The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-07-11
LEYEE LEASES MAY
BE NU[[|F|ED BY
COURTS DECISION
Supreme Court Holds That the
City Cannot Lease Property
Secured by 1t for Public Use
to Private Parties.

By decision of the supreme court re-
corded yesterday in the case OF John
B. and Walter H. Sanborn against
Frank Van Duyne, doing business as
the St. Paul Showcase Manufacturing
company, the city's lease of West side
levee property to Van Duyne is held TO
be illegal. Opinions of attorneys vary
as to how extensively this decision Will
affect other leVee leases. but 1T appears
to be agreed among them that con-
siderable proportion of the leases now ~
effect will come within the scope OF
the courts ruling and may be multi
fed by it.
In this decision the supreme court
overrules the decision of Judge Bum,
of the Ramsey county district court.
who held that while the defendant Van
Duyne held the property wrongfully
and contrary to law the Sanborns could
not recover and were estopped from
seeking relief. The supreme court
holds that the Sanborns never relln-
pushed their ownership of the prop
erty and merely granted to the city
an easement for the specific purpose OF
constructing levee and that the San
borns may. therefore. maintain an ac-
ton to recover damages. In the opin-
ion, which is written by Justice Brown,
the court says:
"By the conveyance to the city plain
tiffs merely transferred the dominion
of the property for specific purpose,
and retained in themselves the abso-
lutte ownership. They are entitled to
every beneficial use of the property not
interfering with the rights of the city
under it's easement.
private property cannot be taken,
either directly or indirect]'- for pri-
Vate use. Any legislation authorizing
such action would be clearly unconstl-
tutional."
Good for ohaae.
B. H. Schriber, attorney for Mr.. Van
Duyne in this case yesterday express
ed the belief that this decision would
affect all of the West side levee leases,
and that all persons or firms holding
leases of levee property could be made
to vacate. This. he suggested, would
be a golden opportunity for DR.. Ohage
and would terminate his annoyance in
the maintenance of the public baths.
The estimate of E. P Sanborn as to
the scope of the decision is somewhat
different, and he said that about half
a dozen of the levee lots were all that
had been granted to the city on the
same terms as those in question. In
the property in fee. and could, there
fore. lease it.
Former Sity Attorney Markham, who
is familiar with the complete history
of this case, said yesterday:
"The city was not a party to the
suit, but my opinion has always been
that the leases granted by the city
were void, except to that part of the
levee where the city had an absolute
fee to the property.
There are numerous cases of sim
liar occupancy along the levee from
about where the public bath bridge is.
located to State street, and the effect
of the decision will be that all of these
enterprises can be removed on the
ground that the city had not the right
to lease property secured for public
use to private enterprises.
Owners of property who gave to the
city an easement for the levee can fol-
low the lead taken by the Sanborns and
recover such amount as the courts may
deem proper"
Awarded $500 Instead of 100000.
In the case of Herbert w. Pearson,
who brought suit against the Great
Northern road for 81 900 900 as remun-
Grafton for his services as expert min
ing engineer in locating valuable coal
mine in Montana, the court handed
down decision upholding Judge KEEL
ly in awarding the plaintiff $500. This
sum of $500 was allowed to Pearson as
a balance on his salary of 5000 per
month.
The testimony was found by the
court to indicate that the existence Of
the mine had been known before it's
so-called discovery by Pearson.
Judge Kelly's decision holding that
Jasper B. Tarbox did not retain a Sc
cret interest in the Union Shoe COM
pany, which sold out to Jordan Bros,
was sustained.
Other decisions were as follows:
State of Minnesota ex REL, w. B. Doug
las, attorney general relater VS.. VII
lage of Holloway ct al, respondents
Writ of custer issued. Brown, j.
Union Insurance Company of Philadelphia,
Phoenix Insurance Company of Hart
ford, Conn, ct al, respondents, VS..
Alice l.. Hall, appellant.
Affirmed. Brown, ].
Simon Meyers appellant, VS.. James D.
Markham. respondent.
Reversed. Brown. J.
]. H. Dickman, appellant. VS.. William H
Dryden ct AL, respondents.
Order affirmed. Lewis J,
w. B. Smith, appellant vs. The Philip B.
Iiuiit SOlipdHy, respondents.
Order affirmed. Start c. J,
Francis Mikiska ct al, respondents, VS..
Bartholomew Mikiska ct AL, defend
ants, Peter Nicolay ct al, appellants.
Judgment affirmed. Start c. J.
Frank H. Murray ct al, appellants, vs.
Wallace c. Nickerson ct al, respond
entS.
Order modified Start, C. J.
Berg, appellant.
Judgment reversed and a new trial
granted. Start c. J.
Mary E. Lloyd ct AL. respondents, vs.
Anna L. Simons ct al, appellants; H
E. Hedder, appellant; two cases.
Judgment reversed and new trial grant
ed. Collins. ].
Nathaniel Price. administrator, appellant
VS.. Standard Life and Accident Insur-
ance Company, a corporation, respond
ent.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Collins, ].
F. J. steidl, appellant. VS.. Louis K. Nc
Clymonds. respondent.
Judgment reversed. Lovely, j.
-