m
,'^^
I 1
I J
i
ijii
imm
iiliiiiiiii
Q}nnif II Ittau) &rl|nol SJibtarg
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
3 1924 072 445 244
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924072445244
MAY 18 1910
LAW .LISRAEY.
A TREATISE
ON THE
LAV OF EMINENT DOMAIN
IN THE
UNITED STATES
BY
JOHN LEWIS
t »■
THIRD EDITION
a^oltjm:e I
CHICAGO
CALLAGE AN & COMPANY
1909
COPTEIGHT, 1888
BY
JOHN LEWIS
COPYBIGHT, 1900
BY
JOHN LEWIS
Copyright, 1909
BY
JOHN LKWIS
PEEFACE TO THIED EDITION.
The existence of between five and six thousand new cases on
the subject of Eminent Domain, decided since the Second Edi-
tion was published, affords sufficient reason for a New Edition.
These new cases deal with new questions, new conditions and
new phases of old questions. The same plaji has been followed,
as in the old editions, of making the treatment thorough and
exhaustive. On some questions the old authorities have been
re-examined and the text rewritten. On all points, the cita-
tions have been brought down to date. Parallel references to
the Reporter System, the Trinity and the L.K.A. have been
incorporated. Wo change has been made in the arrangement.
The sections have been renumbered and the old numbers placed
in parentheses, so that any section can be readily found, whether
referred to by the old or new number.
joH:jir LEWIS.
Chicago, September, 1909.
PEEFACE TO SECOND EDITION.
Tu the twelve years which have elapsed since the publication
of the first edition, more decisions have been handed down on the
subject of Eminent Domain than in all the previous history of
the country. The same plan has been pursued, as in the former
edition, of making the citations exhaustive. One hundred and
ninety-two new sections have been added and the number and
extent of the notes has, probably, been doubled. Half the in-
crease in the size of the work will be found in the seven chapters
which treat distinctively of constitutional questions.
iii
IV
PEEPACE.
In tlie preface to the former edition a list was given, showing
the number of cases cited from each State. For the sake of
comparison a similar list is subjoined, in which are included
England, Canada, the Territories and Federal courts. The total
number of cases cited is 12,822.
ITew York 1,728
Pennsylvania 1,34*7
Illinois 890
Massachusetts 809
Indiana 652
Missouri 532
i!^ew Jersey 529
Iowa 410
Federal Courts 380
Michigan 356
Minnesota 356
Maine 327
Wisconsin 305
California 295
Ohio 277
Kansas 250
England 245
"New Hampshire 228
Kentucky 213
Connecticut 208
Nebraska 207
Texas 198
Georgia 196
IsTorth Carolina 183
Louisiana 161
Alabama 156
Maryland 156
Vermont 135
Canada 108
"Virginia 102
Tennessee . . ; 96
Mississippi 87
Colorado 85
South Carolina 85
Arkansas 81
Oregon 75
Washington 68
Ehode Island 07
West Virginia 64
Delaware 35
Florida 32
District of Columbia. . 26
Montana 22
Nevada 16
South Dakota 15
Utah
Idaho
North Dakota
Dakota Territory . .
Wyoming
New Mexico
Oklahoma
11
6
6
2
2
1
1
The notes in the present edition have been numbered in suc-
cessive series of 1 to 99, instead of in a separate series for each
section as in the old edition. This accomplishes the same
purpose of enabling a reference to be made to any note of any
section, and at the same time economizes space.
JOHN LEWIS.
Chicago, August, 1900.
PBEFACE.
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.
The work, which is now offered to the Profession and the
Public, was commenced fourteen years ago and has been prose-
cuted with as much assiduity as the increasing demands of
professional life would permit. Within that time the number
of reported cases upon the subject treated has doubled; and,
what is of gTcater moment, decisions of vast importance and
far-reaching consequence have been rendered, which will, if
they have not already, produce radical changes in many of the
legal aspects of the subject.
Great attention has been paid to the constitutional side of
the question, and nearly half the book is occupied with a dis-
cussion of the proper interpretation of the words "taken,"
'■public use" and "just compensation," as used in the consti-
tutions of the several States. The manner in which this part
of the subject has been treated will be best ascertained by an
examination of the work itself, but a few words of explanation
may not be improper. Very early in the preparation of the
work the writer became convinced that the earlier cases as to
what constitutes a taking were based upon a radically defective
interpretation of the constitution, which not only denied the
right to compensation in many cases where it ought to be given,
but greatly embarrassed the property-owner in obtaining it in
those cases in which it was conceded to be due. These early
cases atacked the question wrong end first, so to speak, through
the word taken instead of through the word property. It is
only by having a clear and correct conception of the idea of
property that a uniform, consistent and just application of the
constitution can be made to the many complicated and varied
cases which come up for adjudication. It seems to the writer
that the principles elaborated in the third chaapter, and which
are supjwrted by a constantly increasing weight of authority,
will enable such an ap)plication to be made.
The chapter on the meaaning of the words "public use,"
is written upon the assumption, which accords with all the
authorites, that the words import a limtation upon the power
of the legislature. Conceding this to be the intent of the words,
whether the conclusions reached by the author are correct must
VI PEEFACE.
be left for the reader to judge. They have been reached after
years of consideration and the gradual resolution of many
doubts and questions. One doubt concerning the matter, how-
ever, remains, and that is, whether the words in question were
originally intended to operate as a limitation at all. The lan-
guage of the provision does not indicate it. "Private prop-
erty shall not be taken for public use without just compensa-
tion." If the intent had been to make the words, public use,
a limitation, the natural form of expression would have been:
"Private property shall not be taken except for public use, nor
without just compensation." It is certainly questionable
whether anything more was intended by the provision in ques-
tion than as though it read, "Private property shall not be
taken under the power of eminent domain without just com-
pensation." Those cases which virtually give this interpreta-
tion to the provision and at the same time hold that the words,
pubic use, are a limitation, it seems to the author are not logi-
cally sound. In some of the States the form of the provision
is such as to leave no room for doubt that a limitation was
intended.
It is unnecessary to comment upon that part of the work
which treats of "just compensation," or upon what has been
written concerning the effect of the constitutional provision
aas a whole.
The author has endeavored to make the citation of authori-
ties exhaustive, and hence numerous cases are sometimes
referred to in support of propositions which are not disputed.
While this may seem unnecessary, it leols to no confusion and
the advantage is gained of having substantially all the authori-
ties at hand upon a given point when desired for any purpose.
Over six thousand cases are referred to, and the comparative
extent to which each State contributes to the number might
be made the subject of an interesting commentaary, when it
is remembered that they are an indication of material progress
and of public improveements, but perhaps most can be said in
the fewest words by giving the list itself and leaving the reader
to his awn. reflections :
ISTew York 830 Indiana 366
Massachusetts 599 New Jersey 338
Pennsylvania 534 Iowa 259
Illinois 377 Missouri 232
PREFACE.
VII
Maine 215
Wisconsin 208
ISTew Hampshire 186
Ohio 171
Michigan 169
Minnesota 159
Kentucky 139
California 135
Connecticut 133
Louisiana 98
Vermont 98
Kansas 88
Georgia 87
North Carolina 83
Maryland 81
Tennessee 67
Virginia 65
Alabama 63
Texas 61
Nebraska 54
Mississippi 44
Arkansaas 43
South Carolina 43
West Virginia 34
Ehode Island 29
Oregon 26
Delaware 19
Colorado 14
Nevada 12
Florida 6
The plan has been adopted of numbering the notes of each
section consecutively, and in order to prevent confusion the
notes of each section are headed by the number of the section
to which they belong. This plan is believed by the author to be
the most convenient for citation and reference, and advantage
has been taken of it to refer, in the table of cases, to the par-
ticular note or notes in which each case appears.
JOHN LEWIS.
Chicago, June, 1888.
TABLE or CONTENTS.
VOLUME I.
CHAPTER I.
THE POWER DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.
The power defined.
Definitions considered.
Nature of the power.
Eminent domain distinguished from taxation.
Distinguished from special assessments or betterments.
Distingviished from the police power.
Distinguished from the damaging or destruction of property in
cases of necessity.
S. Distinguished from the war power.
CHAPTER II.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
9. In general.
10. The constitutional provision a limitation, not a grant.
11. States having no constitutional provision.
12. The provision in the federal constitution.
13. Effect of a change in the constitution.
14. The provisions apply only to the power of eminent domain.
15. Provision in the federal constitution.
lG-01. Constitutional provisions of the different states in the alpha-
betical order of states.
CHAPTER III.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING: GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
02. Statement of the question.
6.3. What is property?
04. Meaning of the word property in the constitution.
65. Principles which determine when there has been a taking.
66. Changes which the law has undergone.
67. 08 Leading cases.
ix
TABLE or CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING: WATEES.
70. Streams defined and classified.
71. Rights of riparian owners in the flow of the stream.
72. What constitutes a reasonable use of a stream by an upper pro-
prietor.
73. What riparian rights in the flow of a stream attach to property
held for public use.
74. Abstracting or diverting the water of a stream.
75. Increasing the quantity of water.
76. Interfering with the regularity of the current.
77. Pollution of the water.
78. Changing the current by works in, across or near the channel to
the injury of those below.
79. Embankment on one side of stream causing an increase of flood
water upon the opposite side.
80. Works which set back the water and cause a flooding of the lands
above.
81. Bridges — Authority to construct — ^Damages thereby — ^Interfering
with navigation.
82. Slaking a private stream public, or navigable, by statute.
83. Rights of riparian owners on private navigable streams.
84. An interference with sucli rights is a taking.
85. Damages by reason of improving navigation.
86. Wliat streams are public.
87. Rights of riparian owners on public navigable streams.
88. Interfering with the flow of public streams.
89. Damage to authorized works on public streams.
90. Title to lakes and ponds.
91. What constitutes navigability.
92. The question of title to the bed of navigable waters and of the
rights of riparian owners upon such waters is one of State
policy and State law.
93. Nature and limitations of the title to the bed of navigable waters
whether in the public or riparian owners.
04-100 Rights of riparian owners on public waters.
101. Injury to riparian rights upon public waters is a taking.
102. Interfering with access: Railroads and other works below high
water mark.
103. Establishing harbor lines and interfering witli piers and wharves.
104. Rights of riparian owners upon lakes and ponds and what inter-
ference therewith is a taking.
105. Withdrawing, diverting or polluting public waters.
106. Miscellaneous cases in regard to public waters.
107. Riparian rights cannot be abolished without compensation.
108. Damages from discharge of sewer.
109. Discharging water upon land; injury b}- seeping; saturating, etc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI
110. Rights respecting surface water.
111. What constitutes surface water; flood waters of stream.
112. What interference with surface water is a taking.
113. Misellaneous cases in regard to surface water.
114. Subterranean waters.
115. Interference with natural barriers against water.
116. Miscellaneous cases as to waters.
CHAPTEE V.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING: ROADS AND STREETS.
I. General Questions — Rights of Abutting Owners.
117. Nomenclature of public ways.
118. Distinction between rural highways and urban streets as to the
extent of the public right or easement.
119. What is meant by "abutting owners."
120. Rights of abutting owners: Light, air and access.
121. Origin and basis of the rights or easements of lightj air and access.
122. Further as to the right to light and air.
123. To how much of the street the easements of light, air and access
extend.
124. Has the abutter other rights or easements than those of light, air
and access?
125. Rights of abutting owners a matter of state law.
126. Rights of abutting owners as adjoining proprietors.
127. When the fee of streets is in the public the title is in trust for
street uses only.
128. Ownersliip of the fee of streets and distinctions based thereon.
II. Street Grade Cases.
129. Early English cases.
130. Value of English precedent in constitutional questions.
131. Leading cases in the United States. Callender v. Marsh.
132. Other early cases.
133. The general doctrine.
134. Ratio decidendi of these cases.
135. The Ohio cases.
136. The law in Kentucky.
137. Interfering with access, light and air by change of grade not a
taking.
138. Peculiar and extraordinary changes of grade, and changes for
some ulterior purpose other than the improvement of the
street.
139. Lowering grade: Interfering with support of soil.
140. Raising grade: Encroachment of the filling.
141. Damages from surface water.
11 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
142. Interfering with natural streams.
143. Unlawful change of grade.
144. When the work is negligently done.
145. Power to establish grades a continuing one.
146. Power of city to make compensation.
147. Miscellaneous cases.
148. Right to compensation for change of grade under statutes and
recent constitutions.
III. Railroads ijj Stbeets.
149. In general.
150. Classification of railroads.
151. Is a commercial railroad a legitimate use of a street or highway?
152. Commercial railroad in street: Right to compensation generally.
153. Right to compensation when fee of street in abutter.
154. Right to compensation when fee of street in the public.
155. Right to compensation when fee of street in third party.
150. Commercial railroad on viaduct. New York Park Avenue cases.
157. Elevated railroads.
158. Horse railroads.
159. Cable railroads.
160. Steam motor railroads.
161. Electric trolley railroads.
162. Underground railroads in streets.
163. Other kinds of street railroads.
164. Street railroads. General conclusions.
165. Interurban railroads.
166. Street railroads carrying freight.
167. Railroads in streets. General conclusions.
168. Whether a railroad is a proper or legitimate street use is a ques-
tion of law.
169. Authority to occupy a street, how granted and construed.
170. Rights of company as to manner of constructing and operating
road.
171. The doctrine of an unreasonable or excessive use of streets by rail-
roads, as a basis for compensation.
172. Railroads in streets constructed without authority or used in a
way not authorized: Remedies of abutters.
173. Switch tracks to private property and railroads for private use.
174. Railroad across street: Right of abutter on street to compensa-
tion.
175. Right of municipality having the fee of street to receive compensa-
tion.
176. When the owner is estopped from claiming damages.
177. Measure of damages: Remedies.
178. When there is a change of grade in connection with a railroad in
a. street.
179. Compensation for additional track or change of use.
TABLE OF CONTEXTS. Xlll
§ 180. Street railroads crossing commercial railroads.
181. Railroads in streets: Miscellaneous cases.
IV. Other Uses of Streets.
182. What are legitimate street uses generally.
• 183. Sewers and di'ains.
184. Water pipes.
185. Gas pipes.
186. Steam, electricity, etc.
187. Telegraph and telephone poles.
188. Electric wires for lighting and other purposes.
189. Markets.
190. Destruction of or injury to shade trees in streets.
191. Interfering with access by obstructing street at a distance from
the plaintiff's property.
192. Damage to railroads, water pipes, gas pipes, etc., by the grading
and improvement of streets.
193. Damages to railroads, water and gas pipes by the construction of
sewers.
194. Miscellaneous eases.
195. The franchise to use streets and its incidents.
V. Damages fkom the Vacation, Discontinuance and Closino of
Streets and Highways.
196. The power to vacate streets and highways.
197. Right to compensation for the vacation or closing of streets : Gen-
eral principles.
198. Private rights in streets and highways.
199. What is special damage from the obstruction of a street.
200. Vacating or closing street in front of property.
201. Narrowing street in front.
202. Vacating or closing street so as to cut off access in one direction.
203. When the vacated part is beyond the next cross street from the
plaintiff's property.
204. Where the property is cut off entirelj', though the street is left
intact in front.
205. Vacation and discontinuance of country highways.
206. When damage by the vacation or closing of streets and highways
amounts to a taking.
207. When the depreciation of value from the vacation and closing of
streets amounts to damage or injury within constitutions and
statutes.
208. Pennsylvania decisions on the subject.
209. Purpose and motives of the vacation.
210. Exercise and construction of the statutory authority.
211. Effect of vacation upon private rights in street.
212. Remedies.
XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE VI.
OTHER CASES OF TAKING.
§ 213. Impairing franchises.
214. When the franchise is not exclusive.
215. When the franchise is exclusive.
216. What is an interference with an exclusive franchise? Bridges and
ferries.
217. Same: Other franchises.
218. Electrical franchises and electrical interference.
219. Change of use, or an additional use.
220. Change of use: Instances.
221. New burdens on railroad right of way.
222. Joint use of tracks.
223. Interfering with an easement.
224. Kestrictive covenants.
225. Possessory rights in public lands.
226. Mapping territory into streets and blocks for future improvement.
227. Establishing building lines.
228. Justifiable entries.
229. Injuries by blasting.
230. Injury to business.
231. Highways laid out adjacent to but not taking one's land.
232. Interfering with the right of exclusion.
233. Easement of levee in Louisiana.
234. Interfering with the right of support.
235. Consequential injuries to property by operation of railroad: Xoise,
smoke, cinders, jarring, vibrations, etc.
236. Polluting the atmosphere.
237. When the public use of land produces a physical or structural in-
jury to adjacent land: Disturbance of the soil by pressure,
vibration, flooding or percolation.
238. If the use of property for public purposes produces a nuisance,
those injured are entitled to compensation.
239. Miscellaneous decisions as to what constitutes a taking.
240. Damages from negligence.
241. Public property not within the constitutional provision.
242. Taking under the guise of taxation.
243. Taking under the guise of the police power: Regulating the use
of property, the construction, repair and height of buildings
and the like: Fire limits.
244. Legislative regulation and control of railroads and other cor-
porations: Imposing new liabilities.
245. Regulating or prohibiting businesses, occupations, contracts and
the like.
246. Regvilating rates and charges.
247. Taking, injuring or destroying property in the abatement of nui-
sances, or when made, kept or used in violation of law.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
§ 248. Compelling railroads and otliers to make alterations and construct
works for the purpose of promoting the public safety, con-
venience and welfare.
249. Taking under the guise of the police power: Conclusions.
CHAPTEE VII.
MEANING OF THE WORDS "PUBLIC USE."
§ 250. Taking for private use unauthorized.
251. The question of public use a judicial one.
252. State of the authorities as to the meaning of the words "public
use."
253. The question of public use not affected by the agency employed.
254. Nor by the fact that the use or benefit is local or limited.
255. Nor by the necessity or lack of necessity for the condemnation.
256. The words "public use" a limitation.
257. Statement of doctrines.
258. Proper construction of the words "public use."
259. Highways : Questions of public use, as affected by their character,
purpose or other circumstances.
260. Private roads.
261. Toll roads, bridges and ferries.
262. Canals.
263. Railroads, their connections and appurtenances.
264. Lateral and branch railroads, switch and spur tracks to private
property.
265. Other means of transportation; the telegraph, petroleum tubes,
elevated tramways, etc.
266. Public grain elevators.
267. Urban improvements: Sewers, water, gas, etc.
268. Electricity for light, heat and power and works for generating and
transmitting same.
269. The supply and distribution of water for power purposes.
270. Public buildings: Schools, markets, hospitals, etc.
271. Public parks or pleasure drives.
272. Converting spots of historic interest into public grounds: Battle-
fields.
273. Cemeteries.
274. Improvement of navigation.
275. Water mills and water power.
276. The same: Leading cases.
277. The same: Law in the different States at the present time.
278. The same: Review of the decisions.
279. Massachusetts doctrine that the mill acts do not fall under the
eminent domain power.
280. The mill acts fall under the eminent domain power.
281. Promoting fish culture, cranberry culture and the like.
282. Development of mines.
x\ri
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
i 283. Drains, ditches, levees, etc., for improving wet and overilowed land.
284. Decisions referring such improvements to the police power, or
power to legislate for the general welfare.
285. These improvements referable to the eminent domain power,
286. The question of public use.
287. Drains, etc. : Decisions of California,
288. Same: Illinois.
289. Same : Indiana.
290. Same : Iowa.
291. Same: Kansas.
292. Same: Kentucky.
293. Same : Michigan.
294. Same : Minnesota.
295. Same : Missouri.
296. Same : Nebraska.
297. Same: New Jersey.
298. Same: New York.
299. Same: North Carolina.
300. Same: North Dakota,
301. Same : Ohio.
302. Same : Oregon.
303. Same: Washington.
304. Same : Wisconsin.
305. Same: Other states.
306. Levees, dikes, etc.
307. The public health.
308. Irrigation.
309. Taking for the United States.
310. Taking for a foreign state.
311. Taking all of the tract when only a part is required.
312. Miscellaneous cases: Settling private controversies.
313. To constitute a public use the public must have a legal right to
the use or service for which the property is taken.
314. Combination of public and private use in the same act or pro-
ceeding.
315. Taking for other than a public purpose violates the fourteenth
amendment to the Federal constitution.
CHAPTEE VIII.
MEANING OF THE WORDS "DAMAGED," "INJURED," OR "INJURI-
OUSLY AFFECTED."
I. In Statutes.
g 316. Statutes giving damages for change of grade: Connecticut.
317. Same: Indiana.
318. Same: Iowa.
319. Same: Kansas,
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XVll
j 320. Same: Maine.
321. Same: Massachusetts.
322. Same : Michigan.
323. Same: Minnesota.
324. Same : Missouri.
325. Same: New Hampshire,
326. Same: New Jersey.
327. Same: New York.
328. Same: Ohio.
329. Same: Pennsylvania.
330. Same: Rhode Island.
331. Same: South Carolina.
332. Same : Tennessee.
333. Same : Vermont.
334. Same: Washington.
335. Same: Wisconsin.
336. Where the statute refers merely to a change of grade must it be
from a previously established grade?
337'. What constitutes an established grade.
338. What constitutes a change of grade.
339. The right and remedy are wholly dependent upon the statute.
340. When action accrues.
341. Whether the statute applies to changes ordered before but made
after it takes effect.
342. Elements and measure of damages.
3. Estdppel to claim damages.
.44. Statutes giving damages for railroads in streets.
345. Statutes giving damages in other cases.
II. In Constitutions.
346. Constitutional provisions.
347. The terms "damaged," "injured" and "injuriously affected" are
synonymous.
348. Damages from change of grade.
349. Viaducts, tunnels, causeways, bridge approaches and the like in
streets.
350. Decisions in Alabama and Pennsylvania: What constitutes a
construction or enlargement of works, highways or improve-
ments.
351. Damages by railroads in streets.
352. Damages by other uses of streets.
353. Damages by tlie vacation of streets.
354. Impeding access to premises by interfering with public ways not
in front of same.
355. Competing ferries, bridges, etc.
356. Interference with water rights.
357. Damage from the operation of a railroad or its appurtenances on
the private property of the company: Noise, smolce, vibra-
tions, etc.
Xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
§ 358. Miscellaneous cases.
359. The words in question were intended to enlarge the right to com-
pensation.
360. The words in question should be liberally ponstrued.
361. They include any physical injury to property not held to be a
taking.
362. Also any interference with private rights not held to be a taking.
363. And, generally, any damage to property arising from an inter-
ference with a right, public or private, which does not amount
to a taking.
364. When claim based on an interference with a public right the plain-
tiff's damages must be special and peculiar.
365. Different views regarding the proper construction of the words
"damaged" or "injured."
366. Damages not embraced by the words in question.
CHAPTER IX.
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY.
§ 367. Power of the legislature generally.
368. People's charters.
369. The necessity or expediency of exercising the power is exclusively
for the legislature.
370. When the power of eminent domain has been delegated, the pro-
priety of its exercise rests with the grantee.
371. The authority to condemn must be expressly given or necessarily
implied.
372. Illustrations.
373. How the authority may be given.
374. To whom authority may be given: Foreign corporations.
375. Direct appropriation by the legislature.
376. Delegation and transfer of authority: Contractors and agents.
377. A lease of the property and franchises of a corporation does not
destroy its right to condemn.
378. The manner of proceeding may be changed at the pleasure of the
legislature.
379. The right to impose additional liabilities.
380. Effect of the repeal, amendment or expiration of statutes.
381. General and special laws: Repeal by implication.
382. Two acts conferring same power.
383. Effect of a change in the form of municipal government.
384. Conflict of jurisdiction between different authorities having power
in the same territory.
385. Statutes have no extra-territorial effect.
386. When a naked or defective authority to condemn may be exercised
according to previous statutes, and when not.
387. The authority must be strictly pursued.
388. The authority to condemn will be strictly construed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX
§ 389. Provisions as to compensation and remedy and in favor of the
property owner should be liberally construed.
390. Construction of statutes as to location.
391. Construction of statutes as to the purpose for whioh the power
may be exercised: Eailroads.
392. Same: Branch and lateral railroads.
393. Same: Street and elevated railroads.
394. Same: Roads and streets.
395. Same: Statutes relating to the taking of materials for the re-
pair of roads and bridges.
396. Same: Drains, levees, irrigation.
397. Same: Dams, water and water power.
398. Same: Telegraphs and telephones, electric companies.
399. Same: Municipal purposes.
400. Same : Miscellaneous.
401. Meaning of the words "to," "from," "at" or "near" a place, in
statutes describing termini and location.
402. Change of location.
403. Successive appropriations.
404. Where the provisions of one statute are adopted by another, or
extended to another jurisdiction.
405. Validity and effect of statutes legalizing defective proceedings.
406. The legislature cannot surrender or preclude itself from the exer-
cise of the eminent domain power.
407. Agreements not to condemn.
408. Exercise of the power by congress.
409 Constitutionality of eminent domain statutes generally.
410. Parties availing of statute cannot object to its validity.
TOLUME II.
CHAPTEE X.
WHAT MAY BE TAKEN.
411. All property subject to the right of eminent domain.
412. Land and rights and easements in or appurtenant thereto.
413. Money, contracts, choses in action and other personal property.
414. Public lands and lands held by grant from the State or condemn-
ing authority.
415. Lands of Indian tribes.
416. Property affected by contracts, settlements or otherwise, or held
for particular uses, educational, charitable or otherwise.
417. Taking railroad property for highways and streets.
418. To what extent one railway company may take the property of
another.
419. Same: Taking tracks or joint use of same.
XX TABLE OF CONTENTS.
§ 420. Same: Taking part of right of way.
421. Same: Taking land used for depots, yards, shops and other ap-
purtenances.
422. Same : Joint use of depot and terminal facilities.
423. Same: Joint use of tracks.
424. Same: Right of crossing.
425. Statutes regulating the right and manner of crossing.
426. Power to intersect, join, connect or unite with other railroads.
427. Talcing railroad property for parks.
427a. Taking railroad property for telegraph and telephone lines,
428. Taking railroad property for drains and ditches.
429. Taking railroad property for other public uses.
430. Taking highways and streets.
431. Railroads across highways and streets.
432. Bridges, turnpikes, ferries, canals and mill property.
433. Property of gas and water companies and other public service cor-
porations.
434. Parks and cemeteries.
435. Public school property.
436. Taking land devoted to other public or quasi-public uses.
437. Works upon, across or over navigable waters.
438. Corporate property and franchises may be taken.
439. Exclusive rights and privileges.
440. General principles deducible from the foregoing decisions in respect
to the taking of property already devoted to public use.
441. The general rule does not apply to prevent the taking of ease-
ments or joint use, when no material injury.
442. Property not in use and not necessary.
443. Property acquired by contract.
444. Property of public service corporations not having the power of
eminent domain.
445. Property voluntarily devoted to public use by individuals and cor-
porations.
446. Property to be exempt must be used for public purposes in good
faith.
447. Statutes giving right to tal^ property in public use for a more
necessary public use, or upon similar conditions.
448. Extent of interest which the legislature may authorize to be taken.
449. What estate vests when statute silent on the subject.
450. When the statute provides for a fee; nature of fee acquired.
451. What estate acquired under particular statutes; whether fee or
easement.
452. Right to take temporary use of land or particular rights and
privileges.
453. How much may be taken.
454. Same : Instances.
455. Construction of statutes prohibiting the taking of certain build-
ings and enclosures: Dwellings.
456. The same continued: Other buildings and structures,
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXI
§ 457. The same continued: Gardens, orchards, yards and other en-
closures or exceptions.
458. Section 92 of the English land clauses consolidation act: Meaning
of "house," "building," "manufactory."
459. What may be taken under the term "land," "ground," etc.
460. Designating the property to be taken.
461. What may be taken under particular statutes.
OHAPTEE Xl.
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY AGREEMENT, PRESCRIPTION OR
DEDICATION.
§ 462. The subject generally.
463. The power to obtain property by agreement.
464. Who are competent to agree or convey.
465. Validity of deeds and contracts: Fraud, public policy, considera-
tion.
466. Delivery and acceptance.
467. Construction and sufficiency of the description in deeds and con-
tracts.
468. The title or estate conveyed, or which may be acquired.
469. Conveyances upon condition: Whether provisions of deed will be
construed as conditions or covenants.
470. Construction of, and compliance with, conditions: Forfeitures.
471. Same: Conditions and agreements relating to the establishment
of stations.
472. Reservations, exceptions, restrictions, etc.
473. Forfeiting benefit of grant or agreement by delay.
474. Effect of conveyance as to damages to property of the grantor.
475. Release of damages in lieu of award.
476. Oral agreements in connection with written contracts.
477. Specific performance, and other remedies: Damages.
478. By and against whom the agreements may be enforced.
479. Notice of unrecorded deeds and contracts.
480. Contracts with promotors.
481. Oral agi-eements, releases and licenses.
482. Particular contracts construed.
483. Reserving right of way for public use in grants by railroads and
others.
484. Agreement to furnish right of way.
485. Construction of contracts generally.
486. Rights by prescription.
487. Requisites of prescription.
488. Possession and color of title.
489. Rights by dedication: To what public uses it applies.
490. Statutory dedications.
491. Construction of map or plat as to public use intended or which
may be made of the land dedicated.
XXn TABLE OF CONTENTS.
§ 492. Common law dedications.
493. Who may make dedication.
494. The intent of the owner.
495. Acceptance by the public.
496. Miscellaneous matters relating to dedication.
CHAPTEE XII.
PRELIMINARY AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS PERTAINING TO
PROCEEDINGS.
§ 497. Necessity of an attempt to agree.
498. What is a sufficient attempt to agree.
499. How excused or waived: Owners under disability.
500. How the inability to agree should be alleged and shown.
501. An agreement precludes proceedings.
502. Priority of right to appropriate specific property: Mill cases.
503. The same continued: Railroads and other public works.
504. Priority of right to use streets.
505. The property must be legally designated: Plans, surveys, etc.
506. When an ordinance, resolution or vote of a municipal body is
essential, and the requisites thereof.
507. When a previous refusal of some other tribunal is essential to
jurisdiction.
508. Other matters and questions preliminary to the institution of
proceedings.
509. Of the right to a common law jury.
510. It is sufficient, in any event, if a jury trial may be had on appeal.
511. What tribunal is sufficient.
512. Nature of the proceeding generally: Whether a "suit," "action,"
"special proceeding," etc.
513. Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts: Removals.
514. Proceedings by the United States.
515. Venue.
CHAPTEE XIII.
THE PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS AND THE VARIOUS ESTATES AND
INTERESTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
§ 516. General view.
■517. Grantor and grantee.
518. In case of executory contracts.
519. Heirs, devisees and personal representatives.
520. Trust estates.
521. Husband and wife.
522. Dower.
523. Mortgagees.
624. Judgment creditors and other lien-holders.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXIU
525. Life tenants, lessees and revisionera.
526. Tenants in common and joint tenants.
527. Infants.
528. Towns and public authorities as parties.
529. Persons in possession of public lands.
530. Other rights and interests which must be considered.
631. Claims or interests for which compensation need not be made.
532. The proper plaintiff in condemnation proceedings.
533. Proper parties where the initiative is in owner: Mill acts.
534. Construction of statutes in regard to parties.
535. Joinder of parties.
536. New parties, misjoinder, etc.
537. Death of a party, or change of title pending proceedings.
538. Effect of omitting a necessary party.
539. What constitutes making a person a party?
540. General conclusions and principles in regard to parties.
CHAPTER XIV.
OF THE PETITION, COMPLAINT OR OTHER FORM OF APPLICA-
TION.
§ 541. Scope of the chapter.
542. When a petition is necessary.
543. When not necessary.
544. Addressing, signing, verifying and iiling.
545. When the signers must include a certain proportion of the prop-
erty involved, or of the owners thereof.
546. When required to be signed by a certain class of persons.
547. General requisites as to form and substance.
548. Statement of parties, owners and persons interested.
549. Description of the property taken, or of the location of the im-
provement.
550. Descriptions held sufficient.
551. Descriptions held insufficient.
552. Descriptions in certain peculiar cases of condemnation: Taking
joint use of land or tracks: The right to occupy streets, to
withdraw water, etc.
553. Stating the purpose of the taking.
554. Stating the necessity for the taking.
555. Statement of title.
550. Stating the nature of the injury or damage.
557. Must show inability to agree.
558. Showing neglect or refusal of some other tribunal to make the
improvement.
559. Joinder of improvements.
560. Cross petition.
561. Amendments.
562. Waiver of defects in the petition.
563. Miscellaneous questions.
XXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.
OHAPTEE XV.
NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS.
I. Constitutional Requieements.
§ 564. Cases holding that notice need not be given.
565. Cases holding that notice must be given.
566. "Due process of law" requires notice.
567. What is sufficient as to the subject matter of the notice? Of what
notice must be given.
568. What is sufficient as to the manner of giving notice?
569. Giving notice when not required by statute and validity of statutes
which do not provide for notice.
II. Statutobt Requibements.
570. The notice required by statute is jurisdictional and must be given.
571. Meaning of "reasonable notice'' in statutes.
572. Form of the notice and compliance with statute generally.
573. Specifying time and place.
574. Signing.
575. Describing the property taken.
576. Stating the nature or purpose of the proposed action.
577. Describing the location or improvement.
578. Meaning of the terms, "owners," occupants," etc.
579. Serving, publishing, posting, etc.
580. Waiver of notice by appearance or otherwise.
581. Who is bound or affected by a particular notice.
582. The proof of notice.
583. The record must show a compliance with the statute as to notice.
584. Who may take advantage of want or defect of notice.
585. Notice of adjournments, and of other steps in the proceedings.
586. One entitled to notice is not bound, if not notified.
CHAPTEE XVI.
OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION.
§ 587. General considerations.
588. Where the application is to a ministerial officer or board.
589. Where the application is to a court.
590. Manner of raising objections apparent upon the face of the papers.
591. Manner of raising other objections. Propriety of a plea or answer.
592. Questioning the legal incorporation of the petitioner.
593. Proceedings by foreign corporations.
694. Controverting a compliance with the conditions imposed bv the
statute.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXV
i 595. The question of necessity: Whether statute must provide for a
hearing upon this question.
596. The necessity of exercising the power for the purpose proposed.
597. The necessity of malting the proposed worlc or improvement.
598. Statutes requiring the necessity to be passed upon in a particular
manner.
599. Statutes which expressly limit the taking to what is necessary for
the purpose.
600. The question of necessity when the statute is silent on the sub-
ject: Whether the constitution impliedly forbids the taking
of what is not necessary.
601. Meaning of necessity and the principles to be applied in deter-
mining the question.
602. Practice in determining the question of necessity.
603. Power of legislature to determine necessity.
604. Objection that other property available.
605. Former proceeding for the same purpose.
606. Good faith of the proceedings.
607. Other objections.
608. Defences where proceedings are instituted by the owner.
609. Practice in hearing objections.
610. Amendments.
611. Waiver of objections by going to a hearing on the question of
damages.
OHAPTEE XVII.
SECURING THE TRIBUNAIi TO ASSESS DAMAGES.
612. The case stated.
613. The order or warrant.
614. The writ of ad quod damnum.
615. Some further points as to the appointment and summoning of
commissioners, etc.
616. Mandamus to compel the appointment of commissioners.
617. Setting aside order appointing viewers, commissioners, etc.
618. The qualifications of commissioners, jurors, etc.: Petitioners.
619. Same: Taxpayers.
620. Same: Relatives of parties or of their counsel.
621. Same: Owners of land affected.
622. Same : Stockholders.
623. Same; Miscellaneous points.
624. Whether the record should show that the commissioners, jurors,
etc., possessed the qualifications required by law.
625. Waiver of objections to commissioners, jurors, etc.
626. Vacancies, efi'ect of, and how filled.
627. Effect of the disagreement of special juries.
628. The presiding officer of special juries, his qualifications, duties, etc.
XXVI TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTEK XVIII.
PROCEEDINGS BY AND BEFORE THE CONSTITUTED TRIBUNAL.
§ 629. The oath to be taken.
630. The form and sufficiency of the oath.
631. What the record should show as to the oath taken.
632. Waiver of defective oath.
633. The time and place of meeting and of acting.
634. Mode of procedure before the commissioners: Evidence, etc.
635. What questions may be considered.
636. Adjournments.
637. Whether a majority may act or decide.
638. Receiving ex parte communications.
639. Receiving entertainment.
640. Other improprieties.
641. Power of commissioners to reconsider or amend their report.
642. Where the proceedings are before a court.
643. View of the premises by the jury.
644. Effect to be given the view.
645. The right to open and close.
646. The practice as to consolidation of cases and separate trials.
647. Instructions.
648. Arbitration.
CHAPTEE XIX,
EVIDENCE.
§ 649. The general rules of evidence apply.
650. Competency of evidence generally.
651. The burden of proof.
652. Competency of witnesses generally.
653. Limiting the number of witnesses.
654. Opinions of witness as to value.
655. Opinions as to the amount of damages or benefits.
656. Who are competent to give such opinions.
657. Opinions of witnesses as to other matters.
658. Admissions.
659. Whether the owner must prove his title.
660. Estoppel to deny title.
661. What is sufficient proof of title.
662. Proving sales of similar property.
663. Proving effect upon other property in suits for depreciation.
664. Proving the cost of the property or of improvements thereon.
665. Proving a sale of property claimed to be damaged made after the
damage has been incurred.
666. Offers to buy or sell.
667. Purchase by the party condemning.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXVll
§ 668. Assessment for taxation.
669. Reports of commissioners, etc., as evidence.
670. Miscellaneous points.
CHAPTER XX.
JUST COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES.
§ 671. Eight to compensation when the constitution does not require it
in express terms.
672. Right to compensation generally: Scope of the chapter.
673. Statutes which authorize a taking must provide for compensation.
674. Exceptional cases in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
675. What constitutes a, sufficient provision for compensation.
676. Express constitutional provisions with reference to the time or
manner of making compensation.
677. Questions which arise when the constitution is silent in these re-
spects.
678. As to the time of making compensation.
679. Distinction between a, taking by the public and by private parties
C80. What is suflBoient security when the taking is by private parties.
681. Summary as to time of compensation.
682. Compensation must be made in money.
683. The legislature cannot fix the compensation or prescribe the rules
for its computation.
684. Meaning of the phrase "just compensation."
685. Measure of damages when an entire property or tract is taken.
686. When part is taken, just compensation includes damages to the
remainder.
687. The question of benefits.
688. Cases holding that benefits cannot be considered at all.
689. Cases holding that special benefits only may be set off against dam-
ages to the remainder, but not against the value of the land
taken.
690. Cases holding that benefits, both general and special, may be set
off against damages to the remainder, but not against the value
of the part taken.
691. Cases holding that special benefits only may be set off against
both the value of the part taken and damages to the remainder.
692. Cases holding that benefits, both general and special, may be set
off against both damages to the remainder and the value of the
part taken.
693. Conclusion as to the question of benefits.
694. Measure of damages where part of a tract is taken.
695. Constitutional provisions as to benefits.
696. Statutory provisions as to benefits and measure of damages.
697. Benefits or damages to a different tract.
698. What constitutes an entire tract: Farms and acre property.
699. Same: Tovm property.
XXVlll TABLE OF CONTENTS.
§ 700. Same: Peculiar properties — quarries, mines, etc
701. Same: Miscellaneous questions.
702. What are special benefits.
703. Further as to special benefits.
704. Assessing or taxing the part not taken to pay the damages awarded.
705. Time with reference to which damages should be estimated.
706. General principles in estimating value.
707. Value for particular uses.
708. Some particular elements of value and value in special cases.
709. Speculative inquiries as to a possible use or improvement of the
property are improper.
710. Damage from construction, use and operation.
711. When works have been constructed before the assessment of dam
ages.
712. When there is a stipulation or agreement as to the manner of con-
struction.
713. When there is no stipulation or agreement as to the manner of
construction.
714. Damages to be assessed on the basis of a proper construction and
use. Damages from improper construction or use to be excluded.
715. Damages from trespass: Past damages.
716. Where there are different interests or estates. General rules.
717. Same: Life estates.
718. Same: Effect of the taking on the covenant to pay rent.
719. Same: Landlord and tenant.
720. Same: Other estates and interests. Mortgages.
721. When there are franchises, easements, or privileges appurtenant
to property. Gratuitous or possible privileges.
722. When corporate property and franchises are taken.
723. When the title is subject to restrictions, conditions, easements,
etc., or is held for particular cases.
724. Value of trees, crops, springs, wells, etc.
725. Value of coal, oil and other minerals.
726. Value of buildings and other structures.
727. Injury to business, loss of profits, etc.
728. Personal property: Fixtures: Cost of removal.
729. When one railroad crosses another.
730. When a street railroad is laid across a commercial railroad.
731. When one railroad takes the use of another's tracks.
732. Telegraph or telephone lines on railroad right of way.
733. When a highway is laid out across a railroad.
734. When a railroad is laid across or along a turnpike.
735. Railroads in streets: Measure of damages.
736. Railroads in streets: Elements of damage: Benefits.
737. Change of grade.
738. In case of viaducts, causeways, and the like in streets.
739. Various elements of damages when part of a tract is taken.
740. Danger from fire.
741. Cost of fencing.
742. The question of interest.
. TABLE OF COITTENTS. XXIX
§ 743. When property is taken for a street which is subject to a public
easement of way by dedication or prescription.
744. When a fee of an existing street is taken.
745. Enliancement caused by the work or improvement.
746. The right or estate acquired for the public use should be considered.
747. The extent of the use may be considered.
748. Damages which would be irremediable if no property taken.
749. Damages by retarding or preventing increase of value.
750. Whether the effect of the entire work or improvement is to be con-
sidered or merely that portion thereof which is on the part
taken.
751. Measure of damages when property is damaged or injured but no
part taken.
753. Where rights or easements are impaired or destroyed but no land
taken.
753. When the taking produces damage which is preventable or necessi-
tates a change, reconstruction or substitution of works.
754. Miscellaneous items of damage held allowable.
755. Miscellaneous items of damage held not allowable.
756. Reserving rights or easements, or requiring things to be done in
lieu of money.
757. Mill cases.
758. Taking part of a town for federal purposes.
759. Where entry is made and worKs constructed before obtaining title.
760. When the owner is estopped to claim damages.
CHAPTER XXI.
THE REPORT OR VERDICT, AND ACTION THEREON.
§ 761. Requisites generally.
762. Describing the property to be taken, or location of the improve-
ment.
763. Description of location in case of highways.
764. What is a sufficient finding on the question of damages.
765. What is a sufficient finding on the question of necessity, public
utility, etc.
766. Of naming and describing the owners of property taken or aflfected.
767. Whether the award of damages should be joint or several,
768. Conditional and alternative awards.
769. As to the time of making report.
770. Filing and recording the report.
771. Action on the report by non-judicial bodies.
772. Action on the report by a court: General principles.
773. Defects in the proceedings prior to the appointment of commission-
ers.
774. Irregularities on the part of the commissioners, jurors, etc.
775. Accident, mistake or error of judgment on the part of the com-
missioners,
XXX TABLE OF C0KTENT3.
§ 776. Inadequate or excessive damages.
777. Departure from the petition in laying out a highway.
778. Miscellaneous objections.
779. The time and manner of objecting.
780. The practice in hearing objections.
781. Power of the court to amend or modify the report, or confirm it in
part.
782. Rehearings, recommitals, reviews, etc.
783. When objectors are estopped.
784. The order confirming the report of commissioners.
785. The judgment to be entered on the verdict of a jury.
786. Setting aside the order of confirmation.
CHAPTEE XXII.
REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS, BY APPEAL OR OTHERWISE..
787. The subject generally: Right of appeal.
788. Statutes making the decision of commissioners or of inferior tribu-
nals final and conclusive.
789. Practice in taking appeals.
790. Parties, and who may a:ppeal.
791. Notice in case of appeals.
792. Practice and power of the appellate tribunal.
793. Effect of the appeal.
794. Certiorari: Its nature and ofiice generally.
795. When it lies, and when the proper remedy.
796. Application for the writ and proceedings thereon.
797. When granted and when refused.
798. Form and effect of the writ.
799. Return to the writ.
800. Proceedings on the return.
801. What are sufficient grounds for quashing the proceedings: The
judgment to be entered.
802. Appeals to appellate or Supreme Court.
803. What is a final order from which an appeal lies.
804. Construction of statutes as to when an appeal will lie to a court
of appellate jurisdiction.
805. Practice in the supreme or appellate court.
806. Writs of error.
807. Limitations as to the time in taking an appeal or certiorari.
808. Estoppel to prosecute an appeal or certiorari.
809. When an appeal or certiorari is the proper remedy.
810. Statutes opening proceedings for review after final judgment.
8\1. Review by Supreme Court of the United States: Federal questions.
TABLE OF COITTEITTS. XXXI
OHAPTEE XXIII.
COSTS.
812. General principles in regard to costs in condemnation cases.
813. Costs in the absence of special statutory provisions relating to emin-
ent domain proceedings.
814. Costs under particular statutes.
815. Costs in case of appeals, reviews, etc.
816. Items of costs, attorney's fees, expert witnesses, etc.
817. Miscellaneous cases.
OHAPTEE XXIV.
DAMAGES PRESUMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AWARD OR
JUDGMENT.
818. Statement of the question.
819. General doctrine of the decisions.
820. The doctrine of the cases criticised.
821. Damages arising from construction of the works.
822. Damages from works on land to which the assessment does not
relate.
823. Damages to a distinct tract.
824. By interfering with the support of the adjacent soil.
825. By grading and changing the grade of streets.
826. By interfering with running streams.
827. By interfering with surface or subterranean waters.
828. Damages by blasting, trespass and the like.
829. The assessment does not include damages resulting from the im-
proper construction or negligent use of the works.
830. Claims based upon changes in the works or plan of construction or
upon the increased use of the property.
831. Items or claims omitted by mistake or otherwise.
832. Statutes giving a remedy for damages not foreseen and estimated.
OHAPTEE XXV.
RIGHTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN THE PROPERTY
CONDEMNED.
833. General principles as to obtaining possession.
834. Statutes permitting possession upon a tender or deposit of the dam-
ages awarded.
835. Possession pending an appeal upon depositing the damages awarded.
836. Right of the owner to the damages deposited in such cases.
XXxii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
§ 837. Possession upon giving security for the compensation.
838. What constitutes an entry.
839. Remedy of condemnor to obtain possession when opposed by owner.
840. Remedy of owner to prevent an unlawful possession.
841. Miscellaneous cases as to obtaining or keeping possession.
842. Deposit at whose risk.
843. Judgment against owner when damages reduced on appeal.
844. The estate acquired in lands taken for public use.
845. Rights of company in land taken for railroad right of way.
846. The company an adjoining proprietor, and limited by the mazioi,
sic utere tuo ut alienum, non laedas.
847. Whether the company's possession is exclusive; Rights of fee-
owner.
848. Adverse possession of railroad right of way.
849. Right to trees, herbage, minerals, materials, buildings, etc.
850. Property taken for other railroad uses.
851. Right of owner of fee to cross right of way of railroad: Matter
of private crossings generally.
852. Property taken for highways and streets.
853. Right to trees, herbage, materials, etc.
854. Adverse possession of streets and highways.
855. Property taken for turnpikes.
856. Lands taken or dedicated for public parks, squares and the l^jgi
857. Property taken for other uses.
858. When a fee is taken for public use.
859. Transfers of the right or estate acquired by condemnati(jj^^
860. Effect of forced sales.
861. Reversion of lands taken for public use.
862. What amounts to an abandonment of the public usei', ^
863. Right to improvements when land reverts. -f i
864. No rights are acquired beyond the limits of the land condemned.
OHAPTEK XXVI.
OF THE RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS WHEN CALLED IN QUESTION
COLLATERALLY.
§ 865. In general.
866. When jurisdiction exists, the proceedings are good collaterally,
though erroneous.
867. What is essential to jurisdiction.
868. What irregularities, subsequent to jurisdiction, will vitiate the pro-
ceedings.
869. What the record should show.
870. Parol evidence to aid or contradict the record.
871. Estoppel to question proceedings collaterally.
TABIJf'oii' CONTENTS. XXxiii
HAPTEE XXVII.
dfl
OF THE REMEDIES AND PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER THE DAM-
AGES AWARDED, OR WHICH SHOULD BE PAID, FOR PROPERTY
T^EN OR AFFECTED.
§ 8'V2. When the statutory remedy is exclusive.
873. When not exclusive.
874. Action on the award or judgment.
875. Defences thereto.
876. When the damages are payable from an assessment of benefits.
877. When there has been no entry, or when the taking has been
abandoned.
878. Mandamus to compel payment, or the raising of a fund for pay-
ment.
879. Mandamus to compel an assessment of damages.
880. Bill in equity for the same purpose.
881. Proceedings to obtain damages which have been deposited.
882. The remedy upon bonds given for security of damages.
883. Enjoining use and possession until damages are paid.
884. Suit to abate dam unless the damages are paid.
885. Enforcing the claim for damages as a vendor's lien.
886. The right to damages, as against those claiming under the party
condemning.
887. Of the remedies as against those claiming under the party con-
demning.
888. Whether same rules apply to compensation for property damaged as
for property taken.
889. Common law suits for the value of land appropriated without
proceedings.
890. The remedy for property damaged, injured or injuriously affected.
891. The measure of damages in such cases.
892. Assessment of just compensation in an equitable proceeding to en-
join the construction or use of works. — New York elevated rail-
road cases.
893. When no damages are awarded, the only remedy is by appeal.
894. Conflicting claims to the damages awarded. — Following the award
into the hands of those not entitled thereto.
895. Right to the compensation when there has been a transfer of title
pending proceedings to take the property.
896. Rights and remedies of mortgages of the lands taken.
897. Rights and remedies of the owners of other, liens and interests in
the land taken.
898. Remedy of condemnor to have award applied to the payment of
claims of mortgagees or lien-holders, who were not made parties.
899. Rights of an assignee of the damages awarded.
900. Miscellaneous cases. — Execution — specific performance, etc.
XXXIV- TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTEK XXVIII.
THE REMEDY FOR A WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE WITH PROPER-
TY UNDER COLOR OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND OTHER REME-
DIES.
§ 901. Injunction to prevent entry or construction of works before com-
plying with the law, or without authority of law.
902. The grounds of jurisdiction in such cases.
903. When the relief will be refused.
904. Injunction to prevent the continued use of property until the
damages are paid when the condemnor already in possession.
905. To prevent the laying or operating of commercial railroads in
streets.
906. To prevent the construction or operation of elevated railroads in
streets.
907. To prevent the laying or operating of surface street railroads.
908. To prevent construction and operation of interurban railroads,
in streets.
909. Summary as to injunctive relief in case of railroads in streets.
910. Some questions of practice in bills to enjoin railroads in streets.
911. To prevent other uses of streets or other interference with the abut-
ting owner's rights.
912. To prevent the vacation of a street.
913. To prevent changing the grade of a street.
914. To prevent the construction of works in a particular manner.
915. To prevent the occupation or use of adjacent property not included
in the condemnation.
916. To prevent an interference with water rights.
917. To prevent the infringement of a franchise or exclusive right.
918. To prevent the taking of property already devoted to public use.
91J. To prevent one railroad from crossing another.
920. To prevent injury or damage to property not taken.
921. Some questions of practice in cases to enjoin the taking or damag-
ing of property.
922. Injunction to prevent misuse or diversion of public streets and
grounds.
923. Bill to protect the possession or rights of condemnor.
924. Bill to protect franchises in public streets.
925. Suit by public authorities to prevent unlawful use of street or to
recover for damage thereto.
926. Enjoining condemnation proceedings.
927. Ejectment for land taken or occupied for public use.
928. Ejectment in cases of wrongful occupation of street.
929. When the owner is estopped to maintain ejectment.
930. Ejectment by condemnor.
931. Trpspass.
932. Mandamus.
933. Remedy for damages arising from the negligent or improper con-
struction of works.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXV
§ 934. Relief in equity on account of error, mistalce, new evidence, etc.
935. Compelling a railroad company to restore a highway.
936. Remedy for failure to construct or maintain private crossings.
937. The question of one action or successive actions. Statement and
general principles.
938. Same: Interference with the flow of streams.
939. Same: Diverting or polluting the waters of a stream.
940. Same: Interfering with the flow of surface water.
941. Same: Overflow or percolation from a reservoir or canal.
942. Same: Change of grade causing surface water to flow upon the
plaintiii's premises.
943. Same: Change of grade or viaduct In streets.
944. Same: Railroads in streets.
945. Same: Where there is an actual occupation of the plaintiff's land.
946. Same: Miscellaneous cases.
947. Same : Conclusions.
948. Same: Right of parties to elect in favor of permanent damages.
949. Who entitled to sue in case of transfer of title after construction
or use of works causing the damage.
950. Effect of estates for life or years on the right to damages.
951. What constitutes special damage.
952. Certiorari to set aside ordinance.
953. Other remedies.
CHAPTEE XXIX.
THE DISCONTINUANCE AND ABANDONMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.
§ 954. The right to discontinue proceedings before completion.
955. The right to abandon after the proceedings are completed.
956. What constitutes an abandonment.
957. The owner's right to recover for damages occasioned by proceedings
which have been abandoned.
958. Statutes giving a right to recover for damages occasioned by pro-
ceedings.
959. Right to abandon under English statutes after notice to treat.
960. New proceedings for the same purpose as former proceedings which
have been abandoned.
961. When entry is to be made or possession taken in a specified time,
what is sufficient.
962. Improvements pending proceedings.
CHAPTEE XXX.
LIMITATIONS TO ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS.
§ 963 When compensation need not be first made, the ovmer may be
required to present his claim for damages within a time
limited. — Construction of statutes.
XXXVl TABLE OF CONTENTS,
§ 964. When the statutory remedy for just compensation accrues.
965. When there is no special limitation of the statutory remedy. —
Application of the general statute of limitations.
966. Limitation when compensation must be first made.
967. Limitations when property is appropriated without complying
with the law.
968. Common law suits for damages to property.
969. When an action acrues for consequential damages^
970. For change of street grade.
971. Miscellaneous.
TABLE or CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
A.
Abbington Tp. v. North Pa. R. R.
Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 118: 781.
Abbot V. Upham, 13 Met. 172: 1526.
Abbott V. Board of Supervisors, 36
la. 354: 1019.
V. Cottage City, 143 Mass. 521:
1216.
V. County Comrs., 6 Kan. App.
162: 1360, 1514.
V. Duluth, 104 Fed. 833: 362.
V. Gatch, 13 Md. 314: 1256.
V. Elansas City etc. R. R. Co., 83
Mo. 271 : 93, 152.
V. Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., 126
Wis. 634: 284, 1297.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 145
Mass. 450: 684, 688.
V. Penobscot Co., 52 Me. 584:
1441.
V. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 109
Cal. 282 : 1304, 1330.
V. Stewartstown, 47 N. H. 228:
1327.
Abel V. Minneapolis, 68 Minn. 89:
617, 1525.
Abendroth v. Manhattan El. Ry. Co.,
19 Abb. N. C. 247 : 451.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 122
N. Y. 1: 177, 180, 265, 1296.
v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 52 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 274: 196.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 54 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 417: 265.
Abercrombie v. Simmons, 71 Kan.
538: 834, 838, 1497, 1500.
Aberdeen v. Bradford, 94 Md. 670:
74, 77, 162, 163, 1654.
Abney v. Clark, 87 la. 726: 1004,
1009, 1017, 1412.
V. Texarkana etc. R. R. Co., 105
La. 446: 1378.
Abraham v. Fremont, 54 Neb. 391 :
83, 1604.
V. Oregon etc. R. R. Co., 37 Ore.
495: 1474.
V. Oregon etc. R. R. Co., 41 Ore.
550: 1474.
Abrahams v. London, 37 L. J. Oh.
732: 1115.
Acker v. Knoxville, 117 Tenn. 224:
248, 437, 614, 618, 1294.
V. New Castle, 48 Hun 312: 153,
235.
Ackerman v. Horicon Iron Mfg. Co.,
16 Wis. 150: 1537.
T. Huff, 71 Tex. 317: 1033, 1461,
1517.
V. True, 56 App. Div. 54 : 351, 373.
T. True, 71 App. Div. 143: 197,
199, 1596.
V. True, 175 N. Y. 353: 197, 199,
373, 1596.
Acquackanonk Water Co. v. Watson,
29 N. J. Eq. 366: 74, 85, 1603.
Icton V. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324:
161, 165.
V. York County, 77 Me. 128: 981,
1102.
Adair v. Atlanta, 124 Ga. 288: 1488.
Adams, Inhabitants of. Petitioners,
10 Rich. 270: 1418.
Adams, In re, 73 Hun 581 : 878, 1327.
Adams, In re, 141 N. Y. 297: 366,
878, 1327.
Adams, Matter of, 141 N. Y. 297:
366.
Adams v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 286: 180, 181, 188,
190, 200, 242, 249, 253, 444, 448,
1295, 1335.
V. Clarksburg, 23 W. Va. 203 : 707,
1078.
V. Durham & N. R. R. Co., 110 N.
C. 325: 92, 94, 95, 1651, 1653.
V. Emerson, 6 Pick. 57 : 1486, 1489.
V. Harrington, 114 lud. 66: 980,
981, 1010, 1510.
V. Hastings & Dakota R. R. Co., 18
Minn. 260: 247, 1298, 1650,
1656, 1657.
V. London etc. Ry. Co., 18 L. J.
Ch. N. S. 357: 1533.
V. London etc. R. R. Co., 2 McN.
& G. 118: 1513.
XXXVll
XXXVIU
CASES CITED
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Adams v. Newfane, 8 Vt. 271: 1423.
V. Pearson, 7 Pick. 341: 1137.
V. Pease, 2 Conn. 481: 103.
V. Roanoke, 102 Va. 53: 1005.
V. Rulon, 50 N. J. L. 526: 1368,
1387.
V. St. Johnsbury & I^ake Cham-
plain R. R. Co., 57 Vt. 240: 947,
1188, 1540, 1544, 1564.
V. San Angelo Water Works Co.,
86 Tex. 486: 739.
V. Saratoga &. Washington R. R.
Co., 11 Barb. 414: 224, 244.
V. Saratoga etc. R. R. Co., 10 N. Y.
328: 893, 895, 1517, 1626.
s'. Shelbyville, 154 Ind. 467: 10,
463.
V. Slater, 8 111. App. 72: 73.
V. Toronto, 12 Ontario, 243: 631.
V. Walker, 34 Conn. 466: 145, 146.
Adams County v. Dobschlag, 19
Wash. 356: 1435.
Adamson v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co.,
89 Hun 261: 305.
V. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 12 Miscl.
600: 305.
Adden v. Railroad Co., 55 N. H. 413 :
1187, 1315.
Addis V. Priest, 3 N. J. L. 378:
1389.
Adee v. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 65
App. Div. 529: 302.
V. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 72 App.
Div. 404: 683, 744.
V. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 173 N.
Y. 580: 302.
V. Nassau Elec. R. R. Co., 177 W.
Y. 548: 683, 744.
Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York,
176 U. S. 335: 909.
Adkins v. Smith, 94 la. 758: 1476.
Adler v. Met. El. R. R. Co., 138 N.
Y. 173: 1585, 1590.
v: Met. El. R. R. Co., 61 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 85: 1585, 1590.
Adolph, Matter of, 102 App. Div.
371: 1362.
Adolph, Matter of, 186 N. Y. 547:
1362.
Adolph V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
42 Minn. 170: 1176, 1200, 1201,
1629.
Aetna Mills v. Brookline, 127 Mass.
69: 74, 77.
V. Brookline, 178 Mass. 482: 933.
V. Waltham, 126 Mass. 422: 74,
77, 78, 895.
Afee V. Kennedy, 1 Litt. 9 : 544.
Agne v. Seitsinger, 85 la. 305: 850,
852.
Agne V. Seitsinger, (la.) 60 N. W.
483: 862.
Ahem v. Dubuque Lead & Level Min-
ing Co., 48 la. 140: 563.
Aitken v. Wells River, 70 Vt. 309:
460.
Aken v. Parfrey, 35 Wis. 249: 1359,
1526.
Akers v. Philadelphia, 4 Phila, 56:
1527, 1528.
V. United New Jersey R. R. Co., 43
N. J. L. 110: 711.
Akin V. Commissioners, 36 Ean. 170:
1028.
V. Water Comrs., 82 Hun, 265:
924, 1076.
Akron v. Chamberlain Company, 34
Ohio St. 328: 218.
V. Huber, 78 Ohio St. 372: 219.
V. McComb, 18 Ohio 229: 214.
Alabama Consol. C. & I. Co. v.
Turner, 14S Ala. 639: 69.
V. Vines, 151 Ala. 398: 81.
Alabama etc. R. R. Co. v. Bloom, 71
Miss. 247: 640.
V. Burkett, 42 Ala. 83: 1123, 1204,
1330.
V. Burkett, 46 Ala. 569: 1204,
1317.
». Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 88
Miss. 438 : 682, 1623.
V. Kenny, 39 Ala. 307: 743, 747.
Alabama G. S. R. R. Co. v. Collier,
112 Ala. 681: 246, 248, 250.
V. Gilbert, 71 Ga. 591: 708, 820.
V. Prouty, 149 Ala. 7: 145, 151,
1607.
V. Shahan, 116 Ala. 302: 94.
Alabama Lumber Co. v. Keel, 125
Ala. 603: 98.
Alabama M. R. R. Co. v. Coakry, 92
Ala. 254: 324, 639.
V. Newton, 94 Ala. 443 : 924, 1673,
1703.
V. Williams, 92 Ala. 277: 319,
1451, 1452, 1453.
Alameda v. Cohen, 133 Cal. 5: 674,
678, 1434.
Alameda County v. Crocker, 125 Cal.
101: 1444.
Albany, Bx parte, 23 Wend. 277:
1411, 1414, 1415, 1419.
Albany v. Gilbert, 144 Mo. 224 : 1158. '
V. Sikes, 94 Ga. 30: 154, 653.
V. Watervliet etc. R. R. Co., 45
Hun 442 : 492.
V. Watervliet T. & P. Co., 108 N.
Y. 14: 746, 749, 1520.
Albany etc. R. E. Co. v. Dayton, 10
Abb. Pr. N. S. 182: 1177.
CASES CITED.
XXXIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Albany Northern R. R. Co. v. Brown-
ell, 24 N. Y. 345: 490, 750, 820,
1287.
V. Lansing, 16 Barb. 68: 1096,
1205.
Albany St., Matter of, 11 Wend. 149:
589, 1266.
Albany Street, Matter of, 11 Wend.
151: 495, 496.
Albany Street Opening, 6 Abb. Pr.
273: 1022, 1031.
Albany Water Works Co. v. Albany
Mayor's Court, 12 Wend. 292
1414.
Albert Lea v. Nielson, 80 Minn. 101
137.
Albertson v. Phila., 185 Pa. St. 223
1313.
T. State, 95 Ind. 370: 1516.
Albion R. R. Co. v. Heiser, 84 Oal.
43: 1347.
Albot T. Gibson, 141 Mich. 698 : 975.
Albright v. Cedar Rapids etc. Ry. &
Lt. Co., 133 la. 644: 153, 1450,
1454, 1639.
v. Sussex County Lake & Park
Commission, 68 N. J. L. 523:
498, 501, 503, 540, 807.
V. Sussex County Lake & Park
Commission, 71 N. J. L. 303:
540, 807.
V. Sussex County Lake & Park
Commission, 71 N. J. L. 309:
540.
Albro V. Fall River, 175 Mass. 590:
605.
Albuquerque L. & I. Co. v. Gutierrez,
10 N. M. 177: 587.
Alcorn v. Hamer, 38 Miss. 652:
586.
Aleott y. Aeheson, 49 la. 569: 1035,
1671.
Alden v. Minneapolis, 24 Minn. 254:
234.
Alden Coal Co. v. Challis, 200 111.
222: 883, 887, 889.
Aldis V. Union El. R. R. Co., 203
111. 567: 266, 304, 639, 642,
1549, 1551.
Aldredge v. School District, 10 Okla.
694: 1005, 1513, 1626.
Aldrich v. Cheshire R. R. Co., 21 N.
H. 359: 161, 1523.
V. Drury, 8 R. I. 554: 1480.
V. Met. West Side El. R. R. Co.,
195 111. 456: 655, 663, 670.
V. Minneapolis, 52 Minn. 164:
1665.
Aldrich v. Providence, 12 R. I. 241:
612, 615, 1532.
V. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164: 372,
374.
Aldridge v. Board of Education, 15
Old. 354: 1005.
V. Spears, 14 S. W. 118: 1397.
V. Stillwater Board of Education,
15 Okl. 354: 1348.
V. Tuscumbia, C. & D. R. R. Co.,
2 Stew. & Por. 199: 501, 504,
524, 674, 926.
Aldritt V. Fleischauer, 74 Neb. 66:
166.
Aldworth v. Lynn, 153 Mass. 53:
144, 1639, 1662.
Alexander v. Baltimore, 5 G. & J.
(Md.) 383: 13.
V. District of Columbia, 3 Mackey
(D. C.) 192: 1634.
V. Milwaukee, 16 Wis. 247: 167.
V, Plattsmouth, 30 Neb. 117: 951.
V. West London & Crystal Pal. Ry.
Co., 30 Beav. 556: 822, 823.
V. West London & Crystal Pal. Ry.
Co., 31 N. J. Ch. N. S. 500: 822.
Alexandria v. Morgan's La. etc. Co.,
109 La. 50: 303.
Alexandria & Fredericksburg R. R.
Co. V. Alexandria & Washington
R. R. Co., 75 Va. 780: 754.
Alexandria etc. R. R. Co. v. Faunce,
31 Gratt. 761: 428, 744, 952,
953, 966, 1546, 1547.
Alexian Bros. v. Oshkosh, 95 Wis.
221: 1236.
Alfalfa Irr. Dist. v. Collins, 46 Nel).
411: 10.
Aliso Water Co. v. Baker, 95 Cal.
268: 587, 987.
AUaby v. Milwaukee Elec. Service
Co., 135 Wis. 345: 550.
Allaire v. Woonsocket, 25 R. I. 414:
1180, 1202.
AUard v. Loban, 3 Martin La. N. S.
293: 430, 956.
Allegheny's Appeal, 165 Pa. St. 367 :
1670.
Allegheny v. Black's Heirs, 99 Pa.
St. 152: 1216.
v. Millville etc. R. R. Co., 159 Pa.
St. 411: 302.
Allegheny Co. v. Gibson, 90 Pa. St.
397: 476.
Allegheny County v. Smith, 11 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 704: 989.
xl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Allegheny Valley K. E. Co. v. Col-
well, 2 Monaghan (Pa. Supm.)
300: 1629.
Allen V. Androscoggin R. R. Co., 60
Me. 494: 1090.
V. Bainbridge, 145 Mich. 366 : 460.
V. Boston, 137 Mass. 319: 1266.
V. Boston, 159 Mass. 324 : 143.
v. Charlestown, 109 Mass. 243:
1185, 1216.
V. Chicago, 176 HI. 113: 958, 1069.
V. Chippewa Falls, 52 Wis. 430:
234.
V. Clausen, 114 Wis. 244: 315,
1587.
V. Colorado Cent. R. R. Co., 22
Colo. 238: 1519-
7. Commonwealth, 188 Mass. 59:
626, 660, 1273.
V. Drew, 44 Vt. 174: 14, 462.
T. Jersey City, 53 N. J. L. 522:
309, 778.
V, Jones, 47 Ind. 438: 679, 680.
V. Levee Comrs., 57 Miss. 163:
1412.
V. Michel, 38 111. App. 313: 154,
1650, 1655.
T. Northville, 39 Hun 240: 918.
V. Paris, 1 Tex. App. Civil Cas. p.
506: 235.
V. Parker County, 23 Tex. Civ.
App. 536: 1029, 1030.
V. Railroad Co., 107 Ga. 838: 936.
V. Railroad Co., (Tex. Civ. App.)
25 S. W. 826: 1329.
V, Reinhardt, 90 Ky. 466: 876.
V. Thornapple Elec. Co., 144 Mich.
370: 69.
V. Utica, etc. R. R. Co., 15 Hun
80: 1511, 1514.
V. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific E.
R. Co., 84 Mo. 646: 1546.
V. Welch, 125 Mo. App. 278: 1024,
1029.
Allentown etc. Turnpike Co. v. Le-
high Val. Traction Co., 174 Pa.
St. 273: 1292.
Allen To^vnship Road. 18 Pa. St.
463: 1082.
Allison r. Cincinnati, 2 Cinn. Super.
Ct. 462: 335.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 54 111. 170:
1099, 1370, 1409.
V. Delaware etc. Canal Co., 5
Wheat. 482: 1378.
V. Taylor, 3 T. B. Monroe 7 : 1423.
Alhnon v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 155
III. 17: 1195, 1202, 1426.
Alloway v. Nashville, 88 Tenn. 510:
1175, 12-28. 1229, 1232, 1234,
1237, 1251, 1320.
Allport V. Helena etc. R. R. Co., 12
Mont. 279: 1399.
AUyn V. Providence etc. R. R. Co., 4
R. L 457: 1136.
Almand v. Atlanta Consolidated St.
Ry. Co., 108 Ga. 417: 298.
V. Rockdale Co., 78 Ga. 199 : 1081.
Almy v. Church, 18 R. I. 182 : 869.
V. Coggeshall, 19 R. I. 549: 235.
Alstad V. Sim, 15 N. D. 629: 580,
1511.
Alston's Petition, In re, I Penn. Del.
359: 672.
Althen v. Kelly, 32 Minn. 280: 1489,
1594.
Alton v. Fishback, 181 111. 396: 883.
V. Hamilton etc. R. R. Co., 13 U.
C. Q. B. 595: 158.
V. Illinois Trans. Co., 12 111. 38:
872.
V. Meenwenberg, 108 Mich. 629:
876.
Alton etc. R. R. Co. v. Baugh, 14 IIL
211: 1316.
V. Carpenter, 14 111. 190: 1174,
1194.
Altoona etc. R. R. Co. v. Tyrone etc.
R. R. Co., 160 Pa. St. 633: 771.
Amboy v. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., 236
in. 236: 396, 397.
Amer v. Union County, 17 Ore. 600:
981.
American Bank Note Co. v. Met. El.
R. R. Co., 63 Hun 506: 1277.
V. New York El. E. R. Co., 129 N.
Y. 252: 265, 448, 866, 869, 1296,
1297, 1303, 1304, 1333, 1554,
1555, 1584.
American Cannel Coal Co. v. Hunt-
ingburg etc. R. R. Co., 130 Ind.
98: 1100, 1365, 1409.
American Locomotive Co. v. Hoffman,
105 Va. 343: 94.
V. Hoffman, 108 Va. 363: 1653.
American Primitive Methodist So-
ciety V. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co.,
46 Hun, 530: 264.
American Print Works v. Lawrence,
21 N. J. L. 248: 17.
V. Lawrence, 23 N. J. L. 590: 17.
American Ea,pid Tel. Co. v. Hess, 125
N. Y. 641: 15, 489.
American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Harbor
Creek Tp. 23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 437:
361, 491.
v. Jones, 78 lU. App. 372, 338,
1636.
v. Mill Creek, 195 Pa. St. 643:
361, 491.
V. Morgan Co. Tel. Co., 138 Ala.
597: 418.
OASES CITED.
xli
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pearce,
71 Md. 535: 343.
V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 202 Mo.
656: 677, 774, 988, 1247, 1284,
1286.
V. Smith, 71 Md. 535: 425, 1159,
1473, 1568, 1573.
American Trans. & Nav. Co. v. New
York etc. K. R. Co., 58 N. J. L.
109: 909.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 59 N.
J. L. 156: 909.
American Union Tel. Co. v. Wilming-
ton etc. R. R. Co., 83 N. C. 420:
1423.
American Unitarian Ass. v. Com-
monwealth, 193 Mass. 470: 468,
740.
American Woolen Co. v. Kennebec
Water Dist. 102 Me. 153: 110,
138.
Americus v. Mitchell, 79 6a. 807:
484.
