172 E^DEBAL BEPOBTEB. �NoBTHBEN Pac. E. Co. V. Babnesville & M. E. Co. and �others. �{Circuit Court, D. Minnesota. , 1880.) �1. Beidgk— Navigable Rivbb — Notsance — Injtwotioiî. — A preliminary injunction to restrain the erection of a bridge across a navigable river will not be allowed, where it is shown that such bridge will not be an obstruction necesaarily amounting to a nuisance. �Application of plaintiff for preliminary injunction to re- strain defendants from erecting a draw-bridge across the Eed river of the north. �Gilman e Clough, for the application. �Bigelow, Flandrau e Claris, Geo. B, Young, and E. B. Galusha, against. �Nelson, D. J. It is net clear to my mind that the com- plainant can maintain this suit in which an injunction is pray.ed. The Northern Pacific Eailroad Company was char- tered to construct and operate a railroad from Lake Superior to^ the Pacific ocean. The authority to build a road between these two points, thus giving almost a continuons route of transportation ea.st and west across the continent, gave the chief value to its franchises. The road was not to be built for the purpose of securing the trade upon the navigable wa- ters it crossed on its route, although the navigation of these ■waters might increase its revenues, and I am not fuUy satis- fied that this navigation is so important that the value of the railroad would be seriously injured by anything that obstructed it. But, concede that an obstruction to the navigation of the Eed river of the north, a navigable river which it crosses, •would seriously impair the value of the road and affect, injuriously the private interests of the company so that it could enjoin such obstruction, the question is then presented, will the contemplated bridge, to be erected by the said de- fendants, be an obstruction and a nuisance ? �If it will be a nuisance to the company, no legislative authority for its construction by the state of Minnesota would justify its erection, and no authority from the legislature of ����
