St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-10-16
PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS
An Important Ruling by the Supreme
Court.
PASSED AN EXAMINATION.
Action Taken on Gases in the Local
Temple Of Justice---Suits
Filed.

Pubic IN general and railroad COLI
panies in particular.
The first was that of George K. Adams,
respondent. VS.. the Chicago, Burlington
d Northern Railroad company, appel
lants. Judge Gilfillan filed the decision,
but there was dissenting opinion from
Judge Vanderburgh. The chief justice
reviewed the suit in lucid style,
and the substance of his opinion
with the details of the case are as fol-
lows: In WinOna there is street
called Second street, and for thirty
years it has been public street, run
ming east and west through the city.
Mr.. Adams is the owner of residence
Oh the street; and the railroad company,
under the authority of the common
council, has built its tracks upon and
along the north half of Second street,
the Adams residence being on the south
side. Mr.. Adams claimed that the road,
by being built on this street, damaged
his property, due to the engines and
trains passing along day and night,
throwing out smoke and dust
and polluting the air with bad
smells. The lower court al
lowed him damages to the rental
value up to the commencement OF the
action, and the railroad company APP
pealed. Judge Gilfillan, on one main
point, says: Railroads are necessity,
and the public which enjoys the gen
eral incidental benefits from them must
endure any general inconvenience
necessarily incident to their cOnstruc-
ton and operation. If any railroad
company, even wrOngfully, Obstructs
street abutting on ones premises not
at the part of the street where it so
oh 81, 4x, Ia 10
thereby cut off or
MATERIALLY INTERPRETED WITH,
any Inconvenience that he may suffer
therefrOm furnishes no ground for the
private action, because the wrongdoing
is public wrong, for which the public
authorities are the proper parties to
seek redress. But If the railroad in
touching ones premises obstructs the
street abutting on or arriving to them
so as to cut off or materially Interfere
with his only access to them, the inc0n-
venience is deemed to be special, and
not Zone common otto rthe public, and
action lies. The main question in the
case is: Has the owner of lot abutting
on public street right or interest In
the street opposite his lot as appur-
tenant to his lot and independ-
ent of his ownership of the
soil of the street, and, if so,
what is that right or interest? The
conclusions arrived at are that the
owner of a lot abutting on public
street has, independent of the fee in
the street as appurtenant to his lot, an
easement in the street in frolit OF his lot
to the width of the street,fOr light,air and
entry into his lot, which easements sub
ect only to the public right: that de-
priving of or interfering with his enjoy
ment of the easement for any public
use not proper street use is a tax
ing of his property within the
meaning of the constitution;
that appropriating public street
to the construction and operation OF an
ordinary commercial railroad upon it is
not proper street use; that where,
without the owners consent and with
out compensation, such a railroad is
laid and operated along the portion OF
the street in front of his lot so as to
cause smoke. dust. cinders, etc, which
darken or pQllute the air coming from
that part of the street upon his lot, he
may recover whatever damages to
his lot are caused by so laying and oper-
ating such railroad on the
PART IN FRONT OF IT. .
A new trial is ordered of issue as to
the amount of damage, but on no other
issue. unless the plaintiff will consent
in the court below to take Judgment for
nominal damages only"
Judge Vanderburgh. in his dissent
ing opinion, says: eff street or high
way is so occupied or encountered as to
occasion special and peculiar injury to
an abutting land owner. an action for
damages or an injunction may be sus-
tanned, but | do not assent to
ho ,NrnnAci4inr fhof Cnah
has property interests in the street be-
yond the boundary of his land essen
ally-presumptively the center line
therein-which are the proper subject
of condemnation proceedings. The OPP
posite rule has, / think, always been
accepted and acted upon in this state.
and is supported by the great weight of
authority 1t is hardly practicable to
make any distinction in this respect be-
tween that portion of the street beyond
his boundary and opposite his lot and
adjoining land on the other side. And
it would seem to be difficult to fix upon
any sound rule or sufficient basis for
estimating and limiting the damages in
such case"
In the case of Luther Cain. respond
dent. VS.. The Minneapolis & st. LOUIS
Railway Company. appellant, Chief
Justice Gilfillan filed the following syl-
labus: "A railway company is liable
for the acts of those in charge of one of
its trains in eXpelling passenger from
it. Order affirmed"
The successful candidates who sat at
the recent examination for admission to
nractice at the bar of this state are:
Clinton E. Galleher. Archibald Ander-
son. Walter Feis Smith, Scott Rex. of |
st. Paul; John D. Gardner, of Mime
apOlis.
The routine proceedings of the SUI
preme court yesterday were as follows: |
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. |
A. T. Rand ct al; Rufus K. Rand and |
Kate a. Rand, appellants. Argued and |
submitted.
T. G. Salisbury ct al. respondents, |
VS.. Charles J. Bartleson, appellant. !
Submitted on briefs.
In the matter of the assignment of |
Church & Graves Manufacturing CON- |
\ \ l.