Ames V. Lake Superior & Miss. R.
R. Co., 21 Minn. 241 : 923, 927.
T. San Diego, 101 Cal. 390: 1491.
V. Union Pae. R. R. Co., 64 Fed.
165: 483.
Amet V. Texas etc. Ry. Co., 117 La.
454: 1546, 1715.
Amory v. Melrose, 162 Mass. 556:
1127, 1140, 1141.
Amos T. Norcross, 58 N. J. Eq. 256:
117.
Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Goodale, 46 N.
H. 53: 91.
V. Goodale, 62 N. H. 66: 549.
T. Head, 56 N. H. 386 : 549.
V. Worcester, 60 N. H. 522: 549,
723, 1147.
Amsterdam etc. R. R. Co., In re, 86
Hun 578: 920.
Amsterdam Knitting Co. v. Dean,
162 N. Y. 278: 1603.
Anaheim v. Longenberger, 134 Cal.
608: 886, 888.
Anchor Brewing Co. v. Dobbs Ferry,
84 Hun 274: 157, 235.
Anders v. Anders, 4 Jones Law 243:
1410.
Anderson, Matter of, 91 App. Div.
563: 610, 611.
Anderson, Matter of, 178 N. Y. 416:
610, 611.
Anderson v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 71
Kan. 453: 1714.
V. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co.,
59 S. C. 350: 838, 1497.
V. Bain, 120 Ind. 254: 602, 616,
918
V. Baker. 98 Ind. 587 : 575.
Anderson v. Bement, 13 Ind. App.
248: 1490.
V. Board of Co. Comrs., 46 Minn.
237: 1400.
V. Burlington etc. Ry. Co., 82
Minn. 293: 450.
V. Caldwell, 91 Ind. 451 : 922, 929.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 85 Minn.
337: 450.
V. Cincinnati So. R. R. Co., 86 Ky.
44: 69, 72, 75.
T. Comrs., 12 Ohio St. 635: 1516,
1517, 1571.
V. Decoria, 74 Minn. 339 : 1028.
V. Endicutt, 101 Ind. 539: 700.
V. Ft. Worth, 83 Tex. 107: 1116.
V. Kerns Draining Co., 14 Ind. 199 :
571, 574.
V. McKinney, 24 Ohio St. 467:
1707, 1709.
V. Messenger, 158 Fed. 250: 1005.
V. Milwaukee, 82 Wis. 279: 615.
V. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
58 Misc. 72 : 1562.
T. Pemberton, 89 Mo. 61 : 957, 1096,
1360, 1371.
V. Rochester etc. R. R. Co., 9 How.
Pr. 553 : 420, 1494.
V. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 479: 893, 894,
1035, 1674.
V. San Francisco, 92 Minn. 57:
1028.
V. Turbeville, 6 Coldw. 150: 178,
369, 388, 498, 503, 675, 923, 1005,
1008, 1165.
V. Wharton Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App.
115: 1317.
V. Word, 80 111. 15: 993.
Anderson etc. R. K. Co. v. Kemhole,
54 Ind. 314: 1634.
Andover v. Board of Comrs. 86 Me.
185: 1083.
V. County Comrs. 5 Gray, 393:
1361.
V. Sutton, 12 Met. 182: 1623.
Andrew v. Nantasket Beach R. R.
Co., 152 Ma^s. 506 : 957.
Andrews t. Farmers' Loan & Trust
Co., 22 Wis. 288: 1579.
V. Johnson, 1 Law Repoa N. C.
272: 1408.
V. King, 77 Me. 239 : 1415.
V. Marion, 23 Minn. 372: 1405.
v. Steel City, 2 Neb. (Unof.) 676:
155, 1606.
Andrus v. Bay Creek Ry. Co., 60 N.
J. L. 10, 1670.
Angell V. Hornbeck, 31 Ind. xVpp. 59:
1058.
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass. v. Pe-
terson. 41 Neb. 893: 166.
xlii
CASES CITED,
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Anketell v. Hayward, 119 Mich. 525:
1361.
Anness v. Providence, 13 K. I. 17:
612: 618.
Anniston etc. R. E. Co. v. Jackson-
ville etc. K. R. Co., 82 Ala. 297 :
758, 794.
Anthony v. Adams, 1 Met. 284: 722.
V. County Comrs., 14 Pick. 189:
1386.
V. lawhorne, 1 Leigh 1: 1098.
V. South Kingstown, 13 E. I. 129:
1081.
Anthony St., Matter of, 20 Wend.
618: 1669, 1670.
Antoinette Street, 8 Phila. 461 : 1341.
A. 0. Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 455:
103.
Apex Transportation Co. v. Garbade,
32 Ore. 582: 498, 535, 675, 1042,
1043.
Appleby Manor Road, 1 Grant, 443:
1371.
Applegate v. Franklin, 109 111. App.
293: 109, 151.
Appleton v. County Comrs., 80 Me.
284: 1399.
V. Newton, 178 Mass. 276 : 675, 733,
1001, 1003, 1008, 1157, 1164,
1707, 1708, 1709, 1712.
Application for Drainage, Matter of,
35 N. J. L. 497: 577, 1044, 1187.
Appointment of Viewers, In re, 6 Lu
zerne Leg. Eeg. Eep. 13: 1081.
Appropriation, Matter of, 23 App.
Div. N. Y. 7: 1705.
App's Tavern, Road from, 17 S. & R.
388: 1003, 1086.
Aqua Pura Co. v. Las Vegas, 10 N.
M. 6: 481.
Arbegust v. Louisville, 2 Bush. 271:
465.
Arbenz v. Wheeling etc. R. R. Co., 33
W. Va. 1: 256, 297, 306, 324,
640, 1581.
Arbrush v. Oakdale, 28 Minn. 61:
1186, 1206.
Areata v. Areata & M. R. R. Co., 92
Cal. 639: 303, 426.
Areata & Mad River R. R. Co. T.
Murphy, 71 Cal. 122: 1223.
Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43:
871, 877, 887.
Archibald v. New York Cent. etc. E.
R. Co., 157 N. Y. 574: 122.
V. Thompson, 2 Colo. 388: 996.
Andrus v. Bay Creek Ry. Co. 60 N.
J. L. 10: 1698.
Argentine v. Atchison etc. R. R. Co.,
55 Kan. 730: 487.
Argo V. Barthand, 80 Ind. 63: 1510.
Arimond v. Green Bay etc. Co., 31
Wis. 316: 63, 66, 90, 100, 144,
168.
V. Green Bay etc. Co., 35 Wis. 41:
90, 92, 1074, 1710.
Arizona etc. R. R. Co. v. Denver etc.
Ey. Co., 13 N. M. 345: 900, 1619.
Arkansas Cent. E. R. Co. v. Smith,
71 Ark. 189: 843, 852, 853, 1545.
Arkansas etc. Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 84
Ark. 364: 1470.
Arkansas Val. etc. Ry. Co. v. Witt, 19
OkL 262: 1245.
Armington v. Barnett, 15 Vt. 745:
781, 788.
Armistead v. Vicksburg etc. E. R.
Co., 47 La. An. 1381: 873, 874.
Armory Board, Matter of, 73 App.
Div. 152: 1212, 1233, 1240.
Armstrong v. Cincirmati, 5 Ohio 138 :
1459, 1641.
V. County Court, 54 W. Va. 503:
363.
V. Moore, 1 K^an. App. 450, 948,
1563.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
2 Hun 482: 1469.
T. St. Louis, 69 Mo. 309 : 1626.
V. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 151 : 239.
V. St. Paul, 30 Minn. 299 : 229, 442,
1453.
Am V. Kansas City, 4 McCrary, 558:
156.
Amd V. Cullman, 132 Ala. 540: 143.
V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 120 Fed.
912: 465.
Arndt v. Thomas, 90 Minn. 355:
1569.
Arnold v. Buffalo etc. Ry. Co., 32 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 452 : 945.
V. Council Bluffs, 85 Iowa 441:
698.
V. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge
Co., 1 Duvall (Ky.) 372: 522,
1225, 1461, 1463.
V. Decatur, 29 Mich. 77: 893, 1058,
1367.
V. Elmore, 16 Wis. 509: 104.
V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 55 N.
Y. 661: 428.
V. Klipper, 24 Mo. 273: 1604.
v. Stanford, 113 Ky. 852: 456,
658.
V. Weiker, 55 Kan. 510: 384, 390,
400, 876.
Arnsperger v. Crawford, 101 Md.
247 : 494, 496, 498, 505, 508, 509,
517, 520, 1395, 1519.
Arringtou v. Savannah & W. E. E.
Co., 95 Ala. 434: 717.
OASES CITED.
xliii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Art St., Matter of, 20 Wend. 685:
1533.
Asburn v. Chicago, 105 111. App. 217 :
658.
Ash V. Cummings, 50 N. H. 591:
549, 684, 685, 1164, 1525.
Ashby V. Eastern R. R. Co., 5 Met.
368: 963.
Asher v. Jones County, 29 Tex. Civ.
App. 353: 1512.
V. L. & N. R. R. Co., 87 Ky. 391 :
1159, 1160, 1161, 1183, 1200,
1201, 1468.
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 118 Ky.
493: 1471.
Asheville St. R. R. Co. v. West Ashe-
ville R. R. Co., 114 N. C. 725:
298
Ashland v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 105
Wis. 398: 395, 399, 406, 1492.
V. No. Pac. Ry. Co., 119 Wis. 204:
395, 399, 406, 1492.
Ashland Coal & I. R. R. Co. v. David-
son, (Ky.) 20 S. W. 270: 1464.
Ashland etc. St. Ry. Co. v. Faulkner,
106 Ky. 332 : 272, 274, 313.
Ashley v. Burt County, 73 Neb. 159 :
1354.
V. Port Huron, 35 Mich. 296 : 143,
233.
V. Wolcott, 11 Cush. 192: 147.
Askam v. King County, 9 Wash. 1:
492, 564, 568, 581, 1157.
Aspinwall v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
41 Wis. 474: 947, 949, 1226,
1329.
Astor V. Hoyt, 5 Wend. 603: 948,
949.
V. New York, 5 Jones & S. 539 : 13.
V. New York, 62 N. Y. 580: 1087,
1101, 1102, 1103.
Aswell V. Scranton, 175 Pa. St. 173:
1308.
Atchison v. Atlanta, 81 Ga. 625: 653.
Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Anderson,
65 Kan. 202 : 1549.
V. Armstrong, 71 Kan. 366: 351,
447.
V. Arnold, 52 Kan. 729: 211, 252,
319.
V. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 675:
772.
V. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 417: 1203.
T. Board of Comrs., 48 Kan. 576:
1290.
V. Boemer, 34 Neb. 240: 190, 646,
1451, 1452.
V. Boerner, 45 Neb. 453 : 646, 1450,
1451, 1452.
y. Davenport, 65 Kan. 206: 1245,
1457, 1485, 1519, 1646.
Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Davidson,
52 Kans. 739: 179, 252, 311, 324,
1549, 1048, 1657.
V. Forney, 35 Neb. 607: 1450.
V. Garside, 10 Kan. 552: 249, 251,
316.
V. General Elec. Ry. Co., 112 Fed.
689: 328, 766, 1282, 1611.
V. Gough, 29 Kan. 94: 1208, 1311.
V. Hammer, 22 Kan. 763: 157.
V. Herman, 74 Kan. 77: 91.
V. Jones, 110 111. App. 626. 88,
1456, 1639, 1653.
V. Kansas City etc., Ry. Co., 67
Kan. 569: 708, 754, 793, 799,
1041, 1571.
V. Lauterback, 8 Kan. App. 15:
1714.
V. Lenz, 35 111. App. 330: 654.
V. Long, 46 Kan. 701: 75, 1603.
V. Luening, 52 Kan. 732: 252, 319.
V. Lyon, 24 Kan. 745: 1311, 1438.
V. Meyer, 62 Kan. 696: 1615.
V. Patch, 28 Kan. 470: 1030, 1409.
V. Plant, 24 Neb. 127: 1436, 1440.
V. Piatt, 53 111. App. 263 : 639.
V. Schneider, 127 111. 144: 1109,
1259, 1274, 1277, 1427, 1467.
V. Weaver, 10 Kan. 344: 1159,
1525, 1634.
V. Wilson, 66 Kan. 233: 1534, 1673.
Atchison St. R. R. Co. v. Missouri
Pao. R. R. Co., 31 Kan. 660: 299,
328, 767, 1610.
v. Nave, 38 Kan. 744: 303, 314,
315, 1587, 1589.
Athens Mfg. Co. v. Rueker, 80 Ga.
292: 95, 456.
Athens Terminal Co. v. Athens F. &
M. Works, 129 Ga. 393 : 242, 297,
1581, 1617.
Atkins V. Boston, 188 Mass. 77: 1186,
1220.
Atkinson v. Asheville St. R. R. Co.
113 N. C. 581: 305.
V. Atlanta, 81 Ga. 625: 154, 629,
1648, 1656, 1660, 1718.
V. Marietta R. R. Co., 15 Ohio St.
21: 687, 729, 1048.
V. Newton, 169 Mass. 242: 514.
V. Washington Irr. Co., 44 Wash.
75: 957, 1569.
Atlanta v. Central R. R. Co., 53 Ga.
120: 750, 926, 1182.
V. Green, 67 Ga. 386: 629, 671.
V. Holliday, 96 Ga. 546: 347, 349,
1487, 1594.
V. Hunnicutt, 95 Ga. 138: 1331,
1496, 1524.
V. Schneltzer, 83 Ga. 609: 1353.
xliv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Atlanta v. Wood, 78 Ga. 276: 629,
653, 1137.
Atlanta Consolidated St. Ry. Co. v.
Jackson, 108 Ga. 634: 1504.
Atlanta etc. E. R. Co. v. Atlanta etc.
R. R. Co., 124 Ga. 125: 760, 799,
800.
V. Atlanta etc. R. R. Co., 125 Ga.
529: 246, 639, 1580.
V. Barker, 105 Ga. 534: 1627, 1631.
V. Kimberly, 87 Ga. 161 : 159, 454.
V. Redwine, 123 Ga. 736: 10^,
1624.
T. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228 : 693.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 131 Fed. 657:
«08.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 153 Fed. 122:
1504.
Atlanta Ry. & P. Co. t. Atlanta
Rapid Transit Co., 113 Ga. 481:
881, 1620.
Atlantic Ave. R. R. Co., In re, 136 N.
Y. 292 : 922.
Atlantic City v.' GroflF, 64 N. J. L.
527: 888.
V. GrofF, 68 N. J. L. 670: 880.
T. New Auditorium Pier Co., 63 N.
J. Eq. 644: 117.
V. Snee, 68 N. J. L. 39: 891.
Atlantic City Gas & W. Co. v. Con-
sumers' Gas & Fuel Co., 70 N.
J. Eq. 5b6: 1608.
Atlantic Coast Line Elec. R. R. Co.
V. Griffin, 64 N. J. L. 513: 700.
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v.
Corp. Commission, 206 U. S. 1:
488.
V. Florida, 203 U. S. 256 : 480, 483.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 120 Ga.
268: 733, 773, 1061, 1066, 1231,
1233, 1266, 1285, 1286, 1407.
V. South Bound R. R. Co., 57 S. C,
317: 740, 927, 1399.
Atlantic etc. R. R. Co., appellants,
100 Maine, 430: 752.
Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. Campbell,
4 Ohio St. 583: 1124, 1125.
V. Cordele, 125 Ga. 373: 361, 491.
V. Cordele, 128 Ga. 293: 361, 491.
V. Cumberland Co. Comrs., 28 Me.
112: 1444.
V. Cumberland Co. Comrs., 51
Maine 36 : 1004.
V. Fuller, 48 Ga. 423 : 1524.
V. Kirkland, 129 Ga. 552: 728.
V. Koblentz, 21 Ohio St. 334:
1323.
V. Lesuer, 2 Ariz. 428 : 837.
V. MeKnight, 125 Ga. 328: 629,
634, 639, 1297, 1301, 1302, 1549,
1552.
Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. Montezuma.
122 Ga. 1: 309, 1622.
V. Peake, 87 Va. 130: 92, 1651,
1653.
V. Penny, 119 Ga. 479: 815, 1059,
1060, 1061, 1063, 1065, 1066,
1519.
V. Prudhomme, 2 Montreal Supr.
Ct. 21: 1322.
V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 116
Ga. 412: 1610, 1611.
V. Sullivan, 5 Ohio St. 76: 929,
1048.
Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. v. Chicago etc.
R. R. Co., 6 Biss. 158 : 425.
Atlee V. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389 : 99,
136.
Atley V. Clinton County, 77 Ohio St.
285: 1423.
Atterbury v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
134 111. App. 330: 152, 846, 847.
Attorney General v. Abbott, 154
Mass. 323: 871, 876, 878, 890.
V. Boston, 186 Mass. 209: 1487.
v. Boston & A. R. R. Co., 160 Mass.
62: 476.
V. Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum,
L. R. 4 Ch. App. 146: 81, 1605.
V. Conservators of the Thames, 1
H. & M. 1 : 128.
V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 27 N.
J. Eq. 1: 97, 116.
V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 27 N. J.
Eq. 631: 97, 116.
V. Detroit Common Council, 148
Mich. 1 : 299.
V. Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400: 523,
550, 593.
V. Goderich, 5 Grant 402: 421,
1494.
V. Hunter, 1 Dev. Eq. 12 : 484.
V. Lake View Land Co., 143 Ala.
291: 870.
V. Leeds, 5 L. R. Ch. App. 583:
83.
V. Lonsdale, 7 L. R. Eq. Cas. 390:
649.
V. Lunatic Asylum, 4 L. R. Ch.
App. 146: 81.
V. McClear, 146 Mich. 45: 564, 576.
T. Metropolitan R. R. Co., L. R.
(1894) 1 Q. B. D. 384: 451, 657.
V. Metropolitan R. R. Co., 125
Mass. 515: 268.
V. Morris etc. R. R. Co. 19 N. J.
Eq. 386: 406, 1583.
V. Paterson, 58 N. J. Eq. 1: 1604.
V. Pingree, 120 Mich. 550: 739.
V. Revere Copper Co., 152 Mass.
444: 109, 110.
V. Sherry, 20 R. I. 43 : 364, 368.
CASES CITED.
xlv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Attorney General v. Smith, 109 Wis.
532: 109, 114, 115, 128.
V. Sunderland, L. E. 2 Ch. Div.
634: 420, 421, 1494.
V. Sunderland, L. R. 2 Ch. Div.
638: 1494.
V. Tarr, 148 Mass. 309: 356, 422,
1496, 1618.
V. Tomline, 12 L. E. Ch. Div. 214:
166.
V. Tomline, 14 L. R. Ch. Div. 58:
166.
V. Turpin, 3 Hen. & Mun. 548:
1325, 1683.
V. Vineyard Grove Co., 181 Mass.
507: 872.
V. Williams, 174 Mass. 476: 468,
512, 540.
V. Williams, 178 Mass. 330: 468.
V. Woods, 108 Mass. 436: 113.
Atwater v. Canandaigua, 56 Hun
293: 138.
V. Canandaigua, 124 N. Y. 602:
138
v. Mayer, 29 Alb. L. J. 483: 1594.
Attwood V. Bangor, 83 Maine, 582:
142, 1650, 1656.
V. Moosehead Paper & Pulp Co., 85
Maine 379 : 948.
V. O'Brien, 80 Maine 447 : 879.
V. Partree, 56 Conn. 80: 385, 388,
406.
Auburn v. Union Water Power Co.,
90 Maine 576: 109, 138.
Auchinloss v. Metropolitan R. R. Co.,
69 App. Div. 63: 315.
Auditor v. Crise, 20 Ark. 540: 1531.
Auditor General v. Crane, 152 Mich.
94: 1511, 1637.
Audubon v. Hand, 231 111. 334: 1017,
1020.
Augusta V. Marks, 50 Ga. 612: 1182.
V. Marks, 124 Ga. 365: 142, 453,
1649, 1654.
V. Schrameck, 96 Ga. 426: 629,
1306, 1307, 1337.
V. Tyner, 197 III. 242: 891.
Augusta etc. R. R. Co. v. Augusta,
100 Ga. 701 : 297.
Aull V. Columbia etc. R. R. Co, 42 S.
C. 431: 976, 996.
Auman v. Philadelphia etc. R, R. Co.,
113 Pa. St. 93: 1152.
Aurora v. Elgin etc. Traction Co.,
227 III. 485 : 241, 284, 304.
V. Fox, 78 Ind. 1: 229, 442, 1453.
V. Gillett, 56 III. 132: 233.
V. Love, 93 111. 521 : 154.
V. Reed. 57 III. 29 : 233.
V. West, 9 Ind. 74: 10, 26, 462.
Aurora Blec. Lt. & P. Co. v. Me-
Wethy, 104 111. App. 479: 344,
1594.
Aurora etc. E. E. Co. v. Harvey, 178
111. 477 : 720, 1045, 1059, 1068.
V. Lawrenceburg, 56 Ind. 80: 1047.
V. Miller, 56 Ind. 88: 1044, 1047,
1048.
Austel V. Atlanta, 100 Ga. 182 : 1080,
1408.
Austin V. Allen, 6 Wis. 134: 974,
1022, 1518.
V. Augusta Terminal Ey. Co., 108
Ga. 671: 449, 666, 671.
V. Austin City Cem. Assn., 87 Tex.
330: 469.
V. Belleville etc. E. E. Co., 19 111.
310: 734, 1396.
V. Detroit etc. Ey. Co., 134 Mich.
149: 272, 274, 280, 281, 324.
v. Helms, 65 N. C. 560: 1102.
V. Murray, 16 Pick. 121 : 480.
V. Eutland R. R. Co., 45 Vt. 215:
108, 830.
Austin etc. R. E. Co. v. Anderson,
79 Texas 427: 155, 1651, 1655,
1716.
Autensieth v. St. Louis etc. E. R. Co.,
36 Mo. App. 254: 351, 372, 385,
1649, 1659.
Avery v. Fox, 1 Abb. U. S. 246: 70,
75, 1163, 1603.
V. Groton, 36 Conn. 304: 1103.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 113
Mo. 561: 1627, 1633.
V. Maxwell, 4 N. H. 38 : 1489.
V. Police Jury, 12 La. Ann. 554:
160.
V. Vandusen, 5 Pick. 182: 1185.
V. Vermont Elec. Co., 75 Vt. 235:
508, 536, 551, 560, 591.
Avis V. Vineland, 55 N. J. L. 285:
914.
Avon-by-the-Sea L. & I. Co. v. Nep-
tune City, 53 N. J. Eq. 178 : 300.
Avondale v. McFarland, 101 Ala.
381: 629, 638, 653.
Avondale Land Co. v. Avondale, 111
Alabama, 523: 877, 1618.
Axford V. Philadelphia, 19 Phila.
483: 1308.
Axtell V. Coombs, 4 Maine 322 : 1046.
Aycock V. San Antonio Brewing Co.,
26 Tex. Civ. App. 341: 291, 640.
Ayer v. Chicago, 149 111. 262: 1387,
1514.
Ayres v. Gulf etc. Ry. Co., 39 Tex.
Civ. App. 561, 746.
V. Penn.sylvania E. R. Co., 52 N.
J. L. 405: 892.
xlvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Ayres v. Richards, 38 Mich. 214:
520, 990, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1016,
1419.
V. Richards, 41 Mich. 680: 1328.
V. Windsor, 14 Ont. 682: 236.
B.
Babb V. Carver, 7 Wis. 124: 1022.
V. Mackey, 10 Wis. 371: 550, 1523.
Babcock v. Buffalo, 66 N. Y. 268:
484.
V. Buffalo, 1 Sheldon 317: 122, 127,
132.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 107 Wis.
280: 1547, 1714.
V. Welsh, 71 Cal. 400 : 1602.
T. Western R. R. Co., 9 Met. 553:
1507.
Bachelor v. Cole, 132 Ind. 143 : 1409.
V. New Hampton, 60 N. H. 207:
996, 1381.
Bachler'a Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 207:
673.
Bachman's Road, 1 Watts 400: 1388.
Bachus V. Fort St. Union Depot Co.,
169 V. S. 55 : 7.
Backus V. Detroit, 49 Mich. 110: 131.
V. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 169
U. S. 557: 927.
V. Lebanon, 11 N. H. 19: 781, 788,
923.
Bacon v. Boston, 154 MasS. 100: 166,
452, 453, 456, 457, 1524.
V. Noble, 20 Ohio C. C. 281: 993.
V. Walker, 77 Ga. 336: 657, 669,
1613.
Bacot, Ex parte, 36 S. C. 125: 528,
534.
Badgely v. Hamilton Co., 1 Disney
Ohio 316: 1524, 1525.
Badger v. Boston, 130 Mass. 170:
625, 1524, 1525.
V. Merry, 139 Ind. 631: 1106, 1409.
Bagnall v. London & N. W. Ry. Co.,
1 H. & C. (Exch.) 544: 1639.
Baier v. Hosmer, 107 Wis. 380: 1370,
1515, 1570, 1571.
Bailey v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 182
Mass. 537: 437, 1271.
V. Carrollton, 28 La. Ann. 171:
1545.
V. Culver, 84 Mo. 531: 371, 380,
388, 398, 644, 1595.
V. Culver, 12 Mo. App. 175 : 371.
V. Culver, 12 Mo. App. 531: 380,
388, 398.
V. Isle of Thanet St. Ry. Co., (1900)
1 Q. B. 722: 1240.
T. McCain, 92 III. 277: 1510, 1512.
Bailey v. New Orleans, 19 La. Ann.
271: 1545.
V. New York, 3 Hill 531: 624.
V. People, 190 111. 28: 53.
Bailey v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.
4 Harr. (Del.) 389: 107, 108,
691, 922.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 17
Pa. Dist. Ct. 115: 819.
V. Sweeney, 64 N. H. 296 : 1481.
V. Woburn, 126 Mass. 416: 74, 77,
78, 1331, 1332, 1446.
Bainard v. Newton, 154 Mass. 255;
79, 82.
Baird v. Hunter, 12 Pick. 556 : 1667.
V. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560: 697.
V. Schuylkill River E. S. R. R. Co.,
154 Pa. St. 459: 1339.
V. Wills, 22 Pick. 312: 899.
Baker, Matter of, 54 App. Div. 21:
1410.
Matter of, 59 App. Div. 625 : 1086,
1087.
Matter of, 173 N. Y. 249: 1088,
1087.
Baker v. Ashland, 50 N. H. 27: 992.
V. Atchison etc. R. R. Co., 122 Mo.
396: 943, 945.
V. Boston, 12 Pick. 184: 14, 484,
557.
V. Boston El. Ry. Co., 183 Mass.
178: 266, 448, 622, 666, 1303.
V. Braman, 6 Hill 47: 1527, 1528.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 57 Mo.
265: 858, 1631.
V. Fall River, 187 Mass. 53: 1390.
V. Hogaboom, 12 S. D. 405: 1492.
V. Holderness, 26 N. H. 110: 923.
V. Johnson, 2 Hill 342: 1496.
V. Johnston, 21 Mich. 319: 879.
V. Leka, 48 111. App. 353 : 167, 1652,
1662.
V. Metropolitan R. R. Co., 31 Beav.
504: 845, 861.
V. New York, 31 App. Div. 112:
1565.
V. Norwood, 74 Fed. 997: 1220.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 219
Pa. St. 398: 1129.
V. Rochester, 24 N. Y. App. Div.
383: 744, 1263.
V. Runnels, 12 Maine 235: 1411,
1510.
V. Selma St. & Suburban Ry. Co.,
130 Ala. 474: 271, 305, 307.
V. Selma St. &. Suburban Ry. Co.
135 Ala. 552: 271, 306.
V. Shepard, 24 N. H. 208: 1486,
1489.
V. Shoals, 6 Ind. App. 319: 211,
601.
CASES CITED.
xlvii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Baker v. Tjuunton, 119 Mass. 392:
1717.
V. Thayer, 3 Met. 312: 1444.
V. Vanderburg, 99 Mo. 378: 875.
V. Windham, 25 Conn. 597: 1404,
1510, 1516.
Balch V. County Comrs. of Essex, 103
Mass. 106: 542, 785, 897.
V. Detroit, 109 Mich. 253: 1531.
Baldwin v. Bangor, 36 Maine 518:
678, 1625.
V. Buffalo, 29 Barb. 396: 1459,
1572.
V. Buffalo, 35 N. Y. 375: 1326,
1412, 1571.
V. Calkins, 10 Wend. 167: 1086,
1087.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 35 Minn.
354: 1551, 1648, 1657.
V. Newark, 38 N. J. L. 158: 1168,
1187, 1529.
V. Ohio Tp. 70 Kan. 102: 147, 154.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 78 S. C.
. 419: 685.
Baldwin etc. Tps. Eoad, 36 Pa. St. 9:
1371.
Baldwin & Snowden Eoad, 3 Grant's
Cases 62: 1371.
Bales V. Pidgeon, 129 Ind. 548: 865,
870.
Balfour v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
62 Miss. 508: 1179.
Ball V. Herbert, 3 T. R. 253 : 433.
V. Humphrey, 4 G. Greene 204
1409.
V. Keokuk etc. R. R. Co., 71 Iowa
306: 996, 1425.
y. Keokuk eac. R. R. Co., 74 Iowa
132: 1123, 1125, 1128, 1204.
V. Maysville etc. R. R. Co., 102 Ky.
486: 179. 249, 253, 448, 639,
1544.
V. Slack, 2 Whart. Pa. 538: 127.
V. Tacoma, 9 Wash. 592: 1356.
Ballance v. Peoria, 180 HI. 29: 102.
Ballard v. Ballard Vale Co., 5 Gray
468: 948.
V. Struckman, 123 111. 636: 866,
869.
V. Tomlinson, 26 L.- R. Ch. Div.
194: 165.
V. Tomlinson, L. R. 29 Ch. Div.
115: 165.
Bailie v. Larson, 138 Fed. 177 : 564.
Balliet v. Commonwealth, 17 Pa. St.
509: 1489.
Ballou V. Elder, 95 Iowa 693: 821.
Baltimore v. Appbold, 42 Md. 442:
70, 79, 1604.
\f. Baltimore etc. Steamboat Co.,
104 Md. 485: 1231, 1313.
Baltimore v. Baltimore T. & G. Co..
166 U. S. 673: 309.
V. Bouldin, 23 Md. 328: 917.
V. Brick Co., 80 Md. 458: 1119.
V. Brownel, 86 Md. 153: 886, 888.
V. Clunet, 23 Md. 449: 589.
V. Coates, 85 Md. 531: 1614.
V. Cowen, 88 Md. 447 : 355, 966.
V. Fairfield Imp. Co., 87 Md. 352:
452.
V. Fear, 82 Md. 246: 879.
V. Frick, 82 Md. 77: 190, 367, 889.
V. Grand Lodge, 44 Md. 436: 914.
V. Greenmount Cemetery, 7 Md.
517: 13.
V. Hook, 62 Md. 371: 431, 1159.
V. Latrobe, 101 Md. 621 : 743, 957,
958, 1253, 1255, 1257.
V. Little Sisters, 56 Md. 400: 917.
V. Merryman, 86 Md. 584: 91.
V. Musgrave, 48 Md. 272: 1673,
1690, 1691.
V. Northern Central R. R. Co., 88
Md, 427: 879.
V. Porter, 18 Md. 284 : 237.
V. Rice, 73 Md,307: 1257.
V. St. Agnes' Hospital, 48 Md. 419 :
431.
V. Smith & S. Brick Co., 80 Md.
458: 1138, 1143.
V. Warren Mfg. Co. 59 Md. 96:
86, 1604.
Baltimore Belt R. R. Co. v. Baltzell,
75 Md. 94: 922, 1000, 1004, 1013,
1014, 1019.
V. Lee, 75 Md. 596: 1569, 1574,
1576.
V. Sattler, 100 Md. 306: 447.
V. Sattler, 102 Md. 595: 1119, 1120,
1124, 1125.
V. Sattler, 105 Md. 264: 447, 1659.
Baltimore County W. & Elec. Co. v.
Baltimore Co., 105 Md. 154: 172,
359.
V. Dubreuil, 105 Md. 424: 172,
173, 176, 177, 337.
Baltimore etc. Extension Co. v. Duke,
129 Pa. St. 422: 324, 640.
V. Seipel, 129 Pa. St. 425: 1708.
Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Algire,
63 Md. 319: 857, 859, 1636.
V. Baltimore, 98 Md. 535 : 1290.
V. Board of Comrs. 156 Ind. 260:
776, 799, 1510.
V. Bouvier, 70 N. J. Eq. 158: 1226,
1347.
V. Boyd, 63 Md. 325: 1159, 1634.
V. Butler Pass. Ry. Co., 207 Pa.
St. 406: 770.
xlviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. B. W.
& Ky. R. R. Co., 17 W. Va.
812' 687
V. Chase, 43 Md. 23: 127, 128, 129,
130.
V. Duke, 129 Pa. St. 422: 324.
V. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S.
317: 450, 451.
V. Fifth Baptist Church, 137 U. S.
568: 450.
V. Fitzgerald, 2 App. Cas. D. C.
501: 309, 316.
V. Flower, 132 Pa. St. 524: 1110.
V. Hackett, 87 Md. 224: 152, 1664.
V.Johnson, 84 Ind. 420: 1429,
1463.
V. Ketring, 122 Ind. 5: 929.
V. Lansing, 52 Ind. 229: 1310, 1311,
1316.
V. Lersch, 58 Ohio St. 639 : 1294.
V. Magruder, 34 Md. 79: 87, 1454,
1476.
V. Nesbitt, 10 How. U. S. 395: 690,
1431, 1674.
V. North, 103 Ind. 486: 776, 786,
798, 1010, 1609.
V. Parrette, 55 Fed. 50: 952, 966,
1629.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 17
Phlia. 396: 770.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 17 W.
Va. 812: 9, 21, 672, 675, 754,
799, 1005, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011,
1013, 1014, 1043, 1045, 1061,
1074, 1075, 1077, 1424.
V. Quillen, 34 Ind. App. 330: 152,
154, 1450, 1454, 1639, 1654.
V. Reaney, 42 Md. 117: 440.
V. Seymour, 154 Ind. 17 : 864.
V. Sloan, 131 Pa. St. 568: 1208.
V. State, 159 Ind. 510: 928, 1010,
1288, 1642, 1644.
V. Stewart, 128 111. App. 270: 91.
V. Strauss, 37 Md. 237: 1583.
V. Taylor, 6 App. D. C. 259 : 315.
V. Thompson, 10 Md. 76 : 952, 961,
1132, 1635.
V. Union R. R. Co., 35 Md. 224:
410.
V. Van Ness, 4 Cranch 595: 524.
V. Waters, 105 Md. 396: 717, 718.
V. Winslow, 18 App. Cas. D. C.
438:1620.
Baltimore Extension R. E. Co., In re
(1895) 1 I. R. 169: 1326.
Baltimore & F. Turnpike Road v.
Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 81 Md.
247: 789, 798.
Baltimore & Havre-de-Grace Turn-
pike Co. V. Northern Central R.
R. Co., 15 Md. 193: 1422.
Baltimore & Havre-de-Graee Turn-
pike Co. V. Union R. R. Co., 35
Md. 224: 409, 782, 1610.
Baltimore & Ohio Tel. Co. v. Mor-
gan's La. & Tex. R. R. Co., 37 La.
Ann. 883: 775, 791.
v. Western Union Tel. Co., 24 Fed.
318: 412, 832.
Baltimore T. & G. Co. v. Baltimore,
64 Fed. 153: 303.
Baltimore Traction Co. v. Baltimore
Belt R. R. Co., 151 U. S. 137:
1005, 1433.
Baltzeger v. Carolina Midland R. R.
Co., 54 S. C. 242: 148, 159.
Bancroft v. Boston, 115 Mass. 377:
1185.
V. Cambridge, 126 Mass. 438: 484,
569, 586, 948, 1320.
V. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432: 629,
1309, 1567.
Bangor v. County Comrs., 30 Maine
270: 1415, 1419.
v. Lansil, 51 Me. 521: 147.
r etc. R. R. Co. v. McComb,
60 Maine 290: 494, 1174, 1175,
1177, 1185, 1315, 1319.
V. Smith, 47 Maine 34: 321.
Banigan v. Worcester, 30 Fed. 392:
702, 929, 931.
Bankhead v. Brown, 25 Iowa 540:
494, 495, 498, 516, 517, 520, 675.
Bank of Auburn v. Roberts, 44 N. Y.
192: 948, 949, 1563.
Bank of Hopkinsville v. Western Ky.
Asylum, 108 Ky. 357: 76, 1654.
Banks et al. appellants, 29 Maine
288: 1412.
Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57 : 130.
V. School Directors, 194 111. 247
960.
Bannister v. Mclntire, 112 Iowa 600
1534.
Bannon v. Angier, 2 Allen 128: 835,
V. Rohmeiser, 90 Ky. 48 : 369, 373,
382, 389, 391, 405, 1596.
Banse v. Clark, 69 Minn. 53: 974,
992, 1157, 1365, 1707.
Barbadoes St., In re, 8 Phila. 498
1109, 1274.
Barber v. Andover, 8 N. H. 398
782.
V. East Dallas, 83 Tex. 147: 1546,
Barbian v. Chicago, 80 111. 482: 1392.
Barbour v. Barbour, 46 Maine 9: 943
V. Lyddy, 49 Fed. 896: 183, 879.
Barclay v. Abraham, 121 Iowa 619
162.
V. Howell, 6 Pet. 498: 1486.
V. Lebanon, 11 N. H. 19: 422.
V. Pickles, 38 Mo. 143: 1255.
CASES CITED.
xlix
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-Jfl9.]
Barclay R. E. & C. Co. v. Ingham,
36 Pa. St. 194: 92, 95, 104.
Barden v. Portage, 79 Wis. 126: 89.
Bardstown etc. R. R. Co. v. Metcalfe,
4 Met. (Ky.) 199: 1497.
Bardstown etc. Turnpike Co. v. Nel-
son Co., 109 Kv. 800: 1672.
Barfield v. Gleason, 111 Ky. 491: 11,
463, 1548.
V. Macon Co., 109 Ga. 386: 156,
629, 634.
Barker v. Clark, 4 N. H. 380; 865.
V. Hartman Steel Co., 6 Pa. Co. Ct.
183: 301, 688, 1582.
V. Hartman Steel Co., 129 Pa. St.
551: 317.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 60
Wis. 480: 929.
V. Southern Ey. Co., 137 N. C. 214:
165, 1157, 1707, 1708.
V. Taunton, 119 Mass. 392: 1353.
Barlow v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 29
Iowa 276: 834, 854, 1497, 1503.
V. Highway Comrs., 59 Mich. 443:
1095.
Barnard v. Comrs., 172 111. 391: 1614.
v. Fitch, 7 Met. 605: 976.
V. Haworth, 9 Ind. 103 : 1362.
V. Shirley, 135 Ind. 547: 71, 82.
Barnes v. Fox. 61 Iowa 18: 1018,
1571.
V. Grafton, 61 W. Va. 408: 631.
r. Hannibal, 71 Mo. 449: 91, 95.
V. Michigan Air Line R. R. Co.,
65 Mich. 251: 1245, 1450, 1451.
v. Midland.R. R. Terminal Co., 193
N. y. 378: 1603, 1607.
T. New York, 27 Hun 236 : 1325.
V. Springfield, 4 Allen 488: 703.
■V. Suddard, 117 111. 237: 837.
V. Tidewater Ry. Co., 107 Va. 263 :
1379.
Bamet v. Paasumpsic Turnpike Co.,
15 Vt. 757 : 423.
Bamett v. Johnson, 15 N. J. Eq. 481 :
188.
V. Matagorda R. & I. Co., 98 Tex.
365: 148.
T. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 79 S. C.
462: 685.
V. Railroad Co., 68 Mo. 56: 475.
V. St. Anthony etc. Co., 33 Minn.
265: 1119, 1121, 1127.
T. St. Francis Levee Dist. 125 Mo.
App. 61: 93, 1639, 1653, 1716.
V. State, 15 Ala. 829: 1017, 1032,
1033, 1412.
Barney v. Keokuk, 4 Dill. 593: 308,
1593.
V. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324: 104, 105,
110, 114, 201, 308.
Barnaley Canal Co. v. Twibell, 13 L.
J. Ch. 434: 952.
Barnstable Savings Bank v. Boston,
127 Mass. 254: 948, 1638.
Barnum v. Minnesota Transfer Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 365: 320, 302, 370,
384.
Barr v. Flynn, 20 Mo. App. 383: 990.
V. Omaha, 42 Neb. 342: 994, 1170,
1216, 1308.
V. Oskaloosa, 45 Iowa 275: 199,
366, 376, 388, 395.
V. Stevens, 1 Bibb. 292: 1403.
Barrall v. Quicli, HI Ky. 22: 1113,
1316, 1332, 1439.
Barre R. R. Co. v. Montpelier R. R.
Co., 61 Vt. 1: 754, 759, 793, 798,
901, 908.
Barrett v. Bangor, 70 Maine 335:
91.
V. Kemp, 91 Iowa 296: 677, 1056.
V. Metcalf, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 247:
141.
V. Mt. Greenwood Cem. Assn., 57
m. App. 401: 79, 453, 1613.
V. Mt. Greenwood Cem. Assn., 159
111. 385: 83, 1004.
Barre Turnpike Co. v. Appleton, 2
Pick. 430: 1028, 1079.
Barre Water Co. In re, 62 Vt. 27:
551, 595, 710, 723.
Barre Water Co., In re, 72 Vt. 413:
1332.
Barrickman v. Commissioners, 11 6.
& J. 50: 1343.
Barrington v. Meyer, 103 111. App.
124: 630, 1306.
Barron v. Mayor etc. of Baltimore, 7
Peters 243: 23.
V. Memphis, 113 Tenn. 89: 57, 87.
Barrow v. Page, 5 Haywood (Tenn.)
97: 19.
Barrows v. Guest, 5 Utah 91: 867.
V. Sycamore, 150 111. 588: 179, 197,
355, 643, 657, 1488, 1497.
v. Sycamore, 49 111. App. 590: 355.
Barry v. Delaughery, 47 Neb. 354:
970, 992, 1004.
v. Lowell, 8 Allen 127: 143.
V. Smith, 191 Mass. 78: 455.
Barstow Irr. Co. v. Black, 39 Tex.
Civ. App. 80: 152.
Bartels v. Houston, 32 Tex. Civ. App.
389: 226, 848.
Barter v. Commonwealth, 3 Penn. &
Watts 253: 355.
Bartleson v. Minneapolis, 33 Minn.
468: 1626, 1629.
Bartlett v. Bangor, 67 Maine 460:
880, 1326.
V. Beardmore, 77 Wis. 356: 882.
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Bartlett v. Bristol, 66 N. H. 420:
1525.
V. Tarrytown, 52 Hun 380: 609,
619, 1356.
V. Tarrytown, 55 Hun 492: 610,
615.
Bartley v. Cincinnati, 8 Ohio C. C.
226: 1219.
Bartram v. Central Turnpike Co., 25
Cal. 283: 409.
Bashfield v. Empire State Tel. Co., 71
Hun 532: 339.
Bass V. Elliott, 105 lud. 517: 929,
1367.
V. Ft. Wayne, 121 Ind. 389: 677,
713, 822, 928, 1431, 1510, 1512,
1602.
V. Metropolitan W. S. El. R. E.
Co., 82 Fed. 857: 438, 953, 1570,
1575.
V. Roanoke etc. Co., Ill N. C. 439:
1497, 150ii.
V. State, 34 La. Ann. 494 : 440.
Bassett v. Clement, 17 N. J. L. 166:
1102.
V. Denn, 17 N. J. L. 432: 1092.
V. Harwiclt, 180 Mass. 585: 865,
870.
V.Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 201 Pa.
St. 226: 1479.
Bastable v. Syracuse, 8 Hvin 587:
233.
Bastain v. Pliiladelphia, 180 Pa. St.
227: 1252.
Bate V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
1 Mont. Co. L. R. 47: 918, 1466,
1561, 1670.
Bateman v. Covington, 90 Ky. 390:
197, 1496.
Bates V. Boston El. Ry. Co., 187 Mass.
328: 948, 1261, 1564, 1717.
V. Cooper, 5 Ohio 115: 725, 1165.
V. Ray, 102 Mass. 458: 1310.
V. Westborough, 151 Mass. 174:
143.
V. Weymouth Iron Co., 8 Cush.
548: 554, 557.
Bathgate v. Irvine, 126 Cal. 135:
70.
Battle Creek etc. R. R. Co. v. Tiffany,
99 Mich. 471: 751.
Battles V. Baintree, 14 Vt. 348: 1527.
Baubie v. Ossman, 142 Mo. 499: 1511.
Baudistel v. Jackson, 110 Mich. 357:
384, 390, 406, 1416.
v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 113
Mich. 687: 400, 384.
Baugh V. Gulf etc. Ry. Co., 44 Tex.
Civ. App. 443: 152.
V. Texas etc. R. R. Co., 80 Tex.
56: 309, 316, 1651, 16.59.
Eaugher v. Kudd. 53 Ark. 417: 1399.
Baughman v. Heinzelman, 180 111.
251: 675, 1056.
Bauman v. Boeckeler, 119 Mo. 189:
881, 882.
V. New Castle, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 22:
1649.
V. Ross, 167 U. S. 548: 923, 1188.
Baxter v. Turnpike Co., 22 Vt. 119:
1489.
Bayo V. Lake City, 44 Fla. 491: 1568.
Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Ore.
438: 865, 867, 871.
Baychester Ave., Matter of, 120 App.
Div. 393: 1270, 1271.
Bay City Belt Line R. R. Co. v.
Hitchcock, 90 Mich. 533: 972.
Bayou Cook Nav. & T. Co. v. Doullut,
111 La. 517: 1050.
Beach v. Elmira. 22 Hun 158: 141,
1612.
V. Scranton, 25 Pa. Supr. Ct. 430:
1450, 1457.
V. Sterling Iron & Z. Co., 54 N. J.
Eq. 65: 65, 81, 82, 1604.
V. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co., 120
N. C. 498 : 1649, 1655.
Beacon v. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co.,
1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 618: 1331, 1481.
Beal v. Durham etc. R. R. Co., 136
N. C. 298: 936, 1360, 1559, 1560.
Beale, Matter of, 39 Cal. 495: 1550.
V. Boston, 166 Mass. 53: 1327.
V. New York Central & Hudson
River R. R. Co., 41 Hun 172:
1501.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 86 Pa.
St. 509: 1682.
Beale St., Matter of, 39 Cal. 495:
617, 1717.
Bean v. Hinman, 33 Maine 48: 960.
V. Kulp, 7 Phila. 650: 949.
V. Warner, 38 N. H. 247 : 966.
Bean's Road, 35 Pa. St. 280: 1364.
Beard v. Henniker, 69 N. H. 279:
994.
V. Henniker, 70 N. H. 197: 1683.
V. Murphy, 37 Vt. 99: 145, 440,
441.
Beardslee v. Dolge, 143 N. Y. 160:
1418.
V. French, 7 Conn. 125: 1362, 1492,
1504.
Beardsley v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.,
65 Hun 502: 1483, 1645, 1646.
V. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 142
N. Y. 173: 1645, 1646.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 162
N. Y. 230: 484.
V. Washington, 39 Conn. 265: 1105.
Bearse v. Perry, 117 Mass. 211: 560.
V. Bristol, 66 N. H. 420: 1525.
CASES CITED.
[The references ere to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Beasley v. Aberdeen etc. E. R. Co.,
147 N. C. 362: 1523, 1524, 1546,
1631.
V. Mountain Lake Water Co., 13
Cal. 306: 706.
Beatrice v. Leary, 45 Neb. 149 : 143,
149, 153.
Beatrice Gas Co. v. Thomas, 41 Neb.
662: 166.
Beattie v. Carolina Central E. R. Co.,
108 N. C. 425: 845.
Beatty v. Beethe, 23 Neb. 210: 1018,
1020, 1569, 1571.
V. Kuntz, 2 Pet. 566 : 872.
V. Kuntz, 6 Pet. 430: 872.
V. Kinnear Mfg. Co., 21 Ohio C. C.
384: 191, 363, 371, 389, 392, 398,
405, 1596.
V. St. Joseph, 57 Mo. App. 251:
237.
Beaudrot v. Murphy, 53 S. C. 118:
516.
Beaver v. Beaver Valley R. R. Co.,
217 Pa. St. 280: 304.
V. Harrisburg, 156 Pa. St. 547:
226, 635, 1356, 1452.
Bechnel v. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co.,
28 La. Ann. 522: 862.
Beck V. Biggers, 66 Ark. 292. 1029,
1082, 1363.
V. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 87 Hun
30: 1296, 1299, 1302.
V. Erie Terminal E. R. Co., 11 Pa.
Co. Ct. 363: 248, 641.
V. Ingram, 1 Bush (Ky.) 355: 18.
V. Louisville etc. E. E. Co., 65
Miss. 172: 857, 1627, 1633.
V. Pennsylvania etc. E. E. Co., 148
Pa. St. 271: 1123.
V. United N. J. E. E. Co., 39 N. J.
L. 45: 708, 710.
Becker v. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 126
111. 436: 1426.
V. Lebanon etc. St. Ey. Co., 30 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 546: 1297.
V. Lebanon etc. St. R. E. Co., 188
Pa. St. 484: 1588.
V. Lebanon etc. St. Ey. Co., 195
Pa. St. 502: 1630.
V. Metropolitan El. E. E. Co., 131
N. Y. 509: 1196, 1296, 1301,
1302.
V. Philadelphia etc. E. E. Co., 177
Pa. St. 252: 1140, 1277.
Beckerle v. Danbury, 80 Conn. 124:
858.
Beckett v. Midland Ey. Co., 1 L. E.
C. P. 241: 635, 640, 1377.
v. Midland Ey. Co., 3 L. R. C. P.
82: 636. 640.
Beckman v. Lincoln etc. R. R. Co.,
79 Neb. 89 : 689, 690.
V. Railroad Co., 3 Paige 73 : 495.
Beckwith v. Beckwith, 22 Ohio St.
180: 721.
Bedell v. Sea Cliff, 18 App. Div. 261 :
155.
Bedenbaugh v. Southern Ey. Co., 69
S. C. 1 : 306.
Bedford v. United States, 192 U. S.
217: 86, 100.
Bedford etc. E. E. Co. v. Stanley,
32 L. J. Ch. 60: 856.
Bedlow V. New York Floating Dry
Dock Co., 112 N. Y. 263: 115.
Beebe v. Little Eoek, 68 Ark. 39:
199.
V. Magoun, 122 Iowa 94: 1007.
V. Scheidt, 13 Ohio St. 406: 1011,
1511.
Beech Creek E. R. Co. v. Olanta Coal
Min. Co., 158 Fed. 36: 1218.
Beecher v. Newark, 64 N. J. L. 475 :
199 373.
V. Newark, 65 N. J. L. 307: 197,
373.
Beech & Page Streets, In re, 91 Pa.
St. 354: b92.
Beekman v. Brooklyn & B. R. E. Co.,
89 Hun 84: 719.
V. Flint Ave. E. E. Co., 153 N. Y-
144: 358.
V. Jackson County. 18 Ore. 283:
1100, 1101, 1177, 1187, 1200,
1215, 1366.
V. Saratoga and Schenectady R. E.
Co., 3 Paige 45 : 6, 504, 524, 675,
746, 923.
V. Third Ave. E. E. Co., 13 App.
Div. 279: 180, 279, 297, 300.
Beekman Street, 20 Johns 269: 1671.
Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S.
25: 15, 469, 478, 485, 736.
Beers v. Chicago etc. Ey. Co., 141
Fed. 957: 1616.
Beeson's Case, 3 Leigh 820: 1508.
Beeson v. Chicago, 75 Fed. 880: 302,
1587.
Behrens v. Commissioners, 169 111.
558: 976, 1035.
V. Maofarland, 30 App. Cas. D. C.
538: 1424.
Beideman v. Atlantic City E. E. Co.
(N. J.) 19 Atl. 731: 446.
Beidler's Appeal, 1 Monaghan (Pa.
Supm. Ct.) 336: 431.
Beidler v. Sanitary District, 211 111.
628: 74, 97, 99, 102, 1337.
Belcher Sugar Refining Co. v. St.
Louis Grain Elevator Co., 82 Mo.
121: 708.
lii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Belcher v. St. Louis Grain Elevator
Co., 10 Mo. App. 401: 543.
Belchertown v. County Comrs., 11
Cush. 189: 916.
Belfast, Appellant, 53 Maine 431:
703, 1370.
Belfast Academy v. Salmund, 11
Maine 109: 1019.
Belk V. Hamilton, 130 Mo. 292: 520,
521, 976.
Belknap v. Belknap, 2 Johns. Ch.
463: 709.
Bell V. Atlantic & P. R. E. Co., 63
Fed. 417: 957.
V. Boston, 101 Mass. 506: 856.
V. 0. B. & Q. K. K. Co., 74 Iowa
343: 1252, 1311, 1312.
V. County Court, 61 Mo. App. 173:
928
v. Cox, 122 Ind. 153 : 1046.
V. Dayton & I. R. E. Co., 3 Ohio
C. C. 31: 851, 855.
V. Hull etc. R. R. Co., 6 M. & W.
699: 652.
V. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co.,
1 Bush (Ky.) 404: 18.
V. Mattoon W. W. & E. Co., 235
111. 218: 412.
V. Norfolk So. R. R. Co., 101 N. C.
21: 160.
V. Ohio etc. R. E. Co., 1 Grant 105:
707, 957, 1494, 1618.
V. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 144
Cal. 560: 832, 833, 841.
Bellair v. B. & 0. R. E. Co., 146 U.
S. 117: 931.
Bellenot v. Eichmond, 108 Va. 314:
1492.
Belleville v. Citizens' Horse E. E. Co.,
152 111. 171: 303, 426.
Bellevue v. Bellevue Imp. Co., 65 Neb.
52: 396.
Bellinger v. New York Central R. R.
Co., 23 N. Y. 42: 88, 94, 461.
Bellingham Bay R. & N. Co. v. Loose,
2 Wash. 500: 434, 1526.
Bellingham Bay etc. E. R. Co. v.
Strand, 4 Wash. 311: 1113, 1242.
V. Strand, 14 Wash. 144: 1320,
1348.
Bellona Company Case, 3 Bland Chy.
442: 501, 504, 524, 710, 789.
Bell Telephone Co. v. Parker, 115
App. Div. 920: 1042, 1044.
V. Parker, 187 N. Y. 299 : 986, 1042,
1044.
Belmont v. New Bng. Brick Co., 190
Mass. 442: 467.
Belmont St. Opening, 128 App. Div.
636: 1324.
Belsborrow v. Pierce, 101 Minn. 271 :
1603.
Belt Line St. Ry. Co. v. Crabtree, 2
Tex. App. Civ. Cas. p. 579 : 640,
1294.
Bemis v. Springfield, 122 Mass. 110:
605.
Bench v. Otis, 25 Mich. 29: 1421.
V. Wilmington & W. R. R. Co., 120
N. C. 498: 155.
Bendickson v. Great Northern Ry.
Co., 80 Minn. 332 : 332, 834.
Benedict v. Goit, 3 Barb. 459: 422,
423.
V. Heineberg, 43 Vt. 231: 1499,
1500.
V. New York, 98 Fed. 789: 1221.
V. State, 120 N. Y. 228: 91, 1707,
1708.
Benham v. Dunbar, 103 Mass. 365:
1138, 1141.
v. Potter, 52 Conn. 248 : 1499.
Benjamin v. Wheeler, 8 Gray 409:
239.
Bennett, ex parte, 26 S. C. 317 : 982,
1417.
Bennett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.
Co., 126 Ga. 411: 864, 867.
V. Boyle, 40 Barb. 5S1: 495, 589,
T. Camden & Amboy E. R. Co., 14
N. J. L. 145 : 1374, 1375.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 73 Fed.
696 : 183, 875.
V. Clemence, 6 Allen 10: 1119,
1120.
v. County Comrs., 4 Gray 359:
1428.
V. Cutler, 44 N. H. 69: 969, 1381,
1514.
V. Drain Comrs., 56 Mich. 634:
984, 1032, 1419.
V. Fisher, 26 Iowa 497 : 734.
V. Hall, 184 Mo. 407: 1186, 1406.
V. Long Island R. R. Co., 181 N.
Y. 431: 326, 1457, 1473.
V. Long Island R. R. Co., 89 App.
Div. 379: 326, 1457, 1473.
V. Marion, 106 Iowa 628: 675, 815,
817, 1044, 1046, 1056, 1060, 1062,
1063, 1066.
V. Marion, 119 Iowa 473: 84, 1650,
1654.
V. Minneapolis etc. E. E. Co., 42
Minn. 245: 947, 1261, 1629.
V. Woody, 137 Mo. 377: 1176, 1186,
1200.
Bennett Water Co. v. Millvale, 202
Pa. St. 616: 410, 417.
Bennington v. Smith, 29 Vt. 254:
700.
CASES CITED.
liii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Bensinger Tp. Public Road, In re, 115
Pa. St. 436: 1386.
Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co.,
13 Cal. 306: 1136, 1162, 1673,
1684.
Benson v. Chicago & Alton K. R. Co.,
78 Mo. 504: 153, 846, 1650, 1655.
V. Morrow, 61 Mo. 345: 104.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 62 Minn.
198: 881.
V. Soule, 32 Maine 39: 1135.
V. Wilmington, 9 Houston 359:
235.
Bent V. Brigham, 117 Mass. 307:
1042.
V. Emery, 173 Mass. 495: 1158.
V. Trimboli, 61 W. Va. 509: 1596.
Bentinck v. Norfolk Estuary Co., 8
Deg. McN. & G. 714: 715, 813,
1624.
Bentley v. Atlanta, 92 Ga. 623: 226,
635, 1664.
V. Wabash etc. Ry. Co., 61 Iowa
229: 1537.
Benton v. Brookline, 151 Mass. 250:
1131, 1150.
V. Milwaukee, 50 Wis. 368: 1137,
1551.
Benton Harbor Terminal Ry. Co. v.
Hall, 131 Mich. 384: 1087.
v.'King, 131 Mich. 377: 1087, 1097.
Bentonville R. R. Co. v. Baker, 45
Ark. 252: 151, 830, 952, 1310,
1524, 1545.
V. Stroud, 45 Ark. 278: 958, 1045,
1136.
Benzenhoefer's Appeal, 154 Pa. St.
547: 1419.
Bequette v. Patterson, 104 Cal. 282:
865.
Bergman v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 129
N. Y. 637: 924.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 59 N. Y.
Supr. 566: 924.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 21 Minn.
533: 1693.
Berggren v. Fremont etc. R. R. Co.,
23 Neb. 620: 1408.
Berger v. Tracy, 135 Iowa 597 : 1010.
Bergen Neck R. R. Co., v. Point
Breeze F. & I. Co., 57 N. J. L.
163: 1131.
Berks Co. v. Reading City Pass. R.
R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 102: 304.
Berks & Dauphin Turnpike Road v.
Lebanon Steam Co., 5 Pa. Co. Ct.
354: 338.
Berks & D. Turnpike Co. v. Lebanon
& M. St. R. R. Co., 3 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 55: 306, 307.
Berks St. Opening, In re, 15 Phila.
381: 1327.
Berlew v. Electric Illuminating Co.,
1 Pa. Co. Ct. 651: 345.
Berlin Road, 3 Yates 263: 1388.
Bern v. Pennsylvania Tp. Road, 2
Monaghan (Pa.) 105: 514.
Bernard v. Brewer, 2 Wash. ( Va. ) 76 :
1018, 1029, 1032.
V. Calloway County Co., 28 Mo.
37: 1384.
Bernhard v. Rochester, 127 App. Div.
875: 1524.
Berrien Springs Water Power Co. v.
Berrien Circ. Judge, 113 Mich.
48: 494, 508, 591, 592, 593.
Berry v. Carle, 3 Greenl. 269: 103.
T. Hebron, 38 N. H. 196 : 1383.
Berryman v. Little, 49 N. J. L. 182 :
1414.
Bertsch v. Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co.,
4 Rawle, 130 : 845.
Beseman v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
50 N. J. L. 235 : 445, 457, 1446,
1476.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 52 N. J.
L. 221 : 445, 1440, 1476.
Besuden v. Comrs., 7 Ohio C. C. 237 :
1109.
Bethel v. Bruett, 215 111. 162: 868,
884, 885, 886.
V. County Comrs., 42 Maine 478:
992.
Bethlehem South Gas & Water Co. v.
Yoder, 112 Pa. St. 136: 1352,
1353, 1667.
Bethlehem Toll-Bridge, 12 Pa. Co.
Ct. 311: 781,782.
Bethum v. Turner, 1 Maine 111: 672,
Betjeman v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
1 Miscl. 138: 1427.
Bettis V. Geddes, 54 Mich. 608 : 1017,
1036, 1420.
Betts V. Williamsburgh, 16 Barb.
255: 1025, 1195.
Beutel V. West Bay City Sugar Co.,
132 Mich. 587 : 384, 390.
Beveridge v. South Park Comrs., 100
111. 75: 1325.
V. West Park Comrs., 7 111. App.
460: 1325.
Bevier v. Dillingham, 18 Wis. 529:
928, 1206.
Bewley v. Graves, 17 Ore. 274: 974,
1021, 1511.
Bexar County v. Terrell (Tex.) 14
S. W. 62: 1138.
Beyer v. Tanner, 29 111. 135: 1636.
Beynon v. Brandywine etc. Turnpike
Co., 30 Ind. 129 : 1100.
liv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Bez V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 23
111. App. 137: 1581.
Bibb V. Mountjoy, 2 Bibb 1: 544,
1089, 1358.
Bibb County v. Reese, 115 Ga. 346:
634.
Bibb Co. Comrs. v. Harris, 71 Ga.
250; 721.
Bibber-White Co. v. White River Val.
Elec. R. R. Co., Ill Fed. 36:
1547, 1631.
Bickford v. Hyde Park, 173 Mass.
552: 623.
Biddeford v. County Comrs., 78 Maine
105: 701, 917.
Biddle v. Dancer, 20 N. J. L. 633:
981.
V. Hussman, 23 Mo. 579 : 1255.
V. Hussman, 23 Mo. 602 : 1255.
Bidell V. Sea Clifif, 18 App. Div. N.
Y. 261: 149.
Bielman v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 50
Mo. App. 152: 449, 1650, 1659.
Bigaouette v. North Shore R. R. Co.
17 Duvall 363: 102, 127, 128,
129, 131.
Bigelow V. Ballerino, 111 Cal. 559:
179, 375, 390, 405, 406, 644.
V. Cambridge Turnpike Co., 7 Mass.
202: 1526.
V. Draper, 6. N. D. 152: 715, 744,
959, 995, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1064,
1066, 1427.
V. Mississippi Central &, Tenn. R.
R. Co., 2 Head. 624: 895.
V. Newell, 10 Pick. 348 : 898.
V. West Wisconsin Ry. Co., 27 Wis.
478: 1175, 1180, 1205.
V. Whitcomb, 72 N. H. 473 : 57, 67,
349, 473, 1490, 1491.
Bigg V. Corporation of London, L. R.
15 Eq. Cas. 376: 1272.
Biggert's Appeal, 1 Monaghan (Pa.
Supr. Ct.) 365: 1419.
Bigham v. Pitts Construction Co.,
29 Pa. Supr. Ct. 86: 439, 1507.
Bigham Bros. v. Port Arthur C. &
D. Co., 100 Tex. 192: 103.
Big Hollow Road, In re. 111 Mo.
326: 364, 400, 1397.
Bigler's Exrs. v. Penn. Canal Co., 177
Pa. St. 28: 1617.
Biglow V. Ritter, 131 Iowa 213: 1510,
1516.
Big Rapids v. Comstock, 65 Mich.
78: 1492.
Big Sandy Ky. Co. v. Boyd Co., 125
Ky. 345 : 322, 400, 1623.
V. Dils, 120 Ky. 563: 1183.
Biles V. Tacoma etc. R. R. Co., 5
Wash. 509: 863.
Bill V. Quebec. L. R. 5 H. L. 84: 127,
128.
Billingham Bay etc. R. R. Co. v.
Stroud, 14 Wash. 144: 1392.
Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City,
71 N. J. L. 72: 471.
Bills V. Belknap, 36 Iowa 583: 349,
1487, 1594.
Bingham v. Doane, 9 Ohio 165: 356,
1667.
Binghampton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51:
407, 412, 413.
Binney's Case, 2 Bland. Ch. (Md.)
99: 708, 709.
Birch V. Metropolitan E. R. R. Co.,
15 Daly 453: 1664.
Bird V. Great Eastern Ry. Co., 34 L.
J. C. P. 366: 429, 958.
V. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co., 30 Mo.
App. 365 : 91, 93, 95, 1649, 1653.
V. W. & M. R. R. Co., 8 Rich. Eq.
S. C. 46: 711.
Birdsall v. Cary, 66 How. Pr. 358:
1500.
V. Cary, 66 How. Pr. 627 : 808.
Birge v. Centralia, 218 Hi. 503: 873,
874, 875, 876, 884, 886.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa
440: 1023, 1525, 1634.
Birmingham v. Land, 137 Ala. 538:
83, 866, 1654.
Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Lockwood,
150 Ala. 610: 328, 1612, 1657,
1663.
Birmingham etc. R. R. Co. v. Birm-
ingham St. R. R. Co., 79 Ala.
465: 301.
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 152
Ala. 422: 760, 802, 941, 1623.
V. Queen, 20 L. J. Q. B. 304: 1533.
V. Parsons, 100 Ala. 662: 475, 487.
V. Smith, 89 Ala. 305: 1149.
Birmingham R. R. Co. v. Queen, 15
Q. B. 647 : 005.
Birmingham Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Birm-
ingham Traction Co., 122 Ala
349: 329, 765.
V. Birmingham Tr. Co., 128 Ala.
110: 1397.
Birmingham Ry. Lt. & P. Co. v,
Moran, 151 Ala. 187: 314. 372,
383, 1592.
V. Oden, 146 Ala. 495: 639, 642,
1297.
Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birm
ingham R. R. & Elec. Co., 119
Ala. 137: 271, 1572.
V. Birmingham Ry. & Elec. Co., 119
Ala. 129: 328, 1611.
V. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.,
119 Ala. 144: 418, 1621.
CASES CITED.
Iv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. 1, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Birmingham Union R. E. Co. v. Ely-
ton Land Co., 114 Ala. 70: 720.
Birrell v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
41 N. Y. App. Div. 506: 305,
1472.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 198
U. S. 390: 258.
Bischof V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 75
Neb. 838: 373.
Bischoff v.New York El. R. R. Co.,
138 N. Y. 257: 180, 193, 265,
448, 1196, 1296, 1300, 1305, 1333.
Bisher v. Richards, 9 Ohio St. 495:
778, 779.
Bishop V. Bagley, 104 Va. 29: 1101.
V. Macon, 7 Ga. 200: 17.
V. Medway, 12 Met. 125 : 1683.
V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 75 Neb.
838: 1596.
V. North Adams Fire Dist., 167
Mass. 364: 336, 814.
V. Rouney, 59 Vt. 316: 753.
V. Superior Judge, 87 Cal. 226:
893, 894.
Bissell V. Collins, 28 Mich. 277: 1489.
V. Larehmont, 57 App. Div. 61:
609, 616.
Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 92 Wis. 477 :
486.
Bixby V. Goss, 54 Mich. 551: 941,
1017, 1036, 1412, 1420.
Bizer v. Ottumwa Hydraulic Power
Co., 70 Iowa 145: 1553.
Black V. Baltimore, 50 Md.-235: 1673,
1691.
V. Baltimore, 56 Md. 333: 1691.
V. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 32
App. Div. N. Y. 468: 1581.
V. Campbell, 112 Ind. 122: 973.
V. Delaware etc. Canal Co., 24 N.
J. Eq. 455: 529.
V. Delaware etc. Co., 22 N. J. Eq.
130: 1479.
V. Philadelphia & R. R. R. Co., 58
St. 249: 255.
V. Pittsburg etc. St. Ry. Co., 34 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 416: 382, 391, 394, 404,
405, 1596.
V. Thompson, 107 Ind. 162: 1095.
Black Hills etc. Ry. Co. v. Tacoma
Mill Co., 129 Fed. 312: 1624.
Blackman v. Halves, 72 Ind. 515:
514.
Black River etc. R. R. Co. v. Barnard,
9 Hun 104: 1200, 1201.
Black River Imp. Co. v. LaCrosse
Booming & Tram Co., 54 Wis.
659: 76, 100.
Blackshire v. Atchison, Topeka &
Sante Fe R. R. Co., 13 Kan. 514:
1626, 1628.
Blaekwell v. Lynchburg etc. R. R.
Co., Ill N. 0. 151: 435, 1455,
1476.
v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 122 Mass.
1: 133.
v. Phinney, 126 Mass. 458: 560,
1074.
Blaekwell etc. Ry. Co. v. Bebout, 19
Okl. 63: 1324, 1546.
V. Gist, 18 Okla. 516: 201, 364.
Blackwell's Island Bridge, Matter of,
118 App. Div. 272: 1241, 1270.
Blackwell's Island Bridge, Matter of,
189 N. Y. 512: 1241, 1270.
Blackwood v. Tanner, 112 Ky. 672
414.
Blaine Co. v. Brewster, 32 Neb. 264
781, 1270.
Blair v. Charleston, 43 W. Va. 62
615, 631, 633.
V. Claxton, 18 N. Y. 529: 1256.
V. Coakley, 136 N. C. 405: 1400.
V. Milwaukee etc. Co., 110 Wis. 64:
1364.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 24 Fed.
539: 864.
Blaisdell v. Briggs, 23 Maine 123:
1517.
v. Portsmouth, Great Falls & Con-
way R. R. Co., 51 N. H. 483:
857
V, Winthrop, 118 Mass. 138: 1373.
Blake v. Co. Comrs., 114 Mass. 583:
514, 1104, 1105.
V. Dubuque, 13 la. 66: 1545, 1675.
V. McCarthy, 56 Miss. 654: 439,
1154.
V. People, 109 111. 504 : 574.
V. Quincy, 113 Ind. 124: 1371,
1385.
V. Rich, 34 N. H. 282: 1480, 1481.
Blakeley v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
25 Neb. 207: 1129, 1176, 1200,
1201, 1243, 1251.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 34 Neb.
284: 425, 1473, 1628.
v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 46 Neb.
272: 837, 839, 1473, 1628.
V. Devine, 36 Minn. 53 : 154.
Blakely Road, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 498 : 993.
Blakely Road, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 592:
1105.
Blakeslee v. Missouri Pae. R. R. Co.,
43 Neb. 61 : 1577.
Blanchard v. Abraham, 115 La. 989:
413.
V. Kansas City, 5 McCrary, 217:
631, 1160, 1549.
V. Maysville etc. Turnpike Co., 1
Dana 86: 1526.
Ivi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Bland v. Hixenbaugh, 39 la. 532:
1204.
Blanden v. Ft. Dodge, 102 la. 441:
236.
Blane v. Khimpke, 29 Cal. 156 : 649.
Blauey v. Salem. 160 Mass. 303:
1130, 1133.
Blanton v. Richmond etc. R. R. Co.,
86 Va. 618: 717.
Bleck V. Keller, 73 Neb. 826 : 868.
Blennerhassett v. Forest City, 117 la.
680: 1492.
Blesch V. Chicago & Northwestern
Ry. Co., 43 Wis. 183: 1298, 1299,
1636.
V. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 48 Wis. 168:
247, 323, 1298, 1299, 1334, 1335.
Blincoe v. Choctaw etc. R. R. Co., 16
Old. 286: 1109, 1146, 1228, 1278.
Bliss V. Ball, 99 Mass. 597 : 349.
V. Hosmer, 15 Ohio 44: 688.
Blize V. Costlio, 8 Mo. App. 290 : 973,
974, 1406.
Blizzard v. Danville, 175 Pa. St. 479:
80.
Block V. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 101
Minn. 183: 156.
Blocki V. People, 220 III. 444: 304.
