St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-08-18

The City Loses the Celebrated
Case Against the Milwau-
kee Road,
Leaving the Latter in Posses
sion Of the Strip Of Levee
Land
On Which One End Of the
Broadway Bridge Eas to
Stand.
The City Will Appeal, but
the Fight Will Occupy
TWO Years.

i Judges Wilkin and Brill yesterday
handed down decision which will
probably settle the high or low bridge
question. The decision is in the cele-
brated case of The City of st. Paul
against The Chicago, Milwaukee & st.
Paul Railway Company, which was be-
gun in March, 1887. The suit was
brought by the city for the purpose OF
securing the removal of the tracks and
freight houses of the railway company
from the levee. The city claimed that
the railway company was in unlawful
possession of the levee property, which
is described as follows:
THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE.
All that parcel Of land beginning at
the southeast corner of lot 6, block of
Hopkins addition. thence extending
westward in continuous line along the
south line of blocks 4 and OF Hop
kinS' addition and across Rosabel
aad Wacouta streets to west
line of Wacouta street; thence souther-
ly OH the west line of WacOuta street to
the Mississippi river; thence easterly
along the MiSSiSsippirive to the weSter-
ly line of Broadway street; thence north
erly along the westerly line of Broad
way to the place of beginning, includ-
ing the shore and bank of the Missis-
Sippi river between the eaSterly and
westerly lines aforesaid of said parcel
of land, and all riparian rights con-
nected Herewith.
Following is an abstract of the courts
finding:
THE COURTS FINDING.
That the plaintiff has always had,a
still has, by virtue of acts of the legiSIa-
ture, the care, supervision and control
of all public highways, streets, alleys
and public grounds, levees and land
ings, within the limits of said city. and
the same power and control within the
limits of said city. as highways, streets
I and alleys aforesaid, not inconsistent
+ with the laws of the United States:
and always has had the power to regu-
late and cause to be constructed, altered
and maintained wharves and piers and
grading and paving along the banks OF
the said Mississippi river.
That on and priorto June Is, 1854, one
+ Peter HOPKINS was the owner and seized
I in fee OF the real estate described in the
complaint, including theshere and bank
of the Mississippi river. between the
easterly and :, westerly lines of
said parcel of land >. and all
| riparian rights connected there
with. and at the time last
+ aforesaid said Hopkins dedicated said
described, property for public use as a
street, IeYee and landing of said city,
| and that prior to the, entry of defend
ants predecessor in claim and interest,
said dedication was duly accepted.
That. the. defendant is now in the
actual possession of the, entire parcel of
land described in the, complaint. except
a strip thereof. about. sixty feet IN
Width lying next to and adjoining the
line. described in sad complaint as the
south line of blocks four and three
b,of Hopkins addition, and across
RosabeI street and Wacouta street to
the west line Of said Wacouta street.
| The southerIy line of said strip OF about
sixty feet is indicated, upon the ground
by certain iron monuments. The de-
PENDANT and those; from and under
whom defendant claims and derives
title have had and maintained actual,
open and exclusive possession of said
land, whereof the defendant is
now in possession as aforesaid. con-
tinuously and uninterraptedly for
more than twenty years last past and
from time more than twenty years
prior to the commencement OF this &C
ton. The defendant has erected and
maintains upon said land and premises
so occupied by it as aforesaid, the
structures and tracks referred to in the
complaint, and said tracks are fire.
/ auently traversed by railway trains of
defendant, and that said structures and
tracks and the uses thereof by
defendant, prevent all other
use of said land and premises.
That such tracks are and constitute a
section Of the line constructed by de-
PENDANT to make and maintain con-
tinuous connection through the city of
St. Paul between the line of railroad
purchased by defendant of the st. Paul
d Chicago Railway company mentioned
in the act OF the legislature of Mime
sofa, approved Feb. %, 1872, and the
said line of railway in Dakota
and Hennepin counties, also men
toned in said act; and that
SUCH tracks with their combinations to
furnish and afford to defendant the only
practical means of making and mairi-
tanning the said connections. Save as
aforesaid the allegations of the plead
ings are not established. As a conclue:s'
sion of law we find that the plaintiff is
not entitled to any relief. -.
+ THE CITY WILL APPEAL.
f. This decision will have a peculiar
+ bearing on the contemplated bridge
across the Mississippi from Broadway,
street to. State, street, and will probably g,
result in delaying the work at least
year or two, thus giving the West side
orators and the self-conStituted authori-
ties from the chamber of commerce
an opportunity to exhaust themselves
in argument. An appeal will be taken
hon
the district court. Attorney Horn, who
prosecuted the case for the city, says so,
and is backed up by Corporation AttOr-
ney Holman. Incorporation Attorney
Murray was most surprised when he
heard of the decision. and also stated
that he would see to it that an APP
peal was taken. The real question
at issue, it appears, has never
been passed upon by the supreme court.
The general law of adverse possession
as against individuals and private COR
porations is undisputed. 1t is not be-
lieved by the city's attorney, however,
that this ruling will hold good as against
municipal corporations, and it IS
claimed that public highway. or land
designated for public purposes. cannot
be acquired even through ALI I'M
disputed possession of twenty years.
City Attorney Holman stated that the
case could not, in all probability, be ar
gued before the supreme court before
April next, and that some time must
elapse thereafter before a decision
would be rendered. Then there is still
| the possibility of an appeal to higher
court. The proposed Broadway bridge
= high or low cuts across one
corner of the property in dis
pute. The railway company, claiming
| the land, will not allow the city to build
| over it, even at an elevation OF several
feet, and it would be necessary for the
city to secure an easement by condem-
nation before the work is commenced.
| An action to condemn would recognize
| the rights of the railway company, and
| it is hardly probable that the authorities
| will jeopardize the city's interests by
| taking such course. From the gem
| aral situation it would appear that the
bridge argument might as we'll be
dropped.
STATE FAIR NOTES.
!