Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/709

702 7EDSBAL BBFOBTEB. �NoBTHBBN Pacific Eaileoad Co. ». St. Paul, Mikneapolib & Manitoba Eailwat Co. and others. �(Cireuit Court, 1). Minnesota. , 1880.) �1. Bminent Domain — Northbbn Pacific Bailkoad Compant— State �Statuts. — The charter of the Northera Pacific Railroad Company, ob- tained from the general government, does not exempt ils right of way from the operation of the laws of the state of Minnesota, and for- bid a railroad company organized under the general law of the state to exercise the right of eminent domain. �2. Bame— Rev. St. of State of Minnesota, & 34, i§ 13-23— In Minnesota �a railway corporation can only take possession of lands under the power of eminent domain after the compensation for the property to be taken Is assessed and paid, or on appeal from the award of corn- missioners by executing a bond conditioned to pay the award. �Harrington v. 8t. P. d S. O. B. Go. 17 Minn. 215, and Lohman y. 8t. P., S. i T. F. B. Go. 18 Minn. 174, distinguished. �Hearing on order to show cause why a temporary injuno- tion should not issue. �Gilman e Clough, for plafntiff. �Bigelow, Flandrau e Clarh and R. B. Oalusha, for defend- ants. �Nelson, D. J. Application for an injunction to restraiu defendants from building the proposed railroad from Barnes- viUe to Moorhead aeross the track of the plaintiflF, and the strip of land upon which the same is constructed, and extend- ing 200 feet on either aide thereof, is heard upon bill, special answer, and affidavit of the president of the defendant, the Barnesville & Moorhead Eailroad Company. It appears that the latter company has taken steps, according to the laws of the state of Minnesota, to obtain a right of way or crossing over the plaintiiï's railway track. The proceedings are not completed, and no appraisers or commissioners have been appointed to fix the amount of compensation or damage. Said defendant also claims title to the property over which the plaintiiï's road runs at the point it desires to cross with its road, and seeks to take possession of the same, with the view of making its crossing, without the plaintiff's permission or consent. The plaintiiï, being in the possession and occu- ����