Blodgett V. N. W. El. 111. R. R. Co.,
80 Fed. 601 : 1585.
V. Utica etc. R. R. Co., 64 Barb.
580: 1353.
V. Whaley, 47 Mich. 469: 1032,
1364.
Blood V. Nashua & Lowell R. R. Co.,
2 Gray, 137: 461.
V. Woods, 95 Cal. 78 : 892.
Bloodgood V. Mohawk & Hudson R.
R. Co., 14 Wend. 51: 524, 1164.
V. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 18
Wend. 9: 8, 495, 496, 500, 509,
524, 684, 1154, 1164, 1171.
Bloomfield v. Calkins, 1 N. Y. Su-
preme Ct. Rep. 549: 1310.
Bloomfield etc. Gas Co. v. Calkins, 62
N. Y. 386: 172, 176, 337.
Bloomfield etc. Gas Lt. Co. v. Cal-
kins, 1 Thomp. etc. 541: 337.
Bloomfield etc. Natural Gas Lt. Co.
v. Richardson, 63 Barb. 437:
501, 503, 536.
Bloomfield R. R. Co. v. Grace, 112
Ind. 128: 1545.
V. Van Slike, 107 Ind. 480: 1628.
Bloomington v. Bloomington Cem.
Ass. 126 111. 221: 881, 884, 885.
V. Brokaw, 77 111. 194: 629.
V. Costello, 65 111. App. 407: 84.
453.
V. Latham, 142 111. 462: 1220.
Bloomington v. Miller, 84 lU. 621:
994, 1195, 1366, 1392.
V. Murnin, 36 111. App. 647 : 142.
V. Pollock, 141 111. 346: 25, 616,
618, 629, 632, 633, 1718.
V. Pollock 38 111. App. 133: 25, 618,
1306, 1308.
Blount V. Great Southern etc. R. R.
Co., 2 Irish Ch. 40: 1566, 1700.
Blue Earth Co. v. St. Paul & Sioux
City R. R. Co., 28 Minn. 503:
1119, 1120, 1186, 1225, 1312.
Bluefield v. Bailey, 62 W. Va. 302:
1424, 1427.
Blum V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 1
Miscl. 119: 1124.
Blumenthal v. New York El. R. R.
Co., 60 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 95: 1124,
1584.
Blumfield v. Brown, 130 Mich. 504:
1429.
Blunt V. Aiken, 15 Wend. 522: 960.
Ely V. Edison Elec. lU. Co., Ill App.
Div. 170: 454.
V. Edison Elec. 111. Co., 172 N. Y.
1: 454.
V. Edison Elec. HI. Co., 188 N. Y.
82: 454.
Board of Comrs. v. Beekwith, 10 Kan.
603: 808.
V. Bisby, 37 Kan. 253: 1137.
V. Bronne, 49 Kan. 291: 1353.
V. Fahlor, 132 Ind. 426: 735, 1004.
V. Hogan, 39 Kan. 606 : 1200, 1310,
1316.
V. Indianapolis Nat. Gas Co., 134
Ind. 209, 337.
V. Lahore, 37 Kan. 480 : 961, 1209.
V. Miller, 82 Ind. .572: 1634.
V. Reeves, 148 Ind. 467: 10.
V. Small, 61 Ind. 318: 1409.
V. State, 38 Ind. 193: 1431, 1638.
V. State, 147 Ind. 476: 461.
V. State, 156 Ind. 550: 1531.
V. Trees, 12 Ind. App. 479: 1547.
V. Young, 59 Fed. 96: 872, 892,
1500, 1504.
Board of County Comrs. v. Ingram,
31 Colo. 319: 1515.
V. Mann, 43 Kan. 676: 964.
Board of Directors v. Redditt, 79
Ark. 154: 733.
Board of Education, Matter of, 59
App. Div. 258: 1565.
Board of Education, Matter of, 169
N. Y. 456: 1565.
Board of Education v. Bakewell, 122
111. 339: 459, 494, 496.
V. Martin, 92 Cal. 209: 1491.
V. Prior, 11 S. D. 292: 1047.
CASES CITED.
Ivii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Board of Health v. Lederer, 52 N. J.
L. 675: 453, 866.
V. Van Hoesen, 87 Mich. 533: 494,
496, 507, 543, 1043.
Board of Levee Comrs. v. Brinkley,
(Miss.) 19 So. 296: 1343.
V. Harkelroads, 62 Miss. 807: 1179.
v. Jackson, 113 La. 124: 113, 1061,
1063, 1149.
V. Johnson, 66 Miss. 248 : 952, 1255,
Board of Levee Inspectors v. Critten-
den, 94 Fed. 613: 1547.
Board of Park Comrs. v. Diamond
Ice Co., 130 la. 603 : 473.
V. Du Pont, 110 Ky. 743: 7, 704,
708, 734.
Board of Police Commissioners v.
Wagner, 93 Md. 182: 483.
Board of Public Improvements, Mat-
ter of, 99 App. Div. 576: 1177,
1244, 1379.
Board of R. E,. Comrs. v. Symms Gro-
cer Co. 53 Kan. 207: 481.
Board of Rapid Transit Comrs., In re,
147 N. Y. 260: 922.
Board of Rapid Transit R. R. Comrs.,
Matter of, 104 App. Div. 468:
277.
Board of Rapid Transit R. R. Comrs.,
Matter of, 117 App. Div. 160:
277.
Board of Regents v. Painter, 102 Mo.
464: 459, 1495.
Board of Street Opening, In re, 82
Hun 580: 1669, 1670.
Board of Street Opening, In re, 89
Hun 525: 1558.
Board of Street Opening, In re, 91
Hun 477: 976.
Board of Street Opening, In re, 12
Miac. 535: 1098.
Board of Street Opening, In re, 133
N. Y. 436: 1669, 1670.
Board of Street Opening, Matter of,
21 App. Div. 357: 1324.
Board of Street Opening, Matter of,
27 App. Div. 265: 961.
Board of Street Opening, Matter of,
68 Hun 562: 939, 1560.
Boar4 of Street Opening, Matter of,
111 N. Y. 581: 1395.
Board of Street Opening, Matter of,
35 N. Y. App. Div. 406: 1326.
Board of Street Openings, In re, 62
Hun 499: 785.
Board of Street Openings, In re, 133
N. Y. 329: 785.
Board of Supervisors v. Magoon, 109
111. 142: 1028, 1099, 1413, 1413.
V. McFadden, 57 Miss. 618: 782,
1609.
Board of Supervisors v. Winchester,
84 Va. 467: 421, 1494, 1618.
Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Barnett,
107 111. 507: 173, 175, 338, 1636.
V. Blume, 176 111. 247: 1426.
V. Darst, 192 111. 47 : 1341.
Board of Trustees v. Gill, 94 Ky.
138: 465.
V. Jones, 2 Ohio C. C. 482: 1409.
Board of Water Comrs. v. Dwight,
101 N. Y. 9 : 734.
V. Lansing, 45 N. Y. 19: 1100.
V. Perry, 69 Conn. 461: 73.
V. Shutts, 25 App. Div. N. Y. 22:
1387.
Bockoven v. Board of Supvrs., 13 S.
D. 317: 966, 974, 1188, 1317.
Bodine v. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 198:
1491.
Body V. Negley, 40 Pa. St. 377: 1389.
Boecker v. Naperville, 166 111. 151:
1426.
Boehler v. Des Moines, 111 la. 417:
876.
Boener v. McKillip, 52 Kan. 508:
881, 882.
Boester v. Kuhlengel, 136 111. App.
17: 1506.
Bogard v. O'Brien (Ky.) 20 S. W.
1097: 616.
Bogart v. New York, 7 Covir. 158:
1414, 1417.
Bogart's Admr., Matter of, 1 Wend.
41: 1533.
Bogert V. United States, 2 Ct. of
Claims, 159: 459.
Bogue V. De Long, 147 Mich. 63:
1082, 1087.
Bohan v. Avoca, 154 Pa. St. 404: 155.
V. Port Jervis Gas Light Co., 122
N. Y. 18: 451, 453.
Bohannan v. Stamford, 80 Conn. 107 :
1530, 1682.
Bohlen v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
133 N. Y. 677: 1121.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 59
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 565: 1121.
Bohlm^n v. Green Bay & Lake Pepin
Ry. Co., 30 Wis. 105: 1570.
V. Green Bay & Minn. Ry. Co., 40
Wis. 157: 690, 696, 707, 1091,
1093, 1570.
Bohm V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
129 N. Y. 576: 180, 265, 1216,
1296, 1302, 1554, 1584, 1591.
Bohr V. Neuenschwander, 120 Ind.
449: 1370.
Boise City v. Hon, 14 Ida. 272 : 877,
879, 889.
Boise City etc. Water Co. v. Boise
City, 123 Fed. 232, 362.
Iviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Boise City Irr. & L. Co. v. Clark, 131
Fed. 41: 481.
Boland v. St. Johns Schools, 163
Mass. 229: 878.
Boles V. Boston, 136 Mass. 398: 1176,
1200, 1202, 1342.
Bolger V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 61 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 459: 1584.
Bolivar v. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co.,
88 App. Div. 387: 778, 1622.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 179 N.
Y. 523: 778, 1622.
Boiling V. Petersburg, 3 Rand. 563:
1486.
Bollinger v. Southern Pipe Line Co.
2 Pa. Dist. Ct. 604: 57.
Bolton V. McShane, 67 la. 207 : 1568,
1574, 1575.
V. McShane, 79 la. 26 : 870.
Bonaparte v. Camden & Amboy R. R.
Co., 1 Bald. 205: 434, 524, 922,
1155, 1163, 1570. 1571, 1574.
Bond V. MuUins, 3 Met. 282: 1360.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 171 111.
508: 246, 1580.
V. Philadelphia, 218 Pa. St. 475:
630, 636, 1307.
V. Wool, 107 N. C. 139: 127, 129.
Bondurant v. North Carolina etc. R.
R. Co., 5 Ky. L. R. 101 : 253.
Bonner v. Rio Grande So. R. R. Co.,
31 Colo. 446: 957.
V. Worth, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 560:
152, 1716.
Booker v. Venice etc. R. R. Co., 101
111. 333: 816, 897, 1066.
Bookman v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 137
N. Y. 302: 1152, 1301.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 147
N. Y. 298: 1296, 1299.
Boom Co. V. Patterson, 3 Dillon 465:
931.
V. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403: 676,
684, 687, 931, 1234, 1329.
Boonville v. Ormrod's Admr., 26 Mo.
193 : 940, 1004, 1006, 1013, 1014.
Booraem v. North Hudson Co.,R. K.
Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 557: 1582.
V. Wood, 27 N. J. Eq. 371: 947.
Boorman v. Sunnuchs, 42 Wis. 233 :
109, 125, 128.
Booth V. Rome etc. R. R. Co., 140 N.
Y. 267: 436, 1455, 1476.
V. Woodbury, 32 Conn. 118: 462.
Boothby v. Androscoggin & Kennebec
R. R. Co., 51 Me. 318: 440, 442,
1452.
Borchaenius v. Chic-xj^'o etc. R. R. Co.
96 Wis. 448: 159.
Borden v. Trespalaeios R. & I. Co., 98
Tex. 494: 499, 508, 510, 587, 591,
592, 739.
v. Vincent, 24 Pick. 301 : 866.
Bordentown etc. Turnpike Co. v.
Camden & Amboy R. R. Co., 17
N. J. L. 314: 414.
Borer v. Lange, 44 Minn. 281: S78.
Borghart v. Cedar Rapids, 126 la.
313: 376, 388, 404, 1548.
Borgman v. Detroit, 102 Mich. 261:
* 924.
Bork V. United N. J. R." R. & C. Co.,
70 N. J. L. 268: 247, 254, 1629.
Boro V. Phillips, 4 Dill. 216: 586.
Borup, Matter of, 89 App. Div. 183:
611, 1042, 1046.
Borup, Matter of, 102 App. Div. 262 :
610.
Borup, Matter of, 182 N. Y. 222:
610.
Bostock V. Bridgeport, 95 Md. 400:
540.
V. Sams, 95 Md. 400: 473.
Boston V. Brookline, 156 Mass. 172:
786, 797, 798, 799.
V. Richardson, 13 Allen, 146: 335,
337.
V. Robbins, 121 Mass. 453: 1254.
V. Robbins, 126 Mass. 384: 1567.
Boston Belting Co. v. Boston, 149
Mass. 44: 1523, 1525.
V. Boston, 152 Mass. 307: 80, 625.
v. Boston, 183 Mass. 254: 1271,
1443.
Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Bos-
ton, 195 Mass. 338: 1327.
Boston Elec. Lt. Co. v. Boston Ter-
minal CO./-184 Mass. 566: 360.
Boston El. R. R. Co. v. Presho, 174
Mass. 99: 733.
Boston etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 10
Abb. N. C. 104: 912.
Boston etc. R. R. Co.. Matter of, 22
Hun 176: 1231, 1235.
Boston, Hoosac Tunnel and Western
Ry. Co., Matter of, 31 Hun 461 :
1208, 1310, 1311.
Boston etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 53
N. Y. 574: 784. 793, 798, 800.
Boston etc. Ry. Co., Matter of, 79 N.
Y. 64: 971.
Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston, 140
Mass. 87: 512, 721.
V. Cambridge, 159 Mass. 283 : 1289,
1290.
V. Cambridge, 166 Mass. 224: 773.
V. Charlton, 161 Mass. 32: 1443.
V. Cilley, 44 N. H. 578: 696.
V. County Comrs. 79 Me. 386,
1287, 1288, 1290.
CASES CITED.
lix
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Boston etc. R. E. Co. v. Doherty, 154
Mass. 314: 1647.
V. Folsom, 46 N. H. 64 : 1029, 1412,
1415, 1416.
V. Greenbush, 52 N. Y. 510: 490,
128".
V. Lawrence, 2 Allen, 107: 752.
V. Lowell & Lawrence R. R. Co.,
124 Mass. 368: 753, 793, 798,
800, 1609.
V. Middlesex Co., 1 Allen, 324:
1290, 1292.
V. Midland R. R. Co., 1 Gray, 340:
729. ?
V. Montgomery, 119 Mass. 114:
1132, 1340.
V. Old Colony & Fall River R. R.
Co., 3 Allen, 142: 1127, 1273.
V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 12 Cush.
605: 117, 131.
V. Salem, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Gray, 1 :
411, 412, 415, 1608.
V. State, 32 N. H. 215: 475.
V. Western R. R. Co., 14 Gray, 253 :
476.
Boston Gas Lt. Co. v. Old Colony &
Newport Ry. Co., 14 Allen, 444 :
429, 1474, 1478.
Boston H. T. & W. Co., Matter of, 79
N. Y. 64: 765.
Boston H. T. & W. Co., Matter of,
79 N. Y. 69: 765.
Boston Mfg. Co. v. Burgin, 114 Mass.
340: 558.
Boston Road, Matter of, 27 Hun 409 :
1378.
Boston Rolling Mills v. Cambridge,
117 Mass. 396: 142.
Boston & Roxbury Mill Corporation
V. Gardner, 2 Pick. 33: 624.
V. Newman, 12 Pick. 467: 2, 544,
547, 549, 552, 555, 1495.
Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston
& Worcester R. R. Co., 16 Pick.
512: 139.
V. Boston & W. R. R. Co., 23 Pick
360: 408, 411, 524, 783, 788, 793,
824.
Bostwick V. Isbell, 41 Conn. 305:
1014.
Bosworth V. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati &
St. Louis Ry. Co., 1 Ohio Cir. Ct.
69: 855.
V. Providence, 17 R. I. 58: 1409.
Boteler v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
164 Pa. St. 397: 1131.
Bothe V. Railway Co., 37 Ohio St.
147: 1626.
Bothwell V. Denver Union Stockyards
Co., 39 Colo. 221: 887.
Bottamly v. Chism, 102 Mass. 463:
899.
Botto \. Mo. Pacific R. R. Co., 11
■ Mo. App. 589 : 253.
Bottoms V. Brewer, 54 Ala. 288: 69,
90, 551, 988.
Boughner v. Clarksburg, 15 W. Va.
394: 1569.
Boughton V. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 948:
1306.
Bouke V. American Tel. Co., 41 N. J.
Eq. 35: 1593.
Boulat V. Municipality No. 1, 5 La.
An. 363: 589.
Boulo V. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co.,
55 Ala. 480: 1573.
Boulton V. Crowther, 2 B. & C. 703:
206.
Bounds V. Kirven, 63 Tex. 159: 424.
Bourdier v. Morgan's R. R. Co., 35
La. Ann. 947 : 858, 1639.
Bourgeois v. Mills, 60 Tex. 76: 1194,
1377.
Bourne v. Liverpool, 32 L. J. Q. B.
15: 1257.
Boutelle v. Minneapolis, 59 Minn.
493: 948, 949, 1563, 1564.
Bouvier v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
65 N. J. L. 313: 840, 842, 843,
853, 1627.
V. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 67 N.
J. L. 281: 840, 842, 843, 853,
854, 1627.
V. Baltimore etc. Ry. Co., 69 N. J.
L. 149: 748.
Bowden v. Burnham, 70 Fed. 209:
.996.
V. Jacksonville, 52 Fla. 216: 179,
181, 210, 226.
Bowditch V. Boston, 4 Clifford, 323:
17.
V. Boston, 164 Mass. 107: 1141,
1330.
V. Boston, 101 U. S. 16: 17.
Bowen v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co., 17
S. C. 574: 1206.
V. Hester, 143 Ind. 511: 1510.
V. Snyder, 66 Ind. 340: 1384.
Bowers v. Bears, 12 Wis. 213, 221,
550.
V. Braddock, 172 Pa. St. 596: 138,
1402, 1428.
v. Citizens' Water Co., 162 Pa. St.
9: 74.
V. Miss. & Rum Riv. Boom Co., 78
Minn. 398: 86, 1639, 1652, 1661.
Bowlby >'. Shively, 22 Or. 410: 118,
136.
Bowler v. Drain Comr., 47 Mich.
154: 1091, 1094, 1420.
k
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. 1, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Bowling Green v. Hobsen, 3 B. Mon.
478: 365.
Bowman v. Carondelet Ey. Co., 102
111. 459: U15.
V. Jobs, 123 Ind. 44: 1397.
V. New Orleans, 27 La. Ann. 501:
153.
V. Venice v. Caraidelet Ry. Co., 102
111. 459: 816, 897, 1066.
Boyoe v. Mo. Pac. E. E. Co., 168 Mo.
583: 808.
Boyd V. Alabama, 94 U. S. 645 : 469.
V. Liogansport etc. Traction Co.,
162 Ind. 587: 1042, 1624.
V. Negley, 40 Pa. St. 377 : 530, 978,
V. Negley, 53 Pa. St. 387: 1602.
V. United States, 116 U. S. 616:
660.
V. Wilkinsburg, 183 Pa. St. 199:
1309.
V. Winnsboro Granite Co., 66 S. C.
433: 495.
Boyer v. St. Louis etc. Ey. Co., 97
Tex. 107 : 1234, 1238, 1297, 1300.
Boyer's Petition, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 531 :
695, 1718.
Boyer's Eoad, 37 Pa. St. 257: 778,
1032, 1382.
Boyertown Water Co. v. Boyertown,
200 Pa. St. 394: 408, 409.
Boyfield v. Porter, 13 East 200 : 1524.
Boyne City etc. R. R. Co. v. Ander-
son, 146 Mich. 328: 621, 1152,
1443.
Boynton v. Hall, 100 Me. 131 : 1604.
V. Langley, 19 Nev. 169: 145.
V. Peterborough & Shirley E. R.
Co., 4 Cush. 467: 940.
Brace & H. Mill Co. v. State, 49
Wash. 326: 109.
Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 111.
66: 477, 479.
Bracey v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 79
Ark. 124: 1304, 1445.
Bradbury v. Cumberland Co., 52 Me.
27: 1527, 1528.
V. Vandalia Levee & Dr. Dist., 236
111. 36: 90, 653, 1548.
V. Walton, 94 Ky. 163: 386, 387,
400.
Braddock Ferry Co's Appeal, 3
Penny. 32: 130.
Bradford v. Cole, 8 Fla. 263: 516,
973.
V. Pickle, (1895) A. C. 587: 161.
Bradley, Ex parte, 5 Dow. & L. 575:
1079.
Bradley, In re, 108 la. 476: 922.
Bradley v. Fallbrook Irr. Dist., 68
Fed. 948: 587.
V. Frankfort, 99 Ind. 417: 1082,
1086.
Bradley v. McAtee, 7 Bush. 667: 13.
V. Missouri Pacific E. R. Co., 91
Mo. 493: 830, 1628.
V. No. Pac. R. E. Co.. 38 Minn.
234: 964.
V. New York & New Haven R. R.
Co., 21 Conn. 294: 022.
V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 38
Minn. 234: 1684.
V. Pharr, 45 La. Ann. 426: 300,
316, 494.
V. Rice, 13 Me. 198 : 109.
V. Southern New Eng. Tel. Co., 66
Conn. 559: 342, 350, 1488.
Bradshaw v. Duluth Imperial Mill
Co., 52 Minn. 59: 125.
V. Omaha, 1 Neb. 16: 465.
V. Rodgers, 20 Johns. 103: 22.
V. Rodgers, 20 Johns. 735: 22.
Bradstreet v. Erskine, 50 Me. 407:
1091.
Bradwell v. Kansas City, 75 Mo. 213 :
231.
Brady v. Atlantic City, 53 N. J. Eq.
440: 783, 1670.
V. Blackington, 174 Mass. 559:
1523.
V. Fall River, 121 Mass. 262: 605.
v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., Ill
Mo. 329: 269, 324, 642, 1294,
1299.
V. Northwestern Insurance Co., 11
Mich. 425: 468.
v. Shinkle, 40 la. 576: 364, 380,
387, 388.
V. Wilkesbarre, 161 Pa. St. 246:
630, 636.
Brainard v. Boston & N. Y. Cent. E.
E. Co., 12 Gray 407: 1135.
V. Clapp, 10 Cush. 6: 1472, 1476,
1480.
V. Connecticut E. E. E. Co., 7
Cush. 506: 1643.
V. Missisiquoi E. B. Co., 48 Vt.
107 : 407, 423, 782, 1503.
Braine v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 218
Pa. St. 43: 87, 93.
Brakebill v. Leonard, 40 Ga. 60: 19.
Brakken v. Minneapolis etc. R. E.
Co., 29 Minn. 41: 320, 351, 372,
385, 1298, 1650, 1659.
V. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.,
31 Minn. 45: 320, 351, 385,
1298.
V. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ey. Co.,
32 Minn. 425: 320, 351, 385,
1298, 1650, 1659.
Bramlett v. Laurens, 58 S. C. 60:
212.
Bramlette v. Louisville etc. R. E. Co.,
113 Ky. 300: 655, 664.
CASES CITED.
Ixi
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Branard v. Cincinnati etc. E. R. Co.,
115 Ind. 1: 856.
Branch v. Lewerenz, 75 Conn. 319:
588, 1519.
V. United States, 100 U. S. 673:
19.
Brand v. Hammersmith City Ey. Co.,
(House of Lords) L. E. 4 Eng.
& Irish App. 171: 656.
V. Hammersmith City Ry. Co., L.
R. 1 Q. B. 130: 656.
V. Hammersmith City Ey. Co.
(Exch. Cham.) L. R. 2 Q. B.
223: 656.
V. Multnomah Co. 38 Ore. 79: 211,
224.
Brandenberg v. Zeigler, 62 S. C. 18:
166.
V. District of Columbia, 26 App.
Cas. D. C. 140: 1413.
V. Hittel (Ind.) 37 N. E. 329: 400,
625.
Brandenstein v. Hoke, 101 Cal. 131 :
572.
Brandon's Estate, 34 L. J. Eq. 333:
1098.
Bradt v. Albany, 5 Hun 591: 141.
V. Olson, 79 Neb. 612: 890.
Brannan v. St. Paul, 44 Minn. 464:
1365.
Branson v. Gee, 25 Ore. 462: 722,
1008, 1010, 1157, 1623.
V. New York Cent. etc. E. R. Co.,
Ill App. Div. 737: 155.
Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S.
391: 482.
Bratton v. Catawba Power Co., 80 S.
C. 260: 1135, 1604.
Brauer v. Baltimore Refrigerating
etc. Co., 99 Md. 367, 199, 372,
1596.
Braun v. Metropolitan W. S. El. R.
R. Co., 166 111. 434: 1271, 1426.
Bravard v. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co.,
115 Ind. 1: 1631.
Braxton v. Bressler, 64 111. 488: 103.
Bray v. Ocean City R. R. Co., 60 N.
J. L. 91: 1078, 1081.
Brayton v. Fall River, 113 Mass.
218: 142.
Brazee v. Raymond, 59 Mich. 548:
1017, 1032, 1033.
Breaux v. Bienvenue, 51 La. An. 687:
522, 708.
Breckenridge v. Ward, 1 T. B. Mon.
57: 1091, 1094.
Bredin v. Pittsburgh etc. E. E. Co.,
165 Pa. St. 262: 1073.
Breed v. Eastern R. R. Co., 5 Gray,
470: 948.
V. Lynn, 126 Mass. 367: 142, 1606.
Breen v. Pittsburg etc. Ey. Co., 220
Pa. St. 612: 307, 1588.
Breese v. Poole, 16 111. App. 551:
1370, 1568, 1572, 1684.
Breitweiser v. Fuhrman, 88 Ind. 28:
1385, 1407.
Bremer v. Manhattan Ey. Co., 191 N.
Y. 333 : 265, 305, 866, 870, 1584,
1585.
V. New York Central etc. E. R. Co.,
118 App. Div. 139: 257.
Brenchnock Tp. Road, 2 Woodward's
Dec. (Pa.) 437: 522.
Brennan v. Mecklenberg, 49 Cal. 672 :
1380.
Brenner's Appeal, 2 Walker's Pa.
Supm. 92: 948.
Bresler v. Ellis, 46 Mich. 335: 1416.
Brewer v. Boston etc. E. E. Co., 113
Mass. 52: 316, 1639.
V. Bowman. 9 Ga. 37: 515, 519,
1155.
V. Grow, 83 Mich. 250: 959.
V. Pine Bluflf, 80 Ark. 489: 877.
Brewster v. Hough, 10 N. H. 138:
683, 736.
V. J. & J. Eogers Co., 42 App. Div.
343: 79, 97, 544, 1164, 1170.
V. J. & J. Eogers Co., 169 N. Y.
73: 79, 544, 1164, 1170.
Brice v. Thompson, 48 Mo. 361:
1618.
Brickett v. Haverhill Aqueduct Co.,
142 Mass. 394: 702, 1170, 1523.
Brickies v. Milwaukee Lt. H. & T.
Co., 134 Wis. 358: 284, 1560.
Bridal Veil Lumbering Co. v. John-
son, 30 Ore. 205: 205, 498, 673,
675, 1046, 1071.
Briden v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 27
E. I. 569: 321, 329, 1645.
Bridge v. New Hampton, 47 N. H.
151: 1396.
Bridge Co. v. Hoboken Land & Imp.
Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 81: 413.
V. Hoboken Laud & Imp. Co., 13
N. J. Eq. 503: 113.
V. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 1
Wall. 116: 413.
Bridgeman v. Hardwick, 67 Vt. 653:
1319, 1340, 1358.
V. St. Johnsbury etc. E. R. Co., 58
Vt. 198: 1540, 1541.
Bridgeport v. Eisenman, 47 Conn. 34 :
1116.
V. Giddings, 43 Conn. 304: 1082,
1086.
V. Hubbell, 5 Conn. 237: 696.
V. New York etc. E. R. Co., 36
Conn. 255: 750.
Ixii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Bridgers v. Dill, 97 N. C. 222 : 1252,
1455, 1524, 1636.
V. Purcell, 1 Dev. & B. 492 : 858.
V. Purcell, 1 Ired. Law 232 : 1345.
Bridges v. Wyckoflf, 67 N. Y. 130:
878.
Bridgewater v. Beaver Val. Traction
Co., 214 Pa. St. 343: 305.
Bridgewater Ferry Co. v. Sharon
Bridge Co., 145 Pa. St. 404 : 409.
Bridport, Matter of, 24 Vt. 176: 713,
917.
Bridwell v. Gate City Terminal Co.,
127 Ga. 520: 498, 501, 527, 716,
912, 1017, 1051, 1070, 1623.
Briesen v. Long Island R. R. Co., 31
Hun 112: 451.
Brigham v. Agricultural Branch R.
R. Co., 1 Allen 316: 1636, 1506.
V. Edmonds, 7 Gray, 359: 438.
V. Holmes, 14 Allen 184: 1073.
V. Wheeler, 12 Allen 89: 1524.
Brigham City v. Chase, 30 Utah 410:
957, 961, 962, 966.
Briggs V. Board of Comrs. 39 Kan.
90: 1238, 1407.
V. Cape Cod Ship Canal Co., 137
Mass. 71: 1047, 1164, 1683.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 56 Kan.
526: 947, 1352.
V. Lewiston & Auburn Horse R. R.
Co., 79 Me. 363: 211, 268, 270,
279, 324.
V. Union Drainage Dist. 140 HI.
53: 13.
Briggs Ave., Matter of, 84 App. Div.
312: 611.
Briggs Ave., Matter of, 118 App. Div.
224: 1270, 1271.
Brimberry v. Savannah etc. R. R. Co.,
78 Ga. 641: 159.
Brimmer v. Boston, 102 Mass. 19:
736, 746, 747, 1510.
Brine v. Great Western R. R. Co., 31
L. J. Q. B. 101: 1457.
Brink v. Dunmore, 174 Pa. St. 395:
1569.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 17
Mo. App. 177: 88.
Brinkerhoff v. Newark etc. Traction
Co., 66 N. J. L. 478: 681.
V. Wemple, 1 Wend. 470: 1556.
Brinkley v. Southern R. R. Co., 135
N. C. 654: 1457, 1472, 1473.
Brisbine v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 23
Minn. 114: 127, 128, 129, 131,
991.
Briscoe v. Great Wester^ Ry. Co., L.
R. 16 Eq. Cas. 636: 1601.
V. Parker, 145 N. C. 14: 145.
V. Young, 131 N. C. 386: 89.
Bristol V. Bradford, 42 Conn. 321:
1096.
V. Bristol etc. Water Co., 23 R. I.
274: 1266.
V. New Chester, 3 N. H. 533: 459.
Bristol etc. R. R. Co. v. Somerset R.
R. Co., 22 W. R. 601: 908.
British Cast Plate Manufacturers v.
Meredith, 4 T. R. 794 : 206.
Britton v. Des Moines etc. R. R. Co.,
59 la. 540: 1204.
v. Dubuque & Pac. R. R. Co., II la.
15: 1480, 1481.
Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co., 7
DeG. McM. & G. 436: 457, 733.
V. Ramsbotham, 11 Exch. 602: 146.
Broadmoor Land Co. v. Curr, 133
Fed. 37: 932.
Broadmoor Land Co. v. Curr, 142
Fed. 421: 932.
Broad Street Road's Case, 7 S. & R.
444: 1091, 1092.
Broadway etc. R. R. Co., 73 Hun 7:
990, 1048, 1076.
Broadway & Seventh Ave. R. R. Co.,
Matter of, 69 Hun 275: 1020.
Broadway Surface R. R. Co., Matter
of, 34 Hun 414: 921.
Broadway Underground Ry. Co., Mat-
ter of, 23 Hun 693: 921.
Broadway Widening, Matter of, 61
Barb. 483: 458, 1393, 1431, 1678.
Broadway Widening, Matter of, 63
Barb. 572: 1035, 1370.
Broadway Widening, Matter of, 42
How. Pr. 220: 1393, 1678.
Broadway Widening, Matter of, 49
N. Y. 150: 1393, 1431, 1678.
Broadwell v. Kansas City, 75 Mo.
213: 67.
Broadwell Dr. Dist. v. Lawrence, 231
111. 86: 147.
Brock V. Barnett, 57 Vt. 172: 515,
1029.
V. Chase, 39 Me. 300 : 865.
V. Dore, 166 Mass. 161: 726.
V. Hishen, 40 Wis. 674: 1167, 1531.
V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 146 Mass.
194: 928, 1003, 1011, 1157, 1164,
1626, 1707.
Brockelbank v. Whitehaven Junction
Ry. Co., 15 Sim. 632: 695.
Brocket v. Ohio & Pennsylvania R. R.
Co., 14 Pa. St. 241: 823.
Brokaw v. Comrs. of Highways, 99
III. App. 415: 1206.
V. Terre Haute, 97 Ind. 451 : 1672,
1675.
Bromley y. Philadelphia, 20 Phila.
302: 1160, 1167.
OASES CITED.
Ixiii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Bronnenburg v. O'Bryant, 139 Ind.
17: 975, 995, 1094.
Bronson, In re, 1 Ontario, 415: 726,
793.
Bronson v. Albion Telephone Co., 67
Neb. Ill: 201, 338, 1594, 1612.
V. Gee, 25 Ore. 462: 1005, 1160,
1167.
V. Wallingford, 54 Conn. 513: 234.
Brookfield, Matter of, 78 App. Div.
520: 839.
Brookfield, Matter of, 176 N. Y. 138:
839.
Brookhaven v. Smith, 98 App. Div.
212* 127 129
V. Smith, 188 N.Y. 74: 127, 129.
Brookline v. County Comrs., 114
Mass. 548: 1711.
Brooklyn, In re, 73 Hun 499: 408.
Brooklyn, In re, 143 2Sr. Y. 596 : 407,
408, 498, 783.
Brooklyn, Matter of, 73 N. Y. 179:
1327.
Brooklyn v. Copeland, 106 N. Y. 496 :
1494, 1500.
T. Franz, 87 Hun 54 : 485.
V. Mackey, 13 App. Div. 105: 129.
V. Messerole, 26 Wend. 132: 1570.
V. Long Island Water Supply Co.,
88 Hun 176: 1437.
V. Long Island Water Supply Co.,
148 N. Y. 107: 1437.
V. Seaman, 30 Misc. 507: 935,
1561.
Brooklyn Central R. R. Co. v. Brook-
lyn City R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 358:
426, 427, 728, 762, 763.
Brooklyn Central etc. R. R. Co. v.
Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 33
Barb. 420: 765.
Brooklyn City etc. R. R. Co. v. Con-
ey Island etc. R. R. Co., 35 Barb.
364: 410.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co.. In re, 76 Hun
79: 1584.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., In re, 80 Hun
355: 1101.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 6
App. Div. 53: 1305, 1315.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 32
App. Div. N. Y. 221 : 1083.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 95
App. Div. 108: 1295.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 105
App. Div. Ill: 991, 1225, 1304.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 05
Hun 165: 1295.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 55
Misc. N. Y. 120: 1034.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., Matter of,
125 N. Y. 434: 695.
Brooklyn El. R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn,
2 App. Div. 98: 354.
V. Flynn, 87 Hun 104: 1305.
V. Flynn, 147 N. Y. 344: 1213.
V. Nagel, 75 Hun 590: 986.
Brooklyn etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 55
How Pr. 14: 694, 1049.
Brooklyn etc. R. R. Co., Matter of,
72 N. Y. 245: 694, 1047, 1048,
1049.
Brooklyn Heights, Matter of, 48
Barb. 288: 1327.
Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co. v. Brook-
lyn, 152 N. Y. 244: 309.
Brooklyn Park Co. v. Armstrong, 45
N. Y. 234: 539, 1520.
Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co., Matter
of, 62 How. Pr. 404: 260.
Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. v.
Brooklyn, 78 N. Y. 524: 694,
1583, 1622.
Brooklyn St., Opening of, 118 Pa. St.
640: 879, 1327.
Brooklyn St. R. R. Co., Matter of, 82
App. Div. 567 : 1437.
Brooklyn St. R. R. Co., Matter of,
176 N. Y. 213: 1437.
Brooklyn Union El. JR. R. Co., Matter
of, 113 App. Div. 817: 1096,
1297, 1303, 1304.
Brooklyn Union El. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 188 N. Y. 553: 1096, 1297,
1303, 1304.
Brook's Appeal, 32 Cal. 558: 1384.
Brooks V. Boston, 19 Pick. 174: 437,
1259, 1260, 1274.
V. Cedar Brook Imp. Co., 82 Me.
17: 100, 625.
V. Davenport & St. Paul R. R. Co.,
37 la. 99: 1204, 1310.
V. Hubbard, 73 Vt. 122: 1563.
V. Kirby, 19 Ala. 72: 1413, 1421.
Brook Ave, Matter of, 8 App. Div.
294: 1397.
Broome v. New York & N. J. Tel. Co.,
42 N. J. Eq. 141 : 340, 1593.
V. N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co., 49 N. J.
L. 624: 340.
Broumel v. White, 87 Md. 521; 878.
Broussard v. Sabine etc. R. R. Co.,
80 Tex. 329: 158, 1639.
Brower v. Chester County, 1 Pa. Co.
Ct. 1: 635, 638.
Brown v. Ark. Cent. Ry. Co., 72 Ark.
456: 963, 1559.
V. Asheville Elec. Co., 138 N. C.
533: 350.
V. Atlanta, 66 Ga. 71: 79, 80, 81.
V. Atlanta Ry. & P. Co., 113 Ga.
462: 308.
Ixiv
CASES CITED.
[Tlie references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Brown v. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co., 126
Ga. 248: 728, 730.
V. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227: 495, 500,
524, 1178, 1431, 1523.
V. Board of Supervisors, 124 Oal.
274: 665.
V. Bowman, 9 Ga. 37: 1154.
V. Bridges, 31 la. 138: 1506.
V. Brown, 50 N. H. 538: 1511, 1514.
V. Buffalo etc. E. R. Co., 22 N. Y.
191: 475.
V. Calumet Riv. E. E. Co., 125 111.
600: 1047, 1176, 1227, 1228.
V. Carthage, 128 Mo. 10: 873, 874,
892.
V. Cayuga & Susquehanna E. E.
Co., 12 N. Y. 486: 167.
V. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9: 97, 103,
113.
V. Chicago etc. R. E. Co., 137 Mo.
529: 311, 527.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 64 Neb.
62: 1162, 1172, 1465, 1470, 1526,
1527, 1534.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 66 Neb.
106: 1172, 1465, 1470, 1471,
1526, 1527, 1534.
V. Cincinnati, 14 Ohio 541: 1192.
V. Commissioners, L. R. 15, I. L.
240: 1268.
V. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495: 530, 811,
1187, 1410.
V. Co. Comrs., 12 Met. 208: 938,
1354.
V. Duplessis, 14 La. Ann. 842 : 268.
V. Ellis, 26 la. 85: 1115.
V. Forest Water Co., 213 Pa. St.
440: 1229, 1232, 1237.
V. Gardner, Harr. Ch. (Mich.)
291: 1572, 1574.
V. Gerald, 100 Me. 351: 21, 494,
496, 498, 501, 503, 537, 538, 593,
675, 684, 743, 1071, 1568, 1572.
V. Gold Coin Min. Co. 48 Ore. 277 :
69.
V. Grant, 116 U. S. 207: 854.
V. Illinois etc. Ry. Co., 209 111. 402 :
1121.
V. Illinois, 25 Conn. 583: 165, 166.
T. Kennedy, 5 H. & J. 195, 103.
v. Lowell, 8 Met. 172: 606, 618,
955, 1010, 1718.
V. Macfarland, 19 App. Cas. D. 0.
525: 706, 1394.
V. Merrill, 3 Chand. 46: 1180.
V. Ontario Talc Co., 81 App. Div.
273: 1604.
r. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. R. Co.,
58 Md. 539: 731.
V. Pierce County, 28 Wash. 345:
460.
Brown v. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co.,
29 Pa. Supr. Ct. 131: 853, 1646.
V. Powell, 25 Pa. St. 229: 952, 961,
1635.
V. Preston, 38 Conn. 219 : 788.
V. Providence & Springfield E. E.
Co., 12 R. I. 238: 1124, 1129.
V. Providence, Warren & Bristol R.
R. Co., 5 Gray 35: 435, 1149.
V. Radnor Tp. Elec. Lt. Co., 208
Pa. St. 453: 682.
V. Rea, 150 Cal. 171: 250, 1613.
V. Roberts, 23 111. App. 461: 993,
1418, 1419.
V. Robertson, 123 111. 631: 1395.
V. Rome etc. R. R. Co., 86 Ala. 206:
897, 979, 084, 1558.
V. St. Paul etc. E. E. Co., 38 Minn.
506: 1026.
V. Sams, 119 Ga. 22: 1364.
V. San Francisco, 124 Cal. 274:
378, 391, 399, 406, 666.
V. Seattle, 5 Wash. 35: 212, 629,
631, 647, 659, 664, 670, 1601,
1612.
V. So. Pac. Co., 36 Ore. 128: 856.
T. Starks, 83 Cal. 636: 877.
V. Stein, 38 Neb. 596: 884.
V. Township Board, 92 Mich. 294:
1397.
V. Township Board, 109 Mich. 557:
1397.
V. United States, 81 Fed. 55: 140.
V. Watrous, 47 Me. 161: 649.
V. Weaver Power Co., 140 N. C.
333: 536, 537, 1228, 1234, 1546,
1548.
V. Webster City, 115 la. 511: 236.
V. Winona etc. E. R. Co., 53 Minn.
259: 148, 157.
V. Worcester, 13 Gray 31: 1343.
V. Wyandotte etc. Ey. Co., 68 Ark.
134: 1049, 1254.
V. Young, 69 la. 625: 837.
Brown's Petition, 57 N. H. 367 : 1421.
Brown Co. v. Burkhalter, 75 Kan.
321: 1316, 1404.
Brown & Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 13
Gray 546: 1121.
Browne v. McCord, 20 Ind. 270: 974.
Browning v. Camden etc. R. E. Co.,
4 N. J. Eq. 47: 1464, 1574.
V. CoUis, 21 N. Y. Misc. 155: 710,
1167.
Bruce v. Canal Co., 19 Barb. 371:
1616.
V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 52
Fla. 461: 882, 883.
Brudy v. Bronson, 45 Cal. 640: 1162,
1636.
CASES CITED.
Ixv
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Bruggerman v. True, 25 Minn. 123:
922, 927.
Brumit v. Bailroad Co., 106 Tenn.
124: 255, 313.
Brmnley v. State, 83 Ark. 236 :' 1033,
1517.
Brvuies v. Cote St. Louis, 2 Montreal
L. Q. B. 103: 828.
Brunswick, Inhabitants of. Appell-
ants, 37 Me. 446: 1386.
Brunswick etc. R. R. Co. v. Hardy,
112 Ga. 604: 351.
v. McLaren, 47 Ga. 546, 1123, 1149,
1310.
V. Waycross, 88 Ga. 68: 322, 639,
1622.
V. Waycross, 91 Ga. 573: 883.
V. Waycross, 94 Ga. 102: 738, 1154,
1156, 1568, 1572.
Brunswick etc. Water District v.
Maine Water Co., 99 Me. 371:
1263.
Brunswick Gas Light Co. v. Bruns-
wick, 92 Me. 493 : 354.
Brush V. Detroit, 32 Mich. 43: 1025,
1420.
Brushy Mound v. McClintock, 150
111. 129: 868, 870.
Bryan v. Branford, 50 Conn. 246:
540.
V. Burnett, 2 Jones L. 305: 1525.
V. Moore, 81 Ind. 9 : 979.
Bryant v. County Comra., 79 Me.
128: 981, 1381.
T. Glidden, 36 Me. 36: 929, 976,
1358.
V. Knox & Lincoln R. R. Co., 61
Me. 300: 1383.
V. Merritt, 71 Kan. 272: 147.
V. New Castle etc. R. R. Co., 6 Pa.
Co. Ct. 53: 918.
V. Pottsville Water Co., 190 Pa. St.
366: 1232, 1237.
v. Bobbins, 74 Wis. 608 : 1427.
Bryn Mawr Water Co. v. Lower
Marion Tp., 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 527:
354.
Bryson'a Road, 2 P. & W. 207: 1091.
Bubenzer v. Philadelphia etc. R. R.
Co., (Del. Ch.) 57 Atl. 242:
1646.
Buchanan v. Beavor, 171 Pa. St. 567:
1596.
V. James, 130 Ga. 546: 1155, 1568.
T. Kansas City, 208 Mo. 674: 1534,
1557, 1565.
Buchanan Co. v. Bledsoe, 200 Mo.
630: 1086.
Buchanan Co. Bank v. Cedar Rapids
etc. R. R. Co., 62 la. 494: 1558.
Buchner v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 56
Wis. 403: 247, 319, 1616.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co. 60 Wis.
264: 182, 319.
Buck V. Connecticut etc. R. R. Co., 42
Vt. 370: 320, 1643.
V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 73 Hun 251 :
1296, 1299, 1300.
Buckholtz V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
71 App. Div. 452: 321, 380, 383,
388, 398.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 60
Hun 377: 753.
Buckholz V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
148 N. Y. 640: 320, 321, 351,
372, 380, 383, 781.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 177 N.
Y. 550: 321, 380, 383, 388, 398.
Buckhout V. New York, 82 App. Div.
218: 1565.
V. New York, 176 N. Y. 363: 1565.
Bucki V. Cone, 25 Fla. 1: 112.
Buckingham v. Smith, 10 Ohio 288:
522, 523.
Buckles v. Northern Bank of Ken-
tucky, 63 111. 268: 1206.
Buckley v. Drake, 41 Hun 384: 1081,
1431.
V. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 64 : 142.
Buckman v. Oskaloosa, 130 la. 600:
889.
Bucks Co. Road, 3 Whart. 105: 1461.
Buckwalter v. Atchison etc. R. R.
Co., 64 Kan. 403: 1631.
V. Black Rock Bridge Co., 38 Pa.
St. 281: 624.
T. School District, 65 Kan. 603:
1004, 1008, 1163.
Buckwalter's Road, 3 S. & R. 236:
1388.
Budd V. Camden, 69 N. J. L. 193:
1416.
V. Camden Horse R. R. Co., 61 N.
J. Eq. 543: 272, 274, 1586, 1587.
V. Camden Horse R. R. Co., 70 N.
J. L. 782: 272, 274.
V. New Jersey R. R. Co., 14 N. J.
L. 467: 1417, 1533.
V. New York, 143 U. S. 517: 482.
V. Reidelbach, 128 Ind. 145: 1407.
Buel, Matter of, 57 App. Div. 629:
977.
Buel, Matter of, 168 N. Y. 423: 977.
Buel V. Lockport, 3 N. Y. 197, 1528.
Buell V. Ball, 20 la. 282: 465.
V. Worcester, 119 Mass. 372: 1307.
Buffalo, Matter of, 116 App. Div.
555: 743, 1057, 1328.
Buffalo, Matter of, 72 Hun 422 : 773.
Buffalo, Matter of, 52 Misc. 313:
1026.
Ixvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Buffalo, Matter of, 64 N. Y. 547: 776.
Buffalo, Matter of, 68 N. Y. 167:
754, 776, 794, 795,
Buffalo, Matter of, 189 N. Y. 163:
743, 1057, 1328.
Buffalo V. Delaware etc. E,. K. Co., 68
App. Div. 488: 888.
V. Delaware etc. R. R .Co., 178 N.
Y. 561: 888.
V. Hoffeld, 6 Miscl. 197: 1505.
V. Pratt, 131 N. Y. 293: 200, 1328.
V. Strait, 20 Colo. 13: 659.
Buffalo Bayou etc. E. R. Co. v. Fer-
ris, 26 Tex. 588: 524, 923, 1163,
1169, 1170, 1183, 1635.
Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 32
Hun 289: 1105, 1106, 1374.
Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. v. Brainard,
9. N. Y. 100: 503, 524, 675, 683,
684.
V. Du Bois Traction Pass. R. R.
Co., 149 Pa. St. 1, 328, 765, 771.
V. Harvey, 107 Pa. St. 319: 1540,
1541, 1543.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 72
Hun 587 : 328, 765, 773, 1282.
V. Overton, 35 Hun, 157 : 743.
V. Reynolds, 6 How. Pr. 96: 1074.
Buffalo Grade Crossing Comrs. Mat-
ter of, 116 App. Div. 549: 1208,
1309.
Buffalo Stone & Uement Co. v. Dela-
ware etc. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y.
152: 1484, 1645, 1647.
Buffum V. Harris, 5 R. I. 243: 146.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 4 R. I.
221: 1129. ■
Buhl V. Fort St. Union Depot Co.,
98 Mich. 596: 364, 371, 384, 388,
391, 398.
Bullard v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
178 Mass. 570: 862.
Bumpus V. Miller, 4 Mich. 159: 865.
Bunderson v. Burlington etc. R. R.
Co. 43 Neb. 545: 149, 150, 155.
Bundy v. Catto, 61 111. App. 209:
1489.
Bungenstock v. Nishnabotna Dr.
Dist. 163 Mo. 198: 461, 1456,
1639, 1652.
Bunker v. Hudson, 122 Wis. 43 : 231,
232, 439.
Bunten v. Danville, 93 Va. 200 : 876,
884.
Burbank v. Conrad, 96 U. S. 291 : 19.
V. Fay, 65 N. Y. 57: 78.
Burbridge v. New Albany & Salem R.
R. Co., 9 Ind. 546: 1259.
Burch V. Augusta etc. R. R. Co., 80
Ga. 296: 850.
v. McKeesport, 166 Pa. St. 57: 432.
Burchard v. State, 128 App. Div.
750: 1097, 1435, 1443.
Burchardt v. Wausau Boom Co., 54
Wis. 107: 94.
Burchmann v. St. Louis, 121 Mo.
523: 873, 878, 885, 886, 887.
Burde v. St. Joseph, 130 Mo. App.
453: 648, 1210, 1212.
Burden v. Nashua, 17 N. H. 477: 211.
v. Stein, 24 Ala. 130: 1028.
V. Stein, 27 Ala. 104: 73, 536.
Burdick, Matter of, 27 N. Y. Misc.
298: 513.
Burgess v. Clark, 13 Ired. Law 109:
1347.
V. Georgia, 11 Vt. 134: 976.
V. Grafton, 10 Vt. 321 : 1385.
Burgett V. Norris, 25 Ohio St. 308:
734.
Burgwyn v. Lockhart, Winston Law
269: 516.
Burk V. Ayers, 19 Hun 17: 564.
V. Baltimore, 77 Md. 469: 912, 914.
V. Simonson, 104 Ind. 173: 78.
Burkard v. Brooklyn, 6 Miscl. 431:
1561, 1564.
Burke v. Cumberland Traction Co.,
15 Pa. Co. Ct. 159 : 302.
V. Kansas City, 118 Mo. 309: 928,
1511, 1512.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 120 App.
Div. 684: 866.
V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co. 29 Mo. App.
370: 147, 159.
y. Sanitary District, 152 III. 125:
1066, 1243.
Burkham v. Ohio & M. E. R. Co., 122
Ind. 344: 322, 601, 619, 1582.
Burkleo v. Washington, 38 Minn.
441: 914.
Burky v. Lake, 30 111. App. 23: 646,
1335.
Burlington v. Burlington St. R. R.
Co., 49 la. 144: 309.
V. Gilbert, 31 la. 356: 211, 1550.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 56 N. J. Eq.
259: 197, 243, 297, 298, 778,
1618.
Burlington • R. R. Co. v. Beebe, 14
Neb. 46 J: 1124, 1137.
V. Billings, 38 Kan. 243 : 965.
V. Colo. Eastern R. R. Co., 38 Colo.
95: 829.
V. Columbus Junction, 104 la. 11,0:
865.
V. Dobson, 17 Neb. 450: 1384.
V. Johnson, 38 Kan. 142: 956.
V. Reinhackle, 15 Neb. 279: 178,
254, 1548, 1550.
V. Sater, 1 la. 421: 1669.
CASES CITED.
Ixvii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Burlington etc. R. R. Co. v. Schluntz,
14 Neb. 421: 1124, 1129.
V. Schweikert, 10 Colo. 178: 1172,
1344.
V. Spere, 24 Neb. 125: 1436, 1440.
V. White, 28 Neb. 166: 1124, 1232.
Burlington Gas Lt. Co. v. Burling-
ton etc. R. R. Co., 91 la. 470:
378.
V. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 165
U. S. 370: 378, 422, 1581.
Burnet v. Knowles, 3 Dow. 280 : 1524.
Burnett v. Commonwealtli, 169 Mass.
417: 806, 825.
V. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 76 Minn.
461: 88.
V. Meehan, 83 Ind. 566: 1132.
V. Nicholson, 86 N. C. 99: 1339,
1345.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 71 S. 0.
146: 832.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 79 S. C.
462: 1634.
V. Railroad Co., 4 Sued, 528 : 1478,
1496.
V. Sacramento, 12 Cal. 76 : 13, 745,
1162.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 62 S. C. 281 :
1668.
Burnham v. Goflfstown, 50 N. H. 560:
1086.
V. Story, 3 Allen, 378 : 1523.
V. Thompson, 35 la. 421: 549,
1035.
Burnish St. Widening, In re, 140 Pa.
St. 531: 738, 1154.
Burns v. Annas, 60 Me. 288: 865.
V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 102 la.
7: 1430.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 110 la.
385: 1470.
V. Columbus Citizens' Tel. Co., 10
Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 307: 343,
1594.
V. Dodge, 9 Wis. 458: 1520.
V. Liberty, 131 Mo. 372: 881.
V. Milwaukee & Mississippi R. R.
Co., 9 Wis. 450: 1520.
V. Multnomah Ry. Co., 8 Sawyer
543: 734, 1005, 1372.
T. School District, 61 Neb. 351
1347.
V. Spring Green, 56 Wis. 239
1405.
Burr V. Leichester, 121 Mass. 241
605.
Burrage v. Boston, 198 Mass. 580
1320.
Burrall v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 224
111. 266: 338, 1593.
Burrill v. Martin, 12 Me. 345: 1439.
Burritt v. New Haven, 42 Conn. 174:
210, 623.
Burroughs v. Cherokee, 134 la. 429:
887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 1492.
Burrow v. Terre Haute & Logansport
R. R. Co. 107 Ind. 432 : 834, 856.
Burrows v. Gray's Harbor Boom Co.,
44 Wash. 630: 118, 128, 132,
1607.
V. Vandevier, 3 Ohio 383; 696.
Burrus v. Columbus, 105 Ga. 42:
1581.
Burt V. Brigham, 117 Mass. 307: 895.
V. Commissioners of Highways, 32
Mich. 190: 1417.
T, Merchants' Ins. Co., 106 Mass.
356: 539, 588, 685.
V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 115 Mass.
1: 1222, 1224, 1253.
v. Wigglesworth, 117 Mass. 302:
1112, 1114, 1115, 1120, 1222,
1227, 1241.
Burtiss V. Parks, 65 Me. 559 : 1033.
Burton Lumber Co. v. Houston, 45
Tex. Civ. App. 363: 635.
Burwell v. Commissioners, 93 N. C.
73: 58.
V. Sneed, 104 N. C. 118: 516, 522.
Buschman v. St. Louis, 121 Mo. 523 :
881.
Busenbark v. Crawfordsville, 9 Ind.
App. 578: 1527.
Buser v. Cedar Rapids, 115 Iowa 683:
603.
Bush V. Dubuque, 69 Iowa 233: 484.
V. Peru Bridge Co., 3 Ind. 21 : 409,
414.
V. Portland, 19 Or. 45: 235.
V. Trowbridge Water Co., 44 L. J.
Ch. 645: 652.
V. Trowbridge Water Co., L. R. 10
Ch. App. 459 : 652, 1612.
Buskirk v. Harrod, 48 Mich. 258:
1017.
Bushwick Avenue, Matter of, 48 Barb.
9: 539.
Butchers' Ice & Coal Co. v. Philadel-
phia, 156 Pa. St. 54: 132, 142.
Butchers' Slaughtering & M. Assn. v.
Commonwealth, 169 Mass. 103:
1186, 1216.
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City
Co., Ill U. S. 746: 469, 492, 736.
v. Crescent City Co., 4 Wood 96:
469.
Butis V. Geddes, 54 Mich. 608: 941.
Butler V. Barr, 18 Mo. 357 : 1634.
V. County Comrs., 42 Kan. 416:
1356.
V. Frontier Telephone Co., 109 App.
Div. 217: 438, 1627.
Ixviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Butler V. Frontier Telephone Co.,
186 N. Y. 486: 438, 1627.
V. Parker, 9 Ind. 534: 1428.
V. Peek, 16 Ohio St. 334: 145.
V. Sewer Comrs., 39 N. J. L. 665:
1172.
V. Thomasville, 74 Ga. 570: 83,
679, 1572.
V. White Plains, 59 App. Div. 30:
83, 85.
Butler Hard Rubber Co. v. Newark,
61 N. J. L. 32: 74, 1263. ^
Butler Street, 25 Pa. Supr. Ct. 357 :
1713.
Butler Tp. Road, 6 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 443: 1091.
Butman v. Fowler, 17 Ohio 101 : 1098,
1106.
V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 27
Vt. 500: 1458, 1459.
Butte Co. V. Boydston, 64 Cal. 110:
515, 1316, 1317.
V. Boydstun, 68 Cal. 189: 1404.
Butte Elec. Ry. Co. v. Mathews, 34
Mont. 487: 1319, 1324, 1378.
Butte etc. R. R. Co. v. Montana U.
R. R. Co., 16 Mont. 504: 528,
534, 563, 758, 793, 796. 797, 798,
805.
V. Montana U. R. R. Co., 16 Mon.
550* 769 771
Butterfield v.' Poliock, 45 Iowa 257 :
983, 1380.
Butterworth v. Bartlett, 50 Ind. 537 :
363, 385, 387, 390, 402.
Butts V. Geary County, 7 Kan. App.
302: 514.
Byberry Road, 6 Phila. 384: 1371,
1381.
Byer v. New Castle, 124 Ind. 86:
1517.
V. Tanner, 29 111. 135: 1506.
Byles, In re, 25 L. J. Ex. 53 : 1098.
Byrne v. Cambria etc. Ry. Co., 219
Pa. St. 277: 1122.
V. Chicago General R. R. Co., 169
111. 75: 302.
V. Chicago General R. R. Co., 63
111. App. 438 : 302.
V. Drain, 127 Cal. 663 : 697.
V. Farmington, 64 Conn. 367: 157.
V. Keokuk etc. R. R. Co., 47 Mo.
App. 383: 160.
V. Minn. & St. Louis R. R. Co., 38
Minn. 212: 91, 94, 150, 1454,
1650, 1653.
Byrnes v. Cohoes, 5 Hun 602: 141.
V. Cohoes, 67 N. Y. 204: 233.
V. Riverton, 64 N. J. L. 210: 433.
Byron v. Blount, 97 111. 62 : 976, 1043,
1040.
Byron v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 22
Ky. L. R. 1007: 1615.
C.
Cabbell v. Williams, 127 Ala. 320:
372.
Cabot V. Kingman, 166 Mass. 403:
335, 443.
Caceia v. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co.,
98 App. Div. 294: 829, 856.
Cadiz R. R. Co. v. Roach, 114 Ky.
934: 833.
Cadle V. Muscatine Western R. R. Co.,
44 Iowa 11: 251, 316, 1648, 1657.
Cage V. Tragar, 60 Miss. 563: 1086,
1516.
Cahill V. Baltimore, 93 Md. 233: 154,
157.
V. Norwood Park, 149 111. 156: 895,
1092, 1378.
Cain V. Hays, 4 Dana Ky. 338: 1345.
V. Omaha, 42 Neb. 120: 13, 26,
463, 464.
V. South Bound R. R. Co., 62 S. C.
25: 155.
Cairo etc. R. R. Co. v. Brevoort, 62
Fed. 129: 89, 151, 1478.
V. People, 92 111. 97: 475.
V. Stevens, 73 Ind. 278: 157.
V. Trout, 32 Ark. 17 : 25, 922.
V. Turner, 31 Ark. 494: 22, 23,
524, 1155, 1163, 1169.
V. Woodvard, 226 111. 331: 728,
1042, 1043, 1044.
Cake V. Philadelphia etc. R. K. Co.,
87 Pa. St; 307: 777.
Calais v. Dyer, 7 Maine 155: 956.
Calcasien Lumber Co. v. Harris, 77
Tex. 18: 1497.
Calder v. Police Jury, 44 La. Ann.
173: 706, 1154, 1155, 1568.
Caldwell v. Carthage, 49 Ohio St.
334: 919.
V. East Broad Top R. R. Co., 169
Pa. St. 99: 168, 844.
V. Gale, 11 Mich. 77: 1639.
V. Nashua, 122 Iowa 179: 237.
V. New York ete. R. R. Co., Ill
App. Div. 164: 257.
Caledonia R. R. Co. v. Colt, 3 Mac-
queen 833: 1524.
V. Lockhart, 3 Macqueen 808 : 1244,
1450.
V. Ogiivy, 2 Maeq. So. App. 229:
645.
V. Walker's Trustees, L. R. 7 App.
Cas. 259 : 372, 645, 646, 662, 671.
Calhoun v. Colfax, 105 La. 416: 877.
V. Palmer, 8 Gratt. 88: 1459.
Calhoun's Road, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 222:
721.
CASES CITED.
IXIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Callendar v. Marsh, 1 Pick. 418 : 208,
211, 212, 213, 229, 1452.
V. Painesville etc. R. R. Co., 11
Ohio St. 516: 1045.
California v. Central Pac. R. R. Co.,
127 U. S. 1: 687.
California etc. R. R. Co. v. Hooper,
76 Cal. 404: 964, 980, 984.
V. State, 1 Cal. App. 142: 746.
California Nav. & Imp. Co. v. Union
Transp. Co., 126 Cal. 433: 873,
883.
California Northern R. R. Co. v.
Gould, 21 Cal. 254: 430, 956.
California Pacific R. R. Co. v. Arm-
strong, 46 Cal. 85: 1192, 1347.
V. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 47 Cal.
528: 434, 1102.
V. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 47 Cal.
549: 754.
V. Frisbie, 41 Cal. 356: 1366.
California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary
Reduction Works, 199 U. S. 306 :
474.
California Southern R. R. Co. v. Kim-
ball, 61 Cal. 90: 1071, 1223.
V. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 65
Cal. 295: 1424.
V. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 67
Cal. 59: 1346.
Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667:
543, 1523.
Calkins v. Bloomfield Gas Lt. Co., 1
N. y. Supm. 541: 176, 337.
V. Postal Tel. Co., 11 Pa. Dist. Ct.
305: 936, 1560.
Call V. County Comrs., 2 Gray 232:
1711.
V. Wilkesboro, 115 N. C. 337: 675.
Callaghan v. Dunn, 78 Cal. 366: 1673.
Callahan v. Dunn, 78 Cal. 366: 1675.
Callaman v. Port Huron & N. W. Ry.
Co., 61 Mich. 15: 1353.
Callen v. Columbus Edison Elec. Lt.
Co., 66 Ohio St. 166: 53, 54, 57,
175, 197, 198, 344, 345, 1593.
Callison v. Hedrick, 15 Gratt. 244:
1710.
Gallon V. Jacksonville, 147 111. 113:
912, 914.
Callowhill St., Matter of, 32 Pa. St.
361: 700.
Calumet Riv. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 136
111. 322: 947, 949, 1558, 1566.
V. Brown, 37 111. App. 113: 947,
949, 1558, 1566.
V. Moore, 124 111. 329: 1231, 1236,
1426.
Calvert v. State, 34 Neb. 616: 765,
767, 1611.
Cambria Street, 75 Pa. St. 357 : 1029,
1091, 1092, 1103, 1388.
Cambridge v. Cook (Iowa) 66 N. W.
884: 886.
v. County Comrs., 6 Allen 134:
1428.
V. County Comrs., 117 Mass. 79:
1366.
V. County Comrs., 125 Mass. 529:
605, 615.
Cambridge R. R. Co. v. Charles Riv.
St. R. R. Co., 139 Mass. 454:
762, 1284.
Camden etc. Land Co. v. Lippincott,
45 N. J. L. 405: 130.
V. United States Cast Iron Pipe
& F. Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 279: 272.
Camden Horse R. R. Co. v. Citizens'
Coach Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 145 : 416,
^27.
V. Citizens' Coach Co., 29 N. J. Eq.
299: 427.
V. West Jersey Traction Co., 58 N.
J. L. 102: 300.
Camden & R. Water Co. v. Ingrham,
85 Maine 179: 948.
Cameron v. Board of Supervisors of
Washington Co., 47 Miss. 264:
1570.
V. Charing Cross Ry., 16 C. B. N.
S. 430: 645.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 42 Minn.
75: 444, 1208.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 51 Minn.
153: 1232.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 6;> Minn.
384: 475.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 38 App.
Div. N. Y. 16: 1664.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 23 Misc.
N. y. 590 : 1664.
V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., 157
Pa. St. 617: 1208.
V. Wasco County, 27 Ore. 318:
1034, 1422.
V. Wellington R. R. Co., 28 Grant
Ch. 327: 841.
Camp, Matter of, 126 N. Y. 377:
1254.
Campau v. Charbeneau, 105 Mich.
422: 1018.
V. Detroit, 104 Mich. 560 : 865.
V. LeBlanc, 127 Mich. 179: 1511,.
1512.
Campbell's Appeal, 4 Mont. Co. L. R.
47: 1602.
Campbell v. Cincinnati, 49 Ohio St.
463: 914.
V. Detroit, 14 Mich. 276 : 696.
V. Dwiggins, 83 Ind. 473: 1004,
1006.
Ixx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Campbell v. Fogg, 132 Ind. 1 : 1383.
V. Indianapolis & Vincennes K. R.
Co., 110 Ind. 490: 858.
V. Kansas City, 102 Mo. 326: 872,
876, 892, 1499, 1504.
V. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 82
Ga. 320: 639, 642, 659, 664, 666,
671, 1294, 1302, 1337, 1338.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co.,
2 Mont. Co. L. R. 139: 1601.
V. Philadelphia, 108 Pa. St. 300:
612, 618, 1718.
V. Point Pleasant etc. R. R. Co., 23
W. Va. 448: 1.577, 1615.
V. Race, 7 Cush. 408.
V. Railroad Co., 110 Ind. 490:
1616.
V. Windham, 63 N. H. 465: 1409.
Campbell Turnpike Co. v. Dye, 18 B.
Mon. 761: 377, 385, 387, 388.
Canada So. Ry. Co., In re, 20 Am.
& Eng. R. R. Cas. 196 : 1479.
Canada Southern R. R. Co. v. Nor-
vall, 41 U. C. Q. B. 195: 1427.
Canadian Pac. R. R. Co. v. Western
Union Tel. Co., 17 Can. S. C.
151: 412, 832.
Canal Appraisers v. Kempshall, 26
Wend. 404: 105.
V. People, 17 Wend. 603 : 95.
Canal Bank v. Albany, 9 Wend. 244:
1341, 1385.
Canal & Charles Sts., 18 R. I. 129:
917.
Canal & C. Nav. Co. v. Comrs., 26
La. Ann. 740 : 1547.
Canal Comrs. v. Kempshall, 26 Wend.
404 : 98, 99.
V. People, 5 Wend. 423: 105, 106,
108, 117, 1533.
V. People, 13 Wend. 355: 105, 106,
117.
Canal & C. R. R. Co. v. Crescent City
R. R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 485 : 427,
762, 763, 764, 1283.
V. Orleans R. R. Co., 44 La. Ann.
54: 426, 427, 762, 763, 1283.
V. St. Charles St. R. R. Co., 44
La. Ann. 1069: 427, 762, 763,
1283.
Canal & C. St. R. R. Co. v. Crescent
City R. R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 561 :
426, 427, 761, 762, 763.
Canal Place, Matter of, 64 App. Div.
605: 804.
Canal Street, Matter of, 11 Wend.
154: 1670.
Canal Trustees v. Chicago, 12 111.
406: 12.
Canal & Walker Sts., Matter of, 12
N. Y. 406 : 1397.
Canandaigua v. Benedict, 8 App. Div.
475: 1465.
V. Benedict, 13 App. Div. 600:
1404.
V. Benedict, 24 N. Y. App. Div.
348: 710, 780.
Canandaigua etc. R. R. Co. v. Payne,
16 Barb. 273 : 1244.
Canastota Knife Co. v. Newington
Tramway Co., 69 Conn. 146: 272,
281, 282, 295, 316.
Canaway v. Archerman, 94 Ind. 187:
973
Candia v. Chandler, 58 N. H. 127:
1029.
Candler v. Asheville Elee. Co., 135
N. C. 12: 1546, 1653.
Cane Belt R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 31
Tex. Civ. App. 565: 824, 1065,
1068, 1228, 1230.
V. Ridgeway, 38 Tex. Civ. App.
108: 153, 316, 846, 847, 1639,
1658.
Canepa v. Birmingham, 92 Ala. 358:
468.
Canman v. St. Louis, 97 Mo. 92: 648.
Canniif v. San Francisco, 67 Cal. 45 :
1454.
Cannon v. St. Joseph, 67 Mo. App.
367: 149, 155.
Canton v. Canton Cotton Warehouse
Co., 84 Miss. 268 : 299, 309, 321,
1472, 1473.
V. Shock, 66 Ohio St. 19: 73.
Canton County v. Baltimore etc. R.
R. Co., 99 Md. 202: 1503, 1504.
V. Baltimore, 104 Md. 582: 865.
V. Baltimore, 106 Md. 69 : 367, 878,
879, 880, 884, 886, 1630.
Canton etc. R. R. Co. v. French, 68
Miss. 22 : 1456, 1634.
V. Paine (Miss.) 19 So. 199: 149,
152, 1454.
Cantwell v. Knoxville etc. R. R. Co.,
90 Tenn. 638 : 96.
Canty v. Latterner, 31 Minn. 239:
942.
Canyon Co. v. Toole, 8 Idaho 501:
976.
V. Toole, 9 Idaho 561: 996.
Canyonville etc. Road Co. v. Douglass
Co., 5 Ore. 280: 983, 1403.
Cape Elizabeth v. County Comrs., 64
Maine 456: 788.
Cape Girardeau v. Houck, 129 Mo.
607: 498, 675, 914, 1044.
Cape Girardeau etc. R. R. Co. v.
Wingerter, 124 Mo. App. 426:
834, 852, 859.
Cape Girardeau etc. Road Co. v. Den-
nis, 67 Mo. 438: 730, 1385.
CASES CITED.
Ixxi
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 7?3-1719.]
Cape Girardeau etc. Road Co. v. Ken-
fre, 58 Mo. 265: 304, 422, 858.
Capers v. Augusta G. 4 S. E. R. Co.,
76Ga. 90: 1634.
Capps V. Texas etc. Ry. Co., 21 Tex.
Civ. App. 84: 859, 1633.
Carbon Coal & Mining Co. v. Drake,
26 Kan. 345: 1155, 1571.
Caretta Ry. Co. v. Virginia-Poeahoii-
tas Coal Co., 62 W. Va. 185:
527, 528, 591, 1051, 1070.
Carey v. Dewey, 127 App. Div. 478:
495, 1634.
Carl V. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac R.
R. Co., 46 Wis. 625: 243, 247,
1137, 1298, 1552, 1651, 1658.
Carleton St. Widening, 16 Hun 497:
914, 1026.
Carley v. Sylvester, 49 Wis. 429:
1635.
Carli V. Stillwater & St. Paul R. R.
Co., 16 Minn. 260: 966, 1186,
1225.
V. Stillwater Street R. & T. Co.,
28 Minn. 373: 127, 128, 129, 131,
338.
V. Union Depot, Street Ry. &
Transfer Co., 32 Minn. 101 : 1298.
Carlile v. Des Moines etc. E. R. Co.,
99 Iowa 345 : 1510.
Carlisle etc. Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia
etc. R. R. Co., 199 Pa. St. 532:
771.
Carll V. Northport, 11 App. Div. 120:
231, 234.
Carlson v. County Comrs., 38 Wash.
616: 1354.
V. Duluth Short Line R. R. Co.,
38 Minn. 305 : 863.
v. St. Louis etc. Co., 73 Minn. 128:
80, 1604.
Carlton v. State, 8 Blaekf . 208 : 1362.
Carlton St. Widening, 16 Hun 497:
914, 1026.
