State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. District Court
STATE EX REL. FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. DISTRICT COURT OF FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Certiorari to review the order of the district court confirming the proceedings of the common council of Minneapolis establishing an alley through relator’s property. A like order in the same proceeding was reversed in State v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District, 133 Minn. 221 , 158 N. W. 240 . Upon the evidence then before us we held that the city, under the pretense of establishing an alley, was getting a right of way for the Great Northern Railway for a switch track. Upon the going down of the remittitur the city applied for leave to introduce additional testimony and leave was granted. The record before us is the same as upon the former appeal, except for the additional testimony offered by the city. The court finds that the right of way was taken for alley purposes. The evidence forcibly points to a taking for a right of way for a railroad and not in good faith for the purpose of a public alley, .but, in view of the additional evidence before us, which has some tendency to support the city’s contention, we cannot say that the finding is not sustained. We hold the evidence sufficient. No other question is involved.
Order sustained.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Holt, J.
(dissenting).
I dissent. The physical facts and documentary evidence demonstrate so *476 clearly that the taking is not for a public alley but for a railroad right of way that no finding to the contrary should be permitted to stand.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.