Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Minneapolis
232 U.S. 430 (1914)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Minneapolis, 232 U.S. 430 (1914)

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul

Railway Company v. Minneapolis

No. 150

Argued December 19, 1913

Decided February 24, 1914

232 U.S. 430

Syllabus

Railroad corporations may be required, at their own expense, not only to abolish grade crossings, but also to build and maintain suitable bridges or viaducts to carry highways, newly laid out, over their tracks or to carry their tracks over such highways.

This rule has been declared as the established law of the State of Minnesota by its highest courts.

The same rule applies to a highway laid out to increase the advantages

Page 232 U. S. 431

of a public park. Such a highway is a crossing devoted to the public use. Shoemaker v. United States,147 U. S. 282.

The same rule also applies where the crossing is a canal or waterway connecting other waters, and although within a public park; the fact, and not the mode, of public passage controls.

The condemning of a strip of the right-of-way of a railroad company and compelling that company to build at its own expense a bridge over the part so taken so as to permit a municipality in Minnesota to construct a canal connecting two lakes all within the limits of a park devoted to public recreation is not an unconstitutional taking of private property without due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

115 Minn. 460 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the determination of whether the condemnation of a part of the right-of-way of a railroad company, and compelling it at its own expense, to construct a bridge over a waterway connecting two lakes within a park, amounts to a taking of property without compensation within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, are stated in the opinion.

Page 232 U. S. 436

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.