Carlton St. Widening, 78 N. Y. 362:
914.
Carman v. Indiana R. R. Co., 4 Ohio
St. 399 : 435, 436.
V. St. Louis, 97 Mo. 92: 665.
V. Steubenville & Indiana R. R. Co.,
4 Ohio St. 399: 1455.
Carmel v. Shaw, 155 111. 37 : 378.
V. Shaw, 52 111. App. 429 : 378.
Carmody v. Chicago & Alton R. R.
Co., Ill 111. 69: 815.
Camochan v. Norwich & Spalding Ry.
Co., 26 Beav. 169: 1537, 1578.
Caro V. Manhattan El. Ry. Co., 46
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 138: 53,451.
Carolina Cent. Ry. Co. v. Love, 81
N. C. 434: 1058, 1061.
Carolina Cent. Ry. Co. v. MeCaskill,
94 N. C. 746: 1475, 1503, 1523,
1707, 1708.
V. Wilmington St. R. Co., 120 N.
C. 520: 331.
Carolina etc. Ry. Co. v. Pennearden
L. & M. Co., 132 N. C. 644 : 709,
1005.
Carondelet Canal & Nav. Co. v. New
Orleans, 38 La. Ann. 308 : 239.
Carothers v. Philadelphia Co., 118
Pa. St. 468: 704.
Carpenter, In re, 11 Miacl. 690: 1427.
Carpenter's Petition, 67 N. H. 574:
1075.
Carpenter v. Board of Comrs., 56
Minn. 513: 100, 105, 110.
V. Capital Elec. Co., 178 111. 29:
344, 1593.
V. County Comrs., 21 Pick. 258:
1040, 1080, 1638.
V. Easton & Amboy R. R. Co., 24
N. J. Eq. 249: 1246, 1248, 1602.
V. Easton &. Amboy R. R. Co., 24
N. J. Eq. 408: 1246, 1602.
V. Easton & Amboy R. R. Co., 26
N. J. Eq. 168: 1246, 1248, 1602.
V. Gold, 88 Va. 551: 69, 76.
V. Grisham, 59 Missouri 247: 1571,
1573.
V. Highway Comrs., 64 Mich. 476:
1416.
V. Jennings, 77 111. 250: 1194.
V. LandafF, 42 N. H. 218: 1187.
V. New York, 44 App. Div. 230:
1565.
V. New York, 51 App. Div. 584:
1565.
V. New York, 27 Misc. 272: 1565.
V. Oswego & S. R. R. Co., 24 N, Y.
655: 247,315, 1630.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 195 Pa.
St. 160: 394.
V. Sims, 3 Leigh. 674: 989, 1075.
V. Spencer, 2 Gray 407: 1116.
Carpenter St., 3 Walker's Pa. Supm.
Ct. 286: 1011, 1327.
Carr V. Berkley, 145 Mass. 539: 1371.
V. Boone, 108 Ind. 241: 1028, 1031,
1675.
V. Payette Co., 37 Iowa 608: 1032.
V. Northern Liberties, 35 Pa. St.
324: 142.
V. State, 103 Ind. 548: 941, 978,
1010, 1033.
Carraher v. Revere, 182 Mass. 427:
1314.
Carrico v. Colvin, 92 Ky. 342: 1159,
1161, 1460.
Carriger v. R. R. Co., 7 Lea 388:
158, 1455.
Ixxii
CASES CITED,
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. 11, pp. 748-1710.]
Carxis v. Commissioners of Waterloo,
2 Hill 443: 820.
Carroll v. Asbury, 28 Pa. Supr. Ct.
354: 183, 394, 404, 405, 1596.
V. Atlanta, 74 Ga. 386 : 81.
V. Campbell, 108 Mo. 550: 414.
V. Campbell, 110 Mo. 557: 411.
V. Griffith, 117 Tenn. 500: 710,
1154.
V. Marshall, 99 Mo. App. 464 : 1308.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 14 App.
Div. 278: 1426.
V. Rye Tp., 13 N. D. 458: 153.
V. Wisconsin Central R. R. Co.,
40 Minn. 168: 444.
Carron v. Great Western R. R. Co.,
14 U. C. Q. B. 192: 159.
V. Western R. R. Co., 8 Gray 423 :
456.
Carson v. Blazer, 2 Binn. 475: 104.
V. Central R. R. Co., 35 Cal. 325:
246, 250, 268, 307.
V. Coleman, 11 N. J. Eq. 106: 1155,
1187.
V. Hartford, 48 Conn. 68: 1673,
1685.
V. Springfield, 53 Mo. App. 289:
155, 630, 653, 1306, 1309, 1650,
1656.
V. Western R. R. Co., 8 Gray 423:
1472.
Carter v. Barkley, 137 Iowa 510:
886.
V. Chicago. 57 111. 283 : 197, 357.
V. Moulton, 58 N. H. 64: 818.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 134 N.
Y. 168: 1124.
Y. Ridge Turnpike Co., 208 Pa. St.
515: 866, 1626, 1713, 1714.
V. Ridge Turnpike Co., 22 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 162: 866.
Cartersville v. Lyon, 69 Ga. 577:
1506, 1664.
Carthage v. Central N. Y. Tel. & Tel.
Co., 110 App. Dlv. 625: 361, 489.
V. Central N. Y. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
185 X. Y. 448: 361, 489.
V. Frederick, 122 N. Y. 268 : 492.
V. Garner, 209 Mo. 688: 361.
Cartwright t. Liberty Telephone Co.,
205 Mo. 126: 348, 350.
Carvalho v. Brooklyn etc. Turnpike
Co., 56 App. Div. 522: 133.
V. Brooklvn etc. Turnpike Co., 173
N. Y. 586: 133.
Carville v. Commonwealth, 189 Mass.
273: 1409.
T. Commonwealth, 192 ilass. 570:
1157, 1164, 1707.
Carv V. Daniels, 8 Met. 466 : 554,
556.
Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364:
494, 496, 676, 792.
Cascades R. R. Co. v. Sohns, 1 Wash.
Ter. N. S. 558 : 698.
Case V. Cayuga County, 34 N. Y.
Supp. 595 : 254.
V. Meyers, 6 Dana 330: 1017.
V. Pennsylvania Co., 159 Pa. 6t.
273: 635.
V. Thompson, 6 Wend. 634: 1164,
1167.
^Casey v. Kilgore, 14 Kan. 478: 933,
981, 982.
Cash V. Kruschke, 134 Wis. 130
975, 1671, 1674.
V. Union Depot etc. Co., 32 Minn.
101: 253.
V. Whitworth, 13 La. Ann. 401
440.
Caskey v. Greensburg, 78 Ind. 233
1576.
Cason V. Harrison, 135 Ind. 330
1410, 1510, 1512.
Cass V. Dicks, 14 Wash. 75: 148, 151
V. Pennsylvania Co., 159 Pa. St.
273: 226, 641, 1649, 1656, 1660,
1718.
Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 124 Mich.
433: 11, 464.
V. Detroit, 181 U. S. 396: 11, 464.
Cassidy v. Kennebec & Portland R.
R. Co., 45 Maine 263 : 1078.
V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 141 Mass.
174: 157, 1457, 1473.
V. Smith, 13 Minn. 129: 1517.
V. Sullivan, 75 Neb. 847: 890.
Castle V. Bell Telephone Co., 49 App.
Div. 437 : 343.
V. Berkshire, 11 Gray 26: 371, 379,
391.
Castlebury v. Atlanta, 74 Ga. 164:
348, 629.
Castle Rock Irr. & W. P. Co. v. Jxt-
risch, 67 Neb. 377: 921, 1624.
Catawba Toll Bridge Co. v. Flowers,
HON. C. 381: 414.
Catawissa R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 2
Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. 175: 771,
772.
Catharine Tp. Road, 76 Pa. St. 189:
1077.
Cater v. North Western Tel. Exeh.
Co., 60 Minn. 539: 333, 341.
Gates V. Waddington, 1 McCord 580:
104.
Cathedral of the Holy Trinity v.
West Ont. Pac. R. R. Co., 14
Ont. 246: 823.
Cathedral Parkway Opening, Matter
of, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 404: 1391.
CASES CITED.
Ixxiii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Cator V. Board of Works etc., 34 L.
J. Q. B. 74: 1524.
Cauble v. Hultz, 118 Ind. 13: 1573.
Cauldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363:
1510.
Cavanagh v. Bayonne, 63 N. J. L.
176: 1374. 1415.
Cavanaugh v. Boston, 139 Mass. 426:
485.
Cave's Executor v. Colmes, 3 A. K.
Marsh. 36: 1673, 1675.
Cedar Co. v. Iiamniers, 73 Neb. 744:
941.
Cedar Lake Hotel Co. v. Cedar Lake
Hydraulic Co., 79 Wis. 297 : 125,
128, 137, 1607.
Cedar Rapids, In re, 85 Iowa 39:
698, 1056, 1072, 1167, 1168.
Cedar Rapids v. Marion City Ry. Co.,
125 Iowa 430: 280.
V. Young, 119 Iowa 552: 865.
Cedar Rapids Canning Co. v. Burling-
ton etc. Ry. Co., 120 Iowa 724:
1480.
Cedar Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v. Chica-
go etc. Ry. Co., 60 Iowa 35:
1403.
V. Raymond, 37 Minn. 204: 1315,
1331, 1477, 1483.
V. Ryan, 37 Minn. 38: 1132, 1186,
1208.
V. Whelan, 64 Iowa 694: 1412.
Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar
Rapids, 118 Iowa 234: 481.
Cella v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 217
111. 326: 1409.
Cemetery Assn. v. Meninger, 14 Kan.
312: 512, 513, 865, 880, 881, 884,
885, 886, 890.
Central Branch U, P. R. R. Co. v.
Andrews, 26 Kan. 702: 251,
1227, 1229, 1551, 1662.
V. Andrews, 30 Kan. 590: 251,
1295.
V. Andrews, 34 Kan. 565: 251.
V. Andrews, 37 Kan. 162: 251,
1119, 1127, 1133, 1134.
V. Andrews, 37 Kan. 641: 251.
V. Andrews, 41 Kan. 370: 251,
311, 1294.
v. Atchison etc. R. R. Co., 26 Kan.
669: 731.
V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 28
Kan. 453: 673, 922, 1463, 1465.
V. Twine, 23 Kan. 585: 249, 251.
Central Bridge Corporation v. Lowell,
4 Gray 474: 781, 788, 790, 791.
Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell, 15 Gray
106: 1261.
Central City Horse R. R. Co. v. Fort
Clark Horse R. R. Co., 81 111.
523: 755, 763, 1624.
Central Crosstown R. R. Co. v. Met-
ropolitan St. R. R. Co., 16 App.
Div. N. Y. 229: 331, 1621.
Central Crosstown R. R. Co. v. Met-
ropolitan St. Ry. Co., 17 Misc.
716: 1621.
Central Land Co. v. Providence, 15
R. 1. 246: 879, 986, 1267.
Centralia v. Wright, 156 111. 561:
1545, 1547.
v. Wright, 58 lU. App. 51: 91,
93, 1652, 1653.
Centralia etc. R. R. Co. v. Brake,
125 111. 393: 1314, 1318.
V. Brake, 31 111. App. 459: 1535.
v. Henry, 31 111. App. 456: 1535.
V. Rixman, 121 111. 214: 1318.
Central Mills Co. v. New York & iNew
England R. R. Co., 127 Mass.
537: 831.
Central New York Tel. Co., Matter
of, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 553: 1386.
Central of Ga. R. R. Co. v. Alabama
etc. R. R. Co., 130 Ala. 559:
1428.
V. Union Springs etc. Ry. Co., 144
Ala. 639: 726, 1047.
V. Windham, 126 Ala. 552: 156.
V. Wright, 207 U. S. 127: 1005,
1007.
Central Ohio R. R. Co. v. Holler, 7
Ohio St. 220: 1343.
Central Pass. Ry Co. v. Philadelphia
etc. R. R. Co., 95 Md. 428: 328,
329, 769, 1282, 1611.
Central Pac. Ry. Co. v. Feldman, 152
Cal. 303: 524, 714, 917, 1060,
1063, 1119, 1132, 1231.
V. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247: 1097, 1119,
1120, 1145, 1240, 1271, 1277.
Central Park Comrs. Matter of, 51
Barb. 277: 1023, 1377.
Central Park Comrs., Matter of, 61
Barb. 40: 1388.
Central Park Comrs., Matter of, 63
Barb. 282: 539, 773.
Central Park Comrs., Matter of, 54
How. Pr. 313: 1327.
Central Park Comrs., Matter of, 4
Lans. 467: 1388.
Central Park Comrs., Matter of, 50
N. Y. 493: 1397.
Central Park Extension, Matter of,
16 Abb. Pr. 56: 943.
Central Pa. Tel. & Supply Co. v.
Wilkes-Barre etc. R. R. Co., 11
Pa. Co. Ct. 417: 272, 418, 1615.
Central R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 102 Pa.
St. 38: 1017, 1031, 1034.
Ixxiv
CASES CITED.
[Tlie references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. 11, pp. 743-1719.]
Central E. R. Co. v. Bayonne, 51 N,
J. L. 428: 1292.
V. Bayonne, 52 N. J. L. 503: 883,
V. English, 73 Ga. 366: 453.
V. Hatfield, 18 N. J. Eq. 323: 247,
V. Hatfield, 29 N. J. L. 206: 22,
1634.
V. Hatfield, 29 N. J. L. 571 : 1634.
V. Hudson Terminal Co., 46 N. J.
L. 289: 708, 1064.
V. Merkel, 32 Tex. 723 : 936.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 59 Fed.
192: 96.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 31 N.
J. Eq. 475: 683, 726, 748, 1047.
V. Standard Oil Co., 33 N. J. Eq.
127: 777.
Central Trust Co. v. Bridges, 57 Fed.
753: 1540, 1541, 1542.
V. Valley R. R. Co., 79 Fed. 195:
1541.
Central Turnpike Corporation, 7
Pick. 13: 1010.
Central Union Telephone Co.' v. Co-
lumbus Grove, 8 Ohio C. C.
(N. S.) 81: 685, 709.
Central Union Tel. Co. v. State, 118
Ind. 194: 481.
v. tSate, 123 Ind. 113 : 481.
Central Vt. R. R. Co. v. Royalton,
58 Vt. 234: 752.
V. Woodstock R. R. Co., 50 Vt.
452: 1610.
Centreville & Abington Turnpike Co.
V. Jarrett, 4 Ind. 213: 1086.
Cereghino v. Oregon Short-Line R.
R. Co., 26 Utah 467: 197, 199,
317.
Cerf V. Pfleging, 94 Cal. 131: 879.
Certain Land in Lawrence, In re, 119
Fed. 453: 784.
C. 6. Lamed etc. Co. v. Omaha etc.
R. R. Co., 56 Kan. 174: 1360.
C. & 6. R. R. Co. v; Stephenson, 8
Ore. 263 : 782.
Chaee v. Fall River, 2 Allen 533:
1366.
Chadbourne v. Zilsdorf, 34 Minn. 43:
1569, 1572.
Chad's Ford, 5 Binney 481: 1419.
Chaffee's Appeal, 56 Mich. 244: 680,
706.
Chaffee v. Aiken, 57 S. C. 507 : 1492.
Chagrin Falls & Cleveland Plank
Road Co. V. Cane, 2 Ohio St.
419: 422.
Chalcraft v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
113 111. 86: 1483, 1484, 1647.
Challis \. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R.
Co., 16 Kan. 117: 21, 503, 675,
80G, 1519.
Chamberlain v. Elizabethport Steam
Cordage Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 43:
243, 247, 298, 680.
V. Iowa Tel. Co., 119 Iowa 619:
342, 358, 362.
V. Missouri Elec. Lt. & P. Co., 158
Mo. 1: 454.
V. Morgan, 68 Pa. St. 168: 538,
1167.
V. Northeastern R. R. Co., 41 S. C.
399 : 1497, 1500.
' V. West End of London etc. Ry.
Co., 2 Best & Smith 605: 645.
V. West End of London etc. Ry. Co.,
2 Best & Smith 617: 645.
Chambers v. Carteret, 54 N. J. L. 85 :
1419.
V. Cincinnati & Ga. R. E. Co., 69
Ga. 320: 1159, 1570.
V. Cleveland ete. Traction Co., 5
Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 298: 281, 285,
1589.
V. Farry, 1 Yates 167: 423, 1491.
V. Great Northern Power Co., 100
Minn. 214: 808, 1499, 1504.
V. Lewis, 9 Iowa 583 : 1414.
V. Saterlee, 40 Cal. 497: 13.
V. South Chester, 140 Pa. St. 510:
1306, 1307, 1308, 1337.
V. Talladega Real Est. & L. Assn.,
126 Ala. 296: 365, 877.
Chambersburg etc. Turnpike Road, 20
Pa. Supr. Ct. 173: 1177, 1264,
1266.
Chamley v. Shewano W. P. ete. Co.,
109 Wis. 563: 1074.
Champaign v. Forrester, 29 111. App.
117: 142, 453.
Champion v. County Comrs., 1 Nev.
478: 1159, 1570, 1574.
V. County Comrs., 2 Nev. 271:
1159, 1570, 1579.
V. Crandon, 84 Wis. 405: 148.
Champlain v. McCrea, 33 App. Div.
N. Y. 259: 918.
V. McCrea, 165 N. Y. 264: 695, 988.
Champlin v. Morgan, 18 111. 293:
1572.
V. New York, 3 Paige 573: 1571.
Chandler v. Austin, 4 Ariz. 347: 70.
V. Beale, 132 Ind. 596: 1442.
V. Heisler, 153 Mich. 1: 1514, 1569,
1571.
V. Jamiea Pond Aqueduct Co.,
114 Mass. 575: 1003, 1707,
1708, 1709, 1712.
V. Jamiea Pond Aqueduct Co., 122
Mass. 305: 1138, 1140, 1143.
V. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co., 125
Mass. 544: 1130, 1132, 12U6,
1319, 1320.
CASES CITED.
Ixxv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Chandler >•. Morey, 195 111. 596: 965,
1561, 1673.
V. Morey, 96 111. App. 278: 1561.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 34 App.
Div. N. Y. 305 : 1664.
V. Reading, 129 Mo. App. 63: 521,
708.
Change of Grade, In re, 2 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 179: 1718.
Chapel V. Smith, 80 Mich. 100: 146.
Chapin, In re, 32 N. Y. Supp. 361:
1376.
Chapin v. Boston & Providence R. K.
Co., 6 Cush. 442: 1147, 1150.
V. Brown, 15 R. I. 579: 880.
V. Sullivan R. R. Co., 39 N. H.
564: 1480.
Chaplin v. Highway Comra., 129 111.
651: 893, 895, 1056, 1158, 1173,
1516, 1571.
V. Highway Comrs., 27 111. App.
643: 1571.
Chapman v. Albany & Schenectady
R. R. Co. 10 Barb. 360: 243,
244.
v. Clark, 49 Mich. 305 : 1093.
V. Gates, 54 N. Y. 132: 1164, 1168,
1171.
V. Gates, 63 N. Y. 136: 1168.
V. Graves, 8 Blackf. 308: 1374,
1377.
V. Kimball, 9 Conn. 38 : 103.
V. Monmouthshire Ry. & C. Co.,
2 H. & N. 267: 1529.
V. Monmouthshire Ry. & Canal Co.,
27 L. J. N. S. Ex. 97: 1529.
v.Oshkosh & Miss. R. R. Co., 33
Wis. 629: 107, 247.
V. Rochester, 110 N. Y. 273: 86,
1605, 1617.
V. Sault Ste. Marie, 146 Mich. 23:
890.
V. Swan, 65 Barb. 210: 1100, 1102,
1518.
Chappell V. Edmondson Ave^, 83 Md.
512: 1395.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 62
Conn. 195: 855.
V. United States, 81 Fed. 764 : 932,
Charles v. Monson & Brimfield Mfg.
Co., 17 Pick. 70: 960.
Charles River Branch R. R. Co. v.
County Comrs., 7 Gray 389:
1710.
Charles River Bridge v. Warren
Bridge, 11 Pet. 420: 409.
Charles River Bridge Co. v. War-
ren Bridge, 6 Pick. 376: 1608.
Charles River Bridge v. Warren
Bridge, 7 Pick. 344: 409.
Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 566: 440.
Charles Street Avenue Co. v. Merry-
man, 10 Md. 536: 712.
Charleston v. Newman, 130 111. App.
6: 630, 1137, 1306.
V. Werner, 38 S. C. 488 : 15, 484.
V. Werner, 46 S. C. 323 : 484.
Charleston etc. Bridge Co. v. Com-
stock, 36 W. Va. 263: 701, 955,
991, 1115, 1213.
Charleston etc. R. R. Co. v. Blake,
12 Rich. S. C. 634: 809, 1112.
V. Fleming, 118 Ga. 699: 1483.
V. Fleming, 119 Ga. 995: 521, 522.
V. Garlington, 74 S. C. 161: 1625.
V. Hughes, 105 Ga. 1: 966.
V. Leech, 39 S. C. 446: 830.
V. Reynolds, 69 S. C. 481: 830,
1226, 1227, 1320, 1715.
Charleston Road, 2 Grant's Cas. 467 :
1089.
Charlestown v. County Comrs., 3 Met.
202: 112, 788.
Charlestown Branch R. R. Co. v.
County Comrs., 7 Met. 78: 1712.
Charlestown etc. R. R. Co. v. Hughes,
105 Ga. 1: 1347.
Charlestown Tp. Road, 2 Phila. 126:
1089.
Charlotte etc. R. R. Co. v. Gibbs, 27
S. C. 385: 475.
V. Gibbs, 142 U. S. 386: 475.
Charlotte Street, 23 Pa. St. 286 : 982.
Charlottesville v. Maury, 96 Va. 383:
709, 813.
v. Southern Ry. Co. 97 Va. 428:
361, 487, 781, 1643, 1644, 1645.
Charlton v. Allegheny City, 1 Grant's
Cases 208: 145.
Charnley v. Sawano W. P. & C. Co.,
109 Wis. 563 : 866.
Charnock v. Levee Co., 38 La. Ann.
323: 12.
Chartier's Township Road, 34 Pa.
St. 276: 1083.
Chartier's Township Road, 48 Pa.
St. 314: 400, 985, 1371.
Chase v. Cochran, 102 Maine 431 :
787.
V. Hatheway, 14 Mass. 222: 1007,
1014.
V. Lowell, 149 Mass. 85 : 349.
V. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 24
Barb. 273: 155.
V. Oskosh, 81 Wis. 313: 348, 1488.
V. Portland, 86 Maine 367: 604,
618, 619, 1185, 1215, 1308, 1337.
V. Rutland, 47 Vt. 393 : 1082.
V. School District, 8 Utah 231:
1348.
Ixxvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Chase v. Sioux City, 86 lawa 603:
619.
V. Sullivan E. R. Co., 20 N. H. 195 :
1404.
V. Sutton Manufacturing Co., 4
Cush. 152: 424, 1497.
V. Worcester, 108 Mass. 60: 1134,
1185.
Chase Co. Comrs. v. Carter, 24 Kan.
511: 1404.
V. Carter, 30 Kan. 581: 1024.
Chaster v. PhiladelpMa etc. E. E. Co.,
3 Walker (Pa. Supreme) 368:
1291.
Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas.
349: 161.
Chatham St., 16 Pa. Supr. Ct. 103:
643.
Chatham St., In re, 191 Pa. St. 604:
630, 634, 636, 653.
Chattanooga v. Geiler, 13 Lea 611:
613, 616, 1180, 1308.
V. Terminal R. E. Co., 67 Fed. Rep.
273: 1165.
Chattanooga etc. E. E. Co. v. Brown,
84 Ga. 256: 831, 952, 1259.
V. Davis 89 Ga. 708 : 833.
V. East Rome Tovra Co., 89 Ga.
732: 1545.
V. Felton, 69 Fed. 273: 754.
V. Jones, 80 Ga. 264: 1615.
V. Philpot, 112 Ga. 153: 521.
Chattanooga Terminal R. E. Co. v.
Felton, 69 Fed. 273 : 768.
Chatterton v. Parrott, 46 Mich. 432 :
1519.
Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Mon. 330:
26, 465.
Cheesbrough, Matter of, 17 Hun 561 :
1155.
Cheesbrough's Petition, 78 N. Y. 232 :
15.
Cheever v. Shedd, 13 Blateh. 258:
229, 1452.
Chelalis Co. v. Ellington, 21 Wash.
638: 942.
Chelan Co. v. Navarre, 38 Wash.
684: 690, 696, 979.
Chelsea Dye-House and Laundry Co.
v. Commonwealth, 164 Mass.
350: 335.
Cheltenham Road, 3 Mont. Co. L. R.
37: 1360, 1364.
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 N.
Y. 178 : 98, 99.
Cheney v. Boston Consolidated Gas
Co., 198 Mass. 356: 191, 334,
337, 358.
Cherokee v. S. C. & I. F. Town Lot
& Land Co., 52 Iowa 279: 675,
1128, 1139, 1436, 1437.
Cherokee etc. R. R. Co. v. Kenken,
77 Iowa 316: 859.
Cherokee Nation v. South Kansas R.
R. Co., 33 Fed. 900: 2, 9, 524,
747.
V. Southern Kansas R. R. Co., 135
U. S. 641: 747, 1165, 1170, 1460.
pherry v. Board of Comrs., 52 N. J.
L. 544: 700, 738, 1154, 1157,
1158.
V. Board of Comrs., 51 N. J. L.
417: 700, 1154, 1157, 1158.
V. Lake Drummond C. & W. Co.,
140 N. C. 422: 439, 1546, 1649,
1659, 1716.
V. Lane County, 25 Ore. 487: 722,
1160, 1167, 1523.
V. Matthews, 25 Ore. 484: 722,
1602.
V. Rock Hill, 48 S. C. 553: 384, 389,
399, 1666.
V. Williams, 147 N. C. 452: 454.
Cherry St., 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 41: 1088.
Cherry tree Tp. Road, 10 Pa. Co. Ct.
389: 1017, 1384.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v.
Baltimore & Ohio R. E. Co., 4
G. & J. 1: 900.
V. Binney, 4 Cranch, C. C. 68:
1083, 1360.
V. Grove, 11 G. & J. 398: 1445.
V. Hoye, 2 Gratt. 511: 1369.
V. Key. 3 Cranch, C. C. 599: 522,
711, 1078, 1175, 1194.
V. Mason, 4 Cranch 123: 815, 1385.
V. Tyree, 7 W. Va. 693: 1225.
V. Union Bank, 4 Cranch, C. C. 75 :
1005, lOiO, 1013, 1360.
V. Union Bank, 5 Cranch, C. C.
509: 131.
V. Western Md. R. R. Co., 99 Md.
570: 748.
V. Young, 3 Md. 480: 1576.
Chesapeake etc. R. R. Co. v. Bradford,
6 W. Va. 220: 1392, 1670, 1674.
V. Chambers, 95 Va. 503 : 1457.
V. Deepwater Ry. Co., 57 W. Va.
641: 901, 904, 905.
V. Dyer County, 87 Tenn. 712: 321.
V. Halstead, 7 W. Va. 301 : 1343.
V. Kobs (Ky.) 30 S. W. 6: 252,
310, 1294.
V. Pack, 6 W. Va. 397: 819, 1389.
V. Patton, 5 W. Va. 234: 1574.
V. Patton, 6 W. Va. 147: 1172,
1343.
v. Patton, 9 W. Va. 648: 690,
1086.
CASES CITED.
Ixxvii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-T42 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Chesapeake etc. R. R. Co. v. Rice,
20 Ky. L. R. 1930: 639.
V. Walker, 100 Va. 69: 128, 130,
812.
V. Washington etc. Ry. Co., 99 Va.
715: 895, 1033, 1043, 1517.
Chesapeake etc. Tel. Co. v. B. & 0.
Tel. Co., 66 Md. 399: 481, 682.
Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v. Macken-
zie, 74 Md. 36: 172, 175, 180,
200, 338, 340, 625, 1152.
Chesbrough v. Comrs., 37 Ohio St.
508: 580.
Cheseldine v. Comrs., 6 Ohio C. C.
450: 220.
Cheshire v. Adams etc. Reservoir Co.,
119 Mass. 356: 956.
Cheshire Turnpike v. Stevens, 10 N.
H. 133: 401.
Chess V. Manown, 3 Watts 219 : 423.
Chessbrough, Matter of, 17 Hun
561: 485.
Chessbrough, Matter of, 78 N. Y.
232: 485.
Chestates Pyrites Co. v. Cavenders
Creek Gold Min. Co., 118 Ga.
255: 1603.
V. Cavenders Creek Gold Min. Co.,
119 Ga. 354: 7, 683, 685, 708,
1041.
Chester v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
140 Pa. St. 275: 780.
V. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co., 217
Pa. St. 402: 309.
V. Wabash etc. R. R. Co., 182 111.
382: 302, 1630.
Chester County v. Brewer, 117 Pa.
St. 647: 324, 635, 636, 638, 659,
660, 1549, 1550, 1551.
Chester County Road, 4 Yeates 433:
1418.
Chesterfield etc. R. R. Co. v. John-
son, 58 S. C. 560 : 923.
Chester Road, 2 Rawle 421 : 778.
Chester Traction Co. v. Phila. etc. R.
R. Co., 188 Pa. St. 105: 771.
Chestnut St., 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 55: 698.
Chestnut St., In re, 118 Pa. St. 593:
1357, 1712.
Chestnut St., In re, 128 Pa. St. 214:
1410.
Chestnut St. Widening, In re, 18
Phila. 511: 1712.
Chewett v. Great Western R. R. Co.,
26 U. C. C. P. 118: 945.
Cheyney v. Atlantic City W. W. Co.,
55 N. J. L. 235: 723, 814, 816,
1060, 1063, 1066.
Chicago V. Allcock, 36 111. 384: 1323.
V. Altgeld, 33 111. App. 23: 937,
1648, 1656.
V. Anglum, 104 111. App. 188 : 635,
1306.
Chicago V. Baker, 86 Fed. 753: 373,
382 391
V. Baker, 98 Fed. 830: 373, 391,
398.
V. Barbian, 80 111. 482: 1673, 1675,
1680, 1684.
V. Bowman Dairy Co., 234 111. 294 :
473.
V. Brennan, 61 111. App. 247: 1150.
V. Burcky, 158 111. 103: 372, 382,
391, 398, 1665.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 152 111.
561: 881, 883.
V. Chicago League Ball Club, 97 111.
App. 637: 460, 1547.
V. Chicago Terminal Transfer R.
R. Co., 121 111. App. 197: 303,
304.
V. Colby, 20 111. 614: 12.
V. Crosby, 111 111. 538: 492.
V. Drexel, 141 111. 89: 873, 877,
886, 888, 890, 891.
V. Gait, 224 111. 421 : 869.
V. Garrity, 7 111. App. 474: 1255.
V. Gunning System, 214 111. 628:
471.
V. Hayward, 176 111. 130: 828,
1673, 1675.
V. Hayward, 60 111. App. 582: 1527.
V. Hill, 124 111. 646: 884, 1137.
V. Jackson, 196 111. 496: 467, 629.
V. Laflin, 49 111. 172: 15, 123, 470.
V. Lamed, 34 111. 203 : 12.
V. LeMoyne, 119 Fed. 662: 635,
1309, 1313.
V. Lonergan, 196 111. 518 : 226, 629,
1313.
V. McDonough, 112 111. 85: 1122,
1309.
V. McGinn, 51 111. 266: 96.
V. McShane, 102 111. App. 239:
635.
V. McCartney, 216 111. 377: 1219.
V. Messier, 38 Fed. 308 : 965, 1556,
1561.
V. Murdock, 212 111. 9: 435, 456.
V. O'Brien, 111 111. 532: 492.
V. Palmer, 93 111. 125: 1325.
V. Pooley, 112 III. App. 343: 199.
V. Pulcyn, 129 111. App. 179: 320,
372, 383, 646.
V. Rogers Park Water Co., 214
111. 212: 481, 483.
V. Rogers Park Water Co., 116 111.
App. 200: 481,483.
V. Rothschild, 212 111. 590: 1422.
V. Rumsey, 87 111. 348: 25, 224,
633, 635.
V. Rust, 117 111. App. 427: 443.
V. Seben, 165 111. 371 : 142.
V. Bhepard, S 111. App. 602: 1673.
Ixxviii
OASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 74S-1719.)
Chicago V. Smythe, 33 111. App. 28:
1319, 1545.
T. Spoor, 190 111. 340: 1212, 1309.
V. Stinson, 124 111. 510: 884, 886.
V. Taylor, 125 U. S. 161: 631, 635,
660, 663.
V. Union Bldg. Assn., 102 111. 379:
178, 370, 371, 383, 392, 398.
V. Union Stock Yards & Transit
Co., 164 111. 224: 484, 1620.
V. Verdon, 119 111. App. 494: 197,
199.
V. Van Ingen, 152 111. 624: 129.
V. Ward, 169 111. 392: 876. 1618.
V. Webb, 102 111. App. 232: 373,
375, 391.
V. Wells, 236 111. 129: 53, 57, 461.
V. Wheeler, 25 111. 478 : 1325, 1527,
1528, 1530.
T. Wright, 69 111. 318: 197, 357,
1579.
Chicago City R. R. Co. v. People, 73
111. 541: 299, 407.
Chicago Cold Storage Warehouse Co.
V. People, 127 111. App. 179 : 199.
Chicago County v. Nelson, 81 Minn.
443: 1137.
Chicago etc. Bridge Co. v. Pacific
Mut. Tel. Co., 36 Kan. 113: 917,
1568.
Chicago etc. Elec. R. R. Co. v. Chi-
cago etc. Ry. Co., 211 111. 352:
731, 757, 759, 1043, 1044, 1409.
V. Mailman, 206 111. 182: 1312.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Abbott,
215 111. 416: 864, 999, 1004,
1513.
V. Abbott, 44 Kan. 170: 913.
V. Aclsiley, 94 U. S. 179 : 480.
V. Aldrieh, 134 111. 9: 1195, 1312,
1442.
V. Alexander, 47 Wash. 131: 1146,
1152, 1242.
V. Anderson, 42 Kan. 297: 942.
V. Andreesen, 62 Neb. 456: 92, 93,
1454, 1456, 1639, 1653, 1716.
V. Atterbury, 156 111. 281: 1314.
V. Ayres, 106 111. 511: 639,, 671.
V. Baker, 102 Mo. 553: 1208, 1318,
1365.
V. Bastin, 97 111. App. 38: 1602.
V. Bates, 109 Mo. 53: 926.
V. Bean, 69 Iowa 257: 1505, 1510.
V. Beatrice Rapid Transit & P. Co.,
47 Neb. 741 : 328.
v. Berg, 10 111. App. 607 : 639, 1294.
V. Blake, 116 111. 163: 1119, 1129,
1195, 1241, 1379.
V. Blume, 137 111. 448: 1243, 1310,
1312, 1314.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Board of
Comrs., 49 Kan. 763: 1290.
V. Bowman, 122 111. 595 : 1109, 1202,
1243, 1311, 1312, 1314, 1426,
1437.
V. Brink, 16 S. D. 644: 1244.
V. Brinkman, 47 111. App. 287 : 1246,
1249.
V. Broquet, 47 Kan. 571: 1098,
1150, 1200, 1201.
,v. Brunson, 43 Kan. 371: 1208,
1213.
V. Buel, 56 Neb. 205: 1128, 1179,
1200, 1323.
V. Buel, 76 Neb. 420: 91, 94.
V. Bull, 20 111. 218: 1438.
V. Butts, 55 Kan. 660: 964.
V. Carpenter, 125 111. App. 306: 91.
V. Casey, 90 111. 514: 151.
V. Casper, 42 Kan. 561: 1128.
V. Catholic Bishop, 119 111. 525:
1134, 1146, 1222, 1258, 1266.
V. Cedar Rapids etc. R. R. Co., 86
Iowa 500: I'iSl.
V. Chamber' . 84 111. 333: 897,
1033, 1086, 1516.
V. Chappell, 124 Mich. 72: 489,
1154.
V. Chicago, 121 111. 176: 297, 778,
780.
V. Chicago, 132 111. 372: 1382.
V. Chicago, 140 111. 309 : 753, 1287.
V. Chicago, 143 111. 641 : 1046, 1070,
1074, 1624, 1701.
V. Chicago, 148 111. 141 : 895, 1469.
V. Chicago, 148 111. 479 : 1675, 1701.
v. Chicago, 149 111. 457 : 750, 1267,
1287, 1288, 1497.
V. Chicago, 149 111. 495 : 895, 1287.
V. Chicago, 150 111. 597 : 895, 1287.
v. Chicago, 151 111. 348: 751, 1624.
V. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226: 1267,
1288, 1432.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 112 111.
589: 726, 761, 797, 1043, 1047,
1246.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 60 Iowa
35: 966.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 91 Iowa
16: 767.
V. Chicago Mechanics Inst., 239 111.
197: 708, 729, 1115, 1260.
V. Cicero, 154 111. 656: 749, 752,
1115, 1120, 1287, 1292.
V. Cicero, 155 111. 51: 749, 1287.
V. Cicero, 157 111. 48: 1287.
V. Cicero, 157 111. 89 : 1287.
v. Clapp, 201 111. 418: 1503, 1504,
1627.
V. Coggeswell, 44 111. App. 388:
654, 656, 663, 1245, 1246.
CASES CITED.
Ixxix
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; "Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Chicago etc. E. E. Co. v. Cogswell, 94
111. App. 127: 1457, 1472.
V. Connors, 25 111. App. 561: 154.
V. Cook, 43 Kan. 83: 1409.
V. Cooper, 42 Kan. 561 : 1247, 1249.
V. Curless, 27 Ind. App. 306: 1378.
V. Darke, 148 111. 226: 448, 654,
671, 1544.
V. Davidson, 49 Kan. 589: 1151,
1236.
V. Dill, 41 Kan. 736: 1124, 1151.
V. Diver, 213 111. 26: 1195, 1247,
1249, 1314, 1318, 1332, 1379.
V. Donelson, 45 Kan. 189: 1132.
v. Douglass, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 262 :
862, 1130.
y. Douglass County, 1 Neb. (Unof.)
247: 1162, 1569.
V. Drainage Comrs., 212 111. 103:
492.
T. Drainage Comrs., 200 U. S. 561:
493.
V. Drake, 46 Kan. 568: 1121.
V. Dressel, 110 111. 89: 1210, 1271.
V. Dunbar, 100 111. 110: 1071.
V. Durant, 44 Minn. 361: 851.
V. Easley, 46 Kan. 337: 1130.
V. Eaton, 136 111. 9: 1085, 1195,
1246, 1249, 1270, 1318, 1442.
V. Eisert, 127 Ind. 166: 324, 328,
1582, 1591.
V. Elgin, 91 111. 251: 330.
V. Elliott, 108 Mo. 321 : 926.
V. Elliott, 117 Mo. 549. 1440.
V. Ellis, 52 Kan. 41 : 952, 1404.
V. Ellis, 52 Kan. 48: 952.
V. Ellithorpe, 78 Iowa 415: 1018,
1513, 1571.
V. Elmhurst, 165 111. 148: 12.
V. Ely, 77 Neb. 809: 91, 1456.
V. Emery, 51 Kan. 16: 1139, 1203.
V. Emmert, 53 Neb. 237: 94, 151,
1650, 1653.
V. Englehart, 57 Neb. 444: 858,
1631.
V. Englewood Connecting Ey. Co.,
115 111. 375: 53, 1280.
V. Englewood Connecting E. E. Co.,
17 111. App. 141 : 1610.
V. Eubanks, 130 Mo. 270: 1322,
1466.
V. Franeia, 70 HI. 238: 639, 1195,
1581.
V. Galey, 141 Ind. 360: 1540, 1541,
1543, 1544, 1545.
V. Gait, 133 III. 657: 715, 1626.
V. Garrett, 239 111. 397: 1557.
V. Gates, 120 111. 86: 964, 1162,
1627, 1669.
V. General Electric E. E. Co., 79
111. App. 569: 272,328, 1611.
Chicago etc. E. E. Co. v. George, 10
111. App. 646: 639, 1294.
V. George, 145 Mo. 38: 1202, 1426,
1477.
V. Glenney, 117 111. 487: 153.
V. Glenney, 28 111. App. 364: 154.
V. Glos, 239 111. 24: 1136.
T. Goodwin, 111 111. 273: 830, 1346,
1347.
V. Grand Eapids etc. Ey. Co., 163
Mich. 686: 977.
V. Graney, 137 111. 628: 1310.
V. Grantham, 165 Ind. 279: 1545.
V. Greimey, 137 111. 628: 134,
1202, 1243, 1311, 1318.1
V. Griesser, 48 Kan. 663": 1035,
1510, 1636.
V. Griffith, 44 Neb. 690: 1140.
V. Grovier, 41 Kan. 685: 1138,
1404, 1409.
V. Guthrie, 192 III. 679: 690, 696,
740, 1700.
V. Hall, 90 111. 42: 639.
V. Hall, 8 111. App. 621 : 639.
V. Hall, 135 Ind. 91: 1540, 1541,
1543, 1545.
V. Hazels, 26 Neb. 364: 448, 654,
664, 668, 1334, 1337.
V. Henneberry, 153 111. 354: 151.
V. Henneberry, 28 111. App. 110:
151, 1648, 1655.
V. Henneberry, 42 111. App. 126:
152, 1639.
V. Hildebrand, 136 111. 467: 1243.
V. Hoag, 90 111. 339 : 145.
V. Hock, 118 III. 587: 924, 1274,
1277.
v. Hogan, 105 111. App. 136: 849.
V. Hopkins, 90 111. 316: 994, 1045,
1108, 1310.
V. Hough, 61 Mich. 507 : 1290.
V. Huncheon, 130 Ind. 529: 1208,
1213.
V. Hunter, 128 Ind. 213: 1247,
1251.
V. Hurst, 30 Iowa 73 : 1404.
v. Hurst, 41 Kan. 740: 956, 1253.
V. Illinois Central E. E. Co., 113
111. 156: 689, 731, 737, 749, 766.
v. Indianapolis etc. Traction Co.,
165 Ind. 453: 764, 766.
V. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155 : 15, 480.
Y. Jacobs, 110 111. 414: 1108, 1234,
1236.
v. Joliet, 79 111. 25: 875, 1494.
V. Joliet, L. & A. Ey. Co., 105 111.
388: 1280, 1281, 1344.
V. Jones, 149 111. 361: 481, 483.
v. Jones, 103 Ind. 386: 913, 1075,
1391.
Ixxx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-14:2 ; Vol. 11, pp. 743-1719.]
Chicago etc. R. E,. Co. v. Kansas
City etc. R. R. Co., 38 Fed. 58:
764.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 110
Mo. 510: 769.
V. Keith, 67 Ohio St. 279: 489,
1005.
V. Kelly, 221 111. 498: 1152, 1195,
1202 1231.
V. Kline, 220 111. 334: 1138, 1142,
1143, 1250, 1332.
V. Knox College, 34 111. 195: 1631.
V. Knuppke, 36 Kan. 367: 1481.
V. Lake, 71 111. 333: 674, 750, 1609.
V. Leah, 152 111. 249: 448, 654,
1243 1302.
V. Leah, 41 111. App. 584: 639,
1294, 1302.
V. Lemonweir Riv. Dr. Dist. 135
Wis. 228: 1515.
V. Liebel, 27 Ky. L. R. 716: 1385.
V. Loeb, 118 11. 203: 937, 1551,
1553, 1648, 1657, 1662, 1663,
1717.
V. Loeb, 8 111. App. 627: 639, 937,
1551.
V. Maher, 91 111. 312: 652, 937,
1551, 1553, 1648, 1658, 1662,
1663.
V. Mason, 26 Ind. App. 395: 1192,
1201, 1313.
V. McAuley, 121 111.. 160: 639, 1648.
V. McCarthy, 20 111. 385 : 1636.
V. McCutchen, 80 Ark. 235: 158,
1649, 1654.
V. McGinnis, 79 111. 269 : 251.
V. McGrew, 104 Mo. 282: 1172,
1175, 1186, 1217, 1274, 1314,
1339, 1344, 1477.
V. McGrew, 113 Mo. 390: 926.
V. Melville, 66 111. 329: 1343.
V. Miller, 233 111. 508: 1045, 1046,
1136.
V. Miller, 106 Mo. 458: 926, 1340.
T. Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 418: 1288,
1289.
V. Milwaiikee etc. R. R. Co., 95
Wis. 561 : 243, 247, 285, 1610.
V. Mines, 221 111. 448: 1109, 1138,
1143, 1222.
V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418: 95,
480, 483.
v. Mitchell, 159 111. 406: 1119.
V. Mitchell, 74 Neb. 563: 93, 1639,
1716.
V. Moffit, 75 III. 524: 87.
V. Moggridge, 116 Tenn. 445: 1127,
1226, 1323.
V. Moore, 60 Kan. 107: 1485.
T. Moore, 63 111. App. 163: 1243,
1294, 1302, 1314.
V. Morehouse, 112 Wis. 1: 533.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Morrison,
195 111. 271 : 503, 749, 751, 1056,
1291.
V. Mouriquand, 45 Kan. 170: 1128.
V. Muller, 45 Kan. 85: 1124, 1146.
V. Naperville, 166 111. 87: 1287.
V. Naperville, 169 111. 25: 514,
1464.
V. Nashua Savings Bank, 52 Kan.
467: 948.
V. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57 : 487.
V. Need, 2 ELan. App. 492: 948.
V. Neiman, 45 Kan. 533: 1124.
V. Newton, 36 Iowa 299: 251, 321.
V. Nix, 137 111. 141: 1122, 1128,
1176, 1243, 1310, 1312, 1314.
V. Noblesville, 159 Ind. 237: 1288.
V. Nolin, 221 111. 367: 1312, 1314.
V. O'Conner, 42 Neb. 90: 640, 643,
655, 1294, 1303, 1314, 1337,
1472.
V. O'Neill, 58 Neb. 239: 646, 1337,
1548, 1552, 1649, 1660.
V. Oshkosh etc. R. R. Co., 107 Wis.
192: 1050.
V. Palmer, 44 Kan. 110: 1312.
V. Parsons, 51 Kan. 408: 1109,
1176, 1227, 1231.
V. Patterson, 26 Ind. App. 295:
1314, 1545.
V. Patchin, 16 111. 198: 1496.
V. People, 212 111. 103: 487, 1644.
V. People, 222 111. 396: 729.
V. People, 222 111. 427: 197, 305,
1618, 1622.
V. People, 120 111. App. 306: 305,
1622.
V. People, 200 U. S. 561 : 487.
V. Phelps, 125 111. 482: 1118, 1430,
1467.
V. Phillips, 10 111. App. 648: 639,
1294.
V. Pigg, 63 111. App. 163: 1425.
y. Pontiac, 169 111. 155: 675, 678,
751, 1287, 1426.
V. Porter, 72 Iowa 426: 106, 131,
132.
V. Porter, 43 Minn. 527 : 1045.
V. Quincy. 136 111. 563: 352.
V. Quincy, 139 111. 355: 306.
V. Randolph Town-Site Co., 103
Mo. 451: 898, 1226, 1361.
V. Reed, 2 Kan. App. 492: 825.
V. Reeder, 6 Ohio C. C. 354: 327.
V. Reuter, 223 111. 387: 146, 158,
1650, 1654.
V. Richardson, 86 Wis. 154: 977,
1060.
V. Riley, 25 111. App. 569 : 154.
V. Ritter, 1 Tex. App. Civil Cases p.
107: 1206.
CASES CITED.
Lxxxi
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. St. Louis
etc. R. R. Co., 15 111. App. 587:
1610.
V. Sanford, 23 Mich. 418: 924.
V. SchaflFer, 124 111. 112: 90, 1651.
V. Schaffer, 26 111. App. 280: 90,
1651, 1653.
V. Scott, 225 111. 352: 1109, 1147,
1377.
V. Scott, 232 111. 419: 1342.
V. Scott, 71 Kan. 874: 91.
V. Selders, 4 Kan. App. 497 : 1010,
1461.
V. Shafer, 49 Neb. 25: 1129, 1243,
1312.
V. Shaw, 63 Neb. 380: 152, 158,
1716.
V. Sheldon, 53 Kan. 169: 948, 949,
1558, 1560.
V. Shepard, 39 Neb. 523: 937.
V. Smith, 78 111. 96: 706, 999, 1023,
1030.
V. Smith, 111 111. 363: 846.
V. Snyder, 120 la. 532: 1248, 1478,
1517, 1519.
V. Springfield etc. R. R. Co., 67 111.
142: 1279.
V. Springfield etc. R. R. Co., 96 111.
274: 1279.
V. Staley, 221 111. 405: 1229, 1233,
1234, 1312, 1314.
V. Starkweather. 97 Xa. 159: 750.
V. State, 158 Ind. 180: 1288.
V. State, 47 Neb. 550: 487.
V. State, 50 Neb. 399: 472, 495,
1474.
V. Steek, 51 Kan. 737: 147, 150,
157.
V. Stein, 75 111. 41 : 652.
V. Stewart, 47 Kan. 704: 1121,
1139.
V. Stewart, 50 Kan. 33: 1130, 1545.
T. Stroud, 129 111. App. 348: 152.
V. Sturey, 55 Neb. 137: 254, 1294.
V. Sutton, 130 Ind. 405: 1518.
V. Swan, 120 Mo. 30: 984, 1035.
V. Swinney, 38 la. 182: 830, 853,
1625.
V. Titerington, 84 Tex. 218: 830,
840.
V. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167: 480,
483.
V. Tounsdin, 45 Kan. 771: 929,
1437, 1439.
V. Union Inv. Co., 51 Kan. 600:
252, 311, 1294, 1304, 1652.
V. Van Cleave, 52 Kan. 665: 956,
1336.
V. Vaughn, 206 111. 234: 830, 1346,
1347.
V. Vivian, 33 Mo. App. 583: 1187,
1200.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Ward, 128
111. 349: 807, 1262.
V. Watkins, 43 Kan. 50: 1460,
1636.
V. Wedel, 144 111. 9 : 639, 1545.
V. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339 : 480.
V. West Chicago St. R. R. Co., 156
111. 255: 765, 767, 1610.
V. West Chicago St. R. R. Co., 156
111. 270: 272, 328, 657, 1282.
V, White, 36 Mont. 437 : 1556.
V. Whiting etc. St. R. R. Co., 139
Ind. 297 : 272, 282, 328, 657, 765,
767, 1282, 1611.
V. Wiebe, 26 Neb. 545: 1179, 1199,
1200, 1243.
V. Willets, 45 Kan. 110: 1455,
1507.
V. Willi, 53 111. App. 603: 92, 94,
1454, 1639.
V. Williams, 148 Fed. 442: 750,
1609.
V. Wilson, 17 111. 123: 526, 731,
1040, 1080.
V. Wiltse, 116 111. 449: 532, 676,
677, 708.
V. Winslow, 27 Ind. App. 316:
1192.
V. Wolf, 137 III. 360: 1339, 1426.
V. Woodward, 47 Kan. 191: 1203.
V. Wright, 153 111. 307: 856.
V. Wynkoop, 73 Kan. 590: 1248,
1249, 1485, 1519, 1646.
V. Wysor Land Co., 163 Ind. 288:
1120, 1123, 1205, 1378.
v. Young, 96 Mo. 39: 706, 973,
1017, 1031, 1032, 1419, 1420.
Chicago etc. Traction Co. v. Flaherty,
222 111. 67: 1700.
Chicago Dock & Canal Co. v. Gar-
rity, 115 111. 155: 318, 526, 532.
Chicago General R. R. Co. v. Chicago
City R. R. Co., 62 111. App. 502:
197, 408, 762.
V. Chicago City R. R. Co., 10 Nat.
Corp. 651: 426, 763.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 181 111.
605: 329.
V. West Chicago St. R. R. Co., 63
111. App. 464: 331, 1620.
Chicago Gt. Western Ry. Co. v. First
M. E. Church, 102 Fed. 85: 308,
450, 458.
Chicago League Ball Club v. Chicago,
77 111. App. 124: 1545.
Chicago Municipal Gas L. Co. v. Lake,
130 111. 42: 412.
Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. v.
Payne, 192 III. 239: 454, 655,
1337, 1648, 1659, 1716.
Chicago Office Bldg. v. Lake St. Ry.
Co., 87 111. App. 594: 266.
Ixxxii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Chicago R. R. Co. v. Chicago etc. R.
R. Co. 91 Iowa 16: 1281.
Chicago Tel. Co. v. N. W. Tel. Co.,
199 111. 324: 197, 342, 360, 410,
418, 1621.
T. North W. Telephone Co., 100
111. App. 57: 1621.
Chicago Terminal Ry. Co. v. Chicago,
217 111. 343: 1328.
Chicago Terminal Transf. R. R. Co.
V. Bugbee, 184 111. 353: 1150,
1309 1379
V. Chicago, 203 111. 576: 304, 362.
V. Chicago, 217 111. 343: 1150.
V. Chicago, 220 111. 310: 297, 303.
V. Prencil, 236 111. 491: 1423.
Chicago-Virden Coal Co. v. Wilson,
67 111. App. 443: 1650, 1659.
Chicago West Division R. R. Co. v.
Metropolitan W. S. El. R. R. Co.,
152 111. 519: 761, 800, 1260.
Child v. Boston, 4 Allen 41: 142, 143.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 89 App.
Div. 598: 1562.
Childs V. Central R. R. Co. of N. J.,
33 N. J. L. 323: 732.
V. Franklin Co., 128 Mass. 97: 1366.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 117
Mo. 414: 1546, 1547.
V. Nelson, 69 Wis. 125: 348.
V. New Haven & Northampton R. R.
Co., 133 Mass. 253: 1217.
V. New Haven & Northampton Co.,
135 Mass. 570: 1439.
V. Newport, 70 Vt. 62: 988, 1353.
Chisman v. Deck, 84 Iowa 344: 349.
Chisohn v. Caines, 67 Fed. 285: 113,
114, 115.
Choate v. Southern Ry. Co., 143 Ala.
316: 1519.
Choctaw etc. Ry. Co. v. True, 35 Tex.
av. App. 309: 1635.
Chope v. Detroit & Howell Plank
Road Co., 37 Mich. 195: 727.
Chorman v. Queen Anne's R. R. Co.,
3 Penn. Del. 407: 146, 154.
Chouteau v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,
122 Mo. 375: 837, 943, 945, 962.
V. St. Louis, 8 Mo. App. 48: 631,
1309.
Chowan & S. R. R. Co. v. Parker,
105 N. C. 246: 923, 924.
Chrisman v. Omaha etc. Ry. & B.
Co., 125 Iowa 133: 373, 404.
Christ Church Wardens v. Woodward,
26 Maine 172: 1373.
Christian v. St. Louis, 127 Mo. 109:
1595. I
Christian County Court v. Rankin,
2 Duv. Ky. 502: 18.
Christy v. Newton, 60 Barb. 332:
1100, 1102.
Chronic v. Pugh, 136 111. 539: 574.
Church's Application, 92 N. Y. 1:
1164, 1167.
Church V. Grand Rapids etc. R. R.
Co., 70 Ind. 161: 940.
V. Joint School District, 55 Wis.
399: 1165, 1569, 1574.
V. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512: 615,
619, 1307, 1308.
V. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 66: 615, 619.
V. Northern Central Ry. Co., 45
Pa. St. 339: 1419.
Churchill v. Beethe, 48 Neb. 87: 147,
1176, 1243, 1446.
V. Burlington Water Co., 94 Iowa
89: 452, 454.
Churchman v. Martin, 54 Ind. 380:
23.
Church of the Holy Apostles, 21 App.
Div. N. Y. 47: 1305.
Church of Holy Communion v. Pat-
terson etc. R. R. Co., 63 N. J. L.
470: 441.
V. Patterson etc., R. R. Co., 66 N.
J. L. 218: 441.
V. Patterson etc. R. R. Co., 68 N.
J. L. 399: 441.
Church Road, 5 W. & S. 200: 976.
Church Street, Matter of, 49 Barb.
455: 956.
Chute V. Washburn, 44 Minn. 312:
840, 841, 864.
Cicero Lumber Co. v. Cicero, 176 HI.
9: 357.
Cincinnati v. Cincinnati So. Ry. Co.,
1 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 361: 731.
v. Combs, 16 Ohio 181: 1546.
V. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 594: 1492.
v. First Presbyterian Church, 8
Ohio 298: 1492.
V. Hamilton Co., 1 Disney, 5: 402.
V. Hosea, 19 Ohio C. C. 744: 1520.
V. Morton, 10 Ohio C. C. (N. S.)
416: 1107.
V. Penny, 21 Ohio St. 499: 218,
335.
V. Roth, 20 Ohio C. C. 317: 220,
611, 616.
V. Sherike, 47 Ohio St. 217: 709,
1017, 1710.
V. Whetstone, 47 Ohio St. 196: 220,
1323.
V. White, 6 Pet. 431 : 872, 882, 885.
Cincinnati Con. Belt R. R. Co. v. Bur-
ski, 4 Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 98: 447.
CASES CITED.
Ixxxiii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Cincinnati etc. Elec. St. Ey. Co. v.
Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 21 Ohio
C. C. 391: 281, 328.
V. Lohe, 68 Ohio St. 101: 281.
Cincinnati etc. E. E. Co., In re, 19
Ohio C. C. 308: 390.
Cincinnati etc. E. E. Co. v. Anderson,
139 Ind. 490: 750, 793, 796,
797, 798, 1609.
V. Barcelow, 4 Ohio C. C. 49: 1427.
V. Bay City etc. R. E. Co., 106
Mich. 473: 897, 982.
v. Belle Centre, 48 Ohio St. 273:
538, 776, 793, 796, 800, 802, 1518.
v. Campbell, 51 Ohio St. 328: 1549,
1651, 1658.
V. Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St. 465: 464,
1219.
V. Clifford, 113 Ind. 460: 1625, 1631.
V. Danville etc. E. E. Co., 75 111.
113: 759, 985, 1047.
V. Mims, 71 Ga. 240: 1119.
v. Miller, 36 Ind. App. 26: 1657.
V. Troy, 68 Ohio St. 510: 491, 1290.
V. Wabash R. R. Co., 162 Ind. 303:
764, 1461, 1463.
V. Wachter, 70 Ohio St. 113: 837,
1483, 1646.
V. Ward, 120 111. App. 212; 152.
V. Zinn, 18 Ohio St. 417 : 1292.
Cincinnati etc. St. E. E. Co. v. Cum-
minsville, 14 Ohio St. 523: 247,
1586.
Cincinnati etc. Traction Co. v. Felix,
5 Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 270: 740,
1438.
Cincinnati Inclined Plane E. R. Co. v.
City & Suburban Tel. Asso., 48
Ohio St. 390: 272, 332, 343, 417,
911, 1622.
Cincinnati International R. R. Co. v.
Murray', 10 Ohio N. P. (N. S.)
301: 716, 747, 896.
Cincinnati Iron Stove Co. v. Cincin-
nati So. Ry. Co., 9 Ohio C. C.
103: 1147, 1272.
Cincinnati R. R. Co. v. Geisel, 119 Ind.
77: 837, 1475, 1481.
V. Longworth, 30 Ohio St. 108:
1203, 1236.
Cincinnati Southern R. R. Co. v.
Chattanooga etc. R. R. Co., 44
Fed. 470: 1570.
V. Haas, 42 Ohio St. 239: 1703.
C. I. R. R. Co. V. M. & A. R. R. Co.,
57 Iowa 249: 1502.
Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden Horse
R. R. Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 145: 1621.
V. Camden H. R. E. Co., 29 N. J.
Eq. 299: 416.
Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden H. E.
E. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 525: 416,
1621.
V. Camden Horse E. E. Co., 33 N.
J. Eq. 267: 278, 415, 1621.
Citizens' Gas etc. Co. v. Elwood, 114
Ind. 332: 338, 411.
Citizens' Horse R. R. Co. v. Belleville,
47 111. App. 388: 302, 426, 763.
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Graham, 147
Mo. 250: 594.
Citizens' Pass. R. R. Co. v. East Har-
risburg Pass. R. R. Co., 164 Pa.
St. 274: 778.
Citizens' St. R. R. Co. v. Africa, 100
Tenn. 26: 297.
V. Memphis, 53 Fed. 715: 299.
Citizens' Water Co. v. Bridgeport Hy-
draulic Co., 55 Conn. 1 : 416.
Citizens' W. W. Co., Matter of, 32
App. Div. N. Y. 54: 918.
Citizens' W. W. Co. v. Parry, 59 Hun.
202: 920, 1044.
V. Parry, 128 N. Y. 669 : 920, 1044.
City Council v. Georgia etc. R. R. Co.,
98 Ga. 161: 750.
City etc. R. E. Co. v. Savannah, 77
Ga. 731: 476.
V. Smith, 72 Miss. 677: 151.
City Store v. San Jose etc. Ey. Co.,
150 Cal. 277: 250, 1614.
Clack V. White, 2 Swan, 540: 495,
516.
Claflin V. Boston & A. R. R. Co., 157
Mass. 489: 844.
Clairborne St., Matter of, 4 La. An.
7: 1386.
Clapp V. Boston, 133 Mass. 367: 1341.
V. Macfarland, 20 App. Gas. D. C.
224: 1385.
V. Manter, 78 Maine 358: 1524.
V. Minn. Grass Twine Co., 81 Minn.
511: 577.
V. Spokane, 53 Fed. 515: 354, 1620.
Clapper, Ex parte, 3 Hill 458: 817.
Claremont Ry. & Lt. Co. v. Putney,
73 N. H. 431: 672, 679, 683, 708,
720.
Clarendon v. Medina Quarry Co., 102
App. Div. 217: 1491.
V. Rutland R. R. Co., 75 Vt. 6: 491,
1288.
Clarion Turnpike & Bridge Co. v.
Clarion Co., 172 Pa. St. 243:
1264, 1266.
Clark, In re, 74 Hun 294: 1715.
Clark v. AUaman, 71 Kan. 206: 69,
71.
V. Birmingham etc. Co. 41 Pa. St.
147: 96.
V. Board of County Comrs., 69 Kan.
542: 494, 516.
Ixxxiv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Clark V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 24 K.
H. 118: 515.
V. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 30 Hun
409: 247, 1635.
V. Cambridge etc. Improv. Co., 45
Neb. 799: 69, 70, 113, 1607, 1615,
1616.
V. Close, 43 Iowa 92: 939.
V. Dasso, 34 Mich. 86: 1481, 1491.
V. Drain Comr. 50 Mich. 618: 1511.
V. Dyer, 81 Tex. 339: 160, 1651,
1655, 1716.
V. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 120: 432,
878, 879, 1326, 1327.
V. Elizabeth, 40 N. J. L. 172: 878,
879, 1327.
V. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 565: 608.
V. Hampstead, 19 N. H. 365: 1683.
V. Hannibal & St. Joe R. R. Co.,
36 Mo. 202: 157, 1450, 1455.
V. Irrigation Co., 45 Neb. 799: 116,
140.
V. Lawrence, 6 Jones Eq. 83: 165.
v. McCormick, 174 111. 164: 874.
V. Meyerdirck, 107 Md. 63: 1557.
v. Middletown-Goshen Traction Co.,
10 App. Div. 354: 273.
V. Miller, 54 N. Y. 528: 925.
v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 564: 18.
T. Nash, 198 U. S. 361: 587, 595,
596, 597.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 145 Pa.
St. 438: 69, 72, 75, 1342.
V. Phelps, 4 Cow. 190: 821.
T. Philadelphia, 171 Pa. St. 30:
1356.
V. Providence, 10 R. I. 437: 183,
878, 880, 889, 1618.
V. Providence, 16 R. I. 337: 420,
1493.
V. Rochester, 43 Hun 367: 149, 153,
155, 235.
V. Rockland Water Co. 52 Maine
68: 137, 1131, 1524.
r. Saybrook, 21 Conn. 313: 133.
V. Second etc. St. R. R. Co., 3 Phil.
259: 307.
V. Syracuse, 13 Barb. 32: 492.
V. Utica, 18 Barb. 451: 924.
v. Wabash R. R. Co., 132 Iowa 11:
1226.
V. Washington, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 433 :
1251.
V. Water Comrs., 148 N. Y. 1:
1424, 1713, 1715.
V. Wilmington, 5 Harr. (Del.) 243:
235.
V. Worcester, 125 Mass. 226: 808,
1186.
Clarke v, Birmingham etc. R. R. Co.,
41 Pa. St. 147: 96.
Clarke v. Blackmar, 47 N. Y. 150:
318, 526, 533, 712.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 23 Neb.
613: 1378.
V. Gilmanton, 12 N. H. 515: 955.
V. Long Island Realty Co., 126 App.
Div. 282: 1559.
V. Manchester. 56 N. H. 502: 1669,
1671, 1683, 1685.
V. Newport, 5 R. I. 333: 1373.
V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 39 W. Va.
732: 1646.
V. Patapsco Guano Co., 144 N. C.
64: 151.
V. Rochester, 24 Barb. 446: 462.
V. Rochester etc. R. R. Co., 18 Barb.
350: 1484.
V. South Kingston, 18 R. I. 283:
913, 921.
V. White, 5 Bush 353: 423.
Clarke Co. v. Mississippi Lumber Co.,
80 Miss. 535: 164.
Clarksburg Elec. Lt. Co. v. Clarks-
burg, 47 W. Va. 739: 361, 408,
409.
Clarkson v. Wood, 168 Ind. 582: 1384.
Clarksville etc. Turnpike Co. v. At-
kinson, 1 Sneed, 426: 1097, 1377,
1385.
Clarren v. Jefferson School, 169 Ind.
140: 995.
Clary v. Woodbury County, 135 Iowa
488: 933.
Classen v. Guano Co., 81 Md. 258:
137.
Clauson v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 106
Wis. 308: 153.
Clay V. Pennoyer Creek Imp. Co., 34
Mich. 204: 976, 1403.
V. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 164 Ind.
439: 147, 157.
V. Postal Tel. Co., 70 Miss. 406:
1636.
V. St. Albans, 43 W. Va. 539: 155.
Claybaugh v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R.
Co., 108 Ind. 262: 1371.
Clayton v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
67 Iowa 238: 1108.
V. County Court, 58 W. Va. 253:
425, 958, 1569.
Clear Creek Land & Ditch Co. v. Kil-
kenny, 5 Wyo. 38: 425.
Clear Creek Water Co. v. Gladeville
Imp. Co., 107 Va. 278: 744.
Clear Lake Water Co., Matter of, 48
Cal. 586: 1383.
Cleckler v. Morrow, 150 Ala. 524:
1407.
OASES CITED.
Ixxxv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Clelland v. McCumber, 15 Colo. 355:
1462, 1470, 1534.
Clemans v. Hatch, 168 Ind. 291: 695.
Clemens v. Conn. Jlut. Life Ins. Co.,
184 Mo. 46: 1161. 1601, 1012.
T. Speed, 93 Ky. 284: 440.
Clement v. Burns, 43 N. H. 609: 969,
983.
V. Durgin, 5 Me. 9: 860, 1354.
V. Wichita etc. R. R. Co., 53 Kan.
682: 1020, 1517.
Clements v. Watkins Land Co., 36
Tex. Civ. App. 339 : 72.
Cleneghau v. Omaha etc. R. R. Co.,
25 Neb. 531: 93.
Clercq v. Gallipolis, 7 Ohio (pt. 1)
217: 420, 1494, 1618.
Cleveland v. Augusta, 102 Ga. 233:
488.
V. Cleveland City Ry. Co. 194 U. S.
517: 482.
V. Cleveland Elec. Ry. Co., 194 U.
S. 538: 482.
V. Standard Bag & Paper Co., 72
Ohio St. 324: 83, 866, 870.
V. Wick, 18 Ohio St. 303: 1204.
Cleveland Burial Case Co., 4 Ohio C.
C. (N. S.) 365: 1581.
Cleveland Elec. Ry. Co. v. Cleveland
etc. Ry. Co., 204 U. S. 116: 304,
305, 407.
Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. v. Akron, 1
Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 174: 1624.
V. Akron, 6 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 81:
750, 752, 1609.
V. Ball, 5 Ohio St. 568: 1119, 1124,
1207, 1244.
V. Coburn, 91 Ind. 557: 839.
V. Feight, 41 Ind. App. 416: 281,
329, 1611.
V. Gorash, 8 Ohio C. 0. (N. S.)
297: 1140, 1270.
V. Hayes, 35 Ind. App. 539: 1430.
V. Hobbie, 61 111. App. 396: 851.
V. Huddleston, 21 Ind. App. 621:
159.
V. Kennedy, 20 Ind. App. 315: 1545.
V. Kline, 29 Ind. App. 390: 92,
1639, 1654.
V. Munsell, 192 111. 430: 1457, 1472.
V. Nowlin, 163 Ind. 497: 1430.
V. Ohio Postal Tel. Cable Co., 68
Ohio St. 306: 774, 1042, 1045,
1046, 1284, 1285.
V. Patterson, 67 HI. App. 351 : 449,
1650, 1659.
V. Polecat Dr. Dist., 213 111. 83:
501, 507, 574, 704, 1047.
Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. v. Porter,
210 U. S. 177: 11, 464.
V. South, 78 Ohio St. 10: 709, 715.
V. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325: 255.
V. Stackhouse, 10 Ohio St. 567:
1547.
V. Urbana etc. Ry. Co., 5 Ohio C.
C. (N. S.) 583: 328, 765.
V. Wisehart, 162 Ind. 208: 92,
1445. 1454.
Click V. Lamar Co., 79 Tex. 121 : 865.
Clifford V. Eagle, 35 111. 444: 1366.
Cliflford et al. Appellants, 59 Me. 262:
1082.
Clift V. Brown, 95 Ind. 53: 980.
Clifton Heights v. Kent Mfg. Co.,
220 Pa. St. 585: 297.
Cline V. Cornwall, 21 Grant Ch. 129:
356.
V. Stock, 71 Neb. 70: 1523, 1603.
Clinical Instruction Co. v. New York
El. R. R. Co., 81 Hun 608: 1302.
Clinkingbeard v. St. Joseph, 122 Mo.
641: 630, 633, 1308.
Clinton v. Cedar Rapids & Mo. River
R. R. Co. 24 la. 455: 251, 321.
V. Clinton & Lyons Horse Ry. Co.,
.37 la. 61: 268, 321.
V. Walliker, 98 la. 655: 734.
Clinton Ave., Matter of, 57 App. Div.
166: 515, 539, 739, 806, 807.
Clinton Ave., Matter of, KS? N. Y.
624: 515, 539, 739, 806, 807.
ainton Tp. Road, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 170:
1091, 1100, 1101, 1384.
Close V. Samm, 27 la. 503: 1109.
Qothier v. Webster, 12 C. B. N. S.
790: 1457.
V. Webster, 104 E. C. L. R. 789:
1457.
aough v. Unity, 18 N. H. 75: 1683.
Cloure V. Canada So. R. R. Co., 4
Ont. 28: 850.
aoverdale v. Smith, 128 Cal. 230
154.
Clowes Private Road, 31 Pa. St. 12
1165.
Clowe's Road, 2 Grant's Cases, 129
1390.
Cloyes V. Middlebury Elec. Co., 80
Vt. 109: 92, 1604, 1612, 1617.
Clute V. Carr, 20 Wis. 531 : 858.
V. Fisher, 65 Mich. 48: 109.
Clymer v. Roberts, 220 Pa. St. 162:
368.
C. N. 0. & S. P. Ry. Co., In re, 19
Ohio C. C. 308: 384.
Coalville Pass. R. R. Co. v. Wilkes-
Barre Southside R. R. Co. 5 Lu-
zerne Leg. Reg. Rep. 340: 197.
Ixxxvi
CASES CITED,
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Coates V. Campbell, 37 Minn. 498:
550.
V. Dubuque, 68 Iowa 550 : 603.
V. Iowa, 68 la. 550: 616.
V. New York, 7 Cow. 585 : 14.
Coats V. Atchison etc. Ey. Co., 1 Cal.
App. 441: 179, 250, 304, 1298.
