|
lgg Minn. 15 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
<br />and any interference with this flow to their
<br />injury is a wrong for which they are en-
<br />titled to an appropriate remedy. To pre-
<br />vc :t such a wrong, inju.,ction is an ap-
<br />propriate remedy." Morrill v. ' int An-
<br />thony Falls Water -Power Co., 26 Minn.
<br />222, 229, 2 N.W. 842, 847, 37 Am.Rep. 399;
<br />Sanborn v. People's Ice Co., 82 Minn. 43,
<br />84 N.W. 641, 51 L.R.A. 829, 83 Am.St.Rep.
<br />401, and Schaefer v. Marthaler, 34 Minn.
<br />487, 26 N.W. 726, 57 Am.Rep. 73, supra.
<br />Yourgstown's plan contemplates the tak-
<br />in- of property without just compensation
<br />and without condemnation proceedings as
<br />pi cscrtbed by the lease and statute. This
<br />is a violation of plaintiffs' private rights
<br />which they will suffer not in common with
<br />the public generally but as a damage sole-
<br />1), to their own private property.
<br />Youngstown objects that plaintiffs' dam-
<br />age, if any, has not been shown to be ir-
<br />reparable. In cases of this nature, the rule
<br />has been modified as expressed in Bilsbor-
<br />row v. Pierce, 101 Minn. 271, 276, 112 N.
<br />W. 274, 276, which involved damage re-
<br />sulting from a drainage project:
<br />#'* • * The relaxation of the rule re-
<br />quiring a prima facie case of irreparable
<br />damage as a condition of granting an in-
<br />junction in such a case as this, and a modi-
<br />fication of the enforced standard of such
<br />damage obvious in such decisions gen-
<br />erally, has been expressly recognized by
<br />this court."
<br />in Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn.
<br />3.56, 392, 111 N.W. 295, 297, 10 L.R.A.,
<br />N.S., 921, 117 Am.St.Rep. 703, 10 Ann.Cas.
<br />528, it was stated: "There has been a
<br />material modification in such cases of the
<br />requirements that the injury should be ir-
<br />rep: rable and the legal remedy inade-
<br />qume."
<br />(21] We are of the opinion that the
<br />complaint sufficiently alleges the injuries
<br />wit ch will result if ioungstown's pro-
<br />posed plans are put into operation, and
<br />that the evidence sustains the court's find-
<br />ing that such operations, if permitted, will
<br />constitute a trespass upon plaintiffs' ripari-
<br />an rights and that the nature of these
<br />threatened injuries is such as to entitle
<br />plaintiffs to injunctive relief.
<br />Affirmed.
<br />LORING, C. J., and THOMAS GAL-
<br />LAGIiER, J., took no part in the con-
<br />sideration or decision of this case.
<br />Application of BALDWIN at al.
<br />No. 33721.
<br />Supreme Court of Minnesota.
<br />June 23, 1944.
<br />1. Dedication 4=41
<br />A street having been located by a plat
<br />on the shore of a lake, its dedication to
<br />the use of the public will be presumed to
<br />have been intended to enable the public to
<br />have access to the water for all proper
<br />public purposes. Minn.St.1941, § 505.14.
<br />2. Municipal corporations 4=557(1)
<br />Where it is proposed to vacate a
<br />street which is located upon a lake shore,
<br />the final test is whether the public interest
<br />will be best served by discontinuing the
<br />way.
<br />3. Evidence 4=10(5)
<br />Judicial notice will be taken of the ex-
<br />tensive public use being made of Lake
<br />Minnetonka for recreational purposes.
<br />4. Municipal corporations 4-857(1)
<br />The word "useless", as used in statute
<br />permitting vacation of a street when it has
<br />become useless for the purpose for which
<br />it was laid out, should not be given any re-
<br />stricted meaning, but should be given the
<br />meaning of the term as commonly defined
<br />as being of no use, unserviceable, and an-
<br />swering no desired purpose. Minn.St.1941,
<br />505.14.
<br />See Words and Phrases, Permanent
<br />Edition, for all other definitions o!
<br />"Useless".
<br />5. Municipal corporations 4=34W(S)
<br />In the absence of any show:ng that a
<br />portion of street leading to the lake shore
<br />had become "useless", within meaning of
<br />statute permitting vacation of street when
<br />it becomes useless for the purpose for
<br />which it was laid out, refusing to set aside
<br />timely motion to reopen proceedings in
<br />which decree vacating street was entered
<br />was an abuse of discretion. Minn.St.1941,
<br />1 505.14.
<br />Syllabus by the Court.
<br />1. A dedication by plat of a street upon
<br />the shore of a meandered lake will be pre-
<br />sumed to have been intended to enable
<br />the public to have access to the lake for all
<br />proper public purposes.
<br />2. The final test in determining wheth-
<br />er a street located upon the shore of a
<br />
|