St. Paul daily globe., 1893-05-23
A Ruling ON the Matter Of
Widening East Seventh
Street.
Taking Of Property for Ade-
quate Compensation Is
Constitutional,
But to Define an Assessment
District in Advance Is
Not Valid.

|
Minnesota, eX rel. John A. Stees, ct al,
relators, against Charles E. Otis, judge
of the district court for Ramsey county,
respondent. 1t will be recalled that by
writ of certiorari the proceedings.
under the charter of st. Paul. for tine
widening of East Seventh street, and
involving a condemnation of land for
that purpose, were taken to the SUI
preme court for review. Two questions
were presented:
First-Under the city charter. in its
present form, is there such provision
for the payment of the damages which
may be assessed in favor of the land
owner for the taking of his land, that
| such compensation is secured to him,
as required by the constitution?
Second-Was the notice of the meet
ing of the board of public works for the
assessment of damages and benefits III
| sufficient for the reason that 1t Specl-
| fed the limits of the district to be as
| sessed?
In reply the supreme court says:
l. The argument of the relators upon
| the first of these points is, in brief. that,
while by this provision of the charter
the confirmation of assessment of dam
ages completes the condemnation, so
that the city may take possession, no
absolute duty of paying the damages
assessed rests upon the city, and that
such compensation can only be made
from the special fund derived from the
collection of special assessments.
We cannoG admit the correctness of
this premise, upon which it is claimed
that the city is without power to consti-
tutionally condemn private property
for public use. We hold. on the
contrary, that upon the completion
of the condemnation proceedings it
becomes the absolute duty Of the city to
pay within six months thereafter the
damages awarded, with interest at the
rate of 7 per cent per annum. The law
imposing upon the city the obligation to
pay the damages awarded, and only
reasonable time being allowed therefor,
interest being added to compensate for
delay, the proceedings was not subject
to objection on constitutional grounds.
PrejudicIal Proceedings.
2. The improvements for which assess
ments were made upon the property of
the reatorS consisted of the widening of
East Seventh street, from Broadway to
Rosabel street, the land condemned for
that purpose being strip OH one side
Of East Seventh street between the two
streets named. The notice given by the
board of public works, the sufficiency
OF which is called into question, was to
the effect that the board would meet at
a given time and place 70 make assess
mentS OF damages and benefits arising
from this Improvement son line of
Seventh street, from jackson and Kilt
son streets, and deemed benefited or
damaged thereby"
In other words, the notice was in
effect that the distribution by assess
ment OF the costs of the Improvement
would be confined to the property on
Seventh street. between Jackson and
Kittson streets. 1t was based upon
determination of the board in advance
of any notice or hearing, defining the
district specially benefited, and upon
which, therefore, under the charter the
cost should be assessed. The rule of
frontage was not adopted as the basis of
the assessment, but the rule of specific
benefit irrespective of frontage, and the
procedure must be such as is required
when assessments are to be made ac-
-cOrding to the latter rule.
1t is apparent from the charter pro-
vision that when such assessments are
to be made, it is for the board Of public
works to determine what property is
specially benefited. And since the
board is to distribute and assess the
whole cost of the Improvement upon the
property deemed to be specially bene-
fitted, if that be possible, at least, it
follows that any predetermination by
the board fixing or limiting as
was done in this notice, the district over
which the burden was to he distributed,
would be prejudicial to the rights of
those owning property within that dis
trict. They had right to have the bur-
den distributed as widely as, after
proper hearing, the board should judge
to be just. But, by this notice, the
board
Deprived Itself of the POWers
unless it should proceed de novo under
different notice. to carry the assess
ment beyond the limits specified in this
notice. even though it might appear
upon hearing that the special benefit
extended much beyond such limits.
This was preJudiciaI to the REALTORS.
For this defect in the notice, it is con-
sidered that the Judgment against the
property of the relators should not have
been allowed, and the same is, as to
such property, reversed.
Justice Dickinson, in his syllabus, re-
lates:
The charter of the city of st. Paul as
amended in 1891, imposes upon the CITY
the duty of paying the compensation
assessed for the taking OF property for
public use: hence the law authorizing
such taking OF property is not uncon-
Stitutional.
A notice OF the meeting of the board
of public works for the purpose of as
sessing, upon the property benefited,
the cost OF a public Improvement. is IN
valid if, in advance Of any hearing, it
defines limited district as embracing
the property upon which the assessment
is to be made.
Rights of Garnfshment.
Edwin Cooley. appellant, vs. Minnesota
Transfer Railway Company respondent
William Hogan, intervenor. AS between
the plaintiff and the defendant railway
company the order is affirmed. As between
the plaintiff and the intervenor it is re-
yersed. DICKINSON j.
Syllabus-A railway company, after
the termination of the transportation of
property, aud while it is holding the
same only as warehouseman,i is liable to
garniShmentinr in respect to such property.
Such garnishment at the suit of
stranger to the contract of carriage,
while it remains in force, excuses the
company from delivering the property
to the shipper or consignee.
The lien Of the carrier and warehouse
man for keeping the property is supe-
rior to that of pledgee, who had pro-
cured the property to be transported
and stored.
Evidence held to conclusively show
that the owners of the personal prop
erty pledged it to the plaintiff to secure
their indebtedness 10 him. A perfected
pledge held not avoided or terminated
by the fact that for special purpose,
and for the hnnafit nf the nlndmao lnn