V. Clarence Ry. Co., 1 Kuss. &
Mylne, 181: 1601.
Coatsville etc. St. Ry. Co. v. Uwchlan
St. Ry. Co., 18 Pa. Super. Ct.
'524: 910.
Coatsworth v. Lehigh Val. Ry. Co.,
115 App. Div. 7: 1596.
V. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 156 N.
Y. 451: 247, 255, 260, 324, 1580.
Cobb V. Boston, 112 Mass. 181: 1147,
1148, 1221.
V. Boston, 109 Mass. 438: 1121,
1221, 1271, 1276.
V. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369: 109.
V. Davenport, 33 N. J. L. 223: 109.
V. Illinois etc. Co., 68 111. 233: 1570,
1574.
V. Smith, 16 Wis. 661: 1537.
V. Warren St. Ry. Co., 218 Pa. St.
366: 248, 635, 1585.
Coberly v. Butler, 63 Mo. App. 656:
872 885
Cobia V.' Ellis, 149 Ala. 108: 1603.
Coburn v. Ames, 52 Cal. 385: 1460.
V. New Telephone Co., 156 Ind. 90:
341, 343.
V. Pacific Lumber & Mill Co., 46
Cal. 31: 1461, 1627.
V. Sands, 150 Ind. 141: 1541.
V. San Mater Co., 75 Fed. 520: 869,
876.
V. Townsend, 103 Cal. 233: 1467.
Cochran v. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 94
Mo. App. 469: 1347.
Cochrane v. Commonwealth, 175
Mass. 299: 1229.
v. Maiden, 152 Mass. 365: 169.
Cockroft's Appeal, 60 Conn. 161:
1397.
Codman v. Evans, 5 Allen, 308: 191,
192
Coe V. Aiken, 61 Fed. 24: 814, 912,
1061, 1064, 1572.
V. Columbus etc. R. R. Co., 10
Ohio St. 372: 1579.
V. New Jersey M. Ry. Co., 30 N.
J. Eq. 21: 854.
V. New Jersey Midland Ry. Co.,
31 N. J. Eq. 105: 908.
Coe College v. Cedar Rapids, 120
la. 541: 876.
Coffey County v. Venard, 10 Kan.
95: 363, 387, 388.
Coffeyville M. & Gas Co. v. Citizens'
Nat. Gas Co., 55 Kan. 179: 338,
1621.
Coffin V. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6
Colo. 443: 70.
Coffman v. St. Francis Dr. Dist.,
83 Ark. 54: 11, 464.
Cogshill V. Mobile etc., R. R. Co.,
92 Ala. 252: 870, 1468.
Cogswell V. Essex Mill Corp., 6 Pick.
94: 544, 1155, 1524.
V. New York, N. H. & H. R. E.
Co., 103 N. Y. 10: 67, 210, 451.
Cohen v. Alameda, 124 Cal. 504: 911.
V. Cleveland, 43 Ohio St. 190: 226.
V. Gray, 70 Cal. 85: 695.
V. La Canada L. & W. Co., 142
Cal. 437: 78.
V. Railroad Co., 34 Kan. 158:
1329.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 34
Kan. 158: 1235, 1320, 1346, 1347.
V. United States, 162 Fed. 364:
76, 1342.
Cohn V. Wausau Boom Co., 47 Wis.
314: 101.
Cohoes V. Del. & H. Canal Co., 134
N. Y. 397: 878.
Coker v. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co., 123
Ga. 483: 363, 372, 384, 392, 399,
405.
Colbert v. Shepard, 89 Va. 401: 872,
882.
Colburn v. Kittridge, 131 Mass. 470:
1343.
Colby V. La Grange, 65 Fed. 554:
141, 724.
Colby University v. Canandaigua,
69 Fed. 671: 783.
Colclough v. Milwaukee, 92 Wis.
182: 226.
Colcough V. Nashville etc. R. R. Co.,
2 Head, 171: 952, 961, 963, 1523.
Golden v. Botts, 12 Wend. 234: 1414.
Cole V. Boston, 181 Mass. 374: 468
1122, 1186.
V. County Comrs., 78 Me. 532:
1069, 1070.
V. Canaan, 29 N. H. 88: 1381.
V. Drew, 44 Vt. 49: 357. 1489.
V. Eastham, 133 Mass. 65: 138.
V. Ellwood Power Co., 216 Pa. St.
283: 1269.
V. Hadley, 162 Mass. 579: 183,
878.
V. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1: 552,
554.
V. Muscatine, 14 la. 296: 211, 603.
617, 1550.
V. Peoria, 18 111. 301: 1385.
CASES CITED.
Ixxxvii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719. 1
Cole V. St. Louis, 132 Mo. 633 : 1308,
1334.
V. Shannon, 1 J. J. Marsh. 218:
377, 384, 387, 390, 1427.
V. West London & Crystal Pal.
Ey. Co., 27 Beav. 242: 822.
Colegrove Water Co. v. Hollywood,
1.51 Cal. 425: 1488.
Coleman v. Andrews, 48 Me. 562:
1017, 1032, 1387.
V. Holden, 88 Miss. 798; 363, 406,
9.'52, 1596.
V. Moody, 4 Hen. & Munf . 1 : 1029,
1105.
T. State, 134 N. Y. 564: 866.
Coles V. Midland Tel. & Tel. Co., 67
N. J. L. 490: 896, 971.
V. Williamsburg, 10 Wend. 659:
1164. 1167, 1168, 1373.
College Point v. Dennett, 5 N. Y.
Supreme Ct. 217: 1234.
Collier v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co, 48
Mo. App. 398: 147, 157.
v. Union Ry. Co., 113 Tenn. 96:
527, 716.
Collins V. Asheville Land Co., 128 N.
C. 563: 190, 366, 880.
V. Buffalo Furnace Co., 73 App.
Div. 22: 366, 878, 888.
V. Chartiers Valley Gas Co., 130
Pa. St. Ill: 162.
V. Chartiers Valley Gas Co., 131
Pa. St. 143: 162.
V. Crecy, 8 Jones L. 333: 722.
V. Houghton, 4 Ired. L. 420: 1397,
1412.
V. Philadelphia, 93 Pa. St. 272:
236.
V. Rupe, 109 Ind. 340: 981, 982.
V. Saratoga Springs, 70 Hun 583:
1029.
V. Savannah, 77 Ga. 745: 432.
V. South Staffordshire Ry. Co., 21
L. J. Ex. N. S. 247: 1116.
Collis, Matter of, 76 App. Div. 368:
1379.
Colon V. Lisk, 153 N. Y. 188: 486.
Colonial City Traction Co. v. Kings-
ton City R. R. Co., 153 N. Y.
540: 917, 1053.
V. Kingston City R. R. Co., 154
N. Y. 493: 920.
Colony V. Dublin, 32 N. H. 432: 696.
Colorado Cent. R. R. Co. v. Allen,
13 Cal. 229: 831, 942.
V. Humphreys, 16 Colo. 34: 1085,
1217.
Colorado Consol L. & W. R. Co. v.
Morris, 1 Colo. App. 401: 1638.
Colorado Eastern E. R. Co. v. Chi-
cago etc. Ry. Co., 141 Fed. 898:
1570, 1624.
V. Union Pae. R. R. Co., 41 Fed.
293: 527, 534, 679, 714, 754,
800. 1068.
V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 94 Fed.
312: 930.
Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Four
Mile Ry. Co., 29 Colo. 90: 706,
897, 1042, 1046, 1085, 1108, 1461.
Colorado M. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 15
Colo. 193: 1176. 1200.
V. Croman, 16 Colo. 381: 1137.
V. Jones, 29 Fed. 193: 929, 931.
V. Trevarthen, 1 Colo. App. 152:
639.
Colorado So. etc. R. R. Co. v. Boagni,
118 La. 268: 1068, 1378.
Colorado Springs v. Colorado etc.
Ry. Co., 38 Colo. 107: 331.
Colston V. St. Joseph, 106 Mo. App.
714: 348.
Colton V. Rossi, 9 Cal. 595: 1162.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 7 Misc.
626: 1120, 1121.
Columbia v. Melton, 81 S. C. 356:
1624.
Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. v.
Geisse, 35 N. J. L. 474: 1097.
V. Geisse, 35 N. J. L. 558: 628.
V. Geisse, 36 N. J. L. 537: 1097.
V. Geisse, 38 N. J. L. 39 : 964.
Columbia etc. R. R. Co. v. Seattle, 6
Wash. 332: 118.
V. Seattle, 33 Wash. 513: 882, 885.
Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Mac-
farland, 31 App. Cas. D. C. 112:
691, 1378
Columbia Val. E. R. Co. v. Portland
etc. Ry. Co., 49 Wash. 88: 901.
Columbia W. P. Co. v. Nunamaker,
73 S. C. 550: 1625.
Columbus V. Bidlingmeier, 7 Ohio
C. C. 136: 1109.
V. Columbus etc. E. E. Co., 37 Ind.
294: 303, 1503, 1620.
V. Columbus Gas Co., 76 Ohio St.
309: 361, 408, 410.
V. Hydraulic Woolen Mills Co. 33
Ind. 435: 1597.
V. McDaniel, 117 Ga. 823: 629.
V. Storey, 33 Ind. 195: 210, 1.597.
V. Union Pac. E. R. Co., 137 Fed.
869: 399.
V. Willard, 7 Ohio 0. C. 113: 229,
442.
Columbia etc. Bridge Co. v. Geise, 34
N. .J. L. 268: 954.
Columbus etc. R. R. Co. v. Baker, 34
Pa. Co. Ct. 28: 816.
Ixxxviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Columbus etc. E. R. Co. v. Braden,
110 Ind. 558: 1502.
V. Richardson, 7 Ind. 543 : 1017.
V. Simpson, 5 Ohio St. 251: 1192.
V. Williams, 53 Ohio St. 268: 835.
Columbus Gas Lt. & Coke Co. v. Co-
lumbus, 50 Ohio St. 65 : 238, 352.
Columbus Tel. & Tel. Co. v. St. Louis
etc. Ry. Co., 117 La. 199: 1052.
Columbus & Western Ry. Co. v. With-
erow, 82 Ala. 190: 638, 966,
1579.
Columbus W. W. Co. v. Long, 121
Ala. 245: 588, 684, 988, 989,
1043, 1044.
Colusa Co. V. Hudson, 85 Cal. 633:
1238, 1319.
Colvill V. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co.,
19 Minn. 283: 1119, 1122, 1186,
1205, 1314, 1378.
Colville V. Judy, 73 Mo. 651: 990.
V. Langdon, 22 Minn. 565: 1464.
Combs V. Smith, 78 Mo. 32: 1186.
Comesky.v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 41
App. Div. N. Y. 245: 339, 1651.
V. Suflfem, 179 N. Y. 393: 609, 616,
1073.
V. Suflfem, 83 App. Div. 137: 609,
616, 1073.
Coming v. Bradbury, 10 Me. 447:
1155.
Commett v. Pearson, 18 Me. 344:
1101.
Commissioner of Public Works, Mat-
ter of. 111 App. Div. 285: 690,
690, 1396.
Commissioner of Public Works, Mat-
ter of, 185 N. Y. 391: 690, 696,
1396.
Commissioners v. Allen, 25 Kan. 616 :
1710.
V. Barry, 66 111. 496 : 1095.
V. Baumgarten, 41 111. 254: 1100,
1101.
V. Carthage, 27 111. 140: 1411, 1421.
V. Cook, 86 N. C. 18 : 1423.
V. Durham, 43 111. 86: 1366.
V. Espen, 12 Kan. 531 : 1510, 1512,
1576.
V. Green, 156 111. 504: 1572, 1602.
V. Harper, 38 111. 103: 1017, 1032,
1095, 1413.
V. Heed, 33 Kan. 34: 1028.
V. Hoblit, 19 111. App. 259: 1020.
V. Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196: 171.
V. Johnston, 71 N. C. 398: 1187.
V. Judge, 13 Wend. 432: 1409.
V. Judges, 7 Wend. 264 : 1058.
V. Judges, 10 Wend. 434: 1415.
V. Judges, 17 Wend. 9: 683, 726.
V. Judges, 25 Wend. 453 : 1407.
Commissioners v. Mallory, 21 111.
App. 184: 982, 984.
V. Moesta, 91 Mich. 149: 738, 1058,
1274.
V. Murray, 1 Rich. L. 335: 1018,
1029.
V. Quinn, 38 111. App. 192: 1403.
V. Supervisors, 53 111. 320: 1401,
1402.
V. Tarver, 25 Ala. 480: 933.
V. Thompson, 18 Ala. 694: 933.
V. Whitsett, 15 111. App. 318: 233.
Commissioners' Court v. Bowie, 34
Ala. 461: 678, 1087, 1163.
V. Street, 116 Ala. 28: 710, 1158,
1317, 1318, 1392.
V. Thompson 18 Ala. 694: 1516.
V. Traber, 25 Ala. 480: 1419.
Comrs. etc. on Pequest River, Mat-
ter of, 39 N. J. L. 433 : 564, 578.
Comrs. etc. on Pequest River, Matter
of, 41 N. J. L. 175: 564, 566,
578, 584.
Comrs. etc. on Pequest River, Matter
of, 42 N. J. L. 553: 578.
Comrs. of Canal Fund v. Perry, 5
Ohio 58: 514.
Commissioners of Highways v. Baer,
224 111. 259 : 975.
V. Barnes, 195 HI. 43: 1398, 1412,
1416.
V. Claw, 15 Johns. 537 : 1013, 1014,
1405.
V. Ellwood, 193 111. 304: 973.
V. Green, 156 111. 504: 1574.
V. Harrison, 108 111. 398 : 1573.
V. Husker, 133 111. App. 252: 1409.
V. Jackson, 165 IlL 17: 1531.
V. Ludwick, 151 Mich. 498: 787.
V. Meserole, 10 Wend. 122: 975.
V. Newby, 31 111. App. 78: 1421.
V. People, 38 111. 347: 1637.
V. People, 2 111. App. 24: 1032.
V. People, 4 111. App. 391: 1637.
V. People, 61 111. App. 634: 1371,
1372.
V. Quinn, 136 111. 604: 383, 400,
,1402.
V. Riker, 79 Mich. 551: 869.
V. Smith, 217 HI. 250: 1017, 1033,
1034, 1099, 1418.
V. Snyder 15 111. App. 645: 1531.
V. Sperling, 120 Mich. 493: 322.
V. Sweet, 77 HI. App. 641 : 154.
V. Young, 34 111. App. 178: 1614.
Comrs. of Homochitto River v. With-
ers, 29 Miss. 21 : 76, 100.
Comrs. of Inland Fisheries v. Hol-
yoke Water Power Co., 104 Mass.
446: 486.
CASES CITED.
Ixxxix
[Tile references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Comrs. of Kensington v. Wood, 10
Pa. St. 93: 235.
Commissioners of Parks v. Michigan
Cent. R. E. Co., 90 Mich. 385:
749.
V. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 90 ilich.
385: 1290.
V. Moesta, 91 Mich. 149: 738.
V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co., 91 Mich.
291: 1290.
V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co., 93 Mich.
58: 751.
Comrs. of State Reservation at Niag-
ara, Matter of, 15 Abb. N. C.
159: 106, 1168.
Comrs. of State Reservation at Niag-
ara, Matter of, 15 Abb. N. C.
395: 106, 1168.
Comrs. of State Reservation, Matter
of, 16 Abb. N. C. 159 : 1397.
Commissioners of State Reservation
at Niagara, 37 Hun 537: 106,
923.
Commissioners of State Reservation
at Niagara, 102 N. Y. 734: 106,
923, 1168, 1397.
Comrs. of Washington Park, Matter
of, 52 N. Y. 131: 978.
Commonwealth v. Abbott;, 160 Mass.
282: 912, 914, 1057.
V. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 : 136, 467, 470,
480, 557.
V. Alger, 7 Cush. 84: 14.
V. Allegheny Val. Ry. Co., 14 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 336: 1643, 1644, 1645.
V. Atlantic Coast Line Ey. Co., 106
Va. 61 : 483.
V. Bacon, 13 Bush (Ky.) 210: 15,
472.
V. Bainbridge, 6 J. J. Marsh. 436:
1427.
V. Barker, 140 Pa. St. 189: 882,
885.
V. Beatty, 1 Watts, 382 : 695.
V. Beaver, 171 Pa. St. 542: 357.
V. Blue Hill Turnpike, 5 Mass. 420:
1392, 1422.
V. Bond, 214 Pa. St. 307 : 427, 763.
V. Boston, 12 Cush. 254: 1510.
T. Boston Advertiser Co., 188 Mass.
348: 57, 67, 471, 540, 738, 1154.
v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 3 Cush.
25: 107, 1439.
v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 134 Mass.
211: 475.
V. Boston & A. R. R. Co., 150 Mass.
174: 401.
V. Boston Terminal Co., 185 Mass.
281: 746.
V. Bowman, 3 Pa. St. 202: 420,
1494.
Commonwealth v. Breed, 4 Pick. 460 :
96.
V. Broad St. Ry. Co., 219 Pa. St.
11: 362, 736, 791.
V. Cambridge, 4 Mass. 627: 955,
1004.
V. Cambridge, 7 Mass. 158: 1035.
V. Carpenter, 3 Mass. 268 : 1436.
V. Chapin, 5 Pick. 199 : 103.
V. Chase, 2 Mass. 170: 955, 1004,
1017.
V. Comrs., 2 Mass. 489: 1316.
V. Coombs, 2 Mass. 489: 955, 969,
1185, 1368.
T. County Commissioners, 8 Pick.
343: 979, 1034.
V. Covington & Cinn. Bridge Co.
(Ky.) 21 S. W. 1042: 481, 483.
v. Covington & Cinn. Bridge Co.,
154 U. S. 204: 481.
v. Cutter, 156 Mass. 52: 492.
V. Dudley, 5 T. B. Mon. 22: 1427.
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 103 Mass.
254: 486.
V. Bgremont, 6 Mass. 491: 955,
1058.
V. Ellis, 11 Mass. 462: 981.
V. Emmers, 221 Pa. St. 298: 86,
473.
V. Emmers, 33 Pa. Supr. Ct. 151:
84.
V. Erie & North East R. R. Co., 27
Pa. St. 339: 727.
V. Favis, 5 Rand. 691: 1459.
V. Fisher, 1 P. & W. (Pa.) 462:
1156, 1157, 1360.
V. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 8 Cush.
240: 711.
V. FoUett, 164 Mass. 477: 471.
V. Frankfort, 92 Ky. 149 : 252, 300,
310, 314, 316, 1582.
V. Great Barrington, 6 Mass. 492:
1368.
V. Hall, 8 Pick. 440: 1430.
V. Hauck, 103 Pa. St. 536: 1487,
1488.
V. Hartford & New Haven R. E.
Co., 14 Gray 379: 319.
V. Haverhill, 7 Allen 523: 1472.
V. Interstate Consolidated St. Ey.
187 Mass. 436: 484.
V. Ipswich, 2 Pick. 70: 1100.
v. Kevin, 202 Pa. St. 23: 479.
V. Logan, 5 Litt. 286: 865.
V. Low, 3 Pick. 413 : 872.
V. McAllister, 2 Watts, 190: 1156,
1157.
V. Merrick, 2 Mass. 529: 1372,
1373.
V. Metcalf, 2 Mass. 118: 1017.
V. Moorehead, 118 Pa. St 344:
887, 890.
xc
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. 1, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Commonwealth v. Newberry, 2 Pick.
57: 872.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 138 Pa.
St. 58: 1643.
V. Norfolk, 5 Mass. 435: 1533,
1638.
V. Northeastern El. R. R. Co., 161
Pa. St. 409: 268, 719.
V. Noxon, 121 Mass. 42: 1343.
V. Parks, 155 Mas. 531: 457.
V. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 66 Pa.
St. 41: 15, 486.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 117 Pa. St. 637
1643, 1645.
V. Peters, 2 Mass. 125: 1343.
V. Peters, 3 Mass. 229: 969, 1004,
1013.
V. Philadelphia, 2 Whart. 286:
1532.
T. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 135
Pa. St. 256: 883.
V. Pittsburgh & Connellsville R. R.
Co., 58 Pa. St. 26: 1173.
V. Royce, 152 Pa. St. 88: 890, 891.
V. Russell, 172 Pa. St. 506: 85,
1605.
V. Sawin, 2 Pick. 547: 514.
V. Sessions of Middlesex, 9 Mass.
388: 1185.
V. Sheldon, 3 Mass. 188 : 1017.
T. Shoemaker, 14 Pa. Supr. Ct.
194: 366.
V. Sisson, 178 Mass. 578: 479.
V. Sisson, 189 Mass. 247: 866.
V. Snyder, 2 Watts, 418: 625.
V. Stevens, 10 Pick. 247: 779.
V. Tewksbury, 11 Met. 55: 14, 470.
V. Trent, 117 Ky. 35: 471.
V. Uwchlan St. Ry. Co., 203 Pa. St.
608 : 427, 763.
V. Vrooman, 164 Pa. St. 306: 479.
V. Weimer, 3 Met. 445 : 1034.
V. Westborough, 3 Mass. 406: 1028,
1093.
V. West Boston Bridge, 13 Pick.
195: 1422.
V. West Chester, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 542 :
272, 642.
V. Young Men's Christian Asso.,
169 Pa. St. 24: 105.
Como V. Worcester, 177 Mass. 543:
1245.
Compton V. Seattle, 38 Wash. 514:
230, 631, 1511, 1577.
V. Susquehanna R. R. Co., 3 Bland
Ch. 386: 1163, 1165.
Comstock V. Clearfield etc. R. R. Co.,
169 Pa. St. 582: 1244.
Conabeer v. New York Central etc.
R. R. Co., 84 Hun 34 : 1354.
V. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
156 N. Y. 474: 846, 849.
Conan v. Ely, 91 Minn. 127: 1229,
1268.
Conant, In re, 83 Me. 42 : 1425.
Conant's Appeal, 102 Me. 477 : 1081.
Conant v. Deep Creek etc. Irr. Co., 23
Utah 627 : 934.
Conboy v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
42 Kan. 658 : 830.
Concord, Petition of, 50 N. H. 530:
364, 383, 387.
Concord etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc.
R. R. Co., 68 N. H. 519: 762.
Concordia v. Natchez etc. R. R. Co.,
44 La. Ann. 613: 157.
Concordia Cem. Assn. v. Minnesota
etc. R. R. Co., 121 111. 199: 1138,
1267.
Concord Mfg. Co. v. Robertson, 66 N.
H. 1: 109, 110, 111, 113, 115,
120, 128, 129, 137.
Concord R. R. Co. v. Greeley 17 N. H.
47: 23, 495, 496, 498, 500, 506,
524, 534, 684, 1029.
V. Greely, 20 N. H. 157 : 1428.
V. Greely 23 N. H. 237: 1138, 1146.
Concord Tp's Appeal, 1 Walker's Pa.
Supm. Ct. 195: 780, 1643.
Condemnation of Land at Nahaut, In
re, 128 Fed. 185: 780, 1346.
Condemnation of Land for New
State House, In re, 19 R. I. 382 :
1221, 1329.
Condict V. Ramsey, 65 N. J. L. 503:
1102.
Condon v. County Comrs., 89 Me.
409: 1028.
Cone v. Hartford, 28 Conn. 363 : 176,
335.
Coney Island etc. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 12 Hun 451: 913.
Conger v. Burlington & S. W. R. R.
Co., 41 la. 419: 1625, 1629.
V. Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 12 N. Y.
190: 1102.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 120
N. Y. 29 : 843, 852.
Conklin v. Keokuk, 73 la. 343: 602,
604, 619, 965, 1405.
V. Mackinaw City, 120 Mich. 67:
878, 887, 890.
V. New York etc. Ry. Co., 102 N. Y.
107: 211, 226, 319.
V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 154 Mass.
155: 809.
Conkling v. Zerga, 72 Hun 134: 1649,
1659.
Connable v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 60
la. 27: 966, 1403.
Connecticut & Passumpsic Rivers R.
R. Co. V. Holton, 32 Vt. 43:
1477, 1481.
CASES CITED.
XCl
[The references are to the pages: Vol. 1, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Connecticut Riv. Lumber Co. v. 01-
cott Falls Co., 65 N. H. 290:
1607.
Connecticut River R. R. Co. v. Clapp,
1 Cush. 559: 1112, 1114, 1359.
y. County Comrs., 127 Mass. 50;
1168.
Connellsville Gas Coal Co. v. Balti-
more etc. R. R. Co., 216 Pa. St.
309: 1626, 1713, 1714.
Conner v. Covington Transfer R. R.
Co., (Ky.) 19 S. W. 597: 1624.
Conners v. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co., 86
Miss. 356: 848.
Conness v. Indiana etc. R. R. Co., 193
111. 464: 952, 1315, 1379.
Conniflf v. San Francisco, 67 Cal. 45:
60, 153.
Connolly v. Griswold, 7 Iowa 416:
1555
V. \Yoods, 13 Ida. 591: 1047, 1050,
1071.
Conrad v. County of Lewis, 10 W. Va.
784: 993 1022
V. Smith, 32 Mich. 429 : 336, 1487,
1594.
V. Waples, 96 U. S. 279: 19.
V. West End Hotel & Land Co., 126
N. C. 776: 420, 878.
Conshohocken Ave., 1 Walker's Pa.
Supm. Ct. 424: 1098.
Conshohocen R. R. Co. v. Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co., 15 Pa. Co. Ct.
445: 780.
Consolidated Channel Co. v. Central
Pacific R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 269:
497, 563.
Consolidated El. Lt. Co. v. People's
El. Lt. & G. Co., 94 Ala. 372:
911.
Consolidated Gas, Elec. Lt. & P. Co.
V. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 107
Md. 671: 1667.
Consumers Gas & El. Lt. Co. v. Con-
gress Spring Co., 69 Hun 133:
345.
Consolidated Home Supply Ditch &
R. R. Co. V. Hamlin, 6 Colo. App.
341: 144, 1455.
Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Ver-
mont, 207 U. S. 541: 460.
Consolidated Traction Co. v. Jordan,
36 Ind. App. 1.56: 1128, 1192,
1250.
V. South Orange etc. R. R. Co., 56
N. J. Eq. 569: 329, 1611.
Constitution Wharf Co. v. Boston,
156 Mass. 397 : 142.
Consumers Gas Trust Co. v. Am.
Plate Glass Co., 162 Ind. 393:
864, 867, 1481, 1573.
Consumers Gas Trust Co. v. Harless
131 Ind. 446: 2, 23, 672, 673
675, 1461, 1463, 1465.
V. Huntsinger 12 Ind. App. 285
1112, 1409.
V. Huntsinger, 14 Ind. App. 156
337.
Conter v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 22
Minn. 342: 1225.
V. St, Paul etc. R. R. Co., 24 Minn.
313: 1425.
Continental Ins. Go. v. Rhoads, 119
U. S. 237: 996.
Contra Costa R. R. Co. v. Moss, 23
Cal. 323: 991.
Contra Costa Water Co. v. Van Rens-
selaer, 155 Fed. 140: 965.
Convers v. Atchison etc. R. R. Co.,
142 U. S. 671: 1115, 1392.
V. Grand Rapids & Indiana R. R.
Co., 18 Mich. 459: 912, 930.
Converse v. Calumet Riv. Ry. Co.,
195 111. 204, 871.
Conway v. Ascherman, 94 Ind. 187:
973.
Conwell V. Emrie, 2 Ind. 35: 16.
V. Emrie, 4 Ind. 209: 234.
V. Hagerstown Canal Co., 2 Ind.
588: 1522.
V. Springfield etc. R. R. Co., 81 111.
232: 834, 1354.
V. Tate, 107 Ind. 171 : 1385.
Cook V. Ansonia, 66 Conn. 413: 600,
601, 617, 619, 1308, 1549.
V. Bath, L. R. 6 Eq. Gas. 177 : 372,
382, 391.
V. Boone Subn. Elec. Ry. Co., 122
la. 437: 1208.
V. Burlington, 36 la. 357: 243.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 83 la.
278: 1293, 1304.
V. Covert, 71 Mich. 249: 1017,
1520.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 3 Miscl.
248: 1151, 1301, 1302.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 144 N.
Y. 115: 1150, 1151, 1302.
V. Quick, 127 Ind. 477: 385, 386,
390, 402.
V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. 107
Va. 32: 151.
V. South Park Comrs., 61 111. 115:
539, 1115, 1162, 1222, 1324, 1392.
V. Sudden, 94 Cal. 443: 879.
V. Totten, 49 W. Va. 177 : 183, 191,
366, 404.
V. Vickers, 141 N. C. 101: 515,
1396, 1400.
Cook & R. Co. V. Sanitary District,
177 111. 599: 1271, 1313.
XCll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1T19.]
Cool V. Crommet, 13 Me. 250: 938,
948, 1032.
Coolidge V. Dexter, 129 Mass. 167:
879.
Cooling V. Great Northern R. E. Co.,
19 L. J. Q. B. 25: 651.
Coolman v. Fleming, 82 Ind. 117:
995, 996, 1028.
Coolville Pass. R. R. Co. v. Wilkes-
Barre South Side R. R. Co., 5
Luzerne Leg. Reg. Rep. 340:
299.
Coombs V. County Comrs., 68 Me.
484: 514.
V. County Comrs., 71 Me. 239:
1505.
V. Salt Lake etc. R. R. Co., 9 Utah
322: 1581, 1617.
Coon V. Mason Co., 22 111. 666 : 1398.
Cooper's Application, 28 Hun 515:
539.
Cooper V. Alden, Harr. Mich. 72:
297, 308, 315.
V. Anniston etc. R. R. Co., 85 Ala.
106: 731, 1624.
V. Board of Works, 108 Eng. Com.
Law 181 : 1014.
V. Chester R. R. Co., 19 N. J. Eq.
199: 1463.
V. Dallas, 83 Tex. 239: 153, 1309,
1339.
v. Hall, 5 Ohio 320: 94.
V. Manhattan E. R. Co., 85 Hun
217: 1305.
V. Monterey Co., 104 Cal. 437 : 881,
886.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 123 Mo.
App. 141: 160.
V. Scranton City, 21 Pa. Supr. Ct.
17: 631, 1251, 1523, 1525.
V. Williams, 4 Ohio 253 : 78, 523.
V. Williams, 5 Ohio 391 : 522.
Cooper etc. Application of, 93 N. Y.
507: 1389.
Coosa Eiv. Steamboat Co. v. Bar-
clay, 30 Ala. 130: 475.
Copcutt V. Yonkers, 83 Hun 178: 912,
914.
Copeland v. Packard, 16 Pick. 217:
514, 1028.
Coquard v. Boehmer, 81 Mich. 445:
1027.
Corbin v. Cedar Rapids etc. Ry. Co.,
66 la. 73: 1669, 1700.
V. Marsh, 2 Duv. Ky. 463: 18,
807, 1154.
V. Wisconsin etc. R. R. Co., 66 la.
269: 1046, 1073.
Corby v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 150
Mo. 457: 180, 311, 1582.
Corcoran v. Benicia, 96 Cal. 1 : 235.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 149 111.
291: 1581.
V. Chicago etc. E. R. Co., 37 111.
App. 417: 1581.
Cord V. High, 24 la. 336: 236.
Core V. Norfolk, 99 Va. 190: 894.
Coreghino v. Ore. Short Line R. R.
Co., 26 Utah 467 : 1590.
Corey v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 23
Barb. 482: 246, 248. 324.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 100 Mo.
282: 893, 898, 959, 980, 982,
1091.
V. Probate Judge, 56 Mich. 524:
1017, 1036, 1420.
V. Swagger, 74 Ind. 211: 990, 1406.
V. Swagger, 74 Ind. 481 : 979, 1150.
V. Wrentham, 164 Mass. 18 : 1683.
Cork etc. R. E. Co., v. Harnett, 16
Ir. Ch. Rep. 268: 1566.
v. Harnett, 5 Irish Rep. Eq. 308:
1566.
Corley v. Kennedy, 28 111. 143: 1017.
Cornelius v. Glen, 7 Jones L. 512: 15,
486.
Cornell v. Crawford Co., 11 Ark. 604:
1412.
Coming v. Woolner, 206 111. 190:
182, 888.
Cornish v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co.,
60 Wis. 476: 929.
Cornplanter Tp. Road, No. 1: 26 Pa.
Super. Ct. 20: 982.
Cornplanter Tp. Road, 26 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 29: 1029.
Comville v. Co. Comrs., 33 Me. 237:
1370.
Cornwall v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
87 Ky. 72: 737, 745, 749, 1262,
1492.
V. Louisville etc. R. E. Co., 104 Ky.
29: 1671.
Corporation v. Manhattan Co., 1
Caines Eep. 507: 1020, 1081,
1377.
Corporation Commission v. Atl. Coast
Line R. E. Co., 137 N. C. 1 : 488.
V. Atl. Coast Line E. R. Co., 139
N. C. 126: 488.
V. Seaboard Air Line R. E. Co.,
127 N. C. 283: 481.
V. Seaboard Air Line E. E. Co., 140
N. C. 239: 488, 489, 533.
Corr V. Philadelphia, 14 Pa. Dist. Ct.
35: 1504.
V. Philadelphia, 212 Pa. St. 123:
I 1503: 1504.
OASES CITED.
XClll
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Corrigal v. London etc. Ry. Co., 44
E. C. L. R. 123: 1029.
V. London etc. Ry. Co., 5 M. & G.
219: 1029.
Corrigan v. Chicago, 144 111. 537:
1255, 1257, 1258.
Corse V. Norfolk, 99 Va. 190: 1044,
1053.
Corsicana v. Zorn, 97 Tex. 317: 366,
878, 879, 889.
Cortelyou v. Van Brundt, 2 Johns.
357: 1486.
Cortland & Homer Horse R. R. Co.,
Matter of, 98 N. Y. 336: 1281,
1438.
Corwin v. Cowan, 12 Ohio St. 629:
808, 1506.
V. Erie R. R. Co., 84 App. Div.
555: 93, 1607.
V. Erie R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 590:
93, 1607.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 51 Kan.
451: 1519.
Corwith V. Hyde Park, 14 HI. App.
635 : 1526, 1528, 1675.
Cosard v. Kanawha Hardwood Co.,
139 N. C. 283: 22.
Cosby V. Lynn, 4 Bibb 249 : 1403.
Cosens v. Bogner Ry. Co., 36 L. J.
Eq. 104: 1536.
Cosgriff V. Tri-State Telephone Co.,
15 N. D. 210: 339.
Costa R. R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323 :
754.
Costello V. Burke, 63 la. 361: 928,
1135, 1137.
Coster V. Albany, 52 Barb. 276 : 624.
V. Albany, 43 N. Y. 399 : 363, 370,
371, 380, 388, 625, 666.
V. New Jersey R. R. Co., 23 N. J.
L. 227: 893, 1021, 1033.
V. New Jersey etc. R. R. Co., 24 N.
J. L. 730: 748, 1097. 1347.
T. Tide Water Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54:
14, 497, 498, 501, 565, 566, 577,
578, 584, 675.
V. Tide Water Co., 18 N. J. Eq.
518: 14, 675.
Costigan v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
54 N. J. L. 233: 446, 455, 456,
847, 856, 1476.
Cotauch V. Grover, 57 Hun 272: 1490.
Cotes V. Davenport, 9 la. 227: 235,
604, 618.
Cother v. Midland Ry. Co., 2 Phillips
469: 714.
Cott V. Lewiston R. R. Co., 36 N. Y.
214: 76, 146.
Cottle v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
27 App. Div. N. Y. 604: 1526.
Cotton V. Boston El. Ry. Co., 191
Mass. 103: 1134, 1151, 1304.
V. Miss. & R. Riv. Boom Co., 19
Minn. 497: 100.
v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom
Co., 22 Minn. 372: 101, 543, 677.
Cottrill V. Myrick, 12 Me. 222: 501.
Cotts V. Wheeling etc. R. R. Co., 63
W. Va. 39: 1446, 1547, 1548,
1649, 1657, 1717.
Couch, Ex parte, 14 Ark. 337: 1412.
Coulter V. Hunter, 4 Rand. 58: 723.
Council Bluffs etc. R. R. Co. v. Bent-
ley, 62 la. 446: 898.
County Comrs. v. Hoag, 48 Kan. 413 :
1353.
V. Humphrey, 47 Ga. 565 : 1568.
V. McGee, 20 Ohio C. C. 201: 1674.
County Court v. Griswold, 58 Mo.
175: 539, 676, 814, 1043.
Coutaut V. Catlin, 2 Sandf. 485:
1253.
Covert V. Brooklyn, 13 App. Div.
188: 74.
V. Cranford, 141 N. Y. 521 : 77.
V. O'Connor, 8 Watts 470: 104.
V. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 204 Pa.
St. 341: 864, 869.
Covey V. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 23
Barb. 482: 244.
i. Edgewood, 18 Pa. Supr. Ct. 216
1620.
V. Probate Judge, 56 Mich. 524
941.
Covington v. Berry, 120 Ky. 582
141, 1335.
V. McDonald, 94 Ky. 1, 879.
v. Southgate, 15 B. Mon. 491 : 465.
V. TaflFee, 24 Ky. L. R. 373: 630,
1306, 1307.
V. Worthington, 88 Ky. 206: 13,
464, 1220.
Covington & Cinn. Bridge Co. v.
Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204: 482.
V. Magruder, 63 Ohio St. 455: 7,
748.
Covington etc. R. R. & Bridge Co. v.
Kleymeier, 105 Ky. 609: 253,
310, 448, 654, 661, 1648, 1657.
Covington & L. Turnpike R. Co. v.
Sandford (Ky.) 20 S. W. 1031:
481, 483.
Covington & L. T. Road Co. v. Sand-
ford, 164 U. S. 578 : 483.
Covington Short Route Transfer Co.
V. Piel, 87 Ky. 267: 1159, 1166,
1274, 1467.
V. Piel, 9 Ky. L. R. 665: 1467.
Covington St. Ry. Co. v. Covington,
9 Bush. 127: 298.
XCIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp.
Covington St. Ev. Co. v. Covington &
Cinn. St. R. R. Co. (Ky.) 19
Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 765: 426,
427, 761, 762, 1615.
V. Covington & Cinn. St. E. R. Co.,
1 Ky. L. R. 341 : 426, 762, 807.
V. Covington etc. R. E. Co., 1 Ky.
L. E. 318: 301.
Cowan's Case, 1 Overton 310: 700.
Cowan V. Glover, 3 A. K. Marsh. 356:
1083.
V. Penobscott E. E. Co., 44 Me.
140: 690.
V. Southern R. R. Co., 118 Ala.
354: 830, 942, 1541, 1542, 1630.
Coward v. Llewellyn, 209 Pa. St. 582 :
884.
V. North Plainfield, 63 N. J. L. 61:
739.
Cowdrey v. Wobum, 136 Mass. 409:
77.
Cowell V. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55:
837.
V. Thayer, 5 Met. 253 : 95.
Cowley Co. v. Hooker, 70 Kan. 372:
1328.
Cox v. Buie, 12 Iredel L. 139: 1019.
V. Commissioner of Highways, 83
Mich. 193: 993, 1027.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 194 111.
355: 865, 1363, 1515.
V. Cummings, 33 Ga. 549: 19.
V. Easter, 1 Porter 130: 909.
V. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co., 174
Mo. 588: 147, 160.
V. Howell, 108 Tenn. 130 : 69, 72.
V. Little Rock & M. R. R. Co., 55
Ark. 454: 933.
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co. 48 Ind.
■ 178: 200, 242, 246, 251, 279,
315, 1580.
V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co., 77 la.
20: 1210.
V. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 215 Pa. St.
506: 1189, 1201, 1229, 1233,
1234, 1241.
V. State, 3 Blackf. 193 : 103.
V. Tifton. 18 Mo. App. 450: 708.
Coyne v. Memphis, 118 Tenn. 651:
224, 227, 324, 492, 635.
V. Warrior So. Ry. Co., 137 Ala.
553: 1473, 1497.
Coyner v. Boyd, 55 Ind. 166: 1108,
1149: 1406.
Cozard v. Kanawha Hardwood Co.,
139 X. C. 283: 508, 533.
C. P. & V. R. R. Co. V. Davis. 19
Ohio C. C. 589: 936, 1546, 1559.
Craft V. DeSoto Co., 79 Miss. 618:
974.
V. Norfolk etc. E. E. Co., 136 N. C.
49: 79, 167.
ao.]
Craigie v. Mellen, 6 Mass. 7: 701.
Craig V. Allegheny, 53 Pa. St. 477:
1500.
V. Lewis, 110 Mass. 377: 858.
V. North, 3 Met. (Ky.) 187: 1364.
V. Eochester City etc. E. E. Co., 39
Barb. 494: 269, 273, 1586.
V. Eochester City etc. E. E. Co., 39
N. Y. 404: 200, 1586.
V. Supervisors, 10 Wend. 585: 733.
Cram v. Laconia, 71 N. H. 41: 371,
380, 388, 392, 403.
Crandall v. Des Moines etc. R. R. Co.,
103 la. 684: 732, 815, 919.
V. McElheney, 146 Mich. 191 : 1577.
V. Taunton, 110 Mass. 421: 1411.
Crane v. Camp, 12 Conn. 463 : 1019.
V. Roselle, 236 111. 97: 82, 1606.
Cranson v. Snyder, 137 Mich. 340:
146.
Crater v. Frittz, 44 N. J. L. 374:
1206, 1377.
Craugh v. Harrisburg, 1 Pa. St. 132:
1254.
Crawford v. Delaware, 7 Ohio St.
4.59: 178, 207, 213, 215, 220.
V. Comrs. of Elk Co., 32 Kan. 555 :
1017, 1033.
V. iletropolitan El. R. E. Co., 120
N. Y. 624: 1121.
V. Rutland, 52 Vt. 412 : 1042, 1045.
V. Topeka, 53 Kan. 756: 471.
V. St. Francis Levee Dist. 79 Ark.
606: 830, 952.
V. Snowden, 3 Littell, 288: 1017,
1030.
V. Valley R. E. Co., 25 Gratt. 467:
1385.
Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 60 Neb.
754: 69.
V. Hathaway, 61 Neb. 317 : 69.
V. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325 : 69, 70,
71, 72, 587.
Crawford Paving Co. v. Baum, 97 Va.
501: 1379.
Crawfordsville v. Bond, 96 Ind. 236:
154, 233.
Crawfordsville R. E. Co. v. Wright,
5 Ind. 252: 1634.
Crawson v. Grand Trunk E. E. Co.,
27 U. C. Q. B. 68: 148.
Creal v. Keokuk, 4 G. Greene (la.)
47: 211, 238.
Crear v. Crossly, 40 111. 175: 516,
520.
Creek v. Bozeman W. W. Co., 15 Moii.
121: 71, 74.
Creighton v. Manson, 27 Cal. 613: 13.
v. Water Comrs., 143 N. C. 171:
1267.
CASES OITEB.
xcv
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Crenshaw v. Slate River Co., 6 Rand.
Va. 245: 108, 544.
V. Snyder, 117 Mo. 167: 1511.
Crescent Ave. Opening, Matter of,
107 App. Div. 616: 1557.
Crescent Ave. Opening, Matter of,
183 N. Y. 14: 1557.
Crescent City etc. Co. v. Butchers
Union etc. Co., 4 Wood C. C. 96,
15.
Crescent City R. R. Co. v. New Or-
leans etc. R. R. Co., 48 La. An.
856: 427.
Crescent Pipe Line Co., 2 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 93: 918.
Crescent Tp. v. Pittsburg etc. R. R.
Co., 210 Pa. St. 334: 1511.
Creston W. W. Co. v. McGrath, 89
la. 502: 1060, 1064, 1074, 1075.
Creswell v. Comrs., 24 Ala. 282 : 958.
Crewson v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co.,
27 U. C. Q. B. 68: 158.
Cribbs v. Benedict, 64 Ark. 555: 13,
979, 1018, 1155.
C'rill V. Rome, 47 How. Pr. 398 : 106,
138.
Crimmins v. Met. El. R. R. Co., 87
Hun 187: 1665.
Crimson v. Deck, 84 la. 344: 1487,
1594.
Crippen v. White, 28 Colo. 298: 70.
Crise v. Auditor, 17 Ark. 572: 1510,
1531, 1532.
Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cow. 165 :
91, 1523.
Crocker v. Boston Elee. Lt. Co., 180
Mass. 516: 361, 491.
V. New York, 15 Fed. 405 : 136.
Crocliett v. Boston, 5 Cush. 182: 860,
1073.
V. Millett, 65 Me. 191: 1524.
Croft V. Bennington etc. R. R. Co., 64
Vt. 1: 1029, 1571.
V. London & North W. Ry. Co., 3
B. & S. 436: 846.
Crolley v. Minneapolis & St. Louis
Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 541: 1497,
1498, 1503.
Cromer v. Logansport, 38 Ind. App.
661: 154.
Cromie v. Board of Trustees, 71 Ind.
208: 808.
Crompton Carpet Co. v. Worcester,
119 Mass. 375: 1423.
V. Worcester, 123 Mass. 498: 938.
Cromwell v. Brown, 50 Conn. 470:
303.
Cromwell Ave. Matter of, 96 App.
Div. 424: 1.325.
Crooke v. Flatbush Water Works Co.,
27 Hun 72: 336.
Crooke v. Flatbush Water Works Co.,
29 Hun 245: 336.
Crosbie v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 62 la.
189: 840, 841.
Crosby v. Dracut, 109 Mass. 206:
1632.
V. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404: 513, 701,
781, 788.
V. Owensboro etc. R. R. Co., 10
Bush 288: 249, 252.
V. Smith, 19 Wis. 449: 1537.
Cross V. Kansas City, 90 Mo. 13
1353.
V. Morristown, 18 N. J. Eq. 305
,349, 1266, 1491, 1594.
V. Morristown, 18 N. J. Eq. 313
1487.
V. Plymouth, 125 Mass. 557: 1115,
1186, 1216.
V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 77 Mo.
318: 254, 307, 311.
Crossett v. Janesville, 28 Wis. 420:
236.
V. Owens, 110 111. 378: 1091, 1094.
Crossly v. O'Brien, 24 Ind. 325: 788.
Crossman v. Furman, 57 App. Div.
393: 479.
v. Lurman, 171 N. Y. 329: 479.
Crosstown St. R. R. Co. Matter of,
68 Hun 236: 305.
Crouse v. Whitlock, 46 111. App. 260 :
1028, 1520.
Crow V. Judy, 139 Ind. 562 : 698.
Crowder v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 486:
346, 408, 411.
Crowe V. Charlestown, 62 W. Va. 91 :
631.
Crowell V. Londonderry, 63 N. H. 42 :
713, 818, 1087.
Crowley v. Board of Comrs., 14 Mon.
292: 1086, 1362, 1511.
Crowner v. Watertown & Rome R. R.
Co., 9 How. Pr. 457: 1671.
Cruger v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12
N. Y. 190: 925, 1018, 1029, 1101.
Crum V. Hargrove, 119 Ga. 471: 510.
Crume v. Wilson, 104 Ind. 583: 1671.
C. Scheerer & Co. v. Hutton. 7 Cal.
App. 524: 1393, 1431, 1510.
C. Street, 118 Pa. St. 171: 734, 1396.
Cubit V. O'Dett, 51 Mich. 347: 154,
233.
Cuckfield Burial Board, In re, 24 L.
J. Ch. N. S. 585 : 747.
Culbertson v. Culbertson, 17 Okla.
370: 1486.
Culbertson & Blair Provision Co. v.
Chicago, 111 111. 651: 1108,1138,
1553.
XCVl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 74a-1719.]
CuUen V. New York etc. R. E. Co., 66
Conn. 211: 487.
Culley V. Cunningham, 96 Ala. 583:
1408.
Cullough V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
52 Minn. 12: 440.
Culpepper County v. Gorrell, 20
Gratt. 484: 681, 703, 824, 1024.
Culver V. Chicago etc. E. R. Co., 38
Mo. App. 130: 93, 1639.
V. Fair Haven, 67 Vt. 163: 721.
Cumberland v. Willison, 50 Md. 138 :
234.
Cumberland etc. Canal Co. v. Hitch-
ings, 65 Me. 140: 1650, 1658.
Cumberland etc. R. R. Co. v. Penn.
R. R. Co., 57 Md. 267: 1610.
Cumberland Telephone Co. v. United
Elec. Co., 17 Fed. 825: 682.
Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Avritt,
120 Ky. 34: 333, 334, 341.
V. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666 : 350.
v. Foster, 117 Ky. 389: 443.
v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 110
Fed. 593: 418.
V. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 110
Fed. 596: 418.
V. Morgan's etc. Co., 112 La. 287:
1048, 1052.
v. United Elec. R. R. Co., 42 Fed.
272: 417, 1622.
V. United Electric R. R. Co., 93
Tenn. 492: 272, 418, 911.
V. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co., 90 Miss.
686: 685, 724.
Cumberland Valley R. R. Co. v. Mar-
tin, 100 Md. 165: 1086.
V. McLanahan, 59 Pa. St. 23: 524,
1523.
V. Rhoadarmer, 107 Pa. St. 214:
625.
Cuming v. Prang, 24 Mich. 514:
1489.
Cumming v. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 259:
1618.
Cummings v. Dixon, 139 Mich. 269:
211, 606.
v. Huse etc. Co., 156 Mo. 28: 1618.
V. Hyatt, 54 Neb. 35 : 587.
V. Noble Co. Comrs., 13 Okla. 21:
1407.
V. Peters, 56 Cal. 593 : 536, 587.
V. Railroad Co., 70 Mo. 570: 475.
V. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 259: 1493.
V. Union El. R. R. Co., 169 111.
33: 1585.
V. Williamsport, 84 Pa. St. 472:
1187, 1228, 1404.
Cummings Realty & Inv. Co. v. Deere
& Co., 208 Mo. 60: 378, 384. 392.
Cummins v. Des Moines & St. Louis
Ry. Co., 63 la. 397: 1139, 1210,
1245, 1330, 1332.
V. Seymour, 79 Ind. 491: 234, 336.
V. Shields, 34 Ind. 154: 821, 1407.
V. Summunduwot Lodge, 9 Kan.
App. 153: 309.
Cunard v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 1
Miscl. 151: 1296, 1301."
Cunningham v. Campbell, 33 Ga.
625: 19.
v. Fitzgerald, 138 N. Y. 165: 878.
V. Hendricks, 89 Wis. 632: 876,
882, 883, 884, 885.
v. Pacific R. R. Co., 61 Mo. 33:
893, 894.
V. Rome R. R. Co., 27 Ga. 499:
1478, 1618.
V. San Saba Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App.
480: 867, 870.
Cupp V. Comrs. of Seneca Co., 19
Ohio St. 173: 1011, 1101, 1709.
Cureton v. South Bound R. R. Co.,
59 S. C. 371: 830, 953, 1546.
Curran, Matter of, 38 App. Div. N.
Y. 82: 817.
Curran v. East Pittsburg, 20 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 590: 1523, 1525, 1639.
V. Louisville, 83 Ky. 628: 1503.
V. Shattuck, 24 Cal. 427 : 706, 966,
1018, 1155, 1162, 1570, 1579.
V. Sibley County, 47 Minn. 313:
576, 735, 1018.
V. Sibley Co., 56 Minn. 432: 576,
735, 1018.
Curren Matter of, 25 N. Y. Misc.
432: 1034.
Currie v. Atlantic City, 66 N. J. L.
140: 302.
V. Atlantic City, 66 N. J. L. 671:
302.
V. Jersey City etc. R. R. Co., (N.
J.) 1462.
V. Natchez etc. R. R. Co., 61 Miss.
725: 858, 1634, 1636.
V. Natchez etc. R. R. Co., 62 Miss.
506, 858, 1636.
V. New York Transit Co., 66 N. J.
Eq. 313: 806, 807, 812, 1497.
V. Waverly etc. R. R. Co., 52 N. J.
L. 381: 1132, 1210, 1235, 1243,
1329.
Currier v. Grafton, 28 N. H. 73:
1437.
V. Marietta & Cincinnati R. R. Co.,
11 Ohio St. 228: 813.
Curry v. Jones, 4 Del. Ch. 559: 1100,
1571.
V. Jit. Sterling, 15 111. 320: 678,
1194.
V. Rosell, 99 Mich. 524: 400, 1004,
CASES CITED.
XCVll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Curtin v. Nittany Valley R. R. Co.,
135 Pa. St. 20: 1317.
V. Rochester R. R. Co., 78 Huri
555: 330.
V. Columbus etc. R. R. Co., 34 Pa.
Co. Ct. 52: 816.
Curtis V. Columbus etc. R. R. Co.,
34 Pa. Co. Ct. 52: 816.
V. Columbus etc. R. R. Co., 16 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 1017: 716.
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 14 Allen, 55:
153.
V. Pocahontas County, 72 la. 151 :
989.
T. Portland, 60 Me. 55: 1409, 1672.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 20 Minn.
28: 1119, 1120, 1122, 1128, 1312,
1314, 1472.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 21 Minn.
497: 1392.
V. Water Co., 20 Or. 34: 1617.
Curtiss V. Ayrault, 47 N. Y. 73 : 146.
V. Smith, 35 Conn. 156: 899.
Curtiss St., Matter of, 1 Sheldon (N.
Y.) 425: 1097, 1393.
Curwensville, Appeal of, 129 Pa. St.
74: 707, 1569.
Gushing v. Boston, 144 Mass. 317:
1341.
V. Gay, 23 Me. 9: 1058, 1367, 1368.
V. Nantucket Beach R. R. Co., 143
Mass. 77: 1152.
V. Webb, 102 Me. 157: 969, 980,
1510.
Cushing-Wetmore Co. v. Gray, 152
Cal. 118: 179, 190, 351, 385.
Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247: 59,
434, 1163, 1635.
V. Wood, 6 Hun 520: 1558.
Cuthbert v. Kuhn, 3 Whart. 357:
1255.
Cutler V. New York, 92 N. Y. 166:
1326.
V. Sours, 80 111. App. 618: 1673.
Cuyler v. Rochester, 12 Wend. 165:
817.
C. W. etc. R. R. Co. v. Clinton Coun-
ty, 1 Ohio St. 101-2: 462.
V. Comrs., 1 Ohio St. 77: 10.
Cypress Pond Dr. Co. v. Hooper, 2
Met. (Ky.) 350: 467, 494, 570,
575, 583.
Cyr V. Dufour, 68 Me. 492: 975.
D.
Daggy V. Coats, 19 Ind. 259: 1407.
V. Green, 12 Ind. 303: 976, 1082.
Dahlman v. Milwaukee, 131 Wis.
427: 230, 442.
Daiber v. Scott, 3 Ohio C. C. 313:
878, 890.
Daigneault v. Woonsocket, 18 R. I.
378: 1150.
Dailey v. State, 51 Ohio St. 348: 332,
339, 1487, 1488, 1667.
Daily v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367: 580
Dairy v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co., 113 la
716: 320, 351, 372, 383.
Dakota Co. v. Cheney, 22 Neb. 437
577.
Dale v. St. Joseph, 59 Mo. App. 566
616, 618, 1306, 1337.
V. Southern Ry. Co. 132 N. C. 705
152, 1549.
Daley v. St. Paul, 7 Minn. 390: 1681.
V. Watertown, 192 Mass. 116: 154,
157.
Dallas V. Barksdale, 83 Tex. 117:
1546.
V. Halloek, 44 Ore. 246: 990, 1056,
1060, 1068, 1072.
Dallas County v. Plowman, 99 Tex.
509: 697, 739, 1569, 1571.
Dallas etc. R. R. Co. v. Chenault, 4
Tex. a. of App. p. 171, § HI:
1112, 1123.
V. Day, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 353: 1094,
1112.
V. Kinnard (Tex. Supm.) 18 S.
W. 1062: 92.
Dalles Lumbering Co. v. Urquhart,
16 Ore. 67: 495, 496, 522, 675.
Dalrymple v. Whittingham, 26 Vt.
345: 1116, 1177, 1202, 1529.
Dalton V. Northampton, 19 N. H.
362: 923.
V. Water Comrs. 49 Cal. 222: 700.
Daly, In re, 139 Cal. 216: 469.
Daly, In re, 88 Hun, 188: 1369.
Daly, Matter of, 29 App. Div. 286:
1255.
Daly, Matter of, 116 App. Div. 798:
1398.
Daly, Matter of, 23 App. Div. N. Y.
232: 1369.
Daly, Matter of, 189 N. Y. 34: 1398.
Daly V. Elton, 195 U. S. 242: 469.
V. Georgia Southern etc. R. R. Co.,
80 Ga. 793: 297, 298, 314.
V. Smith, 18 App. Div. 194: 1229.
Dalzell V. Davenport, 12 la. 437: 603,
1123, 1125.
Damkoehler v. Milwaukee, 124 Wis.
144: 230, 441, 442.
Damon v. Baldvrin, 101 Minn. 414:
1024.
V. Baltimore R. R. Co., 119 Pa. St.
287: 817, 818.
Damour v. Lyons City, 44 la. 276:
235.
Damp v. Dane, 29 Wis. 419: 973, 975.
XCVlll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Damrell v. Board of Supervisors etc.,
40 Cal. 154: 706, 933, 1358.
Dana v. Boston, 176 Mass. 97: 606.
V. Craddock, 66 N. H. 593: 1238.
Danforth v. Bangor, 85 Me. 423 : 877,
1326.
V. Groton Water Co., 176 Mass.
118: 733.
V. Suydam, 4 N. Y. 66: 949.
Daniel v. Ft. Worth etc. Ky. Co., 96
Tex. 327: 449, 655, 661.
Daniels v. Almy, 18 R. I. 244: 880,
882.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 41 la.
52: 1347, 1352.
V. Chicago & North Western R. R.
Co., 35 Iowa, 129: 1625.
V. Citizens Savings Institution,
127 Mass. 534: 95.
V. Smith, 38 Mich. 660: 1033.
Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union R. R.
Co., 141 Ind. 604: 179, 190, 191,
370, 371, 383, 388, 398.
Danube, Comrs. of, Ex parte, 1 Cow.
142: 1409.
Danvers v. County Comrs., 2 Met.
185; 1082.
Danville v. McAdams, 153 HI. 216:
895.
V. Sehultz, 99 111. App. 287: 629.
Dansville etc. R. R. Co. v. Hammond,
77 Hun 39: 1437.
V. Tidrick, 137 111. App. 553: 372,
646, 1131, 1297, 1304.
Danville etc. Road Co. v. Campbell,
87 Ind. 57: 422.
Danville, H. & W. R. R. Co. v. Com-
monwealth. 73 Pa. St. 29: 255.
Dargan v. Carolina Central R. R. Co.,
113 N. C. 596: 1710.
Darling v. Newport Elec. Lt. Co., 74
N. H. 515: 350.
Darling's Admr. v. Blackstone Mfg.
Co., 16 Gray 187: 965, 1073.
Darlington v. Allegheny City, 189 Pa.
St. 202: 1128.
V. Cloud Co., 75 Kan. 810: 153.
V. New York, 31 N. Y. 164: 476.
V. United States, 82 Pa. St. 382:
672, 911, 991.
Darrow v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
169 Ind. 99: 707, 942, 971, 980,
995.
Darst V. Griffin, 31 Neb. 668: 577,
918, 969, 1018, 1511, 1512, 1513.
Dartmouth v. County Comrs., 153
Mass. 12: 988, 996.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4
Wheat. 625: 412.
Daubert v. Penn. R. R. Co., 155 Pa.
St. 178: 1627, 1633.
Daugey v. London, 38 L. J. C. P. 298:
733.
Daugherty v. Brown, 91 Mo. 26:
1186.
Daughters of Am. Rev. v. Schenley,
204 Pa. St. 572: 394.
Davenport v. Buffington, 97 Fed. 234:
420.
V. Dedham, 178 Mass. 382: 351,
370, 384, 647.
V. Hyde Park, 178 Mass. 385: 351,
370, 384, 647.
V. Stevenson, 34 la. 225: 251.
Davenport etc. Ry. Co. v. Sinnet,
111 111. App. 75: 448, 654, 661,
1337.
Davenport etc. Terminal Co. v. John-
son, 188 111. 472: 639, 1580,
1591.
David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Chicago
etc. Traction Co., 229 111. 170:
683, 1210.
Davidheiser v. Rhodes, 133 Pa. St.
226: 145, 146.
Davidson v. Boston & Maine R. R.
Co., 3 Cush. 91: 936.
V. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 97: 14,
1007.
V. Railroad Co., 3 Tex. Ct. of App.
p. 473, § 400: 1348.
V. Texas etc. Ry. Co., 29 Tex. Civ.
App. 54: 958, 1511, 1557.
V. Wight, 16 App. Cases, D. C. 371:
464.
Davies v. Epstein, 77 Ark. 221: 372,
876, 877.
V. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 37: 1004,
1010.
V. St. Joseph, 98 Mo. App. 611:
180.
Daviess v. County Court, 1 Bibb 453 :
1091.
v. Co. Court, 1 Bibb 514: 1367.
Davis V. Appleton, 109 Wis. 580:
355, 1594.
V. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 102 Md.
371: 447, 1614.
V. Board of Supervisors, 89 Mich.
295: 400.
V. Bonaparte, 137 la. 197: 882,
885.
v. Boone Co., 28 Neb. 837: 1075,
1407.
V. Brigham, 29 Me. 391 : 960.
v. Charles River Branch R. R. Co.,
11 Cush. 506: 941, 1146.
V. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 46 la. 389:
251, 307.
V. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co., 140
Ind. 468: 864, 1485.
V. Comrs., 143 111. 9: 1488.
CASES CITED.
XCIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol, II, pp. 743-1719.]
Davis V. County Comrs., 153 Mass.
218; 371, 379, 380, 391, 398.
V. Covington etc. R. R. Co., 77 Ga.
322: 1614.
V. Crawfordsville, 119 Ind. 1: 234.
V. East Tenn. etc. R. E. Co., 87
Ga. 605: 777, 1298, 1649, 1657.
V. East Tenn. & Ga. R. R. Co., 1
Sneed 94: 431.
v. Fry, 14 Okla. 340: 166.
V. Hill, 11 Ired. L. 9: 1444.
V. LaCrosse & Mississippi R. R.
Co., 12 Wis. 16: 1523, 1536,
1579.
V. Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co., 114
Ind. 364: 1004.
V. Londgreen, 8 Neb. 43: 145.
V. Memphis etc. R. R. Co., 87 Ala.
633: 839, 1330, 1501.
V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 119 Mo. 180:
616, 630, 632, 633, 1308.
V. Morris, 132 N. C. 435: 368.
V. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 595: 608,
1219. .
V. New Bedford, 133 Mass. 649:
1712.
c New York, 14 N. Y. 506: 268,
297, 298, 301, 315, 1588.
T. Nichols, 39 111. App. 610: 786.
V. North Penn. R. E. Co. 2 Phila.
146: 1325, 1391.
V. Northwestern El. R. R. Co., 170
111. 595: 897, 1109, 1243, 1420,
1467.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 215 Pa. St. 581 :
1132, 1145.
T. Russell, 47 Me. 443: 1163, 1522,
1635.
V. Sacramento, 59 Cal. 596: 90.
V. San Lorenzo R. E. Co., 47 Cal.
517: 434, 1162, 1467.
V. Saratoga Springs, 17 App. Div.
623: 84.
V. Saratoga Springs, 163 N. Y.
581: 84.
V. Sawyer, 133 Mass. 239 : 457.
V. Silverton, 47 Ore. 171: 231, 439.
V. Smith, 130 Mass. 113: 515.
V. S. W. Pa. Pipe Line Co., 34 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 438: 1578.
V. Stevens, 57 Me. 593: 954, 963.
V. T. C. & D. R. R. Co., 4 Stew. &
Por. 421 : 524.
T. Titusville & Oil City Ey. Co.,
114 Pa. St. 308: 900, 937, 1560.
V. Wheeling etc. R. R. Co., 12 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 93: 1523.
V. Wheeling etc. R. R. Co., 26 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 364: 1458, 1473.
v. Winslow, 51 Me. 264: 71.
Davison v. Otis, 24 Mich. 23: 1421.
Dawson v. Katter, 48 Ga. 133: 17.
V. Moores, 4 Mumf. 535: 1360.
V. Pittsburgh, 159 Pa, St, 317:
1123, 1126, 1306, 1307, 1337,
1338, 1409.
Day V. Board of Aldermen of Spring-
field, 102 Mass. 310: 733.
V. Forest City Ry. Co., 5 Ohio C.
C, (N, S,) 393: 302.
V. Hulburt, 11 Met. 321: 1523.
V. Louisville etc. R, R. Co., Q9
Miss. 589: 1507.
v. New Orleans Pacific Ry. Co., 37
La. Ann. 131: 1553.
V. Railroad Co., 41 Ohio St. 392:
856.
V. Eailroad Co., 44 Ohio St, 406:
1499.
V. Springfield, 102 Mass, 310: 1572.
V. Stetson, 8 Maine 365: 409, 522.
Dayton v. Bauman, 66 Ohio St. 379:
464, 1219.
V. Drainage Comrs., 128 111. 271:
145.
V. Lincoln, 39 Neb. 74: 630, 1179,
1199.
Dayton etc. Ry. Co. v. Dayton etc.
Traction Co., 4 Ohio C. C. (N.
S.) 329: 765, 772.
V. Dayton etc. Traction Co., 72
Ohio St. 429 : 1409.
V. Lewton, 20 Ohio St. 401: 1538,
1540, 1541.
V. Marshall, 11 Ohio St. 497 : 1670.
Dayton Mining Co. v. Sea well, 11
Nev. 394: 495, 498, 500, 502,
511, 561.
D. C. R. R. Co. V. C. & G. R. R. Co.,
8 Ore. 102: 782.
Deaconess Home & Hospital v. Bont-
jes, 207 111. 553: 454, 658.
Deadwood Cent. R. R. Co. v. Barker,
14 S. D. 558: 161, 162.
Dean v. Ann Arbor St. R. R. Co.,
93 Mich. 330: 272.
V. Ann Arbor R. E. Co., 137 Mich.
459: 373, 382, 390, 398, 1596,
V. Colt, 99 Mass. 486: 1523, 1524.
V. Millard, 151 Mich. 582: 356.
Deansville Cemetery Assn., Matter of,
5 Hun 482: 675, 683.
Deansville Cemetery Association,
Matter of, 66 N. Y. 569: 498,
543.
Deaton v. Polk Co., 9 Iowa 594 ; 1404.
1490.
Dearborn v. Boston etc. R. E. Co., 24
N. II. 179: 1118, 1177, 1446,
1447, 1451.
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Deavitt v. Washington County, 75
Vt. 156: 156, 744.
De Baker v. Southern California R.
R. Co., 106 Cal. 257: 89.
DeBen v. Gerard, 4 La. Ann. 30 : 1489
DeBuol V. Freeport etc. Ry. Co., Ill
111. 499: 1098, 1271.
De Camp v. Dix. 159 N. Y. 436: 97.
V. Hibemia Underground R. R.
Co., 47 N. J. L. 43: 532, 748,
811, 813, 823.
V. Hibemia Underground R. R. Co.,
47 N. J. L. 518: 532, 811, 813,
823.
V. Robbing, 29 N. J. Eq. 36 : 837.
V. Robbins, 31 N. J. Eq. 671: 837.
V. Thompson, 16 App. Div. 528:
97.
Decatur v. Vaughan, 233 111. 50:
1230, 1231.
Decker v. Evansville Suburban etc.
R. R. Co., 133 Ind. 493: 179, 251,
256, 447, 1582.
V. Washburn, 8 Ind. App. 673:
1703.
Deenier v. Bells Run R. R. Co., 212
Pa. St. 491: 1071', 1572.
Deems v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164: 485.
Deepvvater Ry. Co. v. Western P. C. &
L. Co., 152 Fed. 824: 931, 932.
Deer v. Commissioners of Highways,
109 111. 379: 1382.
V. Sheroden, 220 Pa. St. 307: 237.
Deere v. Cole, 118 111. 165: 1602.
V. Guest, 1 Mylne & Craig 516:
1537.
Deering, Matter of, 93 N. Y. 361:
352.
Deering v. County Comrs., 87 Maine
151: 701, 976, 1387.
V. New York, 51 App. Div. 402:
1565.
V. York & Cumberland R. R. Co.,
31 Maine 172: 1570.
Deesher v. Reading & P. R. R. Co., 2
Pa. Co. Ct. 606 : 1399.
Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346: 143.
DeForest v. Wheeler, 7 Ohio St. 286 :
400.
DeGeofroy v. Merchants Bridge Ter-
minal Ry. Co., 179 Mo. 698: 180,
254, 259, 641, 642, 1649, 1717.
DeGeorge v. Goosby, 33 Tex. Civ.
App. 187: 888.
DeGraffensied v. Savage, 9 Col. App.
131: 858.
DeGrauw v. Long Island Elec. Ry.
Co.. 43 App. Div. 502: 290.
V. Long Island Elec. Ry. Co., 163
N. Y. 597: 289.
DeGrilleau v. Frawley, 48 La. Ann.
■ 184: 884.
DeGroat v. Jersey City, 55 N. J. L.
120: 886.
Deiman v. Ft. Madison, 30 Iowa 542 :
465.
Deisner v. Simpson, 72 Ind. 435 : 947.
Deitrichs v. Lincoln & North Western
R. R. Co., 12 Neb. 225: 1391.
V. Lincoln & North Western R. R.
Co., 13 Neb. 361: 731.
Deitrick v. Highway Comrs., 6 111.
App. 70: 1194.
DeKalb v. Luney, 193 111. 185: 1491.
DeKalb Co. Telephone Co. v. Dutton,
228 111. 178: 175, 338, 341, 348.
Delafleld, In re, 109 Fed. 577: 932.
Delaneey Street, Matter of, 120 App.
Div. 700: 1253, 1256, 1258.
DeLand v. Dixon Power & Lt. Co.,
225 111. 212: 395, 398, 405.
DeLander v. Baltimore Co., 94 Md.
1: 53, 211, 428.
Delaney v. Georgia etc. Ry. Co., 58
S. C. 357: 1668.
V. Metropolitan Board of Works,
L. R. 2 C. P. 532: 1710.
Delap V. Brooklyn, 3 Misel. 22: 687,
1558, 1561.
V. Brooklyn, 144 N. Y. 265: 1561.
Delaplaine v. C. & N. W. R. R. Co.,
42 Wis. 214: 109, 110, 124, 128,
129, 131.
DeLappe v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., 69 Mo. App. 572: 147, 157.
Delaware Ave., Matter of, 62 App.
Div. 492: 750.
Delaware Ave., Matter of, 167 N. Y.
256: 750.
Delaware County's Appeal, 119 Pa.
St. 159: 638, 653, 1160, 1167,
1550, 1613.
Delaware Division Canal Co. v. Mc-
Keen, 52 Pa. St. 117: 624.
Delaware etc. Canal Co. v. Lee, 22
N. J. L. 243: 87, 88, 91, 461,
848, 1451, 1650, 1653, 1715.
V. Whitehall, 90 N. Y. 21: 1287.
Delaware etc. R. R. Co. v. Buffalo,
158 N. Y. 266: 354, 487.
V. BuflFalo, 158 N. Y. 478: 354,
487.
V. Burson, 61 Pa. St. 369: 831,
849, 1187, 1317, 1319, 1713.
V. Danville etc. St. Ry. Co., 211
Pa. St. 591: 771.
V. Danville etc. St. Ry. Co., 221
Pa. St. 149: 771.
v. Erie R. R. Co., 21 N. J. Eq. 299 :
768.
v. Mehrhof Bros. Mfg. Co., 53 N.
J. L. 205: 96.
V. Newton Coal ilin. Co., 6 Luzerne
Leg. Reg. Rep. 21 : 835, 1618.
CASES CITED.
CI
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-'742 ; Vol. 11, pp. 743-17191
Delaware etc. R. R. Co. v. Oswego, 92
App. Div. 551: 302.
V. Syracuse, 165 Fed. 631 (C. C.
A.) 308.
V. Wilkes-Barre etc. R. R. Co., 11
Pa. Co. Ct. 165: 771.
