Laserfiche WebLink
HIGHWAYS § 1.06 , <br />from ihai sustained by the public generally.** It is a consequence of the excr- <br />CISC ofa public right.*’ //y <br />The Minnesota statute which provides for the dedication of roads cannot <br />be constructed to extend public dedication to a width greater than that of <br />actual public use without violating the constitutional prohibition against the <br />taking of public property without due process of law.** ^ <br />1.05. Reversion to ownyr ------------------------------ <br />Upon the vacation, discontinuance, or abandonment of a highway the <br />absolute title to the land reverts to the owner of the fee, who may or may <br />not be the abutting ownerj;>bpon vacation or abtindoiimmi <br />for highway purposes, title reverts to the dedicator when the plat so <br />provides although he is not an abutting owner.*' <br />1.06. Pleading. <br />It IS unnecessary to allege in a complaint that the municipality had lunds <br />to make repairs; want of funds, if a defense at .all, is new matter to be <br />pleaded by ihe defendant.** It must be alleged in the complaint that the <br />street was a public street of the defendant.’- It must be alleged that the <br />statutory notice of the loss or injury has been given.” <br />Cases are cited below involving the sulTiciency of particular complaints.’- <br />'.f'• <br />64. Underwood v, Umpire Town Bd. <br />(1944)217 Minn. .185, l4N.W.2d4S9 <br />65. M. <br />66. Barfnecht v. Town Rd. (I97.S) .104 <br />Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420. See fjcticr- <br />(illy U.S. Const, amend. .\IV; Min.n. <br />Co.NST. art. I, § 2; Minn. .Sr,.\i. ;; <br />I60.05, siibd. I. <br />67. Sieener.son v. Fomainc (IW8) 106 <br />Minn. 225. 119 N.W. 4(H); .State v. <br />Marcks (1949) 228 Minn. 129. 36 <br />NAV.2d 5^4; Buck v. City of Winona <br />(1%5)271 Minn. 145, 135 N.W.2d 190 <br />(where city condemned and paid for <br />easement to be used for park purposes, <br />upon release of its right to use land for <br />these purposes, land must revert to fee <br />owners). <br />68. State v. Marcks (1949) 228 .Minn. <br />129, 36 N.W.2d 594 (where city had <br />abandoned use of property for Itighway <br />purposes long prior to date state <br />attempted to take it over as part of high­ <br />way system, and such land reverted to <br />dedieaior or its assigns by reasrm of plat <br />dedicating such land so providing, state <br />aequired no interest therein). <br />69. Shartic v. City of .Minneapolis <br />(l«7l) 17 .Minn. .108 (Gil. 284); l.ind- <br />holm V. City of St. Paul (1872) 19 Minn. <br />24.S (Gil. 204): Nelzer v. City of Crook- <br />sion (1894) 59 Minn. 244. 61 N.W. 21. <br />70. See Farrant v. First Div.. St. P. & <br />P. Ry. (1868) 13 Minn, 311 (Gil. 286); <br />Shartle v. City of Minneapolis (1871) 17 <br />Minn. 308 (Gil. 284); I'urnell v. City of <br />St. Paul (l,S7.1) 20 .Minn. 117 (Gil. lOI); <br />Phelps V. City of Mankato (1876) 23 <br />Minn. 276; KIcopfert v. City of Minne­ <br />apolis (1903) ‘X) Minn. 158, 95 N W 90S. . - . . <br />71. .McLaughlin v. Citv of Breeken- <br />ndge (191.1) |22 Minn. 154. 142 N.W. <br />1.14; .State I'.v re/. Clark v. Oiiinn (1916) <br />132 Minn. 219. 156 N.W. 284. See <br />.Minn Si.\r § 466.05; 4 Wm Mirc iit i.i. <br />L. Ri.v. 93 (197S) Oioiiee of claim re­ <br />quirement under Minnesota Municipal <br />Ion I.lability Act). <br />72. Farrant v. First Oiv.. .St. p. P. <br />R.R. (1868) 13 Minn. 3I| (CJil. 286); <br />l.indholm v. City of St. Paul (1872) 19 <br />Minn. 24^ (Gil. 204) (complaint held <br />sullicient to justify recovery for medical <br />t ?! <br />* I <br />i ) <br />I <br />r <br />I • <br />i