Case: ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Abbreviation: St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Minnesota ex rel. City of Minneapolis
Decision Date: 1909-04-26
Docket Number: No. 162
Citation: 214 U.S. 497
Volume: 214
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.
Judges: 
Pages: 497–498

Head Matter:
ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ¿THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
No. 162.
Argued April 19, 20, 1909.
Decided April 26, 1909.
Affirmed on authority of Northern Pacific Railway v. Duluth, 208 U. S. 583.
This case involved a question almost the same as that in Northern Pacific Railway v. Duluth in which it was held that a railway was not deprived of its property without due process of law by being obliged to rebuild a viaduct over streets of a city.
Mr. Rome G. Brown, with whom Mr. Charles S. Albert and Mr. William R. Begg were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Frank Healy, with whom Mr. Albert E. Clarke was on the brief, for defendant in error.
The headnote in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Duluth applicable to this case is as follows:
“The right to exercise the police power is a continuing one that cannot be limited or contracted away by the State or its municipality, nor can it be destroyed by compromise as it is immaterial upon what consideration the attempted contract is based.
“ The exercise of the' police power in the interest of public health and safety is to be maintained unhampered by contracts ’in private interests, and uncompensated obedience to an ordinance passed in its exercise is not violative of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution; held, that an ordinance of a municipality of that State, valid under the law of that State as construed by its highest court, compelling a railroad to repair a viaduct constructed; after the opening of the railroad, by the city in pursuance of a contract relieving the railroad; for a substantial consideration, from making any repairs thereon for a term of years was not void under the contract, or the due process,- clause of the Constitution. ”

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Judgment affirmed on authority of Northern Pacific Railway Company v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Duluth, 208 U. S. 583.