V. Wilkes-Barre etc. R. R. Co., 6
Luzerne L. R. Rep. 342: 1282.
V. Wilkes-Barre etc. R. R. Co., 1
Pa. Dist. Ct. 627 : 328, 765.
Delaware St., in re, 3 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 353: 1385.
Dell Rapids v. Irving, 7 S. D. 310:
927.
Delmar Tp. Road, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 505:
1081.
DeLong v. Schimmel, 58 Ind. 64:
1364.
V. Spring Lake etc. Co., 65 N. J.
L. 1: 881.
V. Warren (Cal.) 36 Pac. 1009:
629.
Delphi V. Evans, 36 Ind. 90: 229.
Delsol V. Spokane etc. Ry. Co., 4
Ida. 456: 1270, 1472.
DeLucca v. North Little Rock, 142
Fed. 597: 1601.
Demartine v. San Francisco, 107 Cal.
402: 881.
Demby v. Kingston, 60 Hun 294:
84.
V. Kingston, 133 N. Y. 538: 84.
Deming v. Cleveland, 22 Ohio C. C. 1 :
70, 97.
Demopolis v. Webb, 87 Ala. 659: 877,
879.
Dempsey v. Burlington, 66 la. 387:
199, 377, 380, 388, 395, 1502.
V. Donnelly, 58 111. 40: 1517.
Demules v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
44 Minn. 436: 1295, 1335.
Den V. Jersey Co., 15 How. 426:
115.
V. Morris Canal Co., 24 N. J. L.
587: 22, 26, 1164.
Deneen v. Unverzagt, 225 111. 378:
1700.
Denham v. Co. Comrs. of Bristol,
108 Mass. 202: 515, 516.
Deninger v. Recorder's Court, 145
Cal. 629: 481.
V. Recorder's Court, 145 Cal. 638:
481, 482.
Dennis v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co., 137
Ala. 649: 383, 392, 398, 406,
1595, 1612.
V. Osborn, 75 Kan. 557: 154.
Dennison v. Somerset etc. R. R. Co.,
21 Pa. Supr. Ct. 248: 156.
V. Taylor, 15 Abb. (N. C.) 439:
939.
Denniston v. Clark, 125 Mass. 216:
1489.
V. Philadelphia Co., 161 Pa. St.
41: 1251, 14.50, 1457.
V. Philadelphia Co., 1 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 599: 1245, 1251, 1448.
Denny v. Bush, 95 Ind. 315: 1407.
Denslow v. New Haven & North-
ampton Co., 16 Conn. 98: 66,
74.
Densmore v. Central la. R. R. Co.,
72 la. 182: 447.
Dent v. Smith, 76 Kan. 381: 516.
Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. 618: 946.
V. Thompson, 136 Ind. 446: 1400.
Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo. 113: 53,
178, 250, 639, 642, 659, 671, 1294.
V. Cincinnati, 161 Fed. 633: 1145.
V. Denver Cable City R. R. Co.,
22 Colo. 565: 491.
V. Denver etc. R. R. Co., 17 Col.
583: 330, 886, 887, 888, 890.
V. Jacobson, 17 Colo. 497: 876, 881,
883 885
V. Mullen, 7 Col. 345: 484.
V. Rhodes, 9 Colo. 554: 143.
V. Vernia, 8 Colo. 399: 633.
Denver City Irr. & W. Co. v. Mid-
daugh, 12 Colo. 434, 1445, 1519.
Denver etc. R. R. Co. v. Barsalou.x,
15 Colo. 290: 308, 1581.
V. Bourne, 11 Colo. 59: 639, 1302.
V. Costes, 1 Colo. App. 336: 327,
639, 643, 1299.
V. Davidson, 2 Colo. App. 443:
475.
V. Denver City Ry. Co., 2 Colo. 673 :
415, 1608.
V. Denver, S. P. & P. R. R. Co.,
17 Fed. 867: 794.
v. Domke, 11 Colo. 247: 242, 250,
639, 643, 1161, 1581.
v. Griffith, 17 Colo. 598: 1046, 1119,
1225.
V. Jackson, 6 Colo. 340: 1424.
V. Lamborn, 8 Colo. 380: 1673,
1675.
V. Lamborn, 9 Colo. 119: 1673, 1675,
1685.
v. Lockwood, 54 Kan. 586: 836.
V. Otis, 7 Colo. 198: 1443.
V. Outcalt, 2 Colo. App. 395: 475.
V. Schmitt, 11 Colo. 56: 639, 1145,
1302.
V. School District, 14 Colo. 327:
1627, 1631.
V. Stark, 16 Colo. 291: 1358.
V. Stancliff, 4 Utah 117: 1348.
V. Toohey, 15 Colo. 297: 308, 1581.
V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 34 Fed.
386: 527, 534.
Cll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Denver etc. E. K. Co. v. Wilson, 28
Colo. 6: 431, 956, 1625, 1629.
Denver Power & Irr. Co. v. Denver
etc. R. R. Co., 30 Colo. 204:
564, 684, 777, 797, 798, 799, 804,
1042, 1045.
Department of Parka, Matter of, 73
2Sr. Y. 560: 1534.
Department of Public Parks, Matter
of, 53 Hun 280: 687, 1227, 1232,
1272, 1277, 1323.
Department of Public Works, In re,
35 N. Y. Supp. 332: 1558.
Department of Public Works, Mat-
ter of, 2 Hun 374: 1670.
Department of Public Works, Mat-
ter of, 6 Hun 486: 1327.
Department of Public Works, Mat-
ter of, 53 Hun 556: 887, 888,
889, 1327.
Depew & S. W. R. R. Co., In re,
92 Hun 406: 909.
DePeyster v. Mali, 27 Hun 439: 1555.
Depriest v. Jones, 2 Va. Dec. 109:
1492.
Derby v. Framingham etc. E. R. Co.,
119 Mass. 516: 706, 919, 1053.
V. Gage, 60 Mich. 1: 1392, 1683.
Derry Tp. Road, 11 Pa. Supr. Ct.
232: 985.
Derry Tp. Road, 30 Pa. Supr. Ct.
538: 414.
DeRuttan v. Canadian No. Ry. Co.,
12 Ont. 187: 1348, 1352.
Derwell v. Bauer, 41 N. Y. App.
Div. 53: 1490.
Deshong v. New York, 74 App. Div.
234: 1488.
v. New York, 176 N. Y. 475: 1488.
Des Moines v. Laymon, 21 la. 153:
1409.
Des Moines City R. Co. v. Des
Moines, 90 la. 770: 354, 1620.
Des Moines St. R. R. Co. v. Des
Moines etc. R. R. Co., 73 Iowa
513: 301.
Dethample v. Lake Keon Nav. etc.
Co., 73 Kan. 54: 1330.
Detloe v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co.,
15 U. C. Q. B. 595: 1523.
Detmold v. Drake, 46 N. Y. 318:
1260.
Detroit v. Beecher, 75 Mich. 454: 895,
971, 1319, 1341.
V. Brennan, 93 Mich. 338: 1274.
V. Bruder, 104 Mich. 221: 1426.
V. C. H. Little Co., 141 Mich. 637:
647, 952. 1309.
V. C. H. Little Co., 146 Mich. 373:
647, 952, 1309.
V. Co. Comrs., 35 Me. 373: 1415.
Detroit v. Daly, 68 Mich. 503: 693,
1220.
V. Detroit City R. R. Co., 56 Fed.
867: 301, 1587, 1590.
V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co., 112 Mich.
304: 1290.
V. Detroit & Howell Plank Road
Co., 43 Mich. 140: 417.
V. Ft. Wayne etc. R. R. Co., 90
Mich. 646: 352.
V. Myers, 152 Mich. 666: 875.
V. Parker, 181 U. S. 399: 11, 464.
V. Robinson, 93 Mich. 426: 993.
V. Schilling, 93 Mich. 429: 940,
1558.
V. Wabash etc. R. R. Co., 63 Mich.
712: 708, 726, 1027.
Detroit Board of Education v. Mo-
ross, 151 Mich. 625: 916.
Detroit Citizens St. Ry. Co. v. Board
of Public Works, 126 Mich. 554:
308.
V. Board of Public Works, 126
Mich. 554: 732.
V. Detroit, 64 Fed. 628: 298, 301,
1502.
V. Detroit, 110 Mich. 384: 297,
301.
V. Detroit, 171 U. S. 48: 301.
Detroit City R. R. Co. v. Mills, 85
Mich. 634: 272, 1586, 1590.
Detroit etc. R. R. Co., In re, 2 Doug.
(Mich.) 367: 1088.
Detroit etc. R. R. Co. v. Campbell,
140 Mich. 384: 893, 1042, 1045,
1049, 1105.
v. Detroit, 49 Mich. 47: 966.
V. Detroit, 91 Mich. 444: 1624.
V. Detroit Suburban R. R. Co.,
103 Mich. 585: 779.
V. Ferguson, 140 Mich. 400: 893,
1042, 1045, 1049, 1105.
V. Gartner, 95 Mich. 318: 986,
1040.
V. Graham, 46 Mich. 642: 1421.
V. Hall, 133 Mich. 302: 1378, 1395.
Detroit Leather Specialty Co. v.
Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 149 Mich.
588: 428, 958, 1569.
Detroit Sharpshooters' Assn. v. High-
way Comrs., 34 Mich. 36: 706,
1033, 1420.
Detroit So. R. R. Co. v. Lawrence
County Comrs., 71 Ohio St. 454:
1438.
Detroit Western Tr. Co. v. Backus,
48 Mich. 582: 1413.
Detroit Western Transit etc. R. R.
Co. V. Crane, 50 Mich. 182 : 1358,
1360.
Dettor V. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 15
U. C. Q. B. 595: 1708.
OASES CITED.
cm
[Th« references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
DeVaraigue v. Fox, 2 Blatch. 95:
806, 1500.
Devaux v. Detroit, Harr. Ch. (Mich.)
98: 1569, 1572.
Devine v. Olney, 68 N. J. L. 284:
1389
Devlin v. New York, 131 N. Y. 123:
948, 1261, 1324, 1563.
V. Philadelphia, 206 Pa. St. 518:
634, 1718.
Devoe v. Smeltser, 86 la. 385: 400,
890.
Devon v. Cincinnati, 161 Fed. 633:
1176, 1270.
Detwiler v. Citizens Water Co., 25
Pa. Co. Ct. 481: 724.
Dewey v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.
Co., 142 N. C. 392: 488.
V. Chicago etc. Elec. Ry. Co., 184
111. 426: 720.
DeWint, Matter of, 2 Cow. 498: 1534.
DeWitt V. Duncan, 46 Cal. 342: 683,
824.
V. Ithaca, 15 Hun 568: 880.
Dexter v. Boston, 176 Mass. 247:
463.
V. Broat, 16 Barb. 337: 239.
Diamond Jo Line Steamers v. Daven-
port, 114 la. 432: 801, 804.
V. Davenport etc. Ry. Co., 115 la.
480: 1201, 1229.
Diamond Match Co. v. Ontonagon,
72 Mich. 249 : 366, 369, 878, 880,
886, 888.
Diamond Mills Emery Co. v. Phila-
delphia, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 9: 1277.
Dibsell V. Morris, 89 Tenn. 497: 53.
Dice V. Sherman, 107 Va. 424: 508,
551.
Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 13 Gray,
546: 1121, 1130, 1145, 1231.
Dickerman v. Duluth, 88 Minn. 288:
630, 634.
V. Marion, 122 111. App. 154: 881.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 72
Conn. 271: 1718.
Dickerson v. Comrs. of Highways, 18
111. App. 88: 1624.
V. Detroit, 99 Mich. 498: 876.
Dickey v. Chicago, 152 111. 468: 1018,
1025, 1513.
V. Maysville Road Co., 7 Dana 113:
414.
v. Tennison, 27 Mo. 373: 495, 498,
516, 517, 675, 1004, 1013, 1014,
Dickinson v. Amherst Water Co., 139
Mass. 210: 1436.
V. Ark. City Imp. Co., 77 Ark. 570:
881, 888.
V. Grand Junction Canal Co., 7
Exch. 282: 165.
Dickinson v. Highway Comrs., 41
Mich. 638: 1017.
V. New Haven etc. Co., 155 Mass.
16, 780.
V. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., 148
Mich. 461: 441.
V. Van Wormer, 39 Mich. 141 : 893,
894, 1017, 1420.
V. Worcester, 7 Allen 19: 234.
Dickinson Tp. Road, 23 Pa. Supr. Ct.
34: 519.
Dickson v. Baltimore & Philadelphia
R. R. Co., 3 McArthur D. C. 362 :
1550.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 71 Mo.
575: 87, 1552, 1650, 1652.
Diebold v. Ky. Traction Co., 117 Ky.
146: 241.
Diedrioh v. N. W. U. R. R. Co., 42
Wis. 248: 105, 108, 124, 128, 130,
131.
Diedricks v. Northwestern Union Co.,
33 Wis. 219: 1570.
Diehl V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 11 Misc.
14: 448, 1303, 1304.
Dierks v. Comrs. of Highways, 142
in. 197: 142, 167, 453, 1044,
1624.
Dietrich v. Murdock, 42 Mo. 279:
530, 1348.
Dietrichs v. Lincoln etc. R. R. Co.,
12 Neb. 225: 1145.
V. Lincoln etc. R. R. Co., 14 Neb.
355: 1136.
Dietrick v. Highway Comrs., 6 111.
App. 70: 1412.
Diets V. Frazier, 50 Mich. 227: 1412.
Diffendal v. Virginia M. R. Co., 86
Va. 459: 855.
Dill V. School Board, 47 N. J. Eq.
421: 180, 183, 191, 878.
Dillard v. Webb, 55 Ala. 468: 485.
Dillenbach v. Xenia, 41 Ohio St. 207 :
1553.
Dilley v. Wilkes-Barre Pass. R. R.
Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 270: 327, 642,
643, 1586.
Dillman v. Crooks, 91 Ind. 158: 1132.
Dillon V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 58
Neb. 472: 1393.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 67
Kan. 687: 524, 1519.
Dills v. Hatcher, 6 Bush (Ky.) 606:
18.
Dilworth v. State (Tex. Civ. App.)
36 S. W. 274: 473.
Dimmett v. Eskridge, 6 Munp. 308:
1506.
Dimmick v. Broadhead, 75 Pa. St.
464: 1467, 1634.
CIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Dimmick v. Council Bluffs etc. R. E.
Co., 58 la. 637: 1468.
Dinger v. New York, 101 App. Div.
202* 1338
V. New York, 182 N. Y. 542: 1338.
Dingley v. Boston, 100 Mass. 544:
569, 586, 806.
V. Gardiner, 73 Me. 63: 1522.
Dinsmore v. Auburn, 26 N. H. 356:
992.
Diuwiddie v. Roberts, 1 G. Greene
363: 1570.
Directors of Poor v. Railroad Co., 7
W. & S. 236: 697, 1135.
Disosway v. Winaut, 34 Barb. 538:
1441.
District of Columbia v. Armes, 8
App. Cas. D. C. 393: 432.
V, Atchison, 31 App. Cas. D. C.
'250: 210, 237.
V. Gray, 6 App. D. C. 314: 143.
V. Hutchinson, 1 App. Cas. D. C.
403: 1545, 1648, 1658, 1662.
V. Prospect Hill Cemetery, 5 App.
Cas. D. C. 497: 1198, 1229, 1422,
1625.
V. Robinson, 14 App. Cas. D. C.
512: 865, 1490.
District of Oakland v. Hewitt, 105
la. 663: 816.
Dix V. Shaver, 14 Hun 392: 833, 861.
Dixon T. Allemand, 136 111. App. 449:
1506.
V. Baker, 65 HI. 518: 233, 1309.
V. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 1
Mackey (D. C.) 78: 938.
V. Eaton, 68 Me. 542: 723.
V. Highway Comrs., 75 Mich. 225:
1017, 1027, 1099.
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 115
Tenn. 362: 1250.
V. Rockwell etc. E. R. Co., 75 la.
367: 1404.
Doane v. Chicago City R. R. Co.,
160 111. 22: 302.
V. Lake St. El. R. R. Co., 165 HI.
510: 266, 302, 1585, 1648, 1657.
Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 139 Cal. 179:
469.
V. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223: 469.
Dobson V. Hohenadel, 148 Pa. St.
367: 183, 878.
V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 6 Mont.
Co. L. R. 109: 1071.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 79 S. C.
429: 1635.
Doctor V. Hartman, 74 Ind. 221:
1058.
Dodd V. Consolidated Traction Co.,
57 N. J. L. 482: 349.
Dodd V. St. ]>)uis etc. R. R. Co., 108
Mo. 581: 858, 1627, 1631.
Doddridge Co. Suprs. v. Stout, 9
W. Va. 703: 1087, 1379.
Dodge V. Acworth, 32 N. H. 474:
1428.
V. Boston & P. R. R. Co., 154 Mass.
299: 842, 855.
V. Burns, 6 Wis. 514: 1520.
V. Council Bluffs, 57 la. 560: 684.
V. County Comrs. of Essex, 3 Met.
380: 435, 436, 623.
V. Omaha & South Western R. R.
Co., 20 Neb. 276: 961, 1564.
V. Pennsylvania R R. Co., 43 N.
J. Eq. 351: 366, 368, 384, 390,
398, 1595.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 45 N.
J. Eq. 366: 366, 368, 384, 390,
398, 1595.
V. Rockport, 199 Mass. 274: 1174,
1320.
Dodge Co. V. Acom, 61 Neb. 376: 577,
707, 982.
Dodson V. Cincinnati, 34 Ohio St.
276: 231, 1331.
Doe V. Georgia R. R. & B. Co., 1 Ga.
524: 22, 24, 1154, 1163, 1169,
1524.
V. Leeds etc. R. R. Co., 20 L. J.
Q. B. 486: 860, 1627, 1631.
Dolan V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 118
Wis. 362: 449.
V. Mayor etc., 62 N. Y. 472: 1393.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 74
App. Div. 434: 257, 258.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 175
N. Y. 367: 257, 258, 488.
Dolbeer v. Suneook N. W. Co., 72
N. H. 562: 110, 138.
Dole V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 70 Hun
374: 1437.
Dolfield V. Western Md. R. R. Co.,
107 Md. 584: 731.
DoUarhide v. Muscatine County, 1
G. Greene 158: 1094.
Dolores No. 2 L. & C. Co. v. Hart-
man, 17 Colo. 138: 1435, 1436.
Dolphin V. Pedley, 27 Wis. 469: 1365.
Domestic Tel. Co. v. Newark, 49 N.
J. L. 344: 358.
Dominick v. Delaware etc. R. R. Co.,
180 Pa. St. 468: 1645.
Domschke v. Met. El. R. R. Co., 74
Hun 442: 1663.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 148
N. Y. 337: 1143.
Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 90
App. Div. 380: 201, 347.
V. Keystone Gas Co.. 181 N. Y.
313: 192, 193, 201, 347.
OASES CITED.
CV
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. IT, pp. 743-1719.]
Donald v. Judge, 78 Mich. 182: 1443.
V. St. Louis etc. R. li,. Co., 52 la.
411: 936, 1545.
Donalson v. Lawson, 126 Ind. 169:
1410.
Donnaker v. State, 8 S. & M. 649:
253, 321.
Donnell v. Comrs. of York County,
87 Me. 223: 917, 1419.
Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461:
565, 566, 567, 568, 582.
Donnington Street, In re, 3 Pa. Co.
Ct. 455: 700.
Donnisthorpe v. Fremont etc. E. R.
Co., 30 Neb. 142: 425, 850, 1458.
Donora Southern R. R. Co. v. Pa.
R. R. Co., 213 Pa. St. 119: 1619.
Donovan v. Allert, 11 N. D. 289:
332, 339, 1593.
V. Royal, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 248:
83, 85, 1605.
V. Springfield, 125 Mass. 371: 1147.
Doody V. Vaughn, 7 Neb. 28: 973,
974, 1018, 1032, 1513, 1516.
Dooley v. Kansas City, 82 Mo. 444:
1634.
Dooley Block v. Salt Lake Rapid
Transit Co., 9 Utah 31: 181, 201,
273, 313, 314, 315, 1587, 1591.
Doolittle V. Branford, 59 Conn. 402;
487.
V. East Tenn. etc. R. E. Co., 80
Ga. 658: 1614.
Doon V. Natick, 171 Mass. 228: 806.
Dooner v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
142 Pa. St. 36: 449, 655.
Doorman v. Ames, 12 Minn. 451:
71, 88, 91, 94.
Dorau v. Central Pacific R. R. Co.,
24 Cal. 245: 430, 956.
Dorchester v. Wentworth, 31 N. H.
451: 1427.
Dore v. Milwaukee, 42 Wis. 108: 236,
614, 617, 631.
Doremus v. Paterson, 63 N. J. Eq.
605: 1569.
V. Paterson, 69 N. J. Eq. 188: 83,
1005, 1606, 1615.
V. Paterson, 69 N. J. Eq. 775:
83, 1605, 1606, 1615.
Dorgan v. Boston, 12 Allen 223: 1185,
1330.
V. Railroad Co., 131 N. C. 623:
1523.
Dorian v. East Brandywine etc. R.
R. Co., 46 Pa. St. 520: 1118,
1241.
Dorman v. Bates Mfg. Co., 82 Me.
438: 182, 877.
V. Jacksonville, 13 Fla. 538: 210.
Dorman v. Lewiston, 81 Me. 411:
1019, 1367.
V. State, 24 Ala. 216: 478.
Dorr V. Sharon, 198 Mass. 240: 920.
Dorrence Street, Matter of, 4 R. I.
230: 13, 1220.
Dorsett, Matter of, 92 App. Div. 523:
1319 1326
Dorsett, 'Matter of, 179 N. Y. 496 :
1319, 1326.
Dotson v. Sibert, 4 Bibb. 464: 933.
Doubet V. Independent Dist., 135 la.
95: 728.
Doucette v. Little Falls L & N. Co.,
71 Minn. 206: 99.
Doud V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co.,
76 la. 438: 1268, 1455, 1507.
Dougherty v. Brown, 91 Mo. 26: 975,
1020.
v. Wabash etc. Ry. Co., 19 Mo.
App. 419: 1472.
Doughty V. Atlantic City etc. Trac-
tion Co., 71 N. J. L. 131: 1078.
V. Hope, 3 Denio 249: 1100, 1101.
V. Somerville etc. R. R. Co., 7
N. J. Eq. 51: 913, 1159, 1625.
V. Somerville etc. R. R. Co., 21 N.
J. L. 442: 893, 898, 913, 1021,
1159, 1463.
Douglas V. Indianapolis etc. Trac-
tion Co., 37 Ind. App. 332: 1471.
V. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 14 App.
Div. 471: 1144.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 45
App. Div. 596: 1122, 1144.
Douglas Co. V. Clark, 15 Ore. 3: 515.
v. Taylor, 50 Neb. 535: 630, 1546,
15G7.
Douglass V. Boonesborough Turnpike
Co., 22 Md. 219: 422, 423.
V. Byrnes, 59 Fed. 29: 562, 679,
714, 1071.
V. Byrnes, 63 Fed. 16: 1105, 1376.
V. Leavenworth, 6 Kan. App. 96:
305.
V. Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599: 420,
1493, 1618.
V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 51 W. Va.
523, 852.
V. Rawlins, 4 Hayward, Tenn. Ill:
1091, 1094.
Dover v. Bruckenridge, 75 N. J. L.
204: 885.
V. Portsmouth Bridge, 17 N. H.
200: 96, 133, 1622.
Dover St., Matter of, 18 Johns. 506:
1670.
Dow V. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680:
480, 482.
V. Electric Co., 68 N. H. 59: 695,
740, 741.
CVl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Dowd V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co.,
76 la. 438: 1252.
Dowell V. Blue Ridge etc. Ry. Co.,
144 N. C. 721: 841.
Dowie V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 214
111. 49: 920, 963, 1071.
Downing v. Corcoran, 112 Mo. App.
645: 515, 1596.
V. Des Moines Northwestern Ry.
Co., 63 la. 177: 1463, 1464.
V. More, 12 Colo. 316: 564.
Downs V. Ansonia, 73 Conn. 33: 159,
234.
V. Huntington, 35 Conn. 588: 695.
V. Seattle & M. & R. R. Co., 5
Wash. 778: 1526.
Dows V. Johnson, 110 U. S. 223:
1114.
Doyle V. Kansas City & S. R. R. Co.,
113 Mo. 280; 1176, 1200, 1202,
1226, 1426, 1546, 1548.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 15 Daly
473: 1304.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 128 N. Y.
488: 1121, 1133.
V. Sycamore, 193 111. 501: 355.
Drady v. Des Moines etc. R. R. Co.,
57 la. 393: 620, 691, 1298, 1550,
1552.
Drainage Comrs v. Griflm, 134 111.
330: 1412.
V. Harms, 238 HI. 414: 1397.
V. Knox, 237 111. 148: 56, 57, 438,
1105, 1331.
V. People, 26 111. App. 276 : 1024.
V. Volke, 163 111. 243: 1415, 1416,
1418.
V. Volke, 59 111. App. 283: 1195,
1416, 1421.
Drainage District v. Dowd, 132 111.
App. 440: 1548.
Drain Commissioners v. . Baxter, 57
Mich. 127: 681.
Draining Certain Swamp Lands, Mat-
ter of, 5 Hun 116: 579.
Drake v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 70
Iowa 59: 147.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 63 Iowa
302: 152, 1454, 1551, 1054, 1716.
V. Clay, Sneed, 139: 522.
V. Hamilton Woolen Co., 99 Mass.
574: 81.
V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 7 Barb.
508: 244.
V. Lady Ensley Coal etc. Co., 102
Ala. 501: 71, 81.
v. Rogers, 3 Hill 604: 1410.
Draper v. Bnwn, 115 Wis. 361: 128,
137, 1607.
V. Maekey, 35 Ark. 497: 1157,
1510, 1512.
Draper v. Williams, 2 Mich. 536:
828.
Drath v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co..
15 Neb. 367. 1391, 1676.
Drebert v. Trier, 106 Ind. 510: 786.
Dreber v. Iowa etc. R. R. Co., 59
Iowa 599: 1310.
Drehman v. Stifel, 41 Mo. 184: 19.
Dresden v. Comrs., 62 Maine 365:
1415.
Dressen v. Board of Comrs., 76 Minn.
, 290: 109, 115, 577.
Dries v. St. Joseph, 98 Mo. App. 611:
351, 372, 382.
Driggs V. Phillips, 103 N. Y. 77:
1492.
Drinkhouse v. Spring Valley Water
Works, 87 Cal. 253: 965.
Driscoll V. New Haven, 75 Conn. 92:
806, 811.
V. Taunton, 160 Mass. 486: 698,
1200.
Drisncr v. Simpson, 72 Ind. 435:
990.
Driver v. St. Francis Levee Dist., 70
Ark. 358: 880.
V. Western Union R. R. Co., 32
Wis. 569: 1180, 1225, 1273, I'Ofi.
Drouberger v. Reed, 11 Ind. 420:
922, 1160, 1167.
Drouin v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 74
Vt. 343: 1479, 1520.
Drucker v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 51
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 429: 1295.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 106 N. Y.
157: 1296.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 73
Hun 102: 1301.
Druley v. Adams, 102 111. 177 : 80.
Drummond v. Eau Claire, 85 Wis.
556: 236.
Drury v. Boston, 101 Mass. 439:
1099.
V. Midland R. R. Co., 127 Mass.
571: 131, 936, 991, 1146, 1263,
1319, 1320, 1540.
Dryades St., 11 La. Ann. 458: 1389.
Dryden v. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 208
Pa. St. 316: 815, 819!
Dubach v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.
R. Co., 89 Mo. 483: 308, 312,
1581.
Dubbs V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
148 Pa. St. 66: 1483, 1646.
Dubenzer v. Philadelphia etc. R. K.
Co., (Del. Ch.) 61 Atl. 270:
1472.
Dublin etc. R. R. Co., In re, 27 L. R.
Ireland, 79: 1322.
Dublin etc. R. R. Co. v. Navan etc.
R. R. Co., 5 Irish Eq. Rep. 393:
754.
CASES CITED.
evil
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Dubois Cem. Co. v. Griffin, 165 Pa.
St. 81: 878, 882.
DuBois Traction Pass. R. R. Co. v.
Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 10 Pa.
Co. Ct. 401'k328, 765, 771.
Dubose V. Levee Comrs., 11 La. Ann.
165: 440.
Dubuque v. Benson, 23 Iowa 248 :
1490.
V. Maloney, 9 Iowa 450: 182, 355.
Dubuque etc. R. R. Co. v. Crittenden,
5 Iowa 514: 1400.
V. Diehl, 64 Iowa 635: 1505, 1556.
V. Shinn, 5 Iowa 516: 1400.
Duckworth v. Watsonville W. & L.
Co., 150 Cal. 520: 69.
Dudley v. Butler, 10 N. H. 281: 1370.
V. Cilley, 5 N. H. 558: 514.
V. Frankfort, 12 B. Mon. 610: 1492.
Duesler v. Johnstown, 24 App. Div.
N. Y. 608: 74, 1603.
Duff Private Road, 66 Pa. St. 459:
1419.
Duke V. Central N. J. Tel. Co., 53
N. J. L. 341: 980.
V. CBryan, 100 Ky. 710: 569, 575.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 71 S. C.
95: 685.
Duke of Beaufort v. Pattrick, 17
Beav. 60: 860, 1226.
Duke of Bedford v. Dawson, 20 L. E.
Eq. Cas. 353: 1524.
Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan
Bd. of Works, 5 L. R. Ex. 221 :
651.
V. Metropolitan Board of Works,
L. R. 5 H. L. 418: 128, 651.
Duke of Norfolk v. Tennant, 9 Hare
744: 1611.
Dukes V. Working, 93 Ind. 501 : 929.
Dulaney v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
100 Ky. 628: 253, 1582.
V. 2Srolan Co., 85 Tex. 225: 1183.
V. United Rys. & Elec. Co., 104
Md. 423: 292, 318.
Duluth V. Duluth Tel. Co., 84 Minn.
486: 342, 360, 362, 695.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 49 Minn.
201: 876.
Duluth Transfer Ry. Co. v. Duluth
Terminal Ry. Co., 81 Minn. 62:
1423.
Duluth & W. R. R. Co. V. West, 51
Minn. 163: 1176, 1238.
Dumass v. Francis, 15 111. 543: 1516.
Dumraer \. Jersey City, Spencer, 86:
365.
Dunbar v. Augusta, 90 Ga. 390 : 484,
485.
V. San Francisco, 1 Cal. 355: 17.
V. Wightman, 51 Mo. 432: 1460.
Duncan v. Ferguson, Wright (Ohio)
740: 1397.
V. Levee Comrs., 74 Miss. 125:
1176.
V. Louisville, 8 Bush. 98: 1531,
1681.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 94 Pa.
St. 435: 26, 640, 692.
v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 13 Phil.
68. 640.
V. Ramish, 142 Cal. 686: 1567.
Dunham v. Hyde Park, 75 111. 371:
678, 1625.
V. New Britain, 55 Conn. 378:
472.
V. Williams, 36 Barb. 136: 810,
1499.
Dunlap v. Mount Sterling, 14 111.
251: 678, 1406.
V. Pulley, 28 Iowa 469: U57, 1431,
1510, 1512.
V. Toledo etc. Ry. Co., 46 Mich.
190: 1030, 1412, 1420.
Dunlop V. York, 16 Grant 216: 948,
1563.
Dunmore v. Scranton Ry. Co., 34 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 294: 308, 732.
Dunn V. Birmingham Canal Co., 8
L. R. Q. B. 42: 1524.
V. Charleston, Harper (S. C.) 189:
495, 589.
V. Pownal, 65 Vt. 116: 916, 930.
V. Tarentum, 23 Pa. Supr. 332:
1353.
Dunning v. Mathews, 16 111. 308:
1162.
V. Township Drain Comr., 44 Mich.
518: 1028, 1420.
Dunsmore v. Central Iowa R. R. Co.,
72 Iowa 182: 449.
Dunston v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co.,
2 N. D. 46 : 863.
Dupont V. Highway Comrs., 28 Mich.
362: 1033, 1420.
V. Sanitary District, 203 111. 170:
994, 996, 1042, 1075, 1109, 1247,
1248, 1249.
Dupuis V. Chicago & North Wiscon-
sin Ry. Co., 115 111. 97: 1115,
1195, 1222, 1241, 1274.
Durand v. Ansonia, 57 Conn. 70:
210.
Durango v. Davis, 13 Colo. App. 285:
890.
Durant v. Lawrence, 1 Allen 125:
699.
Durfee v. Peoria etc. R. R. Co., 140
111. 435: 1503, 1504.
Durham v. Eno Cotton Mills, 141 N.
C. 615: 81.
CVIU
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1710.]
Durham v. Lisbon Falls Fibre Co.,
100 Maine 238 : 86.
V. Rigsbee, 140 N. C. 128: 894, 897,
991, 1042, 1053, 1057.
Durham & N. R. R. Co, v. Richmond
& D. R. R. Co., 106 N. 0. 16:
698, 912.
Durkee v. Union, 38 N. J. L. 21:
234.
Duryea v. New York, 26 Hun 120:
141.
Dusenbury v. Mutual Union Tel. Co.,
11 Abb. New Cases, 440: 339.
V. Mutual Union Telegraph Co., 64
How. Pr. 206: 1164.
V. New York etc. Traction Co., 46
App. Div. 267 : 302.
Dussau V. Municipality No. 1, 6 La.
Ann. 575: 1545, 1636.
Dutton V. Stoughton, 79 Vt. 361:
866, 870.
V. Strong, 1 Black 23 : 128, 129.
Duyekinck v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 744:
180, 181, 187, 199, 240.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 15
Daly 294: 265.
Duyne v. Knox Hat Mfg. Co., 71 N.
J. Eq. 375: 197, 887..
Dwenger v. Chicago & Grand Trunk
R. R. Co., 98 Ind. 153: 251.
Dwiggins v. Denver, 24 Ohio St. 629 :
514, 942.
Dwight V. County Comrs., 7 Cush.
533: 955.
V. County Comrs., 11 Cush. 201:
1122.
T. Hays, 150 111. 273: 71, 83, 858,
1604, 1605, 1614, 1617.
V. Springfield, 4 Gray 107: 1411.
Dwight Printing Co. v. Boston, 122
Mass. 583: 86.
Dwinel v. Veazie, 44 Maine 167: 97.
Dyche v. Weichselbaum, 9 Kan. App.
360: 351, 372.
Dychman v. New York, 5 N. Y. 434:
954, 1029, 1520.
Dye V. Midland Val. R. R. Co., 77
Kan. 488: 1557.
Dyer v. Baltimore, 140 Fed. 880:
710, 927, 1011.
V. Belfast, 88 Maine 140: 710,
1425.
V. Philadelphia, 4 Phila. 328: 1325.
V. St. Louis, 11 Mo. App. 590: 607.
V. St. Paul, 27 Minn. 457: 229,
442, 1453.
V. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2 Porter
(Ala.) 296. 3, 407, 409. 1522.
V. Wightman, 66 Pa. St. 425 : 1255.
E.
Eachus V. Los Angeles Consol. El. R.
R. Co., 103 Cal. 614: 179, 616,
629, 631, 632, 633, 635, 639, 664,
669, 671, 1122, 1309, 1548,'1549,
1552, 1656. 1660, 1718.
Eagle V. Charing Cross Ry. Co., 2
L. R. Ch. 638: 656.
Eagle White Lead Company v. Cin-
cinnati, 1 Cinn. Supr. Ct. 154:
• 220.
Eames' Petition, 16 N. H. 443: 1396.
Eames v. New England Worsted Co.,
11 Met. 570: 1345.
V. Northumberland, 44 N. H. 67 :
969, 1381.
Earhart v. Cowles, 122 Iowa 194:
846.
Earl V. Chicago, 136 111. 277 : 365.
Earle v. Commonwealth, 180 Mass.
579: 626, 1273.
V. DeHart, 12 N. J. L. 280 : 145.
V. Poat, 63 S. C. 439 : 865.
Earll V. Chicago, 136 111. 539: 873,
874, 877.
Earl of Sandwich v. Great Northern
Ry. Co., L. R. 10 Ch. Div. 707:
75, 77.
Earl St. Germans v. Crystal Palace
Ry. Co., L. R. 11 Eq. Cas. 568:
1537.
Earlywine v. Topeka etc. R. R. Co.,
43 Kan. 746: 1480.
Eason v. Perkins, 2 Dev. Eq. 38:
484.
Eastebrooks v. Peterborough & Shir-
ley R. R. Co., 12 Cush. 224:
1639.
East Ala. R. R. Co. v. Doe, 114 U.
S. 340: 1479, 1499.
East Branch etc. Imp. Co. v. Lumber
Co., 69 ilich. 207: 725.
East Brandywine etc. R. R. Co. v.
Ranck, 78 Pa. St. 454: 1133,
1187.
East Canada Creek Elec. L. & P. Co.,
Matter of, 49 Misc. 99: 536.
East Deer Road, In re, 155 Pa. 53:
1381.
East Donegal Tp. Road, In re, 90 Pa.
St. 190: 1094.
East End St. R. R. Co. v. Doyle, 88
Tenn. 747 : 200, 240, 270.
Eastern Cen. Co. v. Louisville (Ky.)
15 S. W. 1117: 881.
Eastern Counties R. R. Co. v.
Hawkes, 24 L. J. Ch. 601: 851.
Eastern R. R. Co. v. Boston & Jlaine
R. R. Co., Ill Mass. 125: 088,
743, 754, 1263.
Eastern Tex. R. R. Co. v. Eddings, 30
Tex. Civ. App. 170: 1140.
CASES CITED.
CIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Eastern Tex. E,. R. Co. v. Scurbock,
97 Tex. 305: 1127, 1297, 1300.
Eastern Wis. Ry. & Lt. Co., In re,
127 Wis. 641: 769.
Eastern Wis. Ry. & Lt. Co. v. Hack-
ett, 135 Wis. 464: 304.
V. Winnebago Traction Co., 126
Wis. 179: 303.
East etc. R. R. Co. v. East Tenn. etc.
R. R. Co., 75 Ala. 275: 1576,
1609.
East Georgia & F. R. R. Co. v. King,
91 Ga. 519: 933, 1545.
East Grand St., In re, 121 Pa. St.
596: 1376.
Easthampton v. County Comrs., 154
Mass. 424: 786, 797, 798.
East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge
Co., 16 Conn. 149: 412.
V. Hartford Bridge Co., 17 Conn.
79: 412.
V. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How.
511: 412.
East Haven v. Hemingway, 7 Conn.
186: 103.
East Hoquaim B. & L. Co. v. Neeson,
20 Wash. 142: 113.
East Jersey Water Co. v. Bigelow,
60 N. J. L. 201 : 74.
East Line R. R. Co. v. Garrett, 52
Tex. 133: 850.
East Louisiana R. R. Co. v. New Or-
leans, 46 La. Ann. 526: 303.
Eastman v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 44
N. H. 143: 22, 91.
V. St. Anthony Falls W. P. Co.,
43 Minn. 60: 837.
V. Stowe, 37 Maine 86: 1116.
East Montpelier v. Wheelock, 70 Vt.
391: 460.
Easton, Appeal of, 47 Pa. St. 255:
1540, 1541.
Easton Borough v. Rinek, 116 Pa. St.
1: 1354.
East 161st Street, Matter of, 52 Misc.
596: 750.
East 187th St., Matter of, 78 App.
Div. 355: 610.
Easton etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 37
N. J. L. 222: 1322.
Easton etc. R. R. Co. v. Central R. E.
Co., 52 N. J. L. 267: 119.
Easton Road Case, 3 Rawie 195:
700.
East Penn. R. R. Co. v. Hiester, 40
Pa. St. 53: 1134, 1139, 1310.
V. Holtenstine, 47 Pa. St. 28: 1187.
V. Schollenberger, 54 Pa. St. 144:
860.
East Penn. Tp. Road, 2 Pa. Co. 453 :
1093, 1094.
East River Bridge etc.. Matter of, 26
Hun 490 : 254, 260.
East River Bridge & Rapid Transit
Co., Matter of, 10 Abb. New
Cases, 245: 260.
East River Gas Co., Matter of, 119
App. Div. 350: 1231.
East River Gas Co., Matter of, 190
N. Y. 528: 1231.
East Rome v. Lloyd, 124 Ga. 852:
629, 634, 1306, 1718.
East Saginaw etc. R. R. Co. v. Ben-
ham, 28 Mich. 459: 1028, 1369.
East St. Louis v. Lockhead, 7 111.
App. 83: 646.
V. Murphy, 89 111. App. 22: 629.
V. O'Flvnn, 119 HI. 200: 363, 371,
383, 390, 392, 398.
v. O'Flvnn, 19 111. App. 64: 53,
646, 1122.
V. St. .John, 47 111. 463 : 725.
V. Wiggins Ferry Co., 11 111. App.
254: 1309.
East St. Louis Connecting Ry. Co. v.
East St. Louis Union Ry. Co.,
108 111. 265: 409, '764, 1610.
East St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Bell-
ville City R. R. Co., 159 HI. 544:
1047.
V. Eisentraut, 134 111. 96: 88, 144.
V. Nugent, 147 111. 254: 864.
East St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Louisville
etc. R. R. Co., 149 Fed. 159 : 328,
766.
East St. Louis Union R. R. Co. v.
East St. Louis, 39 111. App. 398 :
303.
East Tennessee etc. R. R. Co. v.
Boardman, 96 Ga. 356.
v. Davis, 91 Ala. 615: 859.
V. Love, 3 Head 63: 942, 1180.
v. Sellers, 85 Ga. 853: 1478, 1619.
V. Telford's Exrs., 89 Tenn. 293 :
425, 1157, 1472, 1477, 1478, 1479,
1707, 1708.
East Tenn. Tel. Co. v. Anderson Co.
Tel Co., 115 Ky. 488: 342, 359,
418.
V. Russellville, 106 Ky. 667 : 342.
East & West R. R. Co. v. East Tenn
etc. R. R. Co., 75 Ala. 275 : 758.
East and West 111. R. R. Co. v. Mil-
ler, 201 111. 413: 1379.
East & West India Docks and Birm-
ingham Junction Ry. Co. v. Gatt-
ke, 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 217: 656.
East & West India Docks etc. Co. v.
V. Gattke, 3 McN. & G. 155 : 628,
1611.
East Whiteland Tp. Road, 30 Pa.
Supr. Qt. 211: 514.
ex
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Eaton V. Boston & Maine R. R. Co.,
51 N. H. 504: 53, 60,, 166, 436,
502, 848, 849, 1356, 1451, 1452.
V. European & North American Ry.
Co., 59 Me. 520: 435, 1455, 1506,
1636.
V. Framingham, 6 Gush. 245: 1401.
iSberhart v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
70 111. 347: 655, 1195.
Ebert v. Schuylkill Riv. E. S. R. R.
Co., 151: 952.
E. B. W. & M. Co., Matter of, 96 N.
Y. 42: 590.
Eckart v. Irons, 128 III. 568: 884.
Eckerson v. Haverstraw, 6 App. Div.
102: 888.
Economic P. & C. Co. v. Buffalo, 59
Misc. 571: 358, 361.
Ecorse Tp. v. Jackson etc. Ry. Co.,
153 Mich. 393: 242, 277, 1622.
Eddings v. Seabrook, 12 Rich. 504:
1272, 1317.
Eddleman v. Union Co. Traction & P.
Co., 217 111. 409 : 525, 896, 1061,
1066, 1115.
Eddy V. Hinnant, 82 Tex. 354: 855.
V. People, 15 111. 386: 1007, 1014.
Eden v. Comrs., 84 Maine 52: 1409.
Edenville v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
77 Iowa 69 : 1643.
Edgecumbe v. Burlington, 46 Vt. 218 :
543.
Edgerton v. Green Cove Springs, 19
Fla. 140: 13.
V. HuflF, 26 Ind. 35: 806, 1495.
Edgewood R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 79 Pa.
St. 257: 529, 563.
Edgewood Water Co. v. Troy Water
Co., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 476: 731, 783,
918, 1625.
Edinborough etc. R. R. Co. v. Leven,
1 McQueen 284: 1566, 1700.
Edison Elec. 111. Co. v. Hooper, 85
Md. 110: 346.
Edmison v. Lowry, 3 S. D. 77: 181.
Edmonds v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535:
1276, 1277, 1319, 1683.
Edmondson v. Moberly, 98 Mo. 523:
84, 85, 453.
V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., Ill
Pa. St. 316: 671.
Ednia v. Short, 129 Mo. 354: 1405.
Edsall V. Jersey Shore, 220 Pa. St.
591: 1307.
Edwards v. Bruorton, 184 Mass. 529:
10, 463.
V. Charlotte etc. R. R. Co., 39 S.
C. 472: 148, 158.
V. Harger, 180 111. 99: 161.
V. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 82 Mo.
App. 96: 846, 847, 1451, 1456.
Edwards v. Pittsburg Junction R. R.
Co., 215 Pa. St. 597: 302, 1583.
V. Stonington Cemetery Associa-
tion, 20 Conn. 466: 542.
Edwards House Co. v. Jackson, 91
Miss. 429: 464.
Edwardsville v. Barnsback, 66 111.
App. 381: 882, 886.
Edwardsville R. R. Co. v. Sawyer, 92
111. 377: 315, 1630.
Eel River & Eureka R. R. Co. v.
Field, 67 Cal. 429 : 730.
Eels V. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 65
Hun 516: 1626.
V. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 143 N. Y.
133: 172, 174, 175, 204, 331, 339,
1630.
V. Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co., 49 W.
Va. 65: 87, 1639, 1651, 1652.
Effingham v. Surrels, 77 111. App.
460: 154.
Egan V. Hart, 45 La. Ann. 1358 : 132,
135, 440.
Egbert v. Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co.,
6 Ind. App. 350: 319, 847, 1451,
1452, 1453.
Egerer v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
3 App. Div. 157: 148.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
130 N. Y. 108: 180, 255, 259,
324, 378.
Eggleston v. New York & Harlem R.
R. Co., 35 Barb. 162: 857.
Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo.
495: 583, 584, 586.
Egypt Street, 2 Grant's Cases, 455:
784.
Ehmen v. Gothenburg, 50 Neb. 715:
875.
Ehret v. Camden etc. Ry. Co., 60 N.
J. Eq. 246: 274.
V. Camden etc. R. R. Co., 61 N. J.
Eq. 171 : 272, 274, 282.
V. Schuylkill Bridge E. S. R. R. Co.,
151 Pa. St. 158: 964, 1257, 1259,
1274, 1339, 1546, 1547.
Ehrsam, Matter of, 37 N. Y. App.
Div. 272: 609, 610.
Eichels v. Evansville St. Ry. Co., 78
Ind. 261: 268.
Eidemiller v. Wyandotte City, 2 Dil-
lon 376: 1160, 1571, 1574.
Eighth School District v. Copeland,
2 Gray 414: 1495, 1634.
Eisenbach v. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 236:
117, 119, 136.
Eisendrath v. Chicago, 192 111. 320:
366, 881.
Elam, Ex parte, 6 Colo. App. 233:
162, 471.
CASES CITED.
CXI
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 7i3-lV19.]
Elbe V. State, 77 Kan. 179: 1491,
1623.
Elbert Co. v. Swift, 2 Ga. App. 47:
G58, 670.
Elberton v. Adams, 130 Ga. 501:
1080, 1623.
V. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 749: 70, 73, 893,
1603, 1623.
V. Pearle Cotton Mills, 123 Ga. 1 :
73, 1603.
Elder v. Bemis, 2 Met. 599 : 1490.
Eldert v. Long Island Elec. R. R. Co.,
28 App. Div. N. Y. 451: 305,
1587.
El Dorado v. Ritchie Grocery Co., 84
Ark. 52 : 1492.
Eldorado etc. R. R. Co. v. Everett,
225 111. 529: 1147, 1195, 1215.
V. Sims, 228 111. 9: 1268, 1269,
1331, 1481.
Eldredge v. County Comrs., 185 Mass.
186: 793, 798, 799.
Eldridge v. Binghamton, 42 Hun 202 :
1196, 1500.
V. Binghamton, 120 N. Y. 309: 806,
807, 864, 867, 1196, 1497, 1500.
V. Collins, 75 Neb. 65: 865.
V. Rochester City etc. R. R. Co., 54
Hun 194: 830, 1355, 1580, 1592.
V. Smith, 34 Vt. 484: 524, 525,
526.
V. Trezevant, 160 U. S. 452: 440.
Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U. S. 489:
740, 741, 695, 1433.
Electric Construction Co. v. Heffer-
man, 12 N. Y. Supp. 336 : 345.
Elevated R. R. Co., Matter of, 18 Hun
378: 921.
Eleventh Ave. Opening, Matter of, 81
N. Y. 436: 368.
Elfelt V. Stillwater St. R. R. Co., 53
Minn. 68: 277.
Elgin V. Eaton, 83 111. 535: 629, 632.
V. Hoag, 25 111. App. 650: 144.
V. Kimball, 90 111. 356: 154, 233.
V. McCallum, 23 111. App. 186 : 629,
1306, 1308.
V. Welch, 16 111. App. 483: 233.
V. Welch, 23 111. App. 185: 233.
Elgin etc. R. R. Co. v. Fletcher, 128
111. 619: 1246, 1249.
Elgin Hydraulic Co. v. Elgin, 74 111.
433: 142.
Eliot V. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 10 Gush.
191: 74.
Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co. v. Ash-
land & C. St. R. R. Co., 96 Ky.
347: 328, 765, 769.
V. Cattlesburg Water Co., 110 Ky.
175: 996, 1176, 1243, 1409, 1519.
Eliabethtown etc. R. R. Co. v.
Coombs, 10 Bush. 382; 178, 249,
252, 448, 1295, 1302, 1445, 1551,
1648, 1657.
V-. Helm's Heirs, 8 Bush 681 : 935,
1182, 1231.
v. Thompson, 79 Ky. 52: 245, 252,
1392
v. Tierney, 11 Ky. L. R. 526: 310.
v. Walton, 9 Ky. L. R. 243: 1294.
Elkhart v. Simonton, 69 Ind. 126:
1570.
V. Simonton, 71 Ind. 7: 1373, 1669.
Elkins Elec. Co. v. Western Md. R.
R. Co., 163 Fed. 724: 772.
Elk Road, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 45: 1383.
Ellicottville etc. Plank Road Co. v.
Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 20 Barb,
644: 423.
EUinger v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,
112 Mo. 525: 131, 132.
EUinghouse v. Taylor, 19 Mont. 462:
587.
Ellington v. Bennett, 59 Ga. 286: 144,
1229.
Elliot V. Lewis, 1 A. K. Marsh. 514:
1091, 1094.
V. Fair Haven & Westville R. R.
Co., 32 Conn. 579: 268.
v. Ferguson, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 40:
454, 1613, 1614.
V. Oil City, 129 Pa. St. 570: 155.
Elliott's Appeal, 154 Pa. St. 541:
1387.
Ellis v. Carpenter, 89 Iowa 521 : 1405,
1406.
V. Iowa City, 29 Iowa 229: 211,
235.
V. St. Louis R. R. Co., 131 Mo.
App. 395: 351, 372.
Ells V. Pacific R. R. Co., 51 Mo. 200:
893, 894, 1516, 1626.
Ellsworth V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
91 Iowa 386: 1030, 1224, 1247.
V. Chickasaw County, 40 Iowa 571 :
377, 380, 387, 388.
V. Lord, 40 Minn. 389: 881, 892.
Elmendorf v. New York, 25 Wend.
693: 1416.
El Paso V. Coffin, 40 Tex. Civ. App.
54: 1176, 1225, 1229, 1330.
Elser v. Gross Point, 223 111. 230
156, 1606.
Elsom v. Seaburg, 11 Ohio St. 265
1541.
Elster V. Springfield, 49 Ohio St. 82
161, 335, 354.
Elting Woolen Co. v. Williams, 36
Conn. 310: 899.
Ehvell V. Eastfrn R. R. Co., 124 Mass.
160: 1535.
CXll
OASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. 11, pp. 743-1719.]
Elwood V. Rochester, 43 Hun 102:
915.
Ely V. Board of Comra., 112 Ind. 361 :
973.
V. Parsons, 55 Conn. 83: 865, 867.
V. Rochester, 26 Barb. 133: 236,
1602.
Elyton Land Co. v. South & North
Ala. R. R. Co., 95 Ala. 631:
1472
Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511: 495,
496, 589, 816, 1520.
V. Conner, 2 Sandf. 89: 495, 589,
1520.
Emerson v. Commonwealth, 108 Pa.
St. Ill: 413, 416.
V. Reading, 14 Vt. 279 : 1073.
V. Western Union R. R. Co., 75 111.
176: 696, 1206, 1346.
Emery v. Boston Terminal Co., 178
Mass. 172: 1073, 1135, 1257,
1260.
V. San Francisco Gas Co., 28 Cal.
345: 13.
Emigrant Ditch Co. v. Webber, 108
Cal. 88: 1053.
Emigrant Mission Com. v. Brooklyn
R. R. Co., 20 App. Div. 596: 447.
V. Brooklyn R. R. Co., 165 N. Y.
604: 447.
Emmons v. Minneapolis & St. Louis
Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 503: 487.
V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 40
Minn. 133: 1122.
Empire City Bank, Matter of, 18 N.
Y. 199: 1013.
Empire City Subway Co. v. Broadway
& S. A. R. R. Co., 87 Hun 279:
338, 409.
Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kan. 588: 70,
74, 77, 1603.
Emry v. Raleigh etc. R. R. Co., 102
N. C. 209: 91, 866, 870, 1454,
1651, 1653, 1716.
Enders v. Friday, 78 Neb. 510: 370.
Bndicott, Petitioner, 24 Pick. 339:
1430.
Enfield Mfg. Co. v. Ward, 190 Mass.
314: 838, 1504.
Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Connecticut
River Co., 7 Conn. 28: 1173.
V. Hartford etc. R. R. Co., 17 Conn.
63: 407, 413, 524, 682, 1608.
V. Hartford etc. R. R. Co., 17 Conn.
454: 682, 781, 788.
Engle V. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 : 868.
Bnglehardt v. Brooklyn, 3 Miscl. 30:
1558, 1561.
Englewood Connecting Ry. Co. v. Chi-
cago & Eastern 111. R. R. Co.,
117 111. 611: 954.
Englewood Connecting Ry. Co. v.
Chicago & Eastern 111. R. R. Co.,
17 111. App. 141 : 954.
English V. Danville, 170 111. 131 : 357,
678.
V. Danville, 69 111. App. 288 : 357.
V. New Haven & Northampton Co.,
32 Conn. 240: 487.
Ennis v. Gilder, 32 Tex. Civ. App.
351: 92.
Eno V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
56 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 95 : 1526.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 56
N. Y. Supr. 313: 1555, 1584,
1615.
Enoch V. Spokane Falls & N. R. R.
Co., 6 Wash. 393 : 957.
Enochs V. Philadelphia, 2 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 83: 647.
Enos V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 78
Iowa 28: 620.
Enterprise v. Smith, 62 Kan. 815:
739.
Epler V. Niman, 5 Ind. 459: 1081.
Epling V. Dickson, 170 111. 329 : 1324,
1435.
Epps V. Cralle, 1 Mimiford 258 : 1078,
1359.
Erickson v. Cass Co., 11 N. D. 494:
579.
V. Crookston W. W. P. & L. Co.,
100 Minn. 481 : 162, 163.
V. Crookston W. W. P. & L. Co.,
105 Minn. 182: 162, 163.
Erie etc. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 57 Misc.
164: 895, 1053.
V. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287: 1499,
1502.
V. Johnson, 101 Pa. St. 555: 852.
V. Welch, 1 App. Div. 140: 976.
Erie R. R. Co. v. Delaware etc. R. R.
Co., 21 N. J. Eq. 283: 1579, 1616.
V. Paterson, 74 N. J. L. 738: 914.
V. Steward, 59 App. Div. 187 : 1395.
V. Steward, 61 App. Div. 480: 709,
718, 728, 920, 1042, 1046.
v. Steward, 170 N. Y. 172: 679,
709, 718, 728, 920, 1042, 1046.
V. Welsh, 1 App. Div. 140 : 1043.
V. Youngstown, 5 Ohio 0. C. 332:
914.
Erkenbrecher v. Cincinnati, 2 Cinn.
Sup. Ct. 412: 78.
Erlich v. Mason City etc. R. R. Co.,
75 Iowa 443: 1315.
Ermentrout v. Stitzel, 170 Pa. St.
540: 366.
Erskine v. Boston, 14 Gray 216:
1717.
Erwin v. Fulk, 94 Ind. 235: 1362,
1571, 1573.
CASES CITED.
CXlll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Esch V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 72
Wis. 229: 1143, 1228, 1231, 1272.
Eshleman v. Martie Tp., 152 Pa. St.
liS: 866, 1651, 1656.
Eslich V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co.,
73 Iowa 443: 307, 324, 1293.
Esaery v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co.,
21 Ontario 224: 937, 1560.
Essex V. Local Board, L. R. 14 H. L.
153: 447, 451, 453, 1244, 1252,
1333.
V. Local Board, 14 Q. B. D. 753
447, 451, 453.
V. Local Board, 17 Q. B. D. 447
447.
Essex Avenue, In re, 121 Mo. 98
1380.
Essex Co. V. County Comrs., 7 Gray
450: 1711.
Essexville v. Emery, 90 Mich. 183:
1492.
Estabrooks v. Peterborough etc. R. R.
Co., 12 Cush. 224: 87, 88, 91,
461.
Estes V, Macon, 103 Ga. 780: 1309.
Ethel St., Matter of, 3 Miscl. 403:
183. 1098.
Etter V. Edwards, 4 Watts 63: 1350.
Ettlinger v. Weil, 184 N. Y. 179:
1151.
Eubank v. Pence, 5 Litt. 338: 1358,
1359.
Eufaula v. Simmons, 86 Ala. 515:
154, 1638.
Eureka v. Armstrong, 83 Cal. 623:
877, 890.
V. Croghan, 81 Cal. 524: 877, 888.
V. Eay, 107 Cal. 166: 879.
V. Gates, 137 Cal. 89: 877, 887.
Eureka Basin Warehouse & Mfg. Co.,
Matter of, 96 N. Y. 42 : 495, 505.
Eustis V. Milton St. Ry. Co., 183
Mass. 586: 272, 334.
Evans v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co., 6
Mon. Supr. Ct. 493: 1456.
V. Boston, 190 Mass. 525: 1029,
1519.
V. Blankenship, 4 Ariz. 307: 871,
875, 877, 891.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 86 Wis.
597: 247, 306, 316.
V. Foss, 194 Mass. 523: 429.
V. Gulf etc. R. R. Co. (Tex. Civ.
App.) 28 S. W. 903: 858.
V. Haefner, 29 Mo. 141: 1480.
V. James, 4 Wis. 408: 1674.
v. Letitz, 162 Pa. St. 561: 882.
V. McLueas, 15 S. C. 67 : 1475.
V. Missouri, Iowa & Neb. Ry. Co.,
64 Mo. 453: 1535, 1536, 1578.
Evans v. New Auditorium Pier Co.,
63 N. J. Eq. 674: 117.
V. New Auditorium Pier Co., 67
N. J. Eq. 315: 117.
V. Santana Live Stock & Land Co.,
81 Tex. 622: 1027, 1577.
V. Savannah etc. R. R. Co., 90 Ala.
54: 1663.
V. Sharkey Co., 89 Miss. 302 : 1399.
V. Shields, 3 Head 70: 1407, 1423.
V. Welch, 29 Colo. 355: 884.
V. West, 138 Ind. 621: 1510.
Evanston v. Clark, 77 111. App. 234;
1675.
V. O'Leary, 70 111. App. 124: 1468.
Evansville v. Decker, 84 Ind. 325:
233.
Evansville etc. R. R. Co. v. Charlton,
6 Ind. App. 56: 1305, 1355.
V. Cochran, 10 Ind. 560: 1109, 1119.
V. Dick, 9 Ind. 433: 66, 86, 88.
v. Evansville, 15 Ind. 395: 1518.
V. Fitzpatrick, 10 Ind. 120: 1123,
1128, 1205, 1316, 1391.
V. Grady, 6 Bush 144: 1159, 1160,
1636.
V. Miller, 30 Ind. 209: 922, 927,
1112, 1392.
V. Nye, 113 Ind. 223: 858, 1560.
V. State, 149 Ind. 276: 1288.
V. Stringer, 10 Ind. 551: 1123,
1205, 1316, 1391.
V. Swift, 128 Ind. 34: 931.
V. Terre Haute, 161 Ind. 26: 1395,
1396.
Evansville etc. Traction Co. v. Hen-
derson Bridge Co., 141 Fed. 51:
685, 686.
Evansville Traction Co. v. Hender-
son Bridge Co., 134 Fed. 973:
701.
Everett v. Cedar Rapids etc. R. R.
Co., 28 Iowa 417: 1032, 1033,
1420.
v. Council Bluffs, 46 Iowa 66 : 349,
1487, 1594.
v. Fall River, 189 Mass. 513: 1073.
V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 59 Iowa
243: 1118, 1139, 1142, 1227,
1236.
Everett Water Co. v. Powers, 34
Wash. 143: 1619.
Evergreen Cemetery Association v.
New Haven, 43 Conn. 234: 542.
V. Beecher, 53 Conn. 551: 543, 963,
989.
Evers v. Vreeland, 50 N. J. L. 380:
1387.
Everse v. North-West R. R. Co., 2
Montreal Supr. Ct. 290: 1570.
CXLV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. 1, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.)
Eversfleld v. Mid-Sussex Ry. Co., 3
DeG. & J. 286: 715, 813, 1624.
Eward v. Lawrenceburgh etc. R. R.
Co., 7 Ind. 711: 708, 1524.
Ewell V. Daggs, 108 U. S. 148: 694.
Ewing V. Alabama & V. R. R. Co., 68
Miss. 551: 524, 714, 731.
V. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413: 1412.
Ewings Mill Road, 32 Pa. St. 282:
1384.
Exchange Alley, Matter of, 4 La.
Ann. 4: 1035.
F.
Fagan v. Chicago, 84 111. 227: 424,
956.
Fairbanks v. Commonwealth, 183
Mass. 373: 626, 922, 1273.
V. Fitchburg, 110 Mass. 224: 1240.
V. Rockingham, 73 Vt. 124: 614,
1641.
V. Rockingham, 75 Vt. 221: 614,
618, 1641.
Fairbault v. Hulett, 10 Minn. 30:
976.
Fairbury Brick Co. v. Chicago etc.
Ry. Co., 79 Neb. 854: 91.
Fairbury Union Agricultural Board
V. Holly, 169 111. 9: 890.
Fairchild v. St. Louis, 97 Mo. 85:
648, 665.
v. St. Paul, 46 Minn. 540: 673, 675,
806, 809, 814, 1021, 1027, 1057,
1067, 1489.
Faires v. San Antonio etc. R. R. Co.,
80 Tex. 43: 846, 848, 1335.
Fairfield's Appeal, 57 Conn. 167: 487.
Fair Haven etc. R. R. Co. v. New
Haven, 203 U. S. 379: 491.
Fairmonut Park, In re, 9 Phila. 553:
1187.
Faler v. Easthampton, 162 Mass.
422: 1236, 1263.
Falker v. New York, West Shore &
Buffalo Ry. Co., 17 Abb. New
Cas. 279: 1295, 1581.
Falter v. Packard, 219 111. 356: 865,
868.
Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164
U. S. 112: 587, 595, 1432.
Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old
Colony & Fall River R. R. Co.,
5 Allen 221: 712, 727.
Fall River Print Works v. Fall River,
110 Mass. 428: 1147, 1148.
Fall River R. R. Co. v. Chase, 125
Mass. 483: 1408, 1410.
Falls V. Belfast etc. R. R. Co., 12 I.
C. L. R. 233: 652.
Fallsburg P. & Mfg. Co. v. Alexander,
101 Va. 98: 495, 508, 536, 591,
592, 593.
Falls Mfg. Co. V. Oconto Riv. Imp.
Co., 87 Wis. 134: 81, 99, 113.
Falmouth v. Falmouth Water Co.,
180 Mass. 325 : 1266.
rancher v. Coffin, 41 Ind. App. 489:
980.
Fanning v. Gilliland, 37 Ore. 369:
498, 513, 678, 1057.
V. Gregoire, 16 How. 524: 411.
V. Osborne & Co., 34 Hun 121:
243, 301, 317, 1580, 1581.
y. Osborne, 102 N. Y. 441: 317.
Fargo V. Browning, 45 App. Div. 507 :
1556.
Farlow, Re, 2 Barn. & Adol. 341:
1257.
Farist Steel Co. v. Bridgeport, 60
Conn. 278: 115, 136, 540, 543,
732, 1070.
Fanner v. Cedar Rapids, 116 Iowa
322: 602, 603, 616.
V. Hooksett, 28 N. H. 244 : 1382.
V. Lewis, 1 Bush (Ky.) 66: 18.
V. McDonald, 59 Ga. 509: 858.
V. Myles, 106 La. 333 : 172.
V. Pauley, 50 Ind. 583: 983.
V. Stillwater Water Co., 9S Minn.
119: 1237, 1240, 1339.
V. Waterloo & City R. R. Co., L. R.
(1895) 1 Ch. D. 527: 438.
Farmers' Co-Op. Mfg. Co. v. Albe-
marle etc. R. R. Co., 117 N. C.
579: 96, 133.
Farmers' Market Co. v. Philadelphia
R. R. Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 25 : 507.
Farmer's Turnpike v. Coventry, 10
Johns. 389: 726.
Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter, 9
Wyo. 110: 70.
Farnandis v. Great Northern Ry. Co.,
41 Wash. 486: 436, 443, 456.
Farneman v. Mt. Pleasant Cem. Ass.,
135 Ind. 344: 989, 1056, 1176.
Parnham v. Delaware & Hudson
Canal Co., 61 Pa. St. 265: 1523.
Farnsworth v. Boston, 126 Mass. 1:
484, 948, 949.
v. Lime Rock R. R. Co.. 83 Maine
440: 500, 533, 894, 991.
V. Rockland, 83 Maine 508: 1486,
1489.
Farnum v. Blackstone Canal Co., 1
Sumner 46: 702.
V. Haverhill etc. St. Ry. Co., 178
Mass. 300: 720.
Farnum's Petition, 51 N. H. 376:
690.
Farrand v. Clarke, 63 Minn. 181:
1534.
V. Marshall, 19 Barb. 380: 440,
441.
CASES CITED.
exv
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Farrant v. First Division of St. Paul
& Pac. Ry. Co., 13 Minn. 311:
319.
Farrar v. Midland Elec. Ry. Co., 101
Mo. App. 140: 307, 323, 325.
V. Midland Elec. Ry. Co., 162 Mo.
469: 630, 634.
Farrell v. Manhattan El. R. R. Co.,
43 App. Div. N. Y. 143: 1664.
V. St. Paul, 62 Minn. 271: 229,
236.
Farrell Road, 35 Pa. Supr. Ct. 86:
1101.
Farrington v. Blish, 14 Me. 423: 976.
V. Mt. Veraon, 51 App. Dlv. 250:
609, 616.
V. Mt. Vernon, 166 N. Y. 233: 609,
616.
V. New York, 83 Hun 124: 1511,
1512.
Farwell v. Boston, 180 Mass. 433:
1218, 1219.
V. Boston, 192 Mass. 15: 1219.
V. Cambridge, 11 Gray 413: 1185,
1216.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 52 Neb.
614: 1117, 1232.
Faulkner v. Somerset & Dorset Ry.
Co., 42 L. J. Ch. 851: 823.
Faulkner, Town of, 56 N. H. 255:
1711.
Faust V. Huntsville, 83 Ala. 279:
1411.
V. Passenger Ry. Co., 3 Phil. 164:
243, 245, 255.
Faville v. Greene, 12 Wis. 11: 990.
Fay V. Salem & Danvers Aqueduct
Co., Ill Mass. 27: 109, 117, 138.
Fayetteville etc. R. R. Co. v. Combs,
51 Ark. 324: 1122, 1125, 1200,
1201, 1243, 1311, 1378, 1476.
Fayetteville St. Ry. Co. v. Aberdeen
etc. R. R. Co., 142 N. C. 423:
900, 904, 906, 1619.
V. Hunt, 51 Ark. 330: 1208, 1213.
Fazendel v. Morgan, 31 La. Ann. 549:
860, 861.
Fearing v. Irwin, 55 N. Y. 486: 363,
384, 388.
Fehr v. Schuylkill Navigation Co., 69
Pa. St. 161: 1523.
Feiber v. Coyle, 3 Watts 407: 1493.
Feiten v. Milwaukee, 47 Wis. 494:
1697, 1698.
Felch v. Gilman, 22 Vt. 38: 1520.
Fellows V. New Haven, 44 Conn. 240:
212, 213, 229, 231.
Felt V. Vicksburg etc. R. R. Co., 46
La. Ann. 549: 159, 160.
Fenelon's Petition, 7 Pa. St. 173:
Fenn, Matter of, 128 N. Y. 10: 1397.
Fenter v. Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 29
111. App. 250: 90, 1638.
Ferebee v. Lake Drummond C. & W.
Co., 130 N. C. 745: 1454, 1653.
Fereday v. Mankedick, 172 Pa. St.
535: 366.
Feree v. Meily, 3 Yeats 153: 1359.
Ferguson's Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 426:
183, 878, 1595.
Ferguson v. Covington etc. Bridge
Co., 108 Ky. 662: 179, 253, 310,
1657, 1717.
V. Firmenlch Mfg. Co., 77 la. 576:
69, 81, 1454, 1650, 1654.
V. Loar, 5 Bush (Ky.) 689: 19.
V. London, Brighton & South Coast
Ry. Co., 33 Beav. 103: 823.
V. London, Brighton & South Coast
Ry. Co., 3 DeG. J. & S. 653:
823.
Fernald v. Boston, 12 Cush. 574: 605,
619, 1356.
V. Palmer, 83 Me. 244: 520, 1528.
Fernold v. Knox Woolen Co., 82 Me.
48: 109, 137.
Ferrand v. Bradford, 21 Beav. 412:
1603.
v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 21 Wis.
435: 1123.
Ferrar v. Comrs., 4 L. R. Exch. 227:
733.
Ferree v. Sixth Ward School Dis-
trict, 76 Pa. St. 376: 824.
Ferrenbach v. Turner, 86 Mo. 410:
1488.
Ferris v. Bramble, 5 Ohio St. 109:
515, 1033, 1165, 1170.
V. Ward, 9 111. 499: 1357, 1521.
Ferrus v. Stafford etc. R. R. Co.,
41 L. J. Eq. 362: 1443.
Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.
S. 659: 14, 736.
Fesser v. Achenbach, 29 111. App.
373: 377, 387, 390.
Fessler v. Union, 67 N. J. Eq. 14:
420, 872, 875, 878, 1494, 1618.
Feuerstein v. Jackson, 8 Ohio C. C.
396: 236.
Fevee v. Meily, 3 Yates 153: 1156.
Fick v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 157
Pa. St. 622: 152, 159.
Ficken v. Atlanta, 114 Ga. 970: 629.
Fidelity Trust etc. Co. v. Mobile St.
R. R. Co., 53 Fed. 687: 416, 1621.
Field v. Barling, 149 111. 556: 190,
197, 366, 369, 373, 877.
V. Carnarvon etc. Ry. Co., L. R.
5 Eq. Cas. 190: 1570.
V. Carnarvon etc. Ry. Co., 37 L.
J. Ch. 176: 1.570.
CXVl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1T19.)
Field V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 21
Mo. App. 600: 147, 160.
V. Des Moines, 39 la. 575: 17.
V. Field, 38 N. J. L. 290: 1100.
V. Vermont & Mass. R. R. Co.,
4 Cush. 150: 1075.
V. West Orange, 36 N. J. Eq. 118:
233, 1606.
V. West Orange, 46 N. J. Eq. 183:
146, 155.
Fields V. Colby, 102 Mich. 450: 513.
