St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-02-18
A STRIP OF LAND.
An Important Railroad Suit--The
N. g. ST. l.. Wires.

NJ a. ST. l.. WIRES
A decision signed by Judges Koon, Loeb
rem and Young was yesterday filed III the
district court in the suit of the Minneapolis
e. st. Louis Railway Company vs. st. Paul,
MINNEAPOLIS d. Manitoba Railway Company,
which was brought to quiet title to the fif-
teen-foot strip of land lying on the south
side of the Manitoba tracks. between Third
and Fifth avenues north, and running from
Sixth street to the river. In August, 1874,
the first division of the st. Paul a. Pacific
Railroad company, gave to the st. Louis
company, under an agreement made, the
right to construct and maintain forever a
single track railroad upon strip on the
north side of the Pacific company's tracks,
lying between Third and Fifth avenues
north and the meeting line of Sixth street
and the easterly line of River street. In
1873 the rights of the Pacific company were
transferred TO trustees and afterward be-
came the property of the Manitoba CON-
pany. The StjLouis company then agreed
to transfer their right TO the ffteen-foOt
strip to the south side of the track, and the
agreement was conceded in by the repre-
sentatives of the company; but no writ
ingS were drawn up, and it was cOncurred
in wholly by parole.
The Manitoba purchased all the rights of
the Pacific company in 1879, and claims
title to the strip on the south side of the
tracks, controlled by the st. Louis COM
pany, and has threatened to tear up the
track.
The conclusions of the court in return
ing
A DECISION FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
hold the agreement of 1874 to have con-
veyed to the ST. Louis company, its sue
cessors and assigns forever, right of way
across and along the land of the Pacific
company for the purpose of maintaining
thereon a single-track railroad. The exact
location of the line upon which the track
should be built was to be designated by the
Pacific company. Such designation could
not be changed by either party thereafter
without the consent of the other; but 1t is
held that it was perfectly competent and
legal for the parties to afterwards mutually
to alter or change the location of such right
of way. provided the same was kept within
the limits designated by the agreement, and
there is no legal objection to the re-
location made as to the exchange of tracks
which was made In connection Herewith.
The track built by the ST. Louis company
upon its first designated right OF way be-
longed to it, and when the location of its
right of way was changed, if said track
was to remain upon the old right of way,
it was only fair and right for the Pacific
company to construct for the st. Louis COM
pany track upon the new line in exchange
for the one owned by the st. Louis COM
pany. We consider the force and legal
arrangement made in 1878 to be simply re-
location of the right of way granted by the
agreement of 1874, and an exchange of
tracks was undoubtedly
FOR THE BEST INTEREST
of all parties concerned. By the agreement
the location of the line of the st. Louis
track was to be fixed by the superintendent
of the Pacific company. 1t was
a matter intrusted to the operating depart
ment of the road to determine. and that
department, whenever another location APP
peared desirable might, if the st. Louis
assented, change the location. No one
appears to have questioned the superintend-
ent when the change was made. The Pa
cifc company took, and the Manitoba, its
successor, has kept, what Farley got by
exchange, and we think the defendant can
not now be heard to question its validity.
Whether plaintiff is or is not entitled to the
exclusive use, possession and control of
said track, we do not feel called upon to
determine in this case. 1t is entitled, we
think, to at least the same ownership use
and control thereof which the st. Louis
company had in the track first built by it
upon the line first designated under said
agreement, and is therefore entitled to
judgment declaring it to be the owner of
said railroad track and quieting its title to
the same, and to the perpetual use of the
strip of land fifteen feet in width upon
which the same is constructed, and that the
defendant be restrained and enjoined from
tearing up. removing or Obstructing said
railroad track"