St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-09-15
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Decisions Made in Three Suits
YESTERDAY

SUPREME COURT CASES.
Decisions Made in Three Suits
Yesterday.
Three decisions were filed in the SUI
preme court yesterday. State of Min
nesota ex rel. The City of Minneapolis
vs.The Minneapolis & St.LOuis Railway
Company and The st. Paul, Minneapolis
& Manitoba Railway Company.
This mandamus proceeding was orig
inally commenced against the st. Louis
company to compel that corporation to
construct bridges upon Washington
avenue, Third, Fourth and Fifth streets
north, in Minneapolis, above its rail
road tracks, which, running eaSterly
and westerly, now cross those
streets upon the same level
as the streets themselves. The
tracks of the Manitoba line lie
parallel with those of the st. Louis COM
pany, and cross these streets in the
same direction. The two systems of
tracks are, however, separated hun
dred 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 COM
pany to compel that company to con-
struct bridges over its tracks. The pro-
ceedings against the Manitoba company,
after judgment against it in the district
court, was brought to the supreme
court by appeal. The decision upon
that appeal confirmed thatAof the dis
trict court. During the tHal of this
proceeding against the st. Louis COM
pany, it appearing that the Manitoba
company claimed some interest in one
of the st. Louis tracks, and the
only one of its tracks which crossed
Washington avenue, it was ordered
by the court upon the motion of the
relator, and with the consent of the
Manitoba company that the REALTORS in
formation of the alternative route be
amended so as to make the Manitoba
company party responding. The st.
Louis company objected after the trial
of the cause, the court having adjudged
that primary writ of mandamuS
should issue against the st. Louis COM
pany requiring the prosecution of the
work in question.
Judge Dickinson's syllabus in the
case is as follows:
Mandamus proceeding against the st.
Louis Railway company to compel it to
bridge districts where they cross city
streets, and to construct approaches to
such bridges at one end of the same.
The Manitoba railway tracks cross the
same streets so near to those of the
other company's as to suggest the neces-
sity, if either system of tracks should
be bridged. that the bridges be made
continuous over all the tracks of both
companies. A like mandamus proceed
ing was pending against the Manitoba
company to compel it to construct those
parts of the bridges over its tracks with
approaches thereto. Both cases were
required to be tried together. Held not
to be an error.
Appeals of the Minneapolis & st.
LOUIS Railway company and the Rail
way Transfer company, of the city of
Minneapolis, from orders of the Rail
way and warehouse commission relat-
ing to charges for switching cars.
The separate appeals of those cor
poratiOnS involved the same questions,
and were heard together. The question
presented was whether chapter 10 of
the general laws of 1877, creating the
state railroad and warehouse commits
sion and prescribing its duties, author
lied an appeal to the district court from
an order of that body prescribing rates
to be charged by common carriers. The
district court entertained such an APP
peal, and reversed the orders appealed
from. From the order of the district
court the railroad and warehouse COM
mission appealed to the supreme court.
The decision is; Statute of 1887,
creating a railway and warehouse COM
mission, and defining its duties, con-
Strued as not authorizing an appeal to
the district court from an order of the
commission prescribing rates to be
charged by common carriers"
Appeal of Eliza Fern, executrix, VS..
Jacob Leuthold ct al. Judge Mitchell's
syllabus: Every claim proper to be al
lowed by commissioners which is not
presented for allowance within the time
limited by the probate court for that
purpose, is barred unless within the
provisions of section 16, chapter 80,
General Statutes, by reason of the
tendency of an action upon it against
the deceased at the time of his death.
To bring it within this section the spe-
cific claim or cause of action must be in
litigation at the time of the doctors de-
cease. 1t is not enough that an action
for another purpose was pending
against him. 1t is only claim in ac-
tual litigation at the time of his deceaSe
that can be paid without being proved
in the probate court. The character of
the Judgment finally rendered will not
preclude inquiry as to the nature and
status of an action pending at the time
of the debtors death in order to deter
mine whether particular claim was
then in litigation. Judgment reversed.