Fifer v. Ritter, 159 Ind. 8: 1192,
1310, 1316.
Fifth & Sixth Sts. Change of Grade
of, 12 Phila. 587: 612, 618, 1718.
Fifteenth St. Opening, 10 Phila. 214:
1317.
I'ilth Nat'l Bank v. New York El.
R. R. Co., 24 Fed. 114: 267.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 28 Fed.
231: 1295.
Fifty-Second Street Opening, Matter
of, 18 Phil. 497: 1341.
Filbert v. Dechert, 22 Pa. Supr. Ct.
362: 73.
Fillebrown v. Hoar, 124 Mass. 580:
1256.
Finch V. Riverside & A. R. R. Co.,
87 Cal. 597: 277, 306.
Fingal v. Millvale, 162 Pa. St. 313:
417.
Fink V. Newark, 40 N. J. L. 11:
1325.
Finke v. Zeigemiller, 77 la. 253: 706,
1404.
Finn v. Providence Gas & W. Co.,
99 Pa. St. 631: 1270, 1495.
Finnell's Admr. v. Louisville South-
ern R. R. Co., 99 Ky. 570: 1564.
Finney v. Sommerville, 80 Pa. St.
59: 684, 1524.
Firman Street, Matter of, 17 Wend.
649: 8, 659, 1229.
First Baptist Society v. Fall River,
119 Mass. 95: 1438, 1439.
First Church in Boston v. Boston,
14 Gray 214: 1185, 1213.
First Nat. Bank v. Sarlls, 129 Ind.
201: 468.
V. Thompson, 116 Ala. 166: 1564.
v. Tyson, 133 Ala. 459: 190, 191,
192, 373, 1596.
V. Tyson, 144 Ala. 457: 191, 1596.
V. West River R. R. Co., 49 Vt.
167: 1531, 1557.
V. West River R. R. Co., 46 Vt.
633: 1531, 1675.
First Parish v. County of Plymouth,
8 Cush. 475: 1316, 1317.
V. Middlesex Co.. 7 Gray 106: 1266.
First St. Opening, Matter of, 66
Mich. 42: 736, 745, 747, 749, 1290.
Fischer v. Laack, 76 Wis. 313: 882.
V. Catawissa R. R. Co., 175 Pa.
St. 554: 1670, 1682.
Fish V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 84 Minn.
179: 1226.
V. Rochester, 6 Paige 268: 211.
Fisher v. Allen, 8 N. J. L. 301 : 1091.
V. Baden Gas Co., 138 Pa. St. 301:
1175, 1187.
V. Bountiful City, 21 Utah 29:
57, 70.
V. Chicago & Springfield R. R. Co.,
104 111. 323: 526, 731.
V. Coyle, 3 Watts 407: 1630.
V. Feige, 137 Cal. 39: 69.
V. Hobbs, 42 Ind. 276: 996, 1028.
V. Horicon Iron & Manf. Co., 10
Wis. 351: 550, 1523.
V. Naysmith, 106 Mich. 71: 236.
V. New York, 3 Hun 648: 1529.
V. New York, 4 Lans. 451: 1527.
V. New York, 57 N. Y. 344: 1526,
1527.
V. Rochester, 6 Lans. 225: 1491.
V. Smith, 5 Leigh 611: 1091, 1094.
V. Warwick R. R. Co., 12 R. I.
287: 1526, 1527.
Fisher, Ex parte, 72 Cal. 125: 468.
Fisher, In re, 178 Pa. St. 325: 928.
Fisk V. Hartford, 70 Conn. 720: 73,
1615.
V. Springfield, 116 Mass. 88: 239.
Fiske V. Chesterfield, 14 N. H. 240:
1325.
V. Framingham Manuf. Co., 12
Pick. 68: 544, 554, 557, 1667.
Fitch V. Seymour, 9 Met. 462: 858.
V. Stevens, 2 Met. 505: 964, 1438.
V. Stevens, 4 Met. 426: 1524.
V. Taft, 126 Mass. 503: 1116.
Fitchburg, Bradford & Buflfalo Ry.
Co. V. McCloskey, 110 Pa. St.
436: 1150.
Fitchburg R. R. Co. v. Boston &
Maine R. R. Co., 3 Cush. 58:
107, 1079, 1089.
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 6 Allen 98:
1377.
V. Fitchburg, 121 Mass. 132: 1022.
Fitch, In re, 147 N. Y. 334: 1412.
Fitzer v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 105
Minn. 221: 351, 372.
Fitzell V. Philadelphia, 211 Pa. St.
1: 1327.
Fitzgerald v. Baltimore & 0. R. R.
Co., 19 D. C. 513: 309, 316.
V. Barbour, 55 Fed. 440: 183, 879.
V. Sa.xton, 58 Ark. 494: 877, 889.
Fitzpatrick v. Boston etc. R. R. Co.,
84 Me. 33: 1485, 1647.
CASES CITED.
CX\'ll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-3719.]
Fitzpatriek v. Penn. R. R. Co., 10
Phila. 107: 1365, 1366.
FitzSimons & Coimell Co. v. Braun,
199 111. 390: 435, 443, 456.
Fitzmaurice v. Turney, 214 Mo. 610:
1391.
Five Tracts of Land v. United States,
101 Fed. 661: 1142, 1147, 1228,
1230, 1243.
Flag V. Worcester, 8 Cush. 69: 1084.
Flagg V. Worcester, 13 Gray 601:
147, 234, 605.
Flammer v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 56
App. Div. 183: 1562.
Flanders v. Colebrook, 51 N. H. 300:
1381.
V. Franklin, 70 N. H. 168: 159,
235.
V. Wood, 24 Wis. 572: 821, 1572.
Flannagan v. Philadelphia, 42 Pa. St.
219: 104.
Flatbush Ave., Matter of, 1 Barb.
286: 408, 410, 978.
Flaten v. Moorhead, 51 Minn. 518:
420, 1494, 1618.
Flat Swamp etc. Co. v. McAllister,
74 N. C. 159: 928.
Fleener v. Claman, 126 Ind. 166:
1410.
Fleetwood Streets, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 210:
992.
Fleming v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
51 W. Va. 54: 1485.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 34 la.
353: 1211, 1315.
V. Hight, 95 Ind. 78: 1403, 1406.
V. Hull, 73 la. 598: 494, 549, 553,
564, 570, 571, 575.
V. Lockwood, 36 Mont. 384: 144.
V. Rome, 130 Ga. 383: 1601, 1612.
V. Wilmington & W. R. R. Co.,
115 N. C. 676: 88, 157, 1449,
1454, 1459, 1476, 1512.
Flersheim v. Baltimore, 85 Md. 489:
879.
Fletcher v. The Auburn & Syracuse
E. R. Co., 25 Wend. 462: 152,
244.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 67 Minn.
339: 813, 989.
V. Great Western R. R. Co., 29
L. .J. Exch. 253: 837, 1475.
V. Seattle, 43 Wash. 627: 631, 632,
634.
Fletcher's Heirs v. Fugate, 3 J. .T.
Marsh. Ky. 631: 513, 1004, 1017,
1077, 1367.
Flinn v. New York Central etc. R.
R. Co., 58 Hun 230: 1472.
Flint etc. E. R. Co. v. Detroit etc.
R. R. Co., 64 Mich. 350: 990,
1281.
V. Norton, 64 Mich. 248: 1412.
Flock V. Green Island, 122 N. Y. 107 :
880.
Flood V. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co.,
75 Hun 601: 1298, 1303.
Florence etc. R. R. Co. v. Lilley,
3 Kan. App. 588: 825.
v. Pember, 45 Kan. 625: 1119, 1312.
V. Shepherd, 50 Kan. 438: 1203.
Florida Cent. etc. R. R. Co. v. Bear,
43 Fla. 319: 706. 708, 1392, 1427,
1673.
V. Bell, 43 Fla. 359: 911, 977, 979.
V. Ocala St. R. R. Co., 39 Fla.
306: 301.
Florida East Coast R. R. Co. v.
Worley, 49 Fla. 297: 871, 875,
876, 877.
Florida So. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 23
Fla. 104: 200, 250, 315, 1294.
V. Hill, 40 Fla. 1: 1535, 1537, 1031.
Flower v. London etc; R. R. Co., 2
D. & S. 330: 815, 1061, 1572.
Floyd V. Turner, 23 Tex. 292: 1571.
Floyd Co. V. Rome St. R. R. Co.,
77 Ga. 614: 321, 424, 1489.
Flynn v. Detroit, 93 Mich. 590: 1492.
V. Kings Co. El. R. R. Co., 3
App. Div. 254: 1133.
V. Taylor, 127 N. Y. 596: 1665.
V. Woolman, 133 Mich. 508: 1511.
Fobes V. Rome etc. R. R. Co., 121
N. Y. 505: 200, 202, 243, 254.
1328, 1584.
Fogg V. Nevada etc. R. R. Co., 20
Neb. 429: 1592.
Fohl v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 84
Minn. 314: 997.
V. Sleepy Eye Lake, 80 Minn. 67:
749, 751, 752.
Foley V. Cedar Rapids, 130 la. 453:
603.
V. County Court, 54 W. Va. 16:
1569, 1574.
enson v. I
Pa. St. 523: 633.
Folley V. Passaic, 26 N. J. Eq. 216:
952, 1570, 1574.
Follman v. City of Mankato, 45
Minn. 457: 148, 149, 154.
Folmar v. Folmar, 68 Ala. 120: 1083.
V. Folmar, 71 Ala. 136: 981, 1438.
Folmsbee v. Amsterdam, 142 N. V.
118: 236, 610, 616, 1549, 1.550.
V. Amsterdam, 66 Hun 214: 236,
610, 1549, 1550.
rixviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II. pp. 743-1719.]
Folsom V. Apple River Log Driving
Co., 41 Wis. 602: 80.
V. New Orleans, 28 La. An. 936:
476.
Folts St., Matter of, 18 App. Dlv.
N. Y. 568: 678, 750.
Foltz V. Huntley, 7 Wend. 210: 1255.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 60
Fed. 316: 1511, 1512, 1619.
Foot V. Stiles, 57 N. Y. 399: 1511.
Foote V. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio 408:
1255, 1524.
V. Loraine etc. Ry. Co., 21 Ohio
C. C. 319: 1232, 1254, 1268.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 58 Hun
478: 1663, 1664.
V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 147 N. Y.
367: 1663, 1664.
V. New Haven & Northampton Co.,
23 Conn. 214: 857.
Forbell v. New York, 164 N. Y. 522:
163, 1637.
V. New York, 27 N. Y. Misc. 12:
163.
Forbes v. Commonwealth, 172 Mass.
289: 1267.
V. Cannon, 35 Mont. 424: 941,
1556.
V. Delashmutt, 68 Iowa 164: 1098,
1572.
Forbes St., 70 Pa. St. 125: 432, 1385,
1705.
Ford V. Chartiers, 4 Penny. 62: 1399.
V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 14
Wis. 609: 243, 247, 315, 1580.
V. Chicago Milk Shippers' Asso.,
11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 433:
410.
V. County Comrs., 64 Me. 408:
1365.
V. Danbury, 44 N. H. 388: 1382.
V. Ford, 110 Ind. 89: 1028.
V. Harris, 95 Ga. 97: 877.
V. Metropolitan R. R. Co., L. R.
17 Q. B. D. 12: 645.
V. Railroad Co., 14 Wis. 609: 1651,
1658.
V. Santa Cruz R. R. Co., 59 Cal.
290: 249, 250, 1298, 1552, 1649,
1657.
V. Surget, 46 Miss. 130: 18.
V. Whitaker, 1 Nott & McCord 5:
1373.
Fordyce v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., 145 Fed. 566: 1544.
V. Wolfe. 82 Tex. 145: 966, 1559,
1560.
Fore V. Hoke, 48 Mo. App. 254: 726,
893, 894, 1084, lOSO.
V. Western N. C. R. R. Co., 101
N. C. 526: 817, 1634.
Foreman's Heirs v. Allen, 2 Bibb
581: 1368.
Forest Cemetery Assn. v. Constans,
70 Minn. 436: 1423.
Forest City etc. R. R. Co. v. Day,
73 Ohio St. 83: 302.
Forge V. Highland, 109 Wis. 292:
885.
Fork Ridge Baptist Cem. Assn. v.
Redd, 33 W. Va. 262: 507, 543,
707, 988, 989, 990, 1043, 1064.
Forney v. Fremont etc. R. R. Co., 23
Neb. 465: 2, 495, 496, 542, 1270,
1481, 1482.
Forster v. Bridge Co., Harris 393:
1350.
V. Cumberland Valley R. R. Co.,
23 Pa. St. 371: 1713.
v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577: 57, 67,
431, 432, 1154.
v. Scott, 60 N. Y. Supr. 313: 431,
432, 1154.
Forsyth v. Baltimore & Ohio Tel.
Co., 12 Mo. App. 494: 341, 342.
V. Kreuter, 100 Ind. 27: 973, 975,
996, 1075, 1406.
V. Wheeling, 19 W. Va. 318: 1569,
1574.
Forsyth Boulevard v. Forsyth, 127
Mo. 417: 1138, 1225, 1384.
Forsythe v. Dunagan, 94 Cal. 438:
889.
V. Hammond, 68 Fed. 774: 23, 466.
V. Wilcox, 143 Ind. 144: 1086,
1192, 1426.
Fort V. Goodwin, 36 S. C. 445: 467,
495, 589.
V. New Haven & N. Co., 23 Conn.
214: 144.
Fort Collins Dev. Ry. Co. v. France,
41 Colo. 512: 646, 1119, 1120,
1127, 1149.
v. Hoyt, 35 Colo. 480: 1424.
Fort Dodge v. Minneapolis etc. R.
R. Co., 87 la. 389: 748, 753,
1643, 1644, 1645.
Fort Plain Bridge Co. v. Smith, 30
N. Y. 44: 409, 410.
Fort Scott W. & W. R. R. Co. v.
Fox, 42 Kan. 490: 249, 252, 1545,
1549.
Fort Smith v. McKibbin, 41 Ark. 45:
1492.
Fort St. Union Depot Co. v. Backus,
92 Mich. 33: 1068, 1316, 1339,
1374.
V. Jones, 83 Mich. 415: 1383.
V. Morton, 83 Mich. 265: 527, 684
1092.
V. Peninsular Stove Co., 103 Mich
637: 1430.
CASES CITED.
CXIX
{The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Fort St. Union Depot Co. v. State
R. E. Crossing Board, 81 Mich.
248: 771.
Fort Wayne v. Ft. Wayne etc. R. R.
Co., 149 Ind. 25: 1004, 1571.
V. Hamilton, 132 Ind. 487: 1545,
1547.
V. Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co., 132
Ind. ,558: 749, 1609.
Fort Wayne etc. R. R. Co. v. Sherry,
126 Ind. 334: 835, 836.
Fort Wayne L. & I. Co. v. Maumee
Ave. Gravel R. R. Co., 132 Ind.
80: 407, 414.
Fort Worth v. Howard, 3 Tex. Civ.
App. 537: 616, 631, 632, 1306.
Fort Worth etc. R. R. Co. v. Downie,
82 Tex. 383: 449, 654, 655, 664,
1334, 1337.
V. Hogsett, 1 Tex. Civ. App. Cas.
200: 984, 1135.
V. Jennings, 76 Tex. 373: 425,
1473.
V. Lamphear, 1 Tex. App. Civil
Cases p. 127: 1390.
V. Scott, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas.
137: 155, 1267.
V. State, 100 Tex. 425: 489.
V. Sweatt, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 543:
858, 1503.
V. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 96 Tex.
160: 724, 774.
Fort Worth Ice Co. v. Chicago etc.
R. R. Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 600:
1389.
Fort Worth St. E. E. Co. v. Queen
City R. R. Co., 71 Tex. 165:
1483.
Forty-fourth St., In re, 7 Pa. Co. Ct.
69: 431.
Forty-fourth St. Opening, In re, 19
Phil. 563: 1327.
Forward v. Hampshire & Hampden
Canal Co., 22 Pick. 462, 1537.
Fosgate v. Hudson, 178 Mass. 225:
1221, 1338.
Fossion V. Landrey, 123 Ind. 136:
877.
Fossum V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 80
Minn, 9: 153, 1127, 1648, 1655.
Foster v. Boston, 22 Pick. 33: 1354.
V. Boston Park Comrs., 131 Mass.
225: 539.
V. Buffalo, 64 How. Pr. 127: 420,
1498, 1618.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 10 Tex.
Civ. App. 476: 989.
V. Dunklin, 44 Mo. 216: 1403.
V. Foster, 81 S. C. 307: 831.
V. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201: 478.
V. London etc. R. R. Co., L. R.
(1895) 1 Q. B. 711: 1475.
Foster v. Paxton, 90 Ind. 122: 1510.
V. St. Louis, 71 Mo. 157: 234.
V. St. Louis, 4 Mo. App. 564: 234.
V. Sebago Imp. Co., 100 Me. 196:
866, 808, 870.
V. Stafford National Bank, 57 Vt.
128: 67, 128, 1163, 1165.
V. Winona County, 84 Minn. 308:
1011.
V. Worcester, 164 Mass. 419: 1494.
Foster Ave., Matter of, 89 App. Div.
490: 1328.
Foster Tp. Road, 1 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
■ Rep. 100: 1091.
Fostoria v. Fox, 60 Ohio St. 340: 932.
Fotterby v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 2
L. R. C. P. 188: 1533.
Fouche V. Rome St. R. R. Co., 84 Ga.
233: 639, 642, 1588, 1615.
Foudry v. St. Louis etc. R. E. Co.,
130 Mo. App. 104: 1582.
Fountain v. Keen, 116 la. 406: 881.
Fourth Ave., 11 Abb. Pr. 189: 1100,
1101.
Fourth St. Opening, In re, 158 Pa.
St. 469: 1393.
Foust V. Pa. R. R. Co., 212 Pa. St.
213: 373, 382, 391, 394, 398, 647,
664.
Fowie V. New Haven etc. Co., 107
Mass. 352: 1652.
V. N. H. & N. R. R. Co., 112 Mass.
334: 88, 108, 1446, 1551, 1652,
1662.
Fowler v. County Comrs., 6 Allen
92: 1145.
V. Des Moines etc. R. R. Co., 91
la. 533: 1648, 1657.
V. Holbrook, 17 Pick. 188: 1526.
Fox V. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co., 34
W. Va. 466: 640, 1302, 1550,
1551.
V. Cincinnati, 104 U. S. 783: 523,
1496.
V. Holcomb, 34 Mich. 298: 976,
1419.
V. New York City Interborough R.
R. Co., 112 App. Div. 832: 302.
V. Union Sugar Co., 109 Mass. 292:
366.
V. Virgin, 11 111. App. 513: 867.
V. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 31
Cal. 538: 1102, 1171, 1487.
Fox Street, Matter of, 54 App. Div.
479: 884, 887, 889, 1327.
Frame v. Boyd, 35 N. J. L. 457:
1372.
Framingham Water Co. v. Old Col-
ony R. R. Co., 176 Mass. 404:
73, 814.
Frank v. Atlanta, 72 Ga. 428: 484.
cxx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Frank v. Evansville & Indianapolis
R. R. Co., Ill Ind. 132: 1500.
Francis v. Schoelkoff, 53 N. Y. 152:
649.
Franconia Tp. Road, 78 Pa. St. 316:
1069.
Frankel v. Chicago, B. & P. Ry. Co.,
70 la. 424: 1443.
Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. Rep.
398: 640, 1717.
Franklin v. Durgee, 71 N. H. 186:
153.
V. Fisk, 13 Allen, 211: 147.
Franklin County Road, 2 Yeates 53:
1388.
Franklin & Columbia Turnpil^e Co.
V. County Court of Maury, 8
Humph. 342: 410, 414, 1608.
Franklin etc. R. R. Co. v. Monnat,
52 La. Ann. 1026: 836.
Franklin Road, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 276:
1360, 1364.
Franklin St., 14 Pa. St. 403: 1670,
1671.
Franklin Turnpike Co. v. Long Dis-
tance Tel. & Tel. Co., 118 Tenn.
88: 739.
F\-anklin Trust Co. v. Peninsular
Pure Water Co., 161 Fed. 855:
409, 1622.
Frankfort etc. R. R. Co. v. Phila-
delphia, 175 Pa. St. 120: 885.
Frankstown Road, 26 Pa. St. 472:
1370.
Frank Warr & Co. v. London County
Council, (1904) 1 K. B. 713:
958.
Franz v. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co.,
55 la. 107: 319.
Frassr v. Mulany, 129 Wis. 377: 707,
1018, 1571.
Frater v. Hamilton Co., 90 Tenn.
661: 181, 224, 1546.
Fravert v. Finfrock, 31 Ohio St. 621 :
1431, 1555.
V. Frinfrock, 43 Ohio St. 335:
1017, 1032, 1033.
Frazee v. Manufacturers L. & H.
Co., 20 Pa. Supr. Ct. 420: 1107.
Frazer v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 141
Mass. 126: 1320.
V. Chicago, 186 111. 480: 658.
V. Mulany, 129 Wis. 377: 1513,
1570.
Frazier v. East Tenn. Tel. Co., 115
Tenn. 416: 333, 342.
Fred v. Kansas City Cable R. R.
Co.. 65 Mo. App. 121: 227, 324,
1355.
Frederick v. Groshon, 30 Md. 436:
1568, 1574.
V. Shane, 32 la. 254: 1204.
Fredericks v. Hoffmeister, 62 N. J.
L. 565: 817, 1419.
V. New York, 44 App. Div. 274
1326.
V. New York, 27 Misc. 588: 1326
V. New York, 165 N. Y. 656: 1326
V. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 148 Pa,
St. 317: 653.
Frederick St., 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 114
* 915
Frederick St., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 577
514.
Frederick St., In re, 155 Pa. St. 623
914, 1376, 1409.
Freedle v. North Carolina R. R. Co
4 Jones Law 89: 1206.
Freedom v. Norris, 128 Ind. 377
1504.
Freeland v. Muscatine, 9 la. 461: 211,
236.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 91:
108.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 197 Pa. St. 529:
87, 116.
Freeman v. Cook, 113 Ky. 461: 1400.
v. Cornish, 52 N. H. 141: 1428.
V. Hunter, 7 Ohio C. C. 117: 1219.
V. Price, 63 N. J. L. 151: 700,
1381.
V. Weeks, 45 Mich. 335: 1520.
Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 186
111. 179: 481.
V. Freeport, 180 U. S. 587: 481.
Freetown v. County Comrs., 9 Pick.
46: 1019.
Freiberg v. S. S. El. R. R. Co., 221
111. 508: 1176, 1229, 1239.
Freiday v. Sioux City Rapid Transit
Co., 92 la. 191: 267.
Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 232: 594.
Fremont etc. R. R. Co. v. Bates, 40
Neb. 381: 1200, 1223, 1243, 1312.
V. Harlin, 50 Neb. 698: 149, 155,
846, 847, 1456.
V. Mattheis, 35 Neb. 48: 980, 982,
995, 1523.
V. Meeker, 28 Neb. 94: 1310, 1312,
1409.
V. Morley, 25 Neb. 138: 155, 1124.
V. Setright, 34 Neb. 253: 630, 635,
939, 1548.
V. Whalen, 11 Neb. 585: 1124, 1179,
1251.
French v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co.,
181 U. S. 324: 11, 463.
1 . Braintree Manf. Co., 23 Pick.
216: 544, 554, 899.
CASES CITED.
CXXl
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. J-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Trench v. Comra., of Highways, 12
Mich. 267: 1417.
V. Inhabitants of Quincy, 3 Allen
9: 523.
V. Lowell, 117 Mas,s. 363: 1185,
1217.
V. Jlilwaukee, 49 Wis. 584: 615,
618, 619, 1307.
V. Owen, 5 Wis. 112: 695, 1524.
V. Robb, 67 N. J. L. 260: 344,
1630.
V. White, 24 Conn. 170: 570.
French Livestock Co. v. Harvey
County, 38 Ore. 315: 1381.
Frend v. Detroit etc. Ry. Co., 133
Mich. 413: 1569.
Frency, Matter of, 20 Misc. 272:
1362.
Freshour v. Logansport & Northern
Turnpike Co., 104 Ind. 463 : 1423.
Fresno v. Fresno Canal & Irr. Co.,
98 Cal. 179: 356.
Fresno St. R. R. Co. v. So. Pac.
R. R. Co., 135 Cal. 202: 1633.
Fretz'a Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 397: 1397.
Frey v. Duluth etc. R. R. Co., 91 Wis.
309: 247.
V. Ft. Worth etc. R. R. Co., 5
Tex. Civ. App. 29: 861.
Freyburg v. Davenport, 63 la. 119:
234.
Friday v. Pa. R. R. Co., 204 Pa.
St. 405: 1120. 1127, 1131, 1140.
Friedenwald v. Baltimore, 74 Md.
116: 1115, 1179, 1216, 1408.
V. Shipley, 74 Md. 220: 918.
Friedman v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 89 App. Div. 38: 450.
v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 180
N. y. 550: 450.
Friedrich v. Milwaukee, 114 Wis.
304: 236, 615, 617.
Friel v. People, 4 Colo. App. 259:
868, 870.
Friend v. Abbott, 56 Me. 262: 1088,
1409.
Friend, Appellant, 53 Me. 387: 1083.
Friendsville Road, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 172^:
1034, 1383.
Fries v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
57 App. Div. 577: 257, 358.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 169
N. Y. 270: 257, 258, 358.
V. Southern Penn. Ry. Co., 85 Pa.
St. 73: 1538, 1682.
v. Wheeling etc. R. R. Co., 56 Ohio
St. 135: 1547, 1631.
Frink v. Lawrence, 20 Conn. 117:
649.
Frisbin v. Cowen, 18 App. Cas. D. C.
381: 154.
Frith V. Dubuque, 45 la. 406: 251,
316, 1650, 1657.
V. Justices of the Inferior Court,
30 Ga. 723: 1091.
Fritz, Ex parte, 86 Miss. 210: 52,
471.
Fritzell v. Rogers, 82 111. 109: 1571.
Frohmann v. Manhattan R. R. Co.,
86 Hun 262: 1304.
Front & Union St. R. R. Co., In re,
1 Penn. Del. 370: 1040.
Frost V. Earnest, 4 Whart. 86: 1260.
v. I^atherman, 55 Mich. 33: 973,
983, 1419, 1513, 1516.
V. People, 193 111. 635: 485.
V. Worthington Co. R. R. Co., 96
Me. 76: 128, 134.
Frostburg v. Dufty, 70 Md. 47: 143,
154, 1650, 1656.
V. Hitchins, 70 Md. 56: 143, 154,
1650.
V. Wineland, 98 Md. 239: 349,
1594.
Frovert v. Finfrock, 31 Ohio St. 621:
1431.
V. Finfrock, 43 Ohio St. 335: 1017.
Frudle v. North Carolina R. R. Co.,
4 Jones Law 89: 1187.
Fryer v. McRae, 8 Porter (Ala.) 187:
19.
Fuess V. Kansas City etc. Ry. Co., 191
Mo. 692: 1306.
Fuller V. Atlanta, 66 Ga. 80: 210.
V. Belleville, 67 N. J. Eq. 468: 155,
1606.
V. Chicago Manf. Co., 16 Gray
46: 1345.
V. County Comrs. of Plymouth, 15
Pick. 81 : 860, 1073.
V. Detroit, 97 Mich. 597: 1511.
V. Edings, 11 Rich. 239: 1272, 1523.
V. French, 10 Met. 359: 1526, 1530.
V. Grand Rapids, 105 Mich. 529:
231.
V. Mt. Vernon, 64 App. Div. 621:
236.
V. Mt. Vernon, 171 N. Y. 247:
236.
V. Shedd, 161 111. 462: 109.
Fuller Co. v. Amorous, 89 Ga. 614:
1033.
Fulmer v. Williams, 122 Pa. St. 191:
104, 106, 108, 119, 128, 129, 138.
Fulton V. Cummins, 132 Ind. 453:
1082.
V. Davenport, 17 la. 404: 465.
V. Dover (Del.) 31 Atl. 974: 879.
V. Dover, 6 Del. Ch. 1: 672, 928.
V. Dover, 8 Houston (Del.) 78: 672,
928, 1192.
CXXll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Pulton v. Metlow Trading Co., 45
Wash. 136: 895, 1389.
V. Monahan, 4 Ohio, 426: 1059.
V. Short Route R. R. Trans. Co.,
85 Ky. 640: 179, 200, 243, 245,
248, 252, 267, 310, 448, 1243, 1294,
1302.
Fulton County v. Amorous, 89 Ga.
614: 939.
V. Phillips, 91 Ga. 66: 1545.
Funderburk v. Spengler, 234 111. 574:
706, 708, 721.
Funke v. St. Louis, 122 Mo. 132: 433,
438.
Furbish v. Co. Comrs., 93 Me. 117:
1674, 1680.
Furman v. Furman, 86 Mich. 391:
1058, 1358, 1420, 1516.
Furman Street, Matter of, 17 Wend.
649: 238, 432, 1326.
Furniss v. Hudson R. R. Co., 5 Sandf.
551: 1446, 1451.
V. Midland Ry. Co., L. R. 6 Eq.
Cas. 473: 822.
Furth V. State, 72 Ark. 161: 485.
Fusilier v. Great Southern Tel. Co.,
50 La. An. 799: 1356, 1615.
V. Police Jury, 6 La. An. 670:
1425.
Fyfe V. Turtle Creek, 22 Pa. Supr.
292: 443.
G.
Gaedeke v. Staten Island Midland
R. R. Co., 46 App. Div. 219:
302.
Gage V. Chicago, 141 111. 642: 1386,
1387.
V. Chicago, 146 111. 499: 1364.
V. Judson, 111 Fed. 350: 1241.
Gagnon t. French Lick Springs Ho-
tel Co., 163 Ind. 687: 162.
Gaines v. Linn County, 21 Ore. 425:
1031.
V. Linn Co., 21 Ore. 430: 1403.
V. Lunaford, 120 Ga. 370: 521, 1058.
V. Merryman, 95 Va. 660: 887.
Gainesville etc. R. R. Co. v. Hall,
78 Tex. 169: 449, 654, 659, 664,
666, 671, 1334, 1337.
V. Waples, 3 Tex. Ct. of App. p.
482, § 409: 1112, 1310, 1315.
Galbraith t. Littiech, 73 111. 209:
1100. 1103, 1516, 1517.
V. Philadelphia Co., 2 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 359: 1129, 1201.
V. Prentice, 109 Mo. App. 498:
1392.
V. Yates, 79 Minn. 436: 163.
Galeano v. Boston, 195 Mass. 64: 606.
Galen v. Clyde etc. Plank R. R. Co.,
27 Barb. 543: 956, 1622.
Galena etc. R. R. Co. v. Birkbeck,
70 111. 208: 994, 1310.
V. Haslam, 73 111. 494: 938, 1107,
1122.
V. Pound, 22 111. 399: 1517.
Gales V. Anderson, 13 111. 413: 413.
Galesburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Milroy,
181 111. 243: 1202, 1229.
Galgay v. Great Southern R. R. Co.,
4 L C. L. R. 456: 161.
Gallagher v. Head, 72 la. 173, 700.
V. Kingston Water Co., 25 App.
Div. 82: 74, 1603.
V. Montecito Val. Water Co., 101
Cal. 242: 866.
Gallatin Canal Co. v. Lay, 10 Mont.
528: 1366.
Gallup V. Woodstock, 29 Vt. 347:
678.
Gait V. Erie etc. R. R. Co., 15 Grant
Ch. 637: 1537.
Galveston v. Menard, 23 Tex. 349:
118.
Galveston etc. R. R. Co. v. Bock, 63
Tex. 245: 640, 1294.
V. Donahoo, 59 Tex. 128: 155, 830,
1310, 1546, 1548.
V. Eddins, 29 Alb. L. J. 518: 249,
255.
V. Eddins, 60 Tex. 656: 1294, 1303.
V. Fuller, 63 Tex. 467: 640, 659,
671, 1294.
V. Galveston, 91 Tex. 17: 302.
V. Graves, I Tex. App. Civ. Cas.
301: 640.
v. Henning, 90 Tex. 656: 640.
V. Lyons, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cases,
133: 1225.
V. Mud Creek etc. Co., 1 Tex. App.
Civ. Cas. 169: 984, 1135.
V. Perry, 81 Tex. 466: 862.
V. Pfeuffer, 56 Tex. 66: 936.
V. Ryan, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 545:
158.
Galveston Wharf Co. v. Gulf etc. R.
R. Co., 72 Tex. 454, 707, 1667.
V. Gulf etc. R. R. Co., 81 Tex.
494: 314.
Galway v. Met. El. R. R. Co., 128
N. Y. 132: 1553, 1554, 1651, 1658.
Gamble v. McCradv, 75 N. C. 509:
927, 1005, 1010. 1013.
V. Pettyjohn, 116 Mo. 375: 881.
V. Philadelphia, 2 Pa. Dist. Ct. 560:
1327.
V. Philadelphia, 162 Pa. St. 413:
1327.
Gammage v. Georgia Southern R. R.
Co., 65 Ga. 614: 1535, 1570, 16lr..
Gammell v. Potter, 2 la. 562: 971,
1027.
OASES CITED.
CXXlll
(The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Gammell v. Potter, 6 Ta. 548 : 549.
Gannett v. Independent Telephone
Co., 55 Misc. 555: 339.
Gannon v. Hargadon, 10 Allen 106:
147.
Gano V. Minneapolis etc. E. R. Co.,
114 la. 713: 1, 679, 706, 740,
928, 1395, 1434, 1435, 1443.
Ganson v. Buffalo, 1 Keyes 454: 1526.
Ganz V. Ohio Postal Tel. Cable Co.,
140 Fed. 692: 361, 491.
Garbutt Lumber Co. v. Ga. etc. Ry.
Co., Ill Ga. 714: 534, 738, 1154,
1155, 1623.
Gardiner v. Baltimore, 96 Md. 361:
1519, 1559.
V. Boston & Warcester R. R. Co.,
9 Cush. 1: 623.
V. Camden, 86 Me. 377: 157.
V. Tisdale, 2 Wis. 153: 872.
Gardner v. Brookline, 127 Mass. 358:
1138, 1141, 1176, 1234, 1236, 1241.
V. Charing Cross Ry. Co., 2 J. &
H. 248: 823.
V. Chester, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 4: 1397.
V. Ga. R. R. & B. Co., 117 Ga. 522:
697, 714, 730, 731.
V. Michigan, 199 U. S. 325: 474.
V. Newburg, 2 Johns. Ch. 161: 74,
1603.
V. St. Joseph, 96 Mo. App. 657:
237, 634.
V. Town Council of Johnstown, 16
E. I. 94: 612, 616.
Gardner's Petition, Matter of, 41 Mo.
App. 589: 895, 982, 1033.
Gardner Water Co. v. Gardner, 185
Mass. 190: 1262, 1265.
Gargan v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
89 Ky. 212: 369, 373, 382, 389,
391.
Garit«e v. Baltimore, 52 Md. 422:
127, 128, 129, 132.
Garland v. Aurin, 103 Tenn. 555:
146.
Garland Novelty Co. v. State, 71 Ark.
138: 485.
Garlick v. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co.,
67 Ohio St. 223: 1497, 1502.
V. Strong, 3 Paige 440: 945.
Garmoe v. Sturgeon, 65 la. 147: 966.
Garnett v. Jacksonville etc. R. R.
Co., 20 Fla. 889: 243, 315, 1580.
Garroux v. Greenville, 53 S. C. 575;
212, 613, 618, 1525.
Garretson v. Baker, 65 N. J. L. 184:
1419.
Garrett v. Lake Roland El. R. R. Co.,
79 Md. 277: 265, 324. 325, 1582,
1584, 1592.
V. St. Louis, 25 Mo. 505: 13.
Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 196:
1163, 1431, 1674, 1678, 1681.
Garrity v. Boston, 161 Mass. 530:
605, 617.
Garth L. & S. Co. v. Johnson, 151
Mich. 205: 97.
Gartner v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 71
Neb. 444: 1649, 1661.
Garvey v. Harbison-Walker Refrac-
tories Co., 213 Pa. St. 177: 183,
366, 606, 878, 879, 889, 1596.
V. Long Island R. R. Co., 9 App.
Div. 254: 449, 1613.
V. Long Island R. R. Co., 159 N.
Y, 323: 449, 825, 1613.
Garvin v. Dausman, 114 Ind. 429:
1004, 1007.
Garwood v. New York Central etc.
R. R. Co., 17 Hun 356: 75, 1603.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
83 N. Y. 400: 71, 73, 75, 77.
Gascho V. Sohl, 155 Ind. 417: 700.
Gashweller's Heirs v. Mcllroy, 1 A.
K. Marsh. 84: 1160, 1167, 1368.
Gas Lt. & Coke Co. v. New Albany,
158 Ind. 268: 1192, 1220.
Gas Light Co. v. Hart, 40 La. An.
474: 485.
V. Richardson, 63 Barb. 437: 172,
176.
Gastner v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 71
Neb. 444: 1655.
Gaston v. Portland, 41 Ore. 373: 1462.
Gate City v. Richmond, 97 Va. 337:
883, 885.
Gately v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 171
Mass. 494: 1011, 1707.
Gates V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 53
Conn. 333: 679.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 82 la.
518: 620.
V. De La Mare, 142 N. Y. 307:
1558, 1561.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., Ill
Mo. 28: 330, 642, 648, 665, 667.
V. McDaniel, 2 Stew. 211: 414.
Gaus & Sons Manuf. Co. v. St. Louis
etc. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. 308: 311.
Gauster v. Met. Elec. Co., 214 Pa.
St. 628: 454.
Gavin v. Commonwealth, 182 Mass.
190: 626, 1273.
Gavit V. Chambers, 3 Ohio 495: 104.
Gaw V. Bristol etc. R. R. Co., 196
Pa. St. 442: 714.
Gay V. Bradstreet, 49 Me. 580: 1510.
V. Caldwell, Hardin (Ky.) 68: 1078,
1086.
V. Gardiner, 54 Me. 477: 1319.
V. Mutual Union Tel. Co., 12 Mo.
App. 485: 341, 342.
exxiv
CASES CITED,
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Gay V. New Orleans Pacific Ry. Co.,
32 La. An. 277: 1578.
V. Welles, 7 Pick. 217: 1526, 1528.
Gaylord v. Sanitary District, 204 II).
576: 90, 551, 595.
Gay St., 6 Pa. Co. Gt. 187: 1505.
Gay & West Sts.. 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 217:
400, 914, 1017.
G. B. & L. Ry. Co. v. Haggart, 9
Colo. 346: 1136.
Gear v. C. C. & D. R. R. Co., 43 la.
83: 1252.
V. Dubuque & Sioux City R. R. Co.,
20 la. 523: 1673, 1685.
Gearhart v. Clear Spring W. Co., 202
Pa. St. 292: 1229, 1234, 1237.
Geary v. Board of Supervisors, 107
Cal. 530: 918.
Geauyeau v. Gt. Western R. R. Co.,
3 U. C. App. 412: 841.
Gebhardt v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
122 Mo. App. 503: 160.
V. Reeves, 75 Ills. 301 : 198, 1500.
Gebling v. St. Joseph, 49 Mo. App.
430: 237.
Geddes v. Rice, 24 Ohio St. 60: 993.
Gedney v. Tewksbury, 3 Mass. 307:
1522.
Geer v. Durham Water Co., 127 N. C.
349: 74, 1549, 1552.
Gehrig v. Fuhrman, 68 Neb. 325:
868.
Geissinger v. Hellertown, 133 Pa.
St. 522: 1188, 1200, 1319.
Geizy v. C. W. & Z. R. R. Co., 4
Ohio St. 308 : 2, 20, 524, 676.
General Electric R. R. Co. v. Chica-
go City R. R. Co., 66 111. App.
362: 309, 409.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 184 111.
588: 328, 765, 1586, 1612.
Genesee Chief, 12 How. 43: 103.
Genesee Fork Imp. Co. v. Ives, 144
Pa. St. 114: 918.
Genesee River R. R. Co. v. Boying-
ton, 60 Misc. 416: 1341.
Genet v. Brooklyn, 99 N. Y. 296:
687, 824, 1196.
Geneva v. Patterson, 21 111. App.
454: 1308.
Geneva etc. R. R. Co. v. N. Y. Cent.
etc. R. R. Co., 24 App. Div. N.
Y. 335: 297.
V New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
90 Hun 9 : 765, 772.
V. N. Y. Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 163
N. Y. 228: 329, 695, 772.
Genois v. St. Paul, 35 Minn. 330:
211.
Gentry v. Richmond etc. R. R. Co.,
38 S. C. 284: 158, 1649, 1655.
G«orge V. Chester, 59 Misc. 533: 141,
470.
V. Wabash Western R. R. Co., 40
ilo. App. 433: 88, 144, 1639.
George's Creek Coal Co. v. New Cen-
tral Coal Co., 40 Md. 425: 999,
1000, 1389.
Georgetown etc. Traction Co. v. Mul-
holland, 25 Ky. L. R. 578: 272,
281.
Georgia etc. R. R. Co. v. Archer, 87
« Ga. 237: 1.570.
V. Berry, 78 Ga. 744: 90, 1664.
V. Harvey, 84 Ga. 372: 314, 1596.
V. Jernigan, 128 Ga. 501: 153.
V. Ray, 84 Ga. 376: 639, 1581, 1592.
V. Scott, 38 S. C. 34: 831, 961.
V. Small, 87 Ga. 355: 1225.
Ga. Granite R. R. Co. v. Venable,
129 Ga. 341: 806. 808, 1429,
1519.
Georgia Midland & G. R. R. Co. v.
Columbus S. R. R. Co., 89 Ga.
205: 1154, 1155, 1281, 1610.
Georgia Northern Rv. Co. v. Tifton
etc. Ry. Co., lOg'Ga. 762: 412.
Georgia Pacific R. R. Co. v. Strick-
land, 80 Ga. 776: 1354, 1469.
Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Bohler, 98 Ga.
184: 92, 93, 1454.
V. Smith, 128 U. S. 174: 480, 482,
V. Atlanta, 118 Ga. 486: 884, 886,
1568.
V. Baker, 88 Ga. 28: 154.
V. Decatur, 129 Ga. 502: 681, 1288.
V. Gardner, 115 Ga. 945: 1634.
V. Haas, 127 Ga. 187: 1506.
V. Maddox, 116 Ga. 64: 450, 656,
666, 1613.
V. Union Point, 119 Ga. 809: 679,
680, 1288, 1568.
Georgia Southern etc. R. R. Co. v.
Jones, 90 Ga. 292: 1426.
Geraghty v. Boston, 120 Mass. 416:
605.
Gerber v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
3 Miscl. 427: 1151, 1302.
Gerdon v. Tucker, 6 Maine 247: 1116.
Gerhard v. Seekonk Riv. Bridge, 15
R. I. 334: 212, 389.
German-American Real Est. Co. v.
Myers, 32 App. Div. N. Y. 41:
431.
German Bank v. Brose, 32 Ind. App.
77: 884, 889.
German Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Ramish,
138 Cal. 120: 13, 1567.
German Theological School v. Dubu-
que, 64 Iowa 736 : 158.
Germantovvn Ave., Change of Grade
of, 15 Phila. 413: 612.
CASES CITED.
CXXV
[The references are to the pages ; Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Germantown Ave., In re, 99 Pa. St.
479: 1419.
Germantown Ave., In re, 14 Phila.
351: 612, 631.
Germantown etc. Turnpike Road Co.,
4 Eawle 191 : 1370.
Germantown Pass. R. R. Co. v. Citi-
zens Pass. R. R. Co., 48 Leg.
Intel. 220: 1621.
Gerow v. Liberty, 106 App. Div. 357 :
453, 1613.
Gerrard v. Omaha etc. R. R. Co., 14
Neb. 270: 961, 1557.
Gerst V. St. Louis, 185 Mo. 191: 443,
643.
Getty \r. Hudson River R. R. Co., 21
Barb. 617: 117, 131.
Gettysburg Memorial Assn. v. Sherry,
117 Pa. St. 256: 1399.
Getz V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
I Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. 427:
918.
V. Philadelphia & Reading R. R.
Co., 105 Pa. St. 547: 952, 953,
96.3, 12.59.
V. Philadelphia & Reading R. R.
Co,. 113 Pa. St. 214: 1259.
Getzenhauer v. Trinity etc. Ry. Co.,
43 Tex. Civ. App. 66: 1642.
Geurkink v. Petaluma, 112 Cal. 306:
1607.
Gherkey v. Haines, 4 Blackf. 159:
1359.
G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Seymour,
63 Tex. 345: 1552.
Gibbons v. Jlobile etc. R. R. Co., 36
Ala. 410: 10, 462.
V. Railway Co., 40 Mo. App. 146:
1443, 1695.
Giboney v. Cape Girardeau, 58 Mo.
141: 466.
Gibson v. Bridge Co., 192 Pa. St.
55: 1211.
V. Cann, 28 Colo. 499 : 1058, 1060,
1062, 1065.
V. Fisher, 68 Iowa 29: 95.
V. Greenville, 64 S. C. 455: 1080,
1532, 1637.
V. Hammersmith & City Ry. Co., 2
Drewry & Smale, 60.3: 1276.
V. Kelley, 15 Mont. 417: 104.
V. Mason, 5 Nev. 283: 10, 462.
V. Norwalk, 13 Ohio C. C. 428:
1231, 1237, 1330.
V. United States, 166 U. S. 269:
99, 102, 116.
V. Zimmerman, 27 Mo. App. 90:
607, 616.
Gibson & Guy's Mill Road, 37 Pa. St.
255: 1384.
Gidnev v. Karl, 12 \\em\. 98: 1486.
Giesy v. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 4
Ohio St. 308: 1055, 1067, 1115,
1204.
Giffin V. Olathe, 44 Kan. 342: 874,
877.
Gifford V. Dartmouth, 129 Mass. 135:
1436.
». New Jersey R. R. Co., 10 N. J.
Eq. 171: 1608.
V. Norwich, 30 Conn. 35: 955.
V. Republican Valley etc. R. R. Co.,
20 Neb. 538: 1401.
Gifford Dr Dist v. Shroer, 145 Ind.
572: 571, 575.
Gilbert v. Columbia Trnpike Co., 3
Johns. Cas. 107: 893, 894, 1516.
V. Greeley etc. R. R. Co., 13 Colo.
501: 647.
v. Hall, 115 Ind. 549: 1046.
V. New Haven, 39 Conn. 467: 678.
V. Savannah, Griffin & North Ala.
R. R. Co., 69 Ga. 396: 846.
Gilbert Elevated R. R. Co. v. Ander-
son, 3 Abb. New Cases 434: 260.
Gilbert Elevated Ry. Co., Matter of,
38 Hun 437: 196, 1295.
Gilbert Elevated Ry. Co., Matter of,
70 N. Y. 361: 260, 1071.
Gilchrist Co. v. Des Moines, 128 Iowa
49: 197, 309, 1583, 1666.
Gildersleeve v. Hammond, 109 Mich.
431: 440.
Gile, Admr. v. Stevens, 13 Gray 146:
1185, 1267.
Giles V. London etc. R. R. Co., 1
Drewry & Smale, 406: 1460.
V. London etc. R. R. Co., 30 L. J.
Ch. 603: 822.
Gilfeather v. Council Bluffs, 69 Iowa
310: 234.
Gilford v. Winnipiseogee Lake Co.,
52 N. H. 202: 866.
Gilford's Petition, 25 N. H. 124:
1095.
Gilkerson v. Scott, 76 111. 509: 1088.
Gilkey v. Watertown, 141 Mass. 317:
1361, 1510, 1704.
Gill V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 117 Iowa
278: 1.504.
V. Lake Charles, 119 La. 17: 1592.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 76
Wis. 293: 929.
Gillan v. Hutchinson, 16 Cal. 153:
431, 494, 496, 563, 9.56, 1162.
Gillender v. New York, 127 App. Div.
612: 351, 372, 1592, 1615.
Gillespie v. Buffalo etc. Ry. Co., 33
Pa. Co. Ct. 513: 1458, 1473.
V. Duling, 41 Ind. App. 217: 885.
V. Thomas, 15 Wend. 464: 1255,
1260, 1678.
CXXVl
CASJ5S CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Gillet V. Jones, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.)
339: 1345.
Gillette v. Aurora Eys. Co., 228 111.
261: 241, 675, 679, 687, 716, 719,
780, 1047, 1050, 1056.
Gillham v. Madison County R. R. Co.,
49 111. 484: 151.
Gilliam v. Canaday, 11 Ired. L. 106:
1523.
Gilligan v. Providence, 11 R. I. 258:
612, 952, 953, 961, 1532.
Gillinwater v. Mississippi etc. R. R.
Co., 13 III. 1: 920, 1040.
Gillison v. Charleston, 16 W. Va.
282: 233.
V. Savannah etc. R. E. Co., 7 S.
C. 173: 1537, 1540, 1541.
Gilluly V. Madison, 63 Wis. 518 : 234.
GiUnan v. Laconia, 55 N. H. 130 : 143.
V. Milwaulcee, 55 Wis. 328: 420,
1494, 1618.
V. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713: 96,
133.
V. Sheboygan, 2 Black. 510: 462.
V. Sheboygan etc. R. R. Co., 37
Wis. 317: 1170, 1540, 1543.
V. Sheboygan etc. R. R. Co., 40 Wis.
653: 1536, 1540, 1541.
V. Westfield, 47 Vt. 20: 513.
Gilmer v. Hunnicutt, 57 S. C. 166:
923, 1165, 1167.
V. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229: 501;
588, 674, 685.
V. Lime Point, 19 Cal. 47: 8f)3,
894, 898, 1053.
Gilmore v. DriseoU, 122 Mass. 199:
440, 441.
v. Pittsburgh, Va. & C. R. R. Co.,
104 Pa. St. 275: 1267, 1316.
V. Sapp, 100 111. 297 : 1004.
Gilpin V. Ansonia, 68 Conn. 72: 601.
Gilroy, In re, 78 Hun 260 : 1379.
Gilroy, In re, 85 Hun 424: 1092, 1237'
1329.
Gilroy, Matter of, 26 App. Div. N.
Y. 314: 1272.
Gilroy, Matter of, 60 Misc. 125 : 1254.
Gilroy, Matter of, 32 N. Y. App.
i)iv. 216: 817, 1061.
Gilson V. State, 5 Lea 161 : 1511.
Gilzinger v. Saugerties Water Co.,
66 Hun 173: 69, 74, 1603.
Gimbel v. Stolte, 59 Ind. 446: 949,
1565.
Ginn v. Moultrie etc. Dr. Dist., 188
111. 305: 1195.
Girard Ave., In re, 18 Phil. 499:
1357, 1626, 1714.
Girard Ave., Matter of, 11 Phil. 449:
1098.
Girard's Lessee v. Hughes, 1 G. & J.
249: 130.
Gish V. Drainage Dist., 136 Iowa 155 :
1204.
V. Drainage Dist., 137 Iowa 711':
1204.
Gist V. Owings, 95 Md. 302: 786,
1395.
Given v. Des Moines, 70 Iowa 637:
307.
V. State, 160 Ind. 552: 471.
Givens v. Van Studdiford, 4 Mo. App.
498: 649.
Gladfelter v. Walker, 40 Md. 1 : 81
Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch Brew
ing Assn., 100 Mo. 508: 301, 314
317, 320, 351, 372, 383, 533, 649
665, 1582 1589.
Glasby v. Morris 18 N. J. Eq. 72
335, 336.
Glaser v. Glenwood R. R. Co., 208
Pa. St. 328: 689, 819.
Glasgow V. Altoona, 27 Pa. Supr. 55 :
84.
V. Fazie, 14 Sess. Cas. (4th Series)
346: 821.
V. Mathews, 106 Va. 14: 887, 888.
V. St. Louis, 87 Mo. 678 : 384, 401,
406.
V. St. Louis, 107 Mo. 198: 367,
371, 384, 392, 395, 396, 398, 644,
1595.
V. St. Louis, 15 Mo. App. 112: 384,
401, 406.
Glass V. Basin Min. etc. Co., 22 Mon.
151: 706, 897, 992.
Glassburn v. Deer, 143 Ind. 174:
1400.
Glazier v. New Jersey etc. R. R. Co.,
60 N. J. L. 353: 1081.
Gleasou v. Assabet Manf. Co., 101
Mass. 72: 899.
V Jefferson, 78 111. 399: 1576.
V. Tuttle, 46 Maine 288 : 866.
Glencoe v. Reed, 93 Minn. 518: 1486,
1490.
Glenn County v. Johnston, 129 Cal.
404: 1566.
Glennon v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
79 111. 501: 1274.
Glick V. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co.,
19 D. C. 412: 246, 248, 250, 309,
316.
Globe Fire Ins. Co. v. Lexington, 173
Mass. 6: 626.
Gloe V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 65 Neb.
680: 842, 851.
Gloucester v. County Comrs., 3 Met.
375: 721.
CASES CITED.
CXXVll
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.)
Gloucester Water Supply Co. v.
Gloucester, 179 Mass. 365: 740,
1265, 1546.
Glover v. Charleston etc. Ry. Co., 72
S. C. 381: 830, 953, 1546.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 66 How. Pr.
77: 203, l.'i81.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 51 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 1: 1581.
V. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., 5
Eng. L. & Eq. 335: 1611.
V. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., 20
L. J. N. S. Q. B. 376 : 645.
v. Powell, 10 N. J. Eq. 211: 108,
460, 1154, 1607.
y. Reraley, 62 S. C. 52: 1523.
Gloversville, Matter of, 42 Misc. 559 :
776.
Gluck V. Baltimore, 81 Md. 315: 952,
1255, 1256, 1258.
Godbey v. Bluefield, 61 W. Va. 604:
1307, 1308.
Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St.
431: 479.
Godchaux v. Carpenter, 19 Nev. 415 :
972, 978, 1358, 1419.
Goddard, Petitioner, 16 Pick. 504:
492, 557.
Goddard v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 202
111 362: 298
V. Boston, 20 Pick. 407: 1707, 1708.
V. Worcester, 9 Gray 88: 1373.
Godfrey v. Alton, 12 111. 29: 131, 872.
V. District Court, 44 Minn. 299:
1154.
Goehring v. Rankin, 17 Pa. Supr. Ct.
186: 1370.
Goelet V. Metropolitan Transit Co.,
48 Hun 520: 717, 1589.
Golahar v. Gates. 20 Mo. 23fi: 1514.
Golconda v. Field, 108 111. 419: 408,
1608.
Gold V, Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co , 153
Ind. 232: 1042, 1510.
V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 19
Vt. 478 : 923, 1408.
Golden v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
1 Misc 142: 448, 1303.
Goldie V. Oswald, 2 Dow. 534: 1635.
Golding V. Attleborough, 172 Mass.
223: 617, 1523.
Goldman v. Justices, 3 Head 107:
1403.
Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Impr.
Comrs., L. R. 1 Ch. App. 349:
83, 1605.
V. Tunbridge Wells Impr. Comrs.,
L. R. 1 Eq. 161 : 83.
Good V. Altoona, 162 Pa. St. 493:
84.
Good V. Droste, 8 Ohio C. C. {N. S.)
452: 1255, 1257.
Goodale v. Sowell, 62 S. C. 516: 460,
589.
Goodall V. Milwaukee, 5 Wis. 32:
196, 197, 213, 239.
Goode V. St. Louis, 113 Mo. 257: 875,
892, 1496, 1504, 1505.
Goodell V. Kalamazoo, 63 Mich. 416:
893, 1422.
Goodfellow V. Riggs, 88 Iowa 540:
881, 884, 885.
Goodford v. Stonehouse etc. Ry. Co.,
38 L. J. Eq. 307 : 1537.
Goodin v. Canal Co., 18 Ohio St.
169: 1234, 1537, 1617.
Goodloe r. Cincinnati, 4 Ohio 500:
213.
Goodnan T. Bradley, 2 Wis. 257:
722.
V. Ft.' Collins, 164 Fed. 470: 976,
996.
Goodrich v. Comrs. of Highways, 1
Mich. 385: 1417.
V. County Comrs., 47 Kan. 355:
948, 962.
V. Detroit, 123 Mich. 559: 11, 464.
T. Milwaukee, 24 Wis. 422: 614.
V. Omaha, 10 Neb. 98: 1219.
Goodwin v. County Comrs., 60 Maine
328: 992.
V. Gibbs, 70 Maine 243: 963.
V. Merrill, 48 Maine 282 ; 1402.
V. Milton, 25 N. H. 458: 940, 1377.
V. Wethersfield, 43 Conn. 437: 513,
1098, 1099.
Goodwine v. Evans, 134 Ind. 262:
1192.
V. Leak, 127 Ind. 569: 1383, 1510.
Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Bos-
ton Terminal Co., 176 Mass. 115:
953, 1259.
Googins V. Boston & A. R. E. Co.,
155 Mass. 505: 823.
Gordon v. Comrs., 169 111. 510: 1195.
V. Kings County El. R. R. Co., 23
N. Y. App. Div. 51: 1133.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. (Pa.) 6
Rep. 727: 155, 1455.
V. Tucker, 6 Maine 247 : 1445.
V. Winston, 181 111. 338: 130.
Gordon Co. v. Calhoun, 128 Ga. 781:
420, 1493. 1618.
Gorges v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
144 Pa. St. 1: 1130, 1262, 1342.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 215
Pa. St. 501: 1140, 1189, 1201,
1236.
Gorham v. New Haven, 79 Conn. 670 :
83.
CXXVIU
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Gorman v. Supervisors, 20 Minn.
392: 1402.
Gorrill v. Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 4
Ohio C. C. 398: 830, 953, 1569,
1664.
Gosa V. Milwaukee Lt. H. & T. Co.,
134 Wis. 369: 284, 987, 1501,
1664.
Goss V. Highway Comrs., 63 Mich.
608: 382, 387, 400, 406, 1031.
Gossett V. Southern Ry. Co., 115
Tenn. 376 : 436, 456, 661.
Goszler v. Georgetown, 6 Wheat.
593: 212, 238.
Gottschalk v. C. & B. & Q. R. R. Co.,
14 Neb. 550: 640, 642, 659, 664,
671.
V. Lincoln etc R. R. Co., 14 Neb.
389: 959.
Goudy V. Lake View, 33 111. App.
245: 1426.
Gough V. Bell, 2 Zab. 441 : 127, 129,
189.
Gould V. Booth, 66 N. Y. 62 : 235.
V. Boston Dock Co., 13 Gray 442:
554, 556.
V. Eaton, 111 Cal. 639: 161.
V. Glass, 19 Barb. 179: 1156.
V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12
Barb. 616: 117, 131.
V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 N. Y.
522: 117, 121, 128, 130, 131.
V. Rochester, 105 N. Y. 46 : 453.
Gouverneur v. National Ice Co. 134
N. Y. 355: 109.
Gowen v. Penobscot R. R. Co., 44 Me.
140: 1163, 1710.
Grab, Matter of, 157 N. Y. 69 : 1423.
Grade Crossing Comrs., In re, 64
App. Div. 71: 937, 1564.
Grade Crossing Comrs., In re, 169
N. Y. 605: 937, 1564.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
6 App. Div. 327; 1077, 1244.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
17 App. Div. N. Y. 54: 952,
1272.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of, 52
App. Div. 122: 1377.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
59 App. Div. 498: 660, 710,
1210.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
116 App. Div. 549: 1211.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
154 N. Y. 550: 610, 616.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
154 N. Y. 561 : 1080.
Grade Crossing Comrs., ilatter of,
164 N. Y. 575: 1377.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
166 N. Y. 69 : 320, 384, 388, 398,
647.
Grade Crossing Comrs., Matter of,
168 N. Y. 659: 660, 710.
Graden v. Parkville, 114 Mo. App.
527: 1594.
Grading Bledsoe Hill, In re, 200 Mo,
630: 706.
Grady v. Case, 51 N. J. Eq. 426:
947.
v. Dunden, 30 Ore. 333: 928, 1005,
1018, 1571.
v. N. W. Loan & Inv. Co., 93 Wis.
229: 1534.
Graf V. St. Louis, 8 Mo. App. 562:
893, 895.
Graff V. Baltimore, 10 Md. 544:
1669, 1673, 1685.
V. Evergreen R. R. Co., 2 Pa. Co.
Ct. 502: 717.
Grafton v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R.
Co., 21 Fed. 309: 622, 1294,
1549.
v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 16 N. D.
313: 1057, 1288, 1289.
Grafton Dolomite Stone Co. v. St.
Louis etc. Ry. Co., 199 111. 458:
851, 1620.
Graham v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 39
Ind. App. 294: 91, 1639, 1653,
1668.
v. Columbus & Indianapolis Cen-
tral R. R. Co., 27 Ind. 260:
1625.
V. Connersville etc. R. R. Co., 36
Ind. 463: 1222, 1348.
V. Flynn, 21 Neb. 229: 865, 1034.
V. Keene, 143 111. 425: 154, 167.
V. Northern R. R. Co., 10 Grant
Ch. 259: 75.
V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., 145
Pa. St. 504: 1188, 1200, 1226.
V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 69 Ark.
562: 837, 1476, 1633.
V. United States, 2 Ct. of Claims
327: 459.
V. Virgin, 78 Me. 338: 1522.
Grand Ave. R. R. Co. v. Citizens' R.
R. Co., 148 Mo. 665: 427, 764,
1282, 1284.
V. Lindell R. R. Co., 148 Mo. 637:
427, 764, 1284.
V. People's R. R. Co., 12 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 594: 427.
V. People's R. R. Co., 132 Mo. 34:
1282, 1284.
Grand Boulevard, Matter of, 33 App.
Div. N. Y. 210: 1044.
CASES CITED.
CXXIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719. ]■
Grandchamp v. McCormack, 150
Mich. 232: 1511, 1576.
Grande Ronde Elec. Co. v. Drake, 46
Ore. 243: 151, 495, 496, 498, 536,
707, 921.
Grand Junction R. R. Co. v. County
Comrs., 14 Gray 553: 994, 1278.
Grand Rapids v. Bennett, 106 Mich.
528: 1132, 1290.
V. Coit, 149 Mich. 668: 1058, 1132,
1387.
V. Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co., 58
Mich. 641: 751, 895, 948, 1290.
V. Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co., 66
Mich. 606: 476.
V. Luce, 92 Mich. 92: 1058, 1146.
V. Perldns, 78 Mich. 93: 1109.
V. Powers, 89 Mich. 94: 116, 129,
136.
Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. Jarvis,
30 Mich. 308: 60, 67, 90, 100,
101, 680.
Grand Rapids E. L. & P. Co. v.
Grand Rapids E. L. & G. Co.,
33 Fed. 659: 346, 411.
Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v. Alley,
34 Mich. 16: 954.
V. Alley, 34 Mich. 18: 954.
V. Chesebro, 74 Mich. 466: 897,
1089, 1174, 1176, 1310, 1456.
T. Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co., 35
Mich. 265: 765, 788, 1610.
V. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62: 247, 253,
279, 309.
V. Heisel, 47 Mich. 393: 242, 247,
253, 309, 622, 1294.
V. Horn, 41 Ind. 479: 1112, 1205.
V. Van Driels, 24 Mich. 409: 990,
1058.
V. Weiden, 69 Mich. 572 : 894, 992,
1419, 1421.
v. Weiden, 70 Mich. 390 : 893, 894,
895, 896, 991, 1274, 1377.
Grand Tower etc. R. R. Co. v. Wal-
ton, 150 HI. 428: 832.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Berlin, 68
N. H. 168: 1005, 1017, 1415,
1420.
v. Richardson, 91 U. S. 454: 1475.
Granger v. Avery, 64 Me. 292 : 103.
V. Postal Tel. Co., 70 S. C. 528:
830, 1635.
V. Syracuse, 38 How. Pr. 308:
1196.
Grannis v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry.
Co., 18 Minn. 194, 1186.
Grant v. Courier, 24 Barb. 232 : 462.
V. Davenport, 18 la. 179: 129, 136,
875.
V. Hyde Park, 67 Ohio St. 166:
238, 707, 1246, 1250, 1314, 1446.
Grant v. Kugler, 81 Ga. 637 : 79, 88.
V. United States, 1 Ct. of CI. 41:
18.
Grant Park v. Trah, 218 III. 516:
629, 631, 634.
V. Irah, 115 HI. App. 291: 630,
631, 634.
Grant Street, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 84: 1397.
Granville v. Co. Comrs., 97 Mass.
193: 1415.
Grape St., In re, 103 Pa. St. 121:
1708.
Graves v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
69 Mo. App. 574: 147, 157.
V. Middletown, 137 Ind. 400: 1029,
1514, 1518.
V. Otis, 2 Hill, 466: 2il, 972.
Gray v. Bartlett, 20 Pick. 186: 103.
V. Baynard, 5 Del. Ch. 499: 1489.
V. Burlington ex,^ R. R. Co. 37 la.
119: 843, 844, 851.
V. Case, 51 N. J. Eq. 426: 1564.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 189 III.
400, 843.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 189 III.
400: 748.
T. Dundas, 11 Out. 317: 84.
V. First Division of St. Paul &
Pacific R. R. Co., 13 Minn. 315:
247.
V. Fort Plain, 105 App. Div. 215:
1338, 1554.
V. Greenville etc. Ry. Co., 59 N. J.
Eq. 372: 370, 384, 718.
V. Haas, 98 la. 502: 869.
V. Iowa Land Co., 26 Iowa 387 :
284, 390.
V. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co., 129 Iowa
68: 980.
V. Jones, 178 III. 169: 1402.
V. Knoxville, 85 Tenn. 99: 145.
V. Liverpool & Bury Ry. Co., 9
Veas. 391: 709.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 128 N. Y.
499: 1121, 1554, 1615.
V. Middletown, 56 Vt. 53: 1081.
V. New York etc. T. Co., 56 N. J.
Eq. 463: 297.
v. New York etc. Telephone Co., 68
N. J. L. 454: 1116.
V. New York & Phila. Traction Co.,
56 N. J. Eq. 463: 1618.
V. No. Versailles Tp., 208 Pa. St.
77: 1508.
V. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry.
Co., 81 Mo. 126: 684, 1033, 1683.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 13 Minn.
315: 304.
v. York State Telephone Co., 92
App. Div. 89: 339, 1593.
cxxx
CASES CITKJJ.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Gray v. York State Telephone Co., 41
Misc. 109: 339, 1593.
Grayvllle & Mattoon R. R. Co. v.
Christy, 92 111. 337: 1115.
Great Bend Road, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 335 :
1504.
Great Falls Manf. Co. v. Attorney-
General, 124 U. S. 581: 1029.
V. Fernald, 47 N. H. 444: 544, 549.
V. Garland, 25 Fed. 521 : 923, 1165,
1167, 1576.
Great Falls Power Co. v. Great Falls
etc. R. R. Co., 104 Va. 416: 528,
540, 806.
Great Northern R. R. Co. v. St. Paul,
61 Minn. 1: 878.
Great Western Nat. Gas & Oil Co., v.
Hawkins, 30 Ind. App. 557: 21,
494, 498, 499, 507, 549, 929, 988,
1042, 1044.
Gredney v. Tewksbury, 3 Mass. 307:
1527.
Greeley v. Maine Central R. R. Co.,
53 Me. 200: 147, 157.
V. Quimby, 22 N. H. 335 : 865.
Greeley etc. R. R. Co. v. Yount, 7
Colo. App. 189: 1176, 1320,
1547.
Green v. Bethen, 30 Ga. 896: 1328.
V. Chicago, 97 111. 370: 1108, 1121,
1195.
V. City & Suburban R. R. Co., 78
Md. 294: 280, 281, 324.
V. Bales, 2 A. & E. N. S. 225 : 1260.
V. East Haddam, 51 Conn. 547 :
1105, 1387.
V. Elliott, 86 Ind. 53 : 1407.
V. Fall River, 113 Mass. 262: 1142,
1185.
V. Green, 34 111. 320: 1703.
V. Ivey, 45 Fla. 338 : 408, 409, 414,
1608.
V. Londenslager, 54 N. J. L. 478;
993.
V. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 82 Mo.
653: 1628.
V. New York Central R. R. Co.,
65 How. Pr. 154: 316.
V. Portland, 32 Me. 431: 291, 304,
316, 533, 1667.
V. Reading, 9 Watts 382: 209, 211.
V. Road Board, 126 Ga. 693: 1363,
1515.
V. St. Louis, 106 Mo. 454: 1444.
V. Savannah, 6 Ga. 1: 469.
V. South Bound R. R. Co., 112 Ga.
849: 9.36, 1559.
V. State, 56 Wis. 583: 1024.
V. Swift, 47 Cal. 536: 89.
V. Tacoma, 51 Fed. 622: 1626.
Green v. Taylor etc. R. R. Co., 79
Tex. 604: 158, 1639.
Green Bay etc. Canal Co. v. Kau-
kauna Water Power Co., 90 Wis.
370: 71, 76.
Greenburg v. Western Turf Asso.,
148 Cal. 126: 467.
V. Western Turf. Asso., 140 Cal.
357: 467.
Greencastle v. Hazelett, 23 Ind. 186:
165.
Greene v. Aurora Rys. Co., 157 Fed.
85: 1570, 1624.
,v. East Haddam, 51 Conn. 547:
1381.
V. O'Connor, 18 R. I. 25: 513.
V. O'Connor, 18 R. I. 56: 887.
V. Portland, 32 Me. 431: 300.
Green & K. Tp. Road, In re, 129
Pa. St. 527: 1081.
Greenland v. Co. Comrs., 68 Md. 59:
1397, 1428.
Greenleaf v. Francis, 18 Pick. 117:
161.
Greenleaf Court's Case, 4 Wharton
514: 1094.
Green St., In re, 1 Mont. Co. L. R.
37: 778.
Greenup Co. v. Maysville etc. R. R.
Co., 88 Ky. 659: 1643.
Greenville v. AUand (Tex. Civ. App.)
27 S. W. 292: 454.
V. Earle, 80 S. C. 321: 613, 1353.
v. Mouldin, 64 S. C. 438: 613,
1625.
Greenville etc. Ry. Co., Matter of, 75
App. Div. 220: 730.
Greenville etc. Ry. Co., Matter of, 172
N. Y. 462: 730.
Greenville etc. Ry. Co. v. Grey, 62
N. J. Eq. 768: 760, 1473.
V. Nunnamaker, 4 Rich. L. 107:
1386.
V. Partlow, 5 Rich. 428: 1192, 1194,
1317.
V. Parlow, 6 Rich. 286: 1436, 1484.
Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S.
13: 407.
V. School District, 126 Mich. 81:
859.
V. Wilton R. R. Co., 23 N. H. 261:
1331.
Greer, Matter of, 39 N. Y. App. Div.
22: 610, 615.
Greesemer v. Oley Val. R. R. Co., 13
Pa. Dist. Ct. 225: 1332.
Gregg V. Baltimore, 58 Md. 256: 589,
624, 1309, 1550.
V. Northern R. R. Co., 67 N. H.
452: 1143, 1228, 1243.
CASES CITED.
cxxxi
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1710.]
Gregory v. Ann Arbor, 127 Mich.
454: 886.
V. Bush, 64 Mich. 37 : 146, 147, 150,
154.
V. Forbes, 96 N. C. 77 : 127, 129.
Gregsten v. Chicago, 40 111. App. 607 :
197.
Greist v. Amrhyn, 80 Conn. 280: 400.
Gresinger v. Hellertown, 133 Pa. St.
522: 1402.
Greve v. First Division of the St.
Paul etc. R. R. Co., 26 Minn. 66:
1347.
Grey v. Greenville etc. R. R. Co., 60
N. J. Eq. 153: 760.
V. Greenville etc. Ry. Co., 59 N. J.
Eq. 372: 320, 351.
V. Paterson, 58 N. J. Eq. 1: 83.
V. Paterson, 60 N. J. Eq. 385: 82,
83, 84, 1604, 1606, 1615.
Gridley v. Bloomington, 88 111. 554:
492.
Griffin's Petition, 27 N. H. 343: 701.
Griffin v. Augusta & Knoxville R.
