Minnesota Supreme Court, 1917

State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. District Court

State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. District Court
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 4, 1917 · Holt
136 Minn. 475; 162 N.W. 1087; 1917 Minn. LEXIS 612 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Lancaster, Simpson & Purdy, for relator., C. D. Gould, City Attorney, R. S. Wiggin, Assistant City Attorney, and Charles J. Tryon, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1922, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. District Court

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Dissenting Opinion

Holt, J.

(dissenting).

I dissent. The physical facts and documentary evidence demonstrate so *476clearly 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.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.