company, and James j. Hill and
Alpheus B. Stickney, officers and agents there
OF, for entering upon the Northern Pacific
right of way on section G, near Moorhead, in
Clay county, for the purpose of building and
operating across said right Of way their pro-
posed Barneaville d Moorhead railroad. 1t
was stated in the argument that the proposed
crossing is st point about half q mile out or
east, from the Moorhead depot of the Northern
Pacific, and that the B. q NJ road was to haye
It's Moorhead depot, its bridge crossing into
Fargo, and its Fargo depot about
half mile North from the
Northern Pacific depot and crossing. The
argument was continued for two or three hours,
and at It's conclusion Judge Nelson intimatsd
that he considered the Northern Pacific right
fully in possession and should grant the in
junction asked for until the st. Paul & Mani
toba company had obtained lis right to the
crossing as provided by the State law. The
IN indemnity bond for the damages, and asked
that upon that being given the injunction be
removed. This was opposed by counsel for the
plaintiff, who commended that the court could
not rightfully and with propriety accept such
3 bond. The Judge took the proposal of bond
under Amusement.
MIR. Clough opened the argument by stating
mis- case, which he said was brought by the |
Northern Pacific company because the building !
no 10 X, Of fho
st. Paul Il Manitoba road was in violation |
If a contract between the two companies I'M
Ter which contract the Northern Pacific COM
oany is paying large sums of money annually |
10 the St. Paul d Manitoba company. He nj |
luded to the agreement under which the st. |
Paul & Manitoba company has certain fixed |
privileges as to its traffic to and from Lake |
superior over the Northern Pacific road, and |
he Northern Pacific com pany has joint use of |
he st. Paul a.d Manitoba company's road be-
,ween Sank Rapids and st. Paul The Barnes |
vile & Moorhead road was being graded and it |
was proposed with it to cross the Northern |
Pacific right-of-way at the point indicated !
without condemnlng or proceeding to condemn |
,he property proposed to be entered upon. |
The Northern Pacific company therefore forbid |
he parties defendant to enter upon its right |
,f-way and brought its suit to enjoin them.
After the injunction was served the |
defendants had arranged to set up a new
title not existing at the time OF fling |
he papers ia the suit. If the defendants ciaisn-
I'd, under this alleged title the plaintiff wouid |
lave TO fle an amended complaint, under which |
1e would show that the Northern Pacific has
perfect right of way.
Mr. Clark, for defendants, read the answer of |
iefe1dauts, denying that plaintiff has any title |
20 its alleged right of way four hundred feet |
vide, through said section 8, except so far as |
i is actually occupied by It's roadway. The an |
'wer further sets up that ct the time OF bring
ng this suit the defendants were in possess
ion of strip Of land extending fifty feet on |
zach side of the center OF their proposed track: |
that they are now the owners in fee simple of |
said right of way, one hundred feet wide,
through said section 9, and that plaintiff is q !
thereon. The respondent said Mr. |
clark, not only denies the right of the plaintiff
put sets up title in itself. Before proceeding |
ne would like TO hear from council on the other |
tide, upon the question thus raised.
MIR. Ciough recited that the Northern Pacific |
10 mpany had its grant of right of way four |
hundred feet wide, and further had had pos
session of the same through this section for |
,ine years. BY common law possession guar |
,!ltees the holding against all save the true |
owner or some one III possession under him. |
1t was not denied that the Northern Pacific Yves |
N possession, and all else in the answer re-
ates 10 a title originating subsequent t. the |
of this suit.
Mr: Clark, after reading the State statute, on |
he subject of the crossing of one road by an
other, asked If the court would con-
tinue its restraining order on the possessory !
right of plaintiff when the title is alleged to |
be in reldent
Judge Nelson called attention to decision |
Of Judge hlcCreary, in which it was held that 8.
railroad company chartered by The State had a !
right to condemn land owned but not occupied |
obs hxrt no tod
Mr.. Clough repeated that under the present |
pleadings. plaintiff WAS not in position to
show its title, nor was respondent in position |
TO dispute plaintiffs title. If permitted to |
amend the bill of complaint, plaintiff would |
show tina, the act of Congress of 1864 granted |
this right of way to plaintiff; that plaintiff |
road was built when section was unoccupied |
that whoever entered this section took it sub |
iect to that grant; that, under the Congress
nal charter of plaintiff, fixing six years as the
limit of time in which adverse rights or DANA
yes could be claimed; that the owners of this |
section have waived their rights |
IS to the right Of way of plaintiff; and |
that tie State statute further gives plaintiff |
right by undisputed posse sion for nine years. |
Plaintiff held. under the present peadings, |
that no railroad cross its track without the |
permission of au act of Congress.
Judge Nelson remarked that something de- |
pended upon the question of irreparsable in
Jury.
Mr.. Clough said the courts have generally |
aeid that the crossing of one railway by an |
other is an irrepersable injury. He could show
The facts he had stated in an amended bill, |
Which, on account of their having to send to |
New York for documentary evidence, would |
lot be prepared in less than three weeks. |
There was no hurry, be SAID, except to disturb |
plaintiffs title The GAINESVILLE road is tWen-
y five miles lohg and its grading is not fin |
shed. There was no necessity for deciding
he matter at once.
Judge Nelson asked if counsel held that his
.ounanx could lre a paa,,,s md h,, c;,- .aa.s,