St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-22

grants and after building the road sold II 10
the Chicago, Milwaukee & st. Paul Railroad
company. reServing the land grants ana con-
tinued to hold these lands, as a railroad
company. exempt from taxation. Attorney
General Hahn applied to the supreme court
for dissolution of the companies, which
has now been granted Judge Berry files
a dissenting opinion. The sections of rail-
| road mentioned as sold are that part of the
Hastings g. Dakota division between Glen
| coe and the state line, and the line from
Minneapolis to Benton. The land grants
reserved at the sale of the roads are not
forfeited, but the company is and cannot
therefore hold the land any longer as
company and exempt from taxation as
| heretofore.
Following is the syllabus:
| The State OF Minnesota ex rel. William J.
Hahn, ATTORNEY General, relator, VS.. The
Minnesota Central Railway Company, re-
spondent; The State of Minnesota ex rel.
William j. Hahn, AttorneY General, relator.
vs. The Hastings g. Dakota Railway Com
pany. respondents.
Syllabus-It is a tacit condition annexed to
or implied in the charter OF every private
corporation that the government may resume
| its corporate franchises for miSuser or nom
user thereof. The statutes (Gen st. 1873
chap 10, sec. IL provides that the suspen-
pany for one year shall be ground OF forfeit
''of its privileges and franchises acquired I'M
der the laws of the state" But the corpora
ton shall not to be deemed dissolved until
such forfeiture is judicialiy ascertaned and
declared Where in Il proceeding by an at
torney general in behalf of the state for the
dissout on of q corporation under the statute,
the ficts clearly bring the case within its terms
it is mandatory upon the court to declare for
feirure. The duty of railroad corporation
to maintain ann operate its road is public
duty. and the chief end and object of its
creation and existence and the con-
dition and consideration upon which
it receives its grants and fran
chises from the state. and suspension
of such duties is a suspension Of its law
business within the meaning of the statute
and cause for declaring forfeiture, though
the corporation also possesses and continues
to exercise other franchises subordinate and
secondary toits principal franchises and BUSH
ness, unless such forfeiture is revived or the
right to continue TO exist as corporation
after such sus peDsion OF business Is Sancs
toned by the state.
The right 30 hold exempt from taxation
lands granted to a railroad corporation in and
of its principal enterprise is a franchise, but
auxiliary and subordinate, and the right to
exercise such franchise and to continue its
corporate existence for such purposes only,
cannot lawfully survive after sale of its
railroad and the abandonment of its principal
business as railway corporation, unleS by
the authority of the legislature expressed or
clearly implied. The rights of the state are
not lost by delay. merely, nor can it be waived
BIZ its executive officers.
The respondents railway corporations were
each endowed with land grants in connection
with their other chartered privileges, and
after completing the respective railroads
authorized by their charters, disposed of and
transferred the same to another rail-
way corporation, reServ1ng, however, the
granted lands and certain corporate rights to
themselves; and since that time to-wit: for
several years such other corporation has
claimed to own and has in fact controlled and
operated the railroads so transferred, and
these respondents thereupcu altogether
ceased to control or operate such roads, aud
disclaim any interest therein, and have never
since transacted any business as railway cor
porations, exercising such franchises as per-
tanned to the land grants held by them. The
terms of such transfer, separation and rsser-
walton were however, never sanctioned by the
legislature. Held, in quo warranto proceed
ings in behalf of the state that upon the facts
disclosed and admitted upon the record a case
is made warranting Judgment of forfeiture
and for dissolution of both corporations.
VANDERBURG, j.
A DISSENTING OPINION.
understand my brethren to hold that the
sale of that part (branch) of the Hastings
a. Duluth road lying between Minneapolis and
Benton junction was authorized by the act Of
1881. This appears to me to be the fact, and
as no part of the land grant appertained to
this branch il is not very important IN this
case except as going to show that the sale and
consequent non-user of the branch being
authorized by law. neither would furnish any
ground for FORGETTING any franchises of the
Hastings Duluth company or at most, none
except such as that sale would deprive the
company of power and right to use.
ppparalfV from the pOpplnS innc
arrived at by my brethren as respects the rest
of the Hastings s. Duluth road, being that
part of it which lies between Hastings and
Ortonville. AS to this think its non-user By
the Hastings & Duluth road, in person IF
| may use that phrase) and its maintenance and
| operation by the Chicago, Milwaukee & ST.
Paul company have been acQuiesced in,
| assented to and sanctioned by both
the legislature and executive department of
the state government from time to time ever
since the construction OF its different portions
respectively, being from four to fifteen years
last past As to that part of the Minnesota
Central road lying between Minneapolis and
Austin, understand my brethren TO agree,
as / do, that the sale to the McGregor West
| ern was expressly authorized by various
acts of the legislature so that. as in the case
| of the Hastings & Dakota branch, see no
reason why such sale or the consequent nom
user by the Minnesota Central should at most
furnish any ground for FORGETTING any fran
| chises of the latter COMPANY except such as
| that sale would deprive it of power and right
| to use and as to this part OF the Minnesota
| Central there has been like aequiesence,
assent and sanction as in the case of the
| Hastings & Dakota even more explicit as re-
spects the sale, the non-uSer by the Central
| and the maintenance by the Chicago, Mil
Waukte & St. Paul for nearly twenty years,
| and as to the ten or twelve miles lying be-
| tween Austin and the state line, for more than
| fifteen years.
In my Judgment, this contract on the part
| of the state valves any right which it might
| have had TO demand q forfeiture of the entire
| franchises OF these companies on account OF
| the alleged sales and non-user of the roads.
| If the sales are invalid aud abortive so that
| the roads are still owned and held by the II.
| s. d. and Minnesota Central companies re-
spectvely, it is not perceived why such or
| the merely personal non-user of the roads by
| these companies should call for such forfeit
ure so long as the non-ussr has been ac-
ouiesced ill., assented to anu authorized by the
/ state. But conceding that the sales are valId
and operative so that there Is not only nom
user o. the H. 6 D. and the Minnesota Cen
| trail companies of what may for brevity be
| called thelA railroad franchises and that as
! they have no further use for them and moth
| ing for which they can use them, they MAJ as
well be forfeited. can conceive of no reason
why in view of the states &c Iuiesence, assent
and sanction before mentioned, these compa-
MES should be deprived OF the franchises TO
| hold ard sell their land upon the terms as to
| taxation and otherwise upon which
| they were granted to them.
| Existing for this purpose they should not be
| permitted 10 retain the franchise OF corporate
| existence, saviug tie state on the other
| hana to erjoy the right to commutaio1 of
| taxes now secured by constitutional amend
! meut. With respect to the statute acted upon
| as requiring forfeiture where corporation
| has suspended its lawful business, ] have
~t,oti barn Ion
as to require an entire forfeiturel TO case
/ in which the suspension is partial and sane