R. Co., 70 Ga. 164: 1536.
V. Dogan, 48 Miss. 11: 10.
V. Foster, 8 Jones L. 337 : 866.
v. House, 18 Johns. 397: 726.
T. Jacksonville etc. R. R. Co., 33
Fla. 606: 1630.
V. Lawrence, 135 Mass. 365: 144.
V. Martin, 7 Barb. 297: 357, 1489.
V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 1 Mont.
Co. L. R. 169: 1189, 1317.
V. Shreveport etc. R. R. Co., 41
La. Ann. 808: 640, 1294, 1337.
Griffith V. Holman, 23 Wash. 347:
113.
V. Pence, 9 Kan. App. 253: 575.
Griffiths V. Galindo, 86 Cal. 192: 877.
Grigg V. Northern R. R. Co., 67 N.
H. 452: 745.
Griggs V. Foote, 4 Allen 195: 829,
1551.
Grigsby v. Burtnett, 31 Cal. 406:
1570, 1573.
Grimes v. Doyle, Sneed (Ky.) 58:
1091, 1367.
V. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168: 594.
Grimshaw v. Fall River, 160 Mass.
483: 1403.
Grimwood v. Macke, 79 Ind. 100:
1406.
Grindley v. Barker, 1 Bos. & Pul.
229: 1100.
Grinnel v. Adams, 34 Ohio St. 44:
975.
Grinnell v. Portage Co. Comr., 6 Ohio
C. C. (N. S.) 180: 375, 386, 388,
405, 1596.
Griscom v. Gilmore, 15 N. J. L. 475:
707, 1102, 1358.
V. Gilmore, 16 N. J. L. 105: 1101,
1364.
Griswold v. Guilford, 73 Conn. 192:
600.
V. McGee, 102 Minn. 114: 943.
• V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 122 N. Y.
640: 1663.
V. Minneapolis etc. Ry. Co., 12 N.
D. 435: 840, 842, 843, 854, 1627,
1629.
Griveau v. South Chicago City Ry.
Co., 130 111. App. 519:
Groce v. Zumwalt, 4 Mo. 567: 1004,
1385.
Groff V. Bird-in-Hand Turnpike Co.,
128 Pa. St. 621: 2, 779, 793, 798,
1595.
V. Bird-in-Hand Turnpike Co., 144
Pa. St. 150: 779, 793, 798, 1595.
V. Frederick City, 44 Md. 67: 466.
Gross V. Lampsacus, 74 Tex. 196:
143.
V. McNutt, 4 Ida. 286: 865.
Grosser v. Rochester, 60 Hun 379:
942.
V. Rochester, 148 N. Y. 235: 942,
1569.
Grossman v. Houston etc. Ry. Co.,
99 Tex. 641: 328.
V. Patton, 186 Mo. 661: 710, 1085.
Grosvenor v. Hempstead Junction R.
R. Co., 1 DeG. & J. 446: 822.
Grote V. New York, 117 App. Div.
768: 1325.
V. New York, 190 N. Y. 235: 1325.
Groton's Petition, 43 N. H. 91: 1385.
Groton v. Hurlbut, 22 Conn. 178;
788.
Grove v. Allen, 92 la. 519: 387, 388.
Grover v. Comet, 135 Mo. 21: 1306.
Groves etc. R. R. Co. v. Herman, 206
m. 34: 1109, 1379.
Grove St., In re, 61 Cal. 438: 977,
1518.
Grugan v. Philadelphia, 158 Pa. St,
337: 1711.
Grundy v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
98 Ky. 117: 862.
Gruner v. Hartman, 66 N. J. L. 189:
1362.
Gudger v. Richmond etc. R. R. Co.,
106 N. C. 481: 1707, 1708.
Gue v. Tide Water Canal Co., 24
How. 257: 1499.
Guerkink v. Petaluma, 112 Cal. 306:
169, 1617.
Guess v. South Bound R. R. Co., 40
S. C. 450: 832.
CXXXll
CASES CITED.
[The references me to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-T42 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Guess V. Stone Mountain Granite etc.
Co., 72 Ga. 320: 1294.
Guest V. Church Hill, 90 Md. 689:
154, 211, 233.
V. Reynolds, 69 111. 478: 440.
Guild V. Shedd, 150 Mass. 255: 873.
Guilford's Petition, 25 N. H. 124:
1029.
Guilford v. County Comrs., 40 Me.
296: 992.
V. Minneapolis etc. E. R. Co., 94
Minn. 108: 1595.
Guilford Town, Matter of, 85 App.
Div. 207: 1386, 1402.
Guillotte V. New Orleans, 12 La. An.
432: 485.
Guinn v. Iowa etc. Ry. Co., 125 la.
301: 1245, 1311.
V. Iowa etc. Ry. Co., 131 la. 680:
1109, 1245, 1311, 1320, 1450.
V. Ohio Eiv. R. R. Co., 46 W. Va.
151: 256, 640, 1297, 1552.
Gulf Coast Ice & Mfg. Co. v. Bowers,
80 Miss. 570 : 344.
Gulf etc. R. R. Co. v. Abney, 3 Tex.
Civ. App. p. 485: 1149.
V. Brugger, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 367:
1112, 1221, 1329.
V. Dunman, 85 Tex. 176: 853.
V. Ellis, 70 Tex. 307: 844, 1311.
V. Fink (Tex.) 18 S. W. 492: 1305.
V. Ft. Worth etc. R. R. Co., 86
Tex. 537: 772, 894, 1511, 1512.
v. Frederickson (Tex.) 19 S. W.
124: 158, 1651, 1655.
v. Hartley, 88 Miss. 674: 1455.
1506.
V. Haskell, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 550:
1651, 1653.
V. Hefflry, 158 U. S. 98: 482.
v. Helsley, 62 Tex. 593: 152, 1552,
1651, 1655.
V. Hepner, 83 Tex. 136: 92, 1651,
1653.
V. HoUiday, 65 Tex. 512: 152.
V. Jones, 63 Tex. 524: 167.
V. Jones, 82 Tex. 156: 831, 850.
V. Jones, 3 Tex. Ct. of App. p.
41: 152.
v. Kerfoot, 85 Tex. 267: 1409.
V. Locker, 78 Tex. 279: 86, 92.
V. Martin, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 379:
843, 844, 852.
V. Milam Co., 90 Tex. 355: 1288.
v. Mud Creek, I. A. & M. Co., 1
Tex. App. avil Cas. p. 169: 707,
984.
V. Necco (Tex.) 15 S. W. Rep.
1102; 449, 654, 1244.
V. Poindexter, 70 Tex. 98: 707,
831, 1526.
V. Pomeroy, 67 Tex. 498: 94.
Gulf etc. R. R. Co. v. Pool, 70 Tex.
713: 88, 1457.
V. Richards, 83 Tex. 203: 862.
V. Rowland, 70 Tex. 298: 844, 1311.
V. Singleterry, 78 Miss. 772: 830.
V. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 18 Tex.
Civ. App. 500: 682, 724, 988.
V. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 25 Tex.
Civ. App. 488: 682, 684, 690,
696, 724.
V. Steele, 29 Tex. C5v. App. 328:
152.
V. Tacquard, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 179:
715.
V. Tait, 63 Tex. 223: 155, 1552,
1651, 1655.
Gunn V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 46 W.
Va. 151: 1550.
Gunnerus v. Spring Prairie, 91 Minn.
473: 57, 155.
Gunning v. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 2
Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 411: 1588.
Gunning System v. Buffalo, 62 App.
Div. 497: 471.
V. BuflFalo, 75 App. Div. 31: 471
Gunter v. Geary, 1 Cal. 462: 139.
Guptail V. Teft, 16 111. 365: 1517,
1634.
Gumee v. Chicago, 40 111. 165: 1093.
Gurney v. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
41 Minn. 223: 1105, 1108.
V. Minneapolis Union Elevator Co.,
63 Minn. 70: 809, 1474.
Gumsey v. Edwards, 26 N. H. 224:
1518, 1520.
v. Northern Cal. Power Co., 7 Cal.
App. 534: 344.
Gustafson v. Hamm, 56 Minn. 334:
180, 181, 190, 300, 317, 533, 1582,
1589.
Guthrie etc. Ry. Co. v. Faulkner, 12
Okla. 532: 1330, 1332, 1477.
Gutsehow V. Washington Co., 74 Neb.
794: 1180, 1220.
Guttery v. Glenn, 201 El. 275: 351,
370, 383, 871, 875.
Guyandot Valley Ry. Co. v. Buskirk,
57 W. Va. 417: 1129, 1145, 1228.
Gwinner v. Lehigh R. R. Co., 55 Pa.
St. 126: 698.
Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio 24: 943,
945.
Haan v. Meester, 132 la. 709: 870.
Haas V. Evansville, 20 Ind. App. 482
1489.
Hab V. Georgetown, 46 Wash. 642
1353.
Hackett v. Brown, 128 Mich. 141
1419.
V. State, 113 Ind. 532: 1034, 1514.
CASES CITED.
CXXXlll
[The references arc to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Hackstaok v. Keshena Improvement
Co., 66 Wis. 439: 81, 1524.
Hadeock v. Gloversville, 96 App. Div.
130: 1605.
Hadden v. Metropolitan EI. R. R.
Co., 75 Hun 63: 1139, 1143, 1296.
Hadley v. Citizens' Savings Institu-
tion, 123 Mass. 301: 1042, 1045,
1073.
V. Passaic Co., 73 N. J. L. 197:
1138, 1148, 1250.
Hafey v. Commonwealth, 189 Mass.
540: 1366.
Hagaman v. Moore, 84 Ind. 496:
1123, 1125, 1192, 1310, 1316.
Hagar v. Brainard, 44 Vt. 294: 947,
966, 1024, 1036.
V. Board of Supervisors of Yolo
Co., 47 Cal. 222: 13, 564, 572.
Hagemeyer v. St. Michael, 70 Minn.
482: 1614.
Hagerstown v. Groh, 101 Md. 560:
947, 949, 961, 1563.
Haggard v. Algona School Dt., 113
la. 486: 1134, 1210, 1392, 1673.
Haggerty v. Seranton, 23 Pa. Supr.
279: 373, 382, 394, 647.
Hagner v. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R.
Co., 154 Pa. St. 475: 819.
Haiglit V. Keokuk, 4 la. 199: 104.
V. Littlefield, 147 N. Y. 338: 878.
Haines v. Hall, 17 Or. 165: 113.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 65 la.
216: 1208.
V. Twenty-second St. etc. Pass. R.
R. Co., 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 506: 297,
315, 316, 1587, 1590.
Haislip V. Wilmington & W. R. R.
Co., 102 N. C. 376: 1187, 1252.
Haldeman v. Bruckhart, 45 Pa. St.
514: 165.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 50 Pa. St. 425:
809, 1500.
Hale V. Burwell, 2 Patten & Heath,
608: 929, 931, 965.
V. Lawrence, 21 N. J. L. 714: 19.
V. McLea, 53 Cal. 578: 165.
V. McLeod, 2 Met. Ky. 98: 872.
V. Point Pleasant & Ohio E. R.
Co., 23 W. Va. 454: 1160, 1294,
1580.
Haley v. Philadelphia, 68 Pa. St. 45:
1324.
Hall V. Baird, 73 la. 528: 1515.
V. Boyd, 14 Ga. 1: 1163.
V. Breyfogle, 162 Ind. 494: 366,
877, 880, 882, 1491.
V. Bristol, L. R. 2 C. P. 322: 628.
V. Carter, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 230:
866.
V. Ionia, 38 Mieh. 493: 74.
Hall V. Kaufman, 106 Cal. 451: 889.
V. Lebanon, 31 Ind. App. 265: 384,
390.
V. Manchester, 39 N. H. 295: 1361.
V. Manchester, 40 N. H. 410: 1100.
V. Meriden, 48 Conn. 416: 891.
V. Palmer, 54 Mich. 270: 1444.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 215 Pa. St. 172:
315, 1590.
V. People, 57 HI. 307: 1162, 1637,
1638.
V. Pettit, 88 Mich. 158: 516, 522,
976, 1419.
V. Pickering, 40 Me. 548: 834, 1522.
V. Ragsdale, 4 S. & P. 252: 410,
414.
V. St. Paul, 56 Minn. 428: 865.
V. Smith, 2 Bing. 156: 206.
V. State, 72 App. Div. 360: 866,
1262.
V. State, 92 App. Div. 96: 866,
869.
V. Thayer, 105 Mass. 219: 1082.
V. Trenton, 86 Mo. App. 326: 237.
Halleran v. Bell Telephone Co., 64
App. Div. 47: 1594.
V. Bell Telephone Co., 177 N. Y.
573: 1594.
Hallock V. Franklin Co., 2 Met. 558:
1087, 1682.
V. Woolsey, 23 Wend. 328: 1527,
1528.
Halse Tp. Road, 4 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 423: 1059.
Balse Tp. Road, 6 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 463: 778.
Halsey v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.,
45 N. J. L. 26: 1524.
V. Rapid Transit R. R. Co., 47
N. J. Eq. 380: 181, 201, 279,
333, 1586, 1590.
Halstead v. Manhattan R. R. Co.,
58 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 270: 1085.
Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341:
996.
Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34:
468.
V. State, 74 Neb. 757: 473.
Halverson v. Bell, 39 Minn. 240: 1381,
1514, 1634.
Ham V. Levee Comrs. 83 Miss. 534:
153, 584, 679, 1057, 1063, 1070.
V. Salem, 100 Mass. 350: 352,
1142, 1144.
V. Wisconsin etc. Ry. Co., 61 la.
716: 1138, 1204, 1208.
Hamblin v. Co. Comrs., 16 Gray 256:
1639.
Hamel v. Minneapolis etc. Ry. Co.. 97
Minn. 334: 842, 843, 844, 853,
1627.
CXXXIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hamilton, Matter of, 14 Barb. 405:
410.
Hamilton v. Adams, 7 J. J. Marsh.
248: 1073.
V. Annapolis & Elk Ridge R. R.
Co., 1 Md. 553: 730. 1172, 1483.
V. Annapolis & Elk Ridge R. R.
Co., 1 Md. Ch. 107: 730, 1162,
1163, 1172, 1483.
V. Ashbrook, 62 Ohio St. 571: 79.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 124 111.
235: 886.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 203 HI.
269: 1017, 1412, 1420.
v. Fort Wayne, 73 Ind. 1: 1397.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 57 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 491: 1444.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 58 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 17: 1121, 1305, 1665.
V. New York & Harlem R. R. Co.,
9 Paige, 171: 1582.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 190
Pa. St. 51: 1272, 1315.
V. Spokane etc. R. R. Co., 2 Ida-
ho, 898: 431.
V. Vicksburg etc. R. R. Co., 119
U. S. 280: 133.
Hamilton Ave., Matter of, 14 Barb.
405: 408, 1107.
Hamilton County v. Garrett, 62 Tex.
602: 1382, 1546.
V. Rape, 101 Tenn. 222: 181, 222.
Hamilton etc. Traction Co. v. Hamil-
ton etc. Elec. Traction Co., 69
Ohio St. 402: 416, 910.
V. Parrot, 67 Ohio St. 181: 302.
Hamilton G. & C. Co. v. Hamilton,
146 U. S. 258: 409.
Hamilton St. Opening, In re, 6 Mont.
Co. L. Rep. 207: 878.
Hamlin v. Kansas Ry. Co., 73 Kan.
565: 1503.
V. New Bedford, 143 Mass. 192:
703, 1434.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 160
Mass. 459: 845.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 166
Mass. 462: 1485.
Hamman v. County Comrs., 154
Mass. 509: 387.
Hammel v. Cumberland Valley R. R.
Co., 175 Pa. St. 537: 1458.
Hammersley v. New York, 67 Barb.
35: 1325
V. New York, 56 N. Y. 533: 1168,
1325, 1326.
Hammerslough v. Kansas City, 57
Mo. 219: 1576.
Hammersmith etc. R. R. Co. v.
Brand, L. R. 4 Eng. & Ir. App.
171: 654.
Hammett v. Phila., 65 Pa. St. 146:
14, 744.
Hammon v. Commissioners, 38 111.
App. 237: 1020.
Hammond v. County Comrs., 154
Mass. 509: 371, 379, 388, 1415.
V. Harvard, 31 Neb. 635: 630.
V. Port Royal & A. R. R. Co., 15
S. C. 10: 854.
V. Port Royal & Augusta R. R.
Co., 16 S. C. 567: 854.
V. Rose, 11 Colo. 524: 70.
V. Shepard, 186 111. 235: 109.
Hamor v. Bar Harbor Water Co., 78
Me. 127: 70, 74, 912, 1522, 1525.
V. Bar Harbor Water Co., 92 Me.
364: 1445.
Hampden P. & C. Co. v. Springfield
etc. R. R. Co., 124 Mass. 118:
1222, 1320.
Hampstead v. Junction R. R. Co., 1
DeG. & J. 446: 823.
Hampton v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 125
111. App. 412: 352.
v. Clinton Water etc. Co., 65 N. J.
L. 158: 707, 708, 917, 1050.
V. Coffin, 4 N. H. 517: 1683.
V. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St. 329:
695, 1674.
V. Kansas City, 74 Mo. App. 129:
630 1323.
V. Poland. 50 N. J. L. 367: 514,
1057, 1419.
Hancock v. Boston, 1 Met. 122: 1028,
1415, 1416.
V. Philadelphia, 4 Pa. Dist. Ct.
345: 1327.
V. Philadelphia, 175 Pa. St. 124:
1426.
V. Worcester, 62 Vt. 106: 1415.
Hancock Stock & Fence Law Co. v.
Adams, 87 Fed. 417: 467, 494,
589.
Hancock Street, 18 Pa. St. 26: 13,
14.
Hand Gold Mining Co. v. Parker,
59 Ga. 419: 494, 504, 562, 684.
Handler v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.,
209 Pa. St. 256: 838.
Hanes v. North Carolina R. R. Co.,
109 N. C. 490: 1359, 1360.
Haney v. G. C. & S. F. R. R. Co.,
3 Tex. Ct. of App. 336: 666.
V. Kansas City, 94 Mo. 334: 143,
235.
Hanford v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
43 Minn. 104: 105, 132.
Hanger v. Des Moines, 109 la. 480:
865. 891.
Hankins v. Lawrence, 8 Blackf. 266:
549, 553, 1163. 1165.
CASES CITED.
CXXXV
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hanley v. Toronto etc. Ry. Co., 11
Ont. 91: 1635.
Hanlin v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.,
61 Wis. 515: 247.
Hanlon v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 40
Neb. 52: 837, 864, 867, 868, 869.
V. Westchester, 57 Barb. 383; 828,
923.
Hannah v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 81 Mo.
App. 78: 285.
Hannaker v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
5 Dak. 1: 157.
Hannibal v. Hannibal & St. Joseph
R. R. Co., 49 Mo. 480: 750.
Hannibal Bridge Co. v. Schaubacker,
49 Mo. 555: 1386.
V. Schaubacker, 57 Mo. 582: 1211,
1339.
Hannibal etc. R. R. Co. v. Morton,
20 Mo. 70: 1427.
V. Morton, 27 Mo. 317: 959, 1094.
V. Muder, 49 Mo. 165: 524, 526, 897,
991.
V. Rowland, 29 Mo. 337: 1389.
Hannum v. Media etc. Elec. Ry. Co.,
200 Pa. St. 44: 315, 1587.
V. Media etc. Elec. Ry. Co., 221 Pa.
St. 454: 763.
V. West Chester, 63 Pa. St. 475:
1714.
Hanover's Appeal, 150 Pa. St. 202:
698.
Haurahan v. Fox, 47 la. 102: 1317.
Hansen v. Hammer, 15 Wash. 315:
584, 1008.
Hanson v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 61
Iowa, 588: 300.
V. Effingham, 20 N. H. 460: 1437.
V. La Fayette, 18 La. 295: 440.
Happy V. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 313: 1007.
Harbach v. Des Moines etc. R. R. Co.,
80 la. 593: 620, 1544, 1580, 1591,
1592.
Harbaugh Ave., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 440:
976, 1005.
Harbaugh's Road, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 671:
707.
Harbeck v. Boston, 10 Gush. 295: 808.
V. Toledo, 11 Ohio St. 219: 707,
978, 1032, 1033, 1516.
Hardenburg v. Lockwood, 25 Barb. 9:
357, 1489.
Harder v. Kansas etc. Ry. Co., 74
Kan. 615: 1408.
Hardesty v. Ball, 43 Kan. 151: 1710,
1711.
Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 382:
108, 109, 110, 114.
Harding v. Funk, 8 Kan. 315: 494,
549, 1185. 1310.
Harding v. Goodlet, 3 Yerg. Tenn.
41: 6, 548, 551, 595.
V. Medway, 10 Met. 465 : 1683.
v. Stamford Water Co., 41 Conn.
87: 70, 73.
Hardinsburg v. Cravens, 148 Ind. 1:
1568.
Hardman v. Cabot, 60 W. Va. 664:
337, 361.
Hardy v. Ala. etc. R. R. Co., 73 Miss.
719: 1485.
V. Houston, 2 N. H. 309: 1372.
V. Keene, 54 N. H. 449: 993.
V. McKinney, 107 Ind. 364: 786,
1406.
Hare v. Rice, 142 Pa. St. 608: 644,
1396.
Hargis v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
100 Mo. 210: 864, 867, 869, 871.
Hargo V. Hodgden, 89 Cal. 623: 1665.
Hargreaves v. Kimberly, 26 W. Va.
787' 1123
Harkins v. Aaheville, 123 N. C. 636:
948.
Harkness v. Waldo Co. Comrs., 26
Me. 353: 701.
Harlan v. Logansport Nat. Gas Co.,
133 Ind. 323: 833.
Harlan Co. v. Hogsett, 60 Neb. 362:
936, 1319, 1561.
Harlan & H. Co. v. Parchall, 5 Del.
Ch. 435: 104, 127, 136.
Harlem Riv. etc. R. R. Co. v. Rey-
nolds, 50 App. Div. 575: 1379.
Harley v. Jones, 165 Pa. St. 34: 231.
V. Meshoppen Water Co., 174 Pa.
St. 416: 1614.
Harlot Paper Co. v. State, 47 App.
Div. 196: 1496.
Harlow v. Marquette, H. & O. R. R.
Co., 41 Mich. 336: 1347.
V. Pike, 3 Me. 438: 1004, 1013.
1014, 1411, 1516, 1634.
Harman v. Caretta Ry. Co., 61 W.
Va. 356: 1569, 1574.
V. So. Ry. Co., 72 S. C. 228: 838,
856, 1479.
Harmon v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
87 Tenn. 614: 247, 316, 1549,
1649, 1657, 1662.
Harness v. The Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal Co., 1 Md. Ch. 248: 22, 23,
923, 927, 1162, 1163, 1165, 1535,
1675.
Harp v. Glenolden, 28 Pa. Supr. Ct.
116: 631.
Harper v. Detroit, 110 Mich. 427:
1306.
V. Lexington etc. R. R. Co., 2 Dana
227: 1010, 1091, 1094.
V. Miller, 4 Ired. Law 34: 1075,
1076.
CXXXVl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Harper v. Morse, 46 Mo. App. 470 :
856.
V. Richardson, 22 Cal. 251: 1707,
1710.
V. State, 109 Ala. 66: 869.
Harper H. & D. Co. v. Mountain
Water Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 479:
76, 1603.
Harper's Ferry v. Kaplon, 58 W. Va.
482: 878, 890.
Harrelson v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., 151 Mo. 482: 159, 1446.
Harrimau v. Moore, 74 N. H. 277:^
865.
V. Southern Ry. Co., Ill Tenn.
538: 487, 1288.
Harriman Imp. Co. v. Keel, 25 Utah
96: 161, 162.
Harrington v. Co. Comra., 22 Pick.
263: 1682.
V. Harrington, 1 Met. 404: 1373.
V. la. Cent. Ry. Co., 126 la. 388:
199, 351, 377, 380, 388, 395, 1502.
V. People, 6 Barb. 607: 1518.
V. Probate Judge, 153 Mich. 660:
1105.
V. St. Paul & Sioux City R. R. Co.,
17 Minn. 215: 242, 247, 315, 936,
1314, 1580, 1650, 1657.
Harris v. Board of Supervisors, 88
Iowa 219: 400, 993, 1419.
V. Brewster, 154 Pa. St. 22: 966,
1558.
V. Coltraine, 3 Hawks, N. C. 312:
1444.
V. Curtis, 34 Ind. App. 438: 993.
V. Howes, 75 Me. 436: 1258, 1369,
1556.
V. Kingston Realty Co., 116 App.
Div. 704: 936, 1561.
V. Marblehead, 10 Gray, 40: 687,
706, 1626.
V. Philadelphia, 155 Pa. St. 76:
141, 1651, 1656.
V. Ross, 112 Ind. 314: 1514.
V. Sohuylldll Riv. E S R. R. Co.,
141 Pa. St. 242: 1187, 1215, 1232,
1236.
V. Schuylkill Riv. E. S. R. R. Co.,
159 Pa. St. 468: 1535.
V. Thompson, 9 Barb. 350: 498,
675.
V. Woodstock, 27 Conn. 567: 1103.
Harrisburg v. Crangle, 3 W. & S.
460: 952, 953, 961, 1159, 1349.
V. McPherson, 200 Pa. St. 343: 11,
464.
V. Roller, 97 Va. 582: 212, 237.
Harrisburg City Pass. R. R. Co. v.
Harrisburg, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 584:
331.
Harrisburg City Pass. R. R. Co. v.
Harrisburg, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 593:
331.
V. Harrisburg, 149 Pa. St. 465:
299, 1620.
Harrisburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Harris-
burg etc. Turnpike Co., 15 Pa.
Co. Ct. 389: 920, 1053.
V. Peflfer, 84 Pa. St. 295: 1566.
Harrisburg etc. Road Co. v. Harris-
burg etc. Elec. Ry. Co., 177 Pa.
St. 585: 1160, 1170, 1462, 1464,
1466.
Harrisburg's Park, 34 Pa. Co. Ct.
219: 1167.
Harrison v. Iowa Midland R. R. Co.,
36 la. 323: 1109, 1123, 1125, 1204,
1231.
V. Lexington etc. Co., 9 B. Mon.
470: 1497.
v. Mt. Auburn Cable R. R. Co., 17
Weekly Bull. 265: 269.
V. Myer, 92 U. S. Ill: 19.
V. Newman, 71 Kan. 324: 1026.
V. New Orleans Pacific R. R. Co.,
34 La. Ann. 462: 248, 253, 1582.
V. Thompson, 9 Barb. 350: 495.
V. Young, 9 Ga. 359: 1112, 1329.
Harrisonburg v. Roller, 97 Va. 582:
1597.
Harrison County v. Seal, 66 Miss.
129: 886, 890.
Harrocks v. Met. R. R. Co., 4 B. &
S. 357: 640.
Harsh v. First Dlv. of the St. Paul
& Pacific R. R. Co., 17 Minn.
439: 1159.
Harshbarger v. Midland R. R. Co.,
131 Ind. 177: 937, 1497, 1502,
15C0, 1714.
Hart V. Atlanta, 100 Ga. 274: 59, 226.
V. Baraboo, 101 Wis. 368: 234.
V. Baton Rouge, 10 La. Ann. 171:
129, 137.
V. Board of Levee Comrs., 54 Fed.
559: 440.
V. Buckuer, 54 Fed. 925: 181, 297,
315, 1587, 1590.
V. Piedmont etc. R. R. Co., 52 W.
Va. 396: 640, 883.
V. Seattle, 42 Wash. 113: 631, 1601,
1612.
V. Seattle, 45 Wash. 300: 1601,
1612.
Hartford v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
59 Conn. 250: 880, 881.
Hartford Bridge Co. v. Union Ferry
Co., 29 Conn. 210: 413, 414.
Hartford etc. R. R. Co., In re, 74
Conn. 662: 693, 1719.
CASES CITED.
CXXXVll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. 1, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hartford & Connecticut Western R.
R. Co., Matter of, 65 How. Pr.
133: 811.
Hartford etc. R. R. Co. v. Montague,
72 Conn. 687: 693, 1719.
V. Wagner, 73 Conn. 506: 693,
1719.
Hartley v. Keokuk etc. R. R. Co., 85
la. 455: 991, 1046.
Hartman v. Pittsburg Inclined Plane
R. R. Co., 159 Pa. St. 442: 145.
V. Pittsburg Inclined Plane Co.,
11 Pa. Supr. Ct. 438: 1651.
V. Pittsburgh Inclined Plane Co.,
23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 360: 1651.
V. Tresise, 36 Colo. 146: 494. 591.
Hartman Steel Co.'s Appeal, 6 Pa.
Co. Ct. 183: 1589, 1590.
Hartman Steel Go's Appeal, 129 Pa
St. 551 : 301, 314, 533, 1582, 1589.
Ilarton v. Avondale, 147 Ala. 458:
464.
Hartshorn v. B. C. R. & N. R. R. Co.,
52 la. 613: 1310, 1426.
v. Chaddock, 135 N. Y. 116, 89.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 52 la.
613: 1208.
V. 111. Val. Traction Co., 210 III.
609: 682, 720.
V. HI. Val. Ry. Co., 216 HI. 392:
1233, 1234.
V. Pottroff, 89 111. 509: 1519, 1520.
V. South Reading, 3 Allen 501:
379, 391.
V. Worcester, 113 Mass. Ill: 1307.
Hartsman v. Covington & Lexington
R. R. Co., 18 B. Mon. 218: 1452.
Hartwell Matter, 2 Nisi Prius Rep.
(Mich.) 97: 3, 8.
Hartwell's Petition, 2 Nisi Prius Rep.
97: 551.
Hartwell v. Armstrong, 19 Barb. 166:
501, 564, 578.
Hartz V. St. Paul & Sioux City R. R.
Co., 21 Minn. 358: 247, 1208.
Harvard v. Crouch, 47 Neb. 133: 630.
V. St. Clair etc. Drainage Co., 51
111. 130: 927.
Harvard Branch R. R. Co. v. Rand, 8
Cush. 218: 1439.
Harvey v. Aurora etc. R. R. Co., 174
Hi. 295: 241, 708, 720, 1042, 1044.
V. Aurora etc. Ry. Co., 186 111. 283:
300, 303, 304, 720, 1071.
V. Dewoody, 18 Ark. 252: 485.
V. G. C. & S. F. R. R. Co., 3 Tex.
Ct. of App. 336: 647.
V. Georgia Southern etc. R. R. Co.,
90 Ga. 66: 179, 190, 320, 351, 372,
639, 646, 1593, 1596.
V. Kansas etc. R. R. Co., 54 Kan.
228: 842.
Harvey v. Lackawanna etc. R. R.
Co., 47 Pa. St. 428: 1341.
v. Lloyd, 3 Pa. 331: 530, 971,
1187.
V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co., 129
la. 465: 158, 1454, 1548, 1552,
1639, 1650, 1655, 1662.
V. Parkdale, 16 Ontario 372: 1239.
V. Parkdale, 17 Ontario App. 468:
1239
V. Thomas, 10 Watts, 63: 21, 530,
1349.
Harward v. St. Clair etc. Dr. Co., 51
111. 130: 10.
Harwell v. Bennett, 1 Rand. 282:
1383.
Harwinton v. Catlin, 19 Conn. 520:
678.
Harwood v. Bloomington, 124 111. 48:
1195.
V. West Randolph, 64 Vt. 41: 1229,
1268.
Haskell v. County Comrs., 9 Gray,
341: 1711.
v. Denver Tramway Co., 23 Colo.
60: 196, 277, 1586.
V. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208:
142, 787, 1354, 1606.
Haslam v. Galena etc R. R. Co., 64
111. 353: 1084, 1229, 1241.
Haslett V. New Albany Belt & T.
Co., 7 Ind. App. 603: 1524.
Hasson v. Oil Creek etc. R. R. Co.,
8 Phil. 556: 1478.
Hastings v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co.,
38 la. 316: 1463, 1669.
Hastings & Grand Island R. R. Co.,
v. Ingalls, 15 Neb. 123 : 243, 939,
1378.
Hastings Water Co. v. Hastings, 216
Pa. St. 178: 408, 409.
Haswell v. Vermont Central R. R.
Co., 23 Vt. 228: 1403, 1533, 1534.
Hatch V. Arnault, 3 La. An. 482:
1499.
V. Barnes, 124 la. 251: 735, 1492.
V. Qncinnati & Indiana R. R. Co.,
18 Ohio St. 92: 424, 1310, 1314.
V. Dwight, 17 Mass. 289: 556.
V. Hawkes, 126 Mass. 177: 1519.
V. New York, 82 N. Y. 436: 1557.
V. Pottawattamie Co., 43 la. 442 :
575.
V. Tacoma etc. R. R. Co., 6 Wash.
1: 256, 304, 324, 1667.
V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 25
Vt. 49: 256.
V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 28
Vt. 142: 256.
Hatchett v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
1 Miss. Dec. 38: 1473.
CXXXVUl
CASES CITED.
£The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hatfield v. Central R. E. Co., 29 N.
J. L. 571: 857.
V. Central R. R. Co., 33 N. J. L.
251: 1650, 1657.
V. Straus, 117 App. Div. 671: 291,
294, 317, 1588.
V. Straus, 189 N. Y. 208: 291, 294,
317, 1588.
Hatfield Tp. Road, 4 Yeates 392:
695.
Hathaway v. Osborne, 25 R. I. 249:
1635.
V. Yakima W. L. & P. Co., 14
Wash. 469: 858.
Hathorn v. Kelley, 86 Me. 487: 928,
1503.
V. Strong's S. S. Sanitarium, 55
Misc. 445: 163.
Hathorne v. Stenson, 12 Me. 183: 866.
Hatry v. Painsville etc. Ry. Co., 1
Ohio C. C. 426: 1540, 1541.
Hatt V. Napoleon, 144 Mich. 266:
400, 1017, 1036.
Hatten v. Furman, 123 Ky. 844: 412.
Hattermehl v. Dickinson, 8 Phila.
282: 1165, 1167.
Hauck V. Tide Water Pipe Line Co.,
153 Pa. St. 366: 455, 457.
Haupt's Appeal, 125 Pa. St. 211: 72,
73, 74, 1603.
Haus V. Jeffersonville etc. E. R. Co.,
138 Ind. 307: 1298, 1457.
Hause's Appeal, 3 Walker's Pa.
Super. Ct. 54: 1388.
Hanser v. Burbank, 117 Mich. 642:
1390.
Haven v. Orton, 37 Minn. 445: 1406.
Haverford Elee. Lt. Co. v. Hart, 13
Pa. Co. Ct. 369: 345.
Haverhill Bridge Props, v. County
Comrs. of Essex, 103 Mass. 120:
675, 824, 1164, 1167.
Haverstraw v. Eckerman, 124 App.
Div. 18: 1623.
Hawes v. Louisville, 5 Bush, 667:
1562.
Hawesville v. Howes' Heirs, 6 Bush
(Ky.) 232: 1490.
Hawkins v. Calloway, 88 El. 155:
1092.
V. County Comrs., 2 Allen, 254:
941.
V. Fall River, 119 Mass. 94: 1119,
1120.
V. Justices of Truesdale County, 12
Lea 351: 970.
V. Nelson, 40 Ala. 553: 19.
V. Pittsburg, 220 Pa. St. 7: 433,
708, 728.
V. Randolph County, 1 Murphy,
118: 1425.
Hawkins v. Robinson, 5- J. J. Marsh.
9: 1436.
V. Rochester, 1 Wend. 53: 1678.
V. Stanford, 138 Ind. 267: 1576.
Hawkins Point Light House Case, 39
Fed. 77: 102.
Hawley v. Baltimore, 33 Md. 270:
190, 367.
V. Central Valley R. R. Co., 213
Pa. St. 36: 1458, 1473.
V. Harrall, 19 Conn. 142: 1163.
»Hay V. Cohoes Co., 3 Barb. 42: 435,
551, 1455.
V. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159: 435,
1455.
T. Commonwealth, 183 Mass. 294:
1221, 1319.
V. Lexington, 114 Ky. 665: 630,
634.
V. Springfield Water Co., 207 Pa.
St 38: 1577
Haydeii v. Skilliiigs, 78 Me. 413: 1478.
V. State, 132 N. Y. 533: 912, 987.
V. Stewart, 71 Kan. 11: 373, 382,
404.
Hayes v. Atlanta, 1 Ga. App. 25:
1260, 1309.
V. Board of Comrs., 59 Ind. 552:
1673.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co. 64 la. 753:
1322, 1324.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 46 Minn.
349: 320, 351, 372, 385.
v. Shackford, 3 N. H. 10: 1362,
1634.
V. Toledo etc. Ry. & T. Co., 6 Ohio
C. C. (N. S.) 281: 1315.
V. Tyler, 85 la. 126: 400.
V. Waverly & P. E. R. Co., 51 N.
J. Eq. 345: 267.
Hayford v. Bangor, 102 Me. 340:
1418.
V. Bangor, 103 Me. 434: 930, 1395.
v. County Comrs., 78 Me. 153 : 984,
1414.
Haynes v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 38
Hun, 17: 851.
T. Duluth, 47 Minn. 458: 1186,
1201.
V. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38: 178, 363, 377,
378, 387, 404.
V. Wells, 26 Ark. 464: 413.
Hays V. B. & O. R. R. Co., 3 Penny.
52: 1325.
V. Bowman, 1 Rand. 417: 104.
V. Briggs, 74 Pa. St. 373: 1139.
V. Briggs, 24 P. F. S. 373: 1140.
V. Campbell, 17 Ind. 430: 977.
V. Columbia Tel. Co., 21 Ohio C.
C. 480: 341.
V. Hinkleman, 68 Pa. St. 324 : 146.
CASES CITED.
CXXXIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hays V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
108 Mo. 544 : 859.
V. Lewis, 28 Ohio St. 326: 816.
V. Ottawa etc. R. E. Co., 54 III.
373: 1122, 1206, 1216, 1245.
V. Parish, 52 Ind. 132: 1094, 1102.
V. Risher, 32 Pa. 169: 530.
V. Shackford, 3 N. H. 10: 1362,
1634.
V. South Easton Borough, 10 Pa.
Super. Ct. 390: 1546.
V. State, 8 Ind. 425 : 1363.
V. T. & P. R. R. Co., 62 Tex. 397:
714, 857, 864, 1626.
V. Waldron, 44 N. H. 580: 71.
Hayward v. Bath, 40 N. H. 100: 1106.
V. Charlestown, 34 N. H. 23: 969.
V. Davidson, 41 Ind. 212: 837.
V. New York, 8 Barb. 486: 539,
1500.
V. New York, 7 N. Y. 314: 1500.
V. Snohomish Co., 11 Wash. 429:
564, 581, 1157.
Haywood v. Bath, 35 N. H. 514: 1421.
T. Charlestown, 43 N. H. 61: 1372.
Hazelhurst v. Baltimore, 37 Md. 199:
1510, 1512.
V. Freeman, 52 Ga. 244: 726.
T. Mayes, 84 Miss. 7 : 180, 344, 350.
Hazen v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co.,
2 Gray, 574: 1636.
V. Essex Co., 12 Cush. 475: 543,
549, 555, 783, 1164, 1165, 1170,
1522.
H. B. Anthony Shoe Co. v. West
Jersey R. R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq.
607: 254, 1581.
H. C. Frick Coke Co. v. Painter, 198
Pa. St. 468: 1058, 1062, 1064,
1188, 1201, 1209.
Heacock v. Sullivan, 70 Kan. 750:
735, 1154, 1514.
Head v. Amoskeag Manuf. Co., 113
U. S. 9: 549, 554, 578, 596.
Headrick v. Larson, 152 Fed. 93: 755.
Heady v. Vevay etc. Turnpike Co.,
52 Ind. 117: 703, 1109, 1406.
Heagy v. Black, 90 Ind. 534: 1518.
Healey v. Atlanta, 125 Ga. 736: 884,
886.
V. Babbitt, 14 R. I. 533: 1499.
V. New Haven, 49 Conn. 394: 601,
1524, 1550, 1718.
v. New Haven, 47 N. H. 305: 211.
V. Newton, 119 Mass. 480: 1010.
Health Dept v. Trinity Church, 146
N. Y. 32: 490.
Healy Lumber Co. v. Morris, 33
Wash. 490: 505, 508, 510, 516.
Heard v. Brooklyn. 60 N. Y. 242: 424.
Heard v. Middlesex Canal, 5 Met. 81 :
1185.
v. Proprietors of Middlesex Canal,
5 Met. 81: 1711.
v. Talbot, 7 Gray 113: 1504.
Heath v. Barman, 49 Barb. 496: 422.
V. Barmore, 50 N. Y. 302: 422, 837,
838.
V. Des Moines & St. Louis Ry. Co.,
61 la. 11: 300, 316, 712, 1583.
V. Sheetz, 164 Ind. 665: 1058, 1192,
1378.
V. Texas & Pae. Ry. Co., 37 La.
An. 728: 846.
V. Williams, 25 Me. 209: 69, 95,
900.
Heaton v. Chester, 59 Misc. 558: 141,
470.
Hebron Gravel Road Co. v. Harvey,
90 Ind. 192: 91, 95, 137, 1607.
Hector Tp. Road (No. 1), 19 Pa.
Super. Ct. 120: 1363.
Hector Tp. Road (No. 2), 19 Pa.
Super, a. 124: 1363.
Hedeen v. State, 47 Kan. 402: 1028,
1520.
Hedges v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 28
Beav. 109: 1533.
V. West Shore R. R. Co., 80 Hun,
310: 102, 122, 127, 131.
Hedrick v. Hedrick, 55 Ind. 78: 995,
1075.
V. Olathe, 30 Kan. 348: 1553.
Heermans v. Jacksonville etc. Ry.
Co., 40 Fla. 85: 1389.
Heffner v. Cass & Morgan Cos. 193
111. 439: 321, 439, 574.
Heffron v. Galveston, 33 Tex. Civ.
App. 52: 872.
Hegar v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.,
26 Wis. 624: 247, 1293.
Hegemeyer v. Board of Co. Comrs.,
71 Minn. 42: 1404.
Hegenbaumer v. Heckenkamp, 202
111. 621: 1411, 1414.
Heick V. Voight, 110 Ind. 279: 566
575, 976, 1069.
Heidelberg Tp. Road, 1 Pa. Co. Ct,
7: 1105.
Heidelberg Tp. Road, 47 Pa. St. 536
1370.
Heilbron v. Canal Co., 75 Cal. 426
74, 1603, 1614.
V. Land & Water Co., 80 Cal. 189
71, 72, 76.
V. Superior Court, 151 Cal. 271
1461, 1463, 1464.
Heilman v. Lebanon & A. St. R. R,
Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 241: 272,
642, 1586, 1590.
cxl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Heilman v. Lebanon & Anville St.
Ey. Co., 145 Pa. St. 23: 282.
V. Lebanon etc. St. R. R. Co., 175
Pa. St. 188: 1587.
V. Lebanon etc. St. R. R. Co., 180
Pa. St. 627: 306, 307, 1587, 1616.
V. Union Canal Co., 50 Pa. St.
268: 74, 78, 937.
Heilscher v. Minneapolis, 46 Minn.
529: 404.
Heimburg v. Manhattan R. E. Co., 19
App. Div. 179: 1355.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 162 N. Y.
352: 323, 1355.
Heine v. Columbia etc. R. R. Co., 16
Pa. Dist. Ct. 840: 677, 714.
Heinl v. Terre Haute, 161 Ind. 44:
690, 696.
Heinrich v. St. Louis, 125 Mo. 424:
364, 369, 375, 376, 391, 1337.
Heinz v. Buckham, 104 Minn. 389:
1035, 1412, 1420.
Heinzman v. Winona etc. R. R. Co.,
75 Minn. 253 : 859.
Heinle v. Cloekamas County, 20 Ore.
147: 721.
V. East Portland, 13 Or. 97: 173.
Heise v. Penn. R. E. Co., 62 Pa. St.
67: 1077.
Heiser v. New York, 29 Hun 446:
609, 617.
V. New York, 104 N. Y. 68: 609,
617.
Heiss V. Milwaukee & Lake Winne-
bago R. R. Co., 69 Wis. 555:
248.
Heitz V. St. Louis, 110 Mo. 618:
878, 891.
Helena v. Harvey, 6 Mont. 114: 990.
V. Helena W. W. Co., 122 Fed. 1:
409, 410.
V. Hornor, 58 Ark. 151: 1492.
V. Rogan, 26 Mont. 452: 707, 804,
805, 934, 987.
V. Rogan, 27 Mont. 135: 805, 934,
987.
V. Thompson, 29 Ark. 569: 236.
Helena etc. Reduction Co. v. Lynch,
25 Mont. 497: 564, 1378.
Helena Power Transmission Co. v.
Spratt, 146 Fed. 310: 931.
V. Spratt, 35 Mont. 108: 495, 536,
537, 587, 592, 672, 684, 685, 686,
1045, 1046.
Helena W. W. Co. v. Helena 195 U.
S. 383: 410.
Helfrich v. Catonsville Water Co.,
74 Md. 267: 71, 81.
Hellen v. Medford, 188 Mass. 42:
806, 807, 1172.
Helm V. Grayville, 224 111. 274: 682,
725, 980.
V. McClure, 107 Cal. 199: 877, 880,
881.
V. Webster, 85 HI. 116: 198, 1502.
Helme v. Kingston, 191 Pa. St. 191:
1427.
Helmer v. Colo. Southern etc. R. R.
Co., (La.) 47 So. 443: 640, 1297,
1303.
Helm etc. R. R. Co. v. Turner, 89
Miss. 334: 1430.
Helms V. Bell, 155 Ind. 502: 1516.
Hembling v. Big Rapids, 89 Mich. 1 :
1353.
Hempstead v. Cargill, 46 Minn. 118:
1400.
V. Cargill, 46 Minn. 141: 1716.
V. Des Moines, 52 la. 303: 603,
1306, 1550.
V. Des Moines, 63 la. 36 : 603, 618,
619, 1551, 1656, 1718.
V. Salt Lake City, 32 Utah 261:
631.
Hench v. Pritt, 62 W. Va. 270: 499,
505, 531, 591.
Hendershott v. Ottumwa, 46 la. 658:
230.
Henderson v. Adams, 5 Cush. 610:
930, 1116.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co. 83 la.
221: 1634.
V. Davis, 106 N. C. 88: 1018, 1032,
1513.
V. McClain, 102 Ky. 402 : 630, 659,
661.
V. Minneapolis, 32 Minn. 319: 211.
V. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 17
Hun 344 : 1580.
V. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 78 N. Y. 423:
247, 315, 323, 1293, 1580.
V. Ogden City R. R. Co., 7 Utah
199: 298, 301, 763.
V. Winstead, 109 Ky. 328: 1306.
Henderson Belt R. R. Co. v. De-
champ, 95 Ky. 219: 252, 620,
666.
V. DeChamp, 14 Ky. L. R. 44: 620.
Henderson Co. Water Co. v. McCar-
ter, 209 U. S. 349: 170.
Henderson v. Nashville R. R. Co. v.
Dickerson, 17 B. Mon. 173: 922,
1182, 1184, 1230, 1431.
Henderson Real Est. Co. v. Carroll
etc. Co., 113 A. D. 775: 71.
Henderson Real Est. Co. v. Carroll
etc. Co., 189 N. Y. 531: 71.
Hendler v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co.,
209 Pa. St. 256: 845, 1480.
OASES CITED.
cxli
[The references are to the pages ; Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hendler v. Lehigh Val. E. "R. Co., 209
Pa. St. 263: 845, 1480.
Hendrick's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 358:
632, 636.
Heiidrick v. Carolina Central E. E.
Co., 101 N. C. 617: 939, 1177,
1540, 1541, 1543, 1559.
Hendricks v. Johnson, 5 Porter 208 :
1673.
V. Johnson, 6 Porter Ala. 472:
745, 899, 900, 1673.
Hendrickson v. Point Pleasant, 65 N.
J. L. 535: 914, 1081, 1091, 1358.
Hendrie v. Toronto etc. E. E. Co., 26
Ont. 667: 325, 1582, 1591.
Hendrix v. Southern Ry. Co., 130
Ala. 205: 1620.
Henkel v. Detroit, 49 Mich. 249:
347.
V. Wabash Pittsburg Terminal E.
E. Co., 213 Pa. St. 485: 1143.
Henline v. People, 81 111. 269: 1516.
Henney v. Brooklyn El. E. E. Co.,
75 Hun 543 : 1584.
Henry v. Centralia etc. E. E. Co., 121
111. 264: 1045, 10/4.
V. Dubuque & Pacific R. E. Co., 2
la. 288: 808, 1204.
V. Dubuque & Pacific E. E. Co., 10
la. 540: 1634.
V. Newburyport, 149 Mass. 582:
119 132
V. Ohio Eiv. E. R. Co., 40 W. Va.
234: 149, 152, 1651, 1658.
V. Perry Tp. 48 Ohio St. 172:
1572.
V. Pittsburgh & Allegheny Bridge
Co., 8 W. & S. 85: 211.
V. Thomas, 119 Mass. 583: 972.
V. Trustees, 48 Ohio St. 172: 818.
V. Vermont Central E. R. Co., 30
Vt. 638: 87.
V. Wabash Western E. E. Co., 44
Mo. App. 100: 321, 1643.
V. Ward, 49 Neb. 392: 1569.
Henry Gauss & Sons Mfg. Co. v. St.
Louis etc. E. E. Co., 113 Mo.
308: 181, 254, 641, 1582.
Henry Street, Matter of, 7 Cow. 400:
1388.
Henry Street, Vacation of, 123 Pa.
St. 346: 400, 402.
Hennessey v. Andrews, 6 Cush. 170:
961.
V. Carmony, 50 N. J. Eq. 616: 446,
455.
V. St. Paul, 44 Minn. 306: 1460,
1466.
Henning v. Hudson Val. E. E. Co.,
90 App. Div. 492: 1587.
Hensen v. Moore, 104 111. 403: 943.
Henshaw v. Hunting, 1 Gray 203 :
825.
Hants V. Mt. Vernon, 78 App. Div.
515: 80.
Hentz V. Long Island R. R. Co., 13
Barb. 646: 244, 1537.
Hentzler v. Bradbury, 5 Kan. App.
1: 969, 1018, 1571.
Hepburn's Case, 3 Bland (Md.) 95:
494, 496.
Hepburn v. Jersey City, 67 N. J. L.
114: 813.
Hepting v. New Orleans Pac. R. R.
Co., 36 La. Ann. 898: 180, 200,
243, 245, 248, 253, 306, 314, 316,
640, 1582, 1591.
Herbein • v. Railroad Co., 9 Watts
272: 1436.
Herbert v. Penn. R. R. Co., 43 N. J.
Bq. 21: 380, 390, 456, 1476,
1582.
V. Rainey, 54 Fed. 248: 879.
Hercules Water Co. v. Fernandez, 5
Cal. App. 726: 593.
Herman v. County Comrs., 39 Me.
583: 701.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 58 App.
Div. 369: 1554.
V. East St. Louis, 58 111. App. 166 :
629, 635, 1294, 1302.
Herman's Heirs v. Municipality No.
Two, 15 La. 597 : 1084.
Herndon v. Kansas, N. & D. E. E.
Co., 46 Kan. 560: 252, 311.
Herold v. Manhattan E. E. Co., 129
N. Y. 636: 1302.
V. Manhattan E. E. Co., 59 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 564: 1301.
Herr v. Altoona, 31 Pa. Supr. Ct.
375: 1523, 1525.
Herrick v. Cleveland, 7 Ohio 0. C.
470: 199, 346, 868, 1618.
V. Stover, 5 Wend. 580: 1362.
V. Ararat Tp. Eoad, 16 Pa. Supm.
Ct. 579: 1365.
Herring v. District of Columbia, 3
Mackey, 572: 157, 234.
Herring etc. R. R. Co., 5 Ont. 349:
1116.
Herron v. Improvem't Comrs., L. R.
(1892) A. C. 498: 707.
Herr's Mill Road, 14 S. & R. 204:
1386.
Herser v. Milwaukee, 39 Wis. 108:
619.
Hersey v. Packard, 56 Me. 395: 1137.
Hershfield v. Rocky Mt. Bell Co., 12
Mont. 102: 342, 1594..
Herzer v. Milwaukee, 39 Wis. 108:
614.
cxlii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.)
Herzog v. New York El. E. R. Co., 76
Hun 486: 1355.
Heselton v. Harmon, 80 Me. 326:
877.
Hespenheide's Appeal, 4 Penny. 71:
688, 715.
Hessing v. District of Columbia, 3
Maokey 572: 234.
Hessler v. Drainage Comrs., 53 111.
105: 12.
Hess's Mill Road, 21 Pa. St. 217:
778.
Hester v. Chambers, 84 Mich. 562,
1083.
Heston v. Canal Comrs., Brightley's
N. P. 183: 1571.
V. Canal Comrs., 1 Pa. Rep. 25:
1577.
Hetfield v. Central R. R. Co., 29 N.
J. L. 571: 936.
y. Central R. R. Co., 29 N. J. L.
206: 936.
Heth V. Fond du Lac. 63 Wis. 228:
148, 234.
Hetzel V. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 169 U. S.
26: 315.
Hewes v. Andover, 16 Vt. 510: 973,
974.
V. Crete, 175 111. 348: 888.
Hewett V. Canton, 182 Mass. 220:
157, 326, 606, 1667.
V. Co. Comrs., 85 Me. 308: 1343,
1414.
Hewin v. Atlanta, 121 Ga. 723: 479.
Hewitt's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 55 : 466.
V. County Comra., 85 Me. 308:
1345, 1415.
V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., 19 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 304: 1140, 1189, 1201.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 35 Minn.
226: 729.
V. Western U. Teleg. Co., 4 Mack.
424: 1593.
Heyl V. Philadelphia, 12 Phila. 291:
1115.
Heyneman v. Blake, 19 Cal: 579 : 808,
810.
Heyward v. Farmers' Min. Co., 42 S.
C. 138: 113, 115.
Heyward v. New York, 8 Barb. 480:
807, 1600.
V. New York, 7 N. Y. 314: 8, 806,
807, 932, 1500.
Hibbard v. Chicago, 173 111. 91: 199.
V. Chicago, 59 111. App. 470: 197,
199.
V. Delaware Co., 1 Pa. Supr. Ct.
204: 1531.
Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310: 11,
464.
Hibberd v. Melvillee (Cal.) 33 Pac.
201: 881.
Hibbs V. Chicago & Southwestern Ry.
Co., 39 la. 340: 1535, 1536,
1578.
Hick V. School District, 49 Mich.
551: 911.
Hickerson v. Mexico, 58 Mo. 61 :
1546, 1548.
Hickey v. Mich. Central R. R. Co.,
96 Mich. 498: 1507.
Hickman's Case, 4 Harr. (Del.) 580:
515, 518.
Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo.
110: 619, 630, 632, 1186, 1337,
1525, 1546.
Hickok V. Chicago etc. K R. Co., 78
Mich. 615: 842, 1503.
V. Hina, 23 Ohio St. 523: 97, 788.
Hickory Tree Road, 43 Pa. St. 139:
696.
Hickox V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 94
Mich. 237: 841.
v. Cleveland, 8 Ohio 543: 214.
Hicks V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 84
la. 27: 1300.
V. Foster, 32 6a. 414: 1089.
V. Ward, 69 Me. 436 : 364.
Hidden v. Davison, 51 Cal. 138: 941.
Higbee v. Camden & Amboy R. R.
Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 276: 308, 1593.
V. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co., 20
N. J. Bq. 435: 297, 1593.
V. Peed, 98 Ind. 420: 1384.
Higgins V. Chicago, 18 111. 276: 1531,
1532, 1680.
V. Curtis, 39 Kan. 283 : 1374, 1393.
V. Flemington Water Co., 36 N. J.
Eq. 538: 74, 1603.
T. Hamor, 88 Me. 25 : 1510.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 78
Hun 567 : 93, 94.
V. Reynolds, 31 N. Y. 151: 1491.
V. Sharon, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 92:
366.
Higginson v. Nahant, 11 Allen 530:
514, 539.
High V. Big Creek Ditching Assn.,
44 Ind. 356: 1082.
Highbarger v. Milford, 71 Kan. 331:
182, 190, 366, 382, 389, 404,
1596.
High Bridge Lumber Co. v. United
States, 69 Fed. Rep. 320: 92,
457, 932, 933, 1316, 1451.
Highland Ave. R. R. Co. v. Birming-
ham Union R. R. Co., 93 Ala.
505: 328, 705, 767, 1611.
Highland Ave. etc. R. R. Co. v. Bir-
mingham Union R. R. Co., 117
Ala. 511: 764.
CASES CITED.
cxliii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-741,, vol. II, pp. 743-1719.)
Highland Ave. & B. R. R. Co. v.
Matthews, 99 Ala. 24 : 639, 1549,
1552, 1648, 1657.
Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. v.
Strickley, 116 Fed. 852: 1627.
V. Strickley, 28 Utah 215: 504,
563, 596, 599.
Highland Park v. Detroit etc. Road
Co., 95 Mich. 489: 414.
Hightower v. Jones, 85 Ga. 697
1522.
Highway, Matter of, 3 N. J. L. 242
973, 974, 1009.
Highway, Matter, 3 N. J. L. 244
1370.
Highway, Matter of, 3 N. J. L. 272
1389.
Highway, Matter of, 3 N. J. L. 504
1084.
Highway, Matter of, 3 N. J. L. 590
1069.
Highway, Matter of, 7 N. J. L. 37
992.
Highway, Matter of, 15 N. J. L. 39
1031.
Highway, Matter of, 16 N. J. L. 345
1409.
Highway, Matter of, 16 N. J. L. 391
979, 1022, 1093, 1099.
Highway, Matter of, 18 N. J. L. 291
1376.
Highway, Matter of, 22 N. J. L. 293
22, 1156, 1157.
Highway Comrs. v. Ely, 54- Mich
173: 336, 1487.
Hilbourne v. Suffolk Co., 120 Mass,
393: 1186, 1216.
Hilcoat V. Archbishop, 19 L. J. C. P.
376: 1267.
Hildreth v. Lowell, 11 Gray 345
535, 1010, 1024, 1366.
Hileman v. Chicago Gt. Western Ry.
Co., 113 la. 591: 836, 838, 846,
1445, 1457.
Hill V. Baker, 28 Me. 9: 963.
V. Board of Supervisors, 95 Cal.
239: 918, 982.
V. Bridges, 6 Porter 197: 1427.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 38 La.
Ann. 599, 253.
V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 109
Ind. 511: 157
V. Co. Comrs., 4 Gray, 414: 1638.
V. Glendon etc. Mfg. Co., 113 N. C.
259" 830.
V. Higdon, 5 Ohio St. 243 : 14.
T. McGinniss, 64 Neb. 187 : 865.
V. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 5
Denio 206: 1343.
V. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 7
N. y. 152: 1246, 1343, 1344.
Hill V. St. Louis, 59 Mo. 412: 236.
V. Sayles, 4 Gush. 549: 1667.
V. Sayles, 12 Cush. 454: 1607.
V. Sayles, 12 Met. 142: 1667.
V. Sedalia, 64 Mo. App. 494: 881,
886.
V. Sewald, 3 P. F. Smith 271:
1350.
V. Southern Ry. Go., 67 S. C. 548:
727, 1479.
V. Wadley Southern Ry. Co., 128
Ga. 705: 481, 483.
V. Ward, 2 Gil. (111.) 285: 90.
V. Western Vt. R. R. Co., 32 Vt.
68: 827, 834, 837, 1499.
V. Wine, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 520:
948, 1563.
Hiller v. Atchison etc. R. R. Co., 28
Kan. 625: 384, 390.
V. Railroad Co., 28 Kan. 628: 369.
Hilltown Road, 18 Pa. St. 233 : 1082,
1087.
Hilltown Road, 2 Walker's Pa.
Supm. Ct. 78: 778, 1094.
Hilton V. St. Louia, 99 Mo. 199:
1557.
V. Thirty-fourth Street R. R. Co.,
1 How. Pr. N. S. 453: 922.
Hiues V. Pittsburgh, 213 Pa. St. 362:
1189.
Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 213 :
237, 734.
Hinchman v. Patterson H. R. R. Co.,
17 N. J. Eq. 75: 268, 279, 1586.
Hinckley, Ex parte, 8 Me. 146: 1081,
1420.
Hinckley et al. Petitioners, 15 Pick.
447: 955, 1004, 1010, 1013, 1014,
1029.
Hinckley v. Franklin, 69 N. H. 614:
608, 617.
V. Nickerson, 117 Mass. 213: 560.
v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 103 App.
Div. 504: 866.
Hindley v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 185 N.
Y. 335: 866.
Hiude V. Wabash Navigation Co., 15
111. 72: 688.
Hine v. K. & D. M. R. R. Co., 42 la.
636: 251.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 132 N. Y.
477: 1145.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 58 N. Y.
Supr. 377: 1146.
V. New Haven, 40 Conn. 478: 14,
485.
v. New York El. R. R. Co., 36
Hun, 293: 1124.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 54 Hun,
425: 180, 204.
cxliv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.;
Hine v. New York El. R. E. Co., 8
Misel. 18: 1665.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 128 N.
Y. 571: 1665.
Hines v. Darling, 99 Mich. 47: 1519.
Hingham v. United States, 161 Fed.
295: 1127, 1221, 1320. ^
Hingham & Quincy Bridge Co. v. Nor-
folk Co. 6 Allen 353: 422, 687,
814, 1067, 1374.
Hinkley v. Hastings, 2 Pick. 162:
1363.
Hinman v. Warren, 6 Ore. 408: 118.
Hiuners v. Edgewater etc. R. R. Co.,
75 N.J. L. 514: 1109.
Hinnershitz v. United Traction Co.,
206 Pa. St. 91: 1588.
Hire v. Knisley, 130 Ind. 295: 1119,
1192, 1318, 1339.
Hirsh V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 84 App.
Div. 374: 1562, 1584.
Hirth V. Indianapolis, 18 Ind. App.
673: 234.
Hiss V. Baltimore etc. Ry. Co., 52 Md.
242: 268, 281.
Hitchcock V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
88 la. 242: 319, 620.
V. Co. Comrs., 131 Mass. 519: 1638.
V. Danbury & Newark R. R. Co.,
25 Conn. 516: 1519.
Hitchings v. Brooklyn El. E. R. Co.,
6 Miscl. 430: 1151, 1302.
Hitehins v. Frostburg, 68 Md. 100:
154, 1650, 1656.
V. Frostburg, 70 Md. 56: 1656.
Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50 Cal.
265: 237, 734, 1491.
Hoag v. Denton, 20 la. 118: 1027.
V. Switzer, 61 111. 294: 437.
Hoagland v. Culvert, 20 N. J. L. 387:
1093.
V. Sacramento, 52 Cal. 142: 89.
Hoard v. Des Moines, 62 la. 326: 90.
Hobart v. Ford, 6 Nev. 77: 430.
T. Plymouth Co., 100 Mass. 159:
1133.
V. Milwaukee City Ry. Co., 27 Wis.
194: 268, 284, 329.
Hobbs V. Board of Comrs., 103 Ind.
575: 1095.
V. Long Distance Tel. & Tel. Co.,
147 Ala. 393: 341.
V. Nashville etc. Ry. Co., 122 Ala.
602: 1382, 1641.
V. State Trust Co., 68 Fed. 618:
1537, 1538, 1540, 1542.
Hoboken v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
124 U. S. 656: 117.
Hobson V. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. St.
595: 183.
Hobson V. Philadelphia, 155 Pa. St.
131: 356.
Hobsou's Trusts, In re, 7 L. R. Ch.
D. 708: 1534.
Hockett V. State, 105 Ind. 250: 481.
Hocutt V. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co.,
124 N. C. 214: 167.
Hodge V. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.,
39 Fed. 449: 846, 1450, 1458.
V. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 56 Fed.
195: 93.
V. Sloan, 107 N. Y. 244: 429.
Hodgerson v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
160 111. 430: 1070.
Hodges V. Baltimore Pass. Ry. Co.,
58 Md. 603: 268, 279.
V. Board of Suprs. 49 Neb. 666:
1569.
V. Hodges, 5 Met. 205: 1524.
V. Milligan, 42 Kan. 396: 927.
V. Seaboard etc. R. Co., 88 Va. 653:
243, 247, 622, 1580, 1591.
V. Western Union Tel. Co., 72 Miss.
910: 463.
V. Western Union Tel. Co., 133
N. C. 225: 425, 837, 1473.
Hodgkinson v. Ennor, 4 B. & S. 229:
165.
V. Long Island R. R. Co., 4 Ed-
wards Ch. 411: 224.
Hodgman v. Concord, 69 N. H. 349:
608, 618.
Hoey V. Gilroy, 129 N. Y. 132: 485.
Hoffeditz v. Southern Pa. R. R. Co.,
129 Pa. St. 264: 848, 849, 1450,
1451.
Hoffer V. Penn. Canal Co., 87 Pa. St.
221: 1187.
Hoffman's Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 512:
1466, 1535, 1682.
Hoffman v. Bloomsburg etc. R. R. Co.,
143 Pa. St. 503: 862, 1200, 1201,
1244.
V. Connor, 76 N. Y. 121: 1144.
V. Flint etc. R. R. Co., 114 Mieh.
316: 247, 253, 1650, 1657.
V. Manhattan El. E. R. Co., 1
Miscl. 155: 1296, 1302.
v. Muscatine, 113 la. 332: 156.
V. Port Huron, 102 Mich. 417: 836.
V. Rodman, 39 N. J. L. 252: 1363.
V. St. Louis, 15 Mo. 651 : 211, 234,
238.
Hogan V. Central Pacific R. R. Co.,
71 Cal. 83: 250, 1583.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 208 111.
161: 327, 643.
Hoge V. Eaton, 135 Fed. 441 : 169, 934.
Hogencamp v. Paterson H. R. R. Co.,
17 N. J. Eq. 83: 268, 1586.
CASES CITED.
cxlv
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hogenson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis &
Manitoba Ey. Co., 31 Minn. 224:
153.
Hogg V. Connellsville Water Co., 168
Pa. St. 456: 74,76, 1637.
Hoggatt V. Vicksburg etc. R. R. Co.,
34 La. Ann. 624: 1482.
Hogsett V. Harlan Co., 4 Neb. (Unof.)
309: 1526, 1546.
Hogue V. Albina, 20 Ore. 182: 876,
882, 883, 884, 885.
V. Penn. 3 Bush (Ky.) 663: 19.
Hohman v. Chicago. 140 HI. 226: 629,
635, 1274.
V. Chicago, 41 HI. App. 41: 1274.
Hohokus V. Erie R. R. Co., 65 N. J.
L. 353: 888.
Hoke T. Georgia R. & B. Co., 89 Ga.
215: 753, 759, 1609.
Holbert v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R.
R. Co., 45 Iowa 23: 685.
Holbrook v. Norcross, 121 Ga. 319:
159, 1648, 1656.
Holcomb V. Moore, 4 Allen, 529: 438.
Holcraft v. King, 25 Ind. 352: 1487.
Holdane v. Cold Spring, 23 Barb. 103:
513.
V. Cold Spring, 21 N. Y. 474: 513,
878, 885, 887, 888, 890.
Holden v. Cole, 1 Pa. St. 303: 438.
V. Lake Co., 53 N. H. 552: 71.
Holland House Co. v. Baird, 49 App.
Div. 180: 436.
V. Baird, 169 N. Y. 136: 436.
Hollenbeck v. Marion, 116 la. 69: 84.
Holleran v. Bell Telephone Co., 64
App. Div. 41: 341.
V. Bell Telephone Co., 177 N. Y.
573: 341.
Holley V. Torrington, 63 Conn. 426:
600, 601, 617, 619. 1525.
Holliday v. Atlanta, 96 Ga. 377: 735,
1348.
Hollingsworth v. Des Moines & St.
Louis Ry. Co., 63 la. 443: 1139,
1143, 1176, 1322.
Hollingsworth & V. Co. v. Foxbor-
ough Water Supply Dist., 165
Mass. 186: 77, 163.
HoUins V. Patterson, 6 Leigh, 457:
917.
HoUister v. Oark, 9 Ida. 672: 536,
537, 746.
V. State, 9 Ida. 8: 7, 536, 537, 746,
956.
V. Union Co., 7 Conn. 436: 100.
Holloway v. Delano, 64 Hun 27: 368,
375, 388, 403, 404.
V. Delano, 64 Hun 34: 368, 375,
388, 403, 404.
Holloway v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
92 Ky. 244: 1633.
V. Southmayd, 139 N. Y. 390: 180,
368, 375, 388, 403, 404, 878.
V. University R. R. Co., 85 N. C.
452: 1523.
Holly Grove v. Smith, 63 Ark. 5: 886.
Holly Shelter R. R. Co. v. Newton,
133 N. C. 132: 1047, 1049.
V. Newton, 133 N. C. 136: 1422.
Holm V. Windsor, 38 HI. App. 650:
1595.
Holmes v. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 961: 159,
233.
V. Bell, 155 Ind. 502: 1510.
V. Calhoun County, 97 la. 360: 149,
154, 1606.
V. Drew, 7 Pick. 141 : 960.
V. Jersey City, 12 N. J. Eq. 299:
886, 891.
V. Kansas City, 209 Mo. 513: 942,
1569, 1571.
V. Wilson, 10 A. & E. 503: 1651,
1658.
Holsman v. Boiling Spring Bleaching
Co. 14 N. J. Eq. 335: 81.
Holt V. Gas Light & Coke Co., 7 L. R.
Q. B. 728: 657.
V. Somerville, 127 Mass. 408: 539,
675, 810, 837, 1008, 1057, 1067.
Holton V. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 27:
1180, 1341.
Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500:
486.
Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Con-
necticut River Co., 22 Blatch.
131 : 100, 702, 1604.
V. Conn. Riv. Co., 52 Conn. 570:
100.
Home V. Rochester, 62 N. H. 346:
1518.
Home Bldg. Co. v. Roanoke, 91 Va.
52: 212, 226.
Home Ins. Co. v. Smith, 28 Hun, 296 :
948.
Homestead St. R. R. Co. v. Pitts-
burgh etc., St. R. R. Co., 166 Pa.
St. 162: 305, 910.
Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles,
211 U. S. 265: 481.
Honenstein v. Vaughn, 7 Blackf . 520 :
978, 1368.
Hood V. Finch, 8 Wis. 381 : 923.
V. Southern Ry. Co. 133 Ala. 374:
936, 1561, 1620.
Hood Riv. L. Co. v. Wasco Co., 35 Ore.
498: 1005, 1016, 1030.
Hooe V. Chicago etc., R. R. Co. 98
Wis. 302: 1523, 1708, 1714.
Hook V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 133
Mo. 313: 1399.
cxlvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hook V. Los Angeles Ey. Co., 129 Cal.
180: 762, 1284.
V. Smith, 6 Mo. 225: 900.
Hooker v. Cummiugs, 20 Johns. 90:
98.
V. Martin, 10 Hun 302: 948, 949,
1563.
V. Montpelier R. R. Co., 62 Vt. 47:
1229, 1236, 1425.
V. New Haven & Northampton Co.,
14 Conn. 146: 66,144.
V. New Haven & Northampton Co.,
15 Conn. 312: 66, 144, 437.
V. Rochester, 57 App. Div. 530:
1042, 1624.
V. Rochester, 37 Hun 181: 84.
V. Rochester, 172 N. Y. 665: 1042,
1624.
V. Utiea etc. Road Co., 12 Wend.
371: 1499, 1500.
Hooksett V. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 44
N. H. 105: 169, 956, 1623.
Hooper v. Bridgewater, 102 Mass.
512: 1028, 1631.
V. Columbus & Western Ry. Co.,
78 Ala. 213: 1627, 1632.
V. Savannah & Memphis R. R. Co.,
69 Ala. 529: 840, 854, 1202.
Hope V. Barnett, 78 Cal. 9: 885.
V. Norfolk & Western R. R. Co., 79
Va. 283 : 830.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 211
Pa. St. 401: 1128, 1129, 1188,
1201.
V. Shiver, 77 Ark. 177: 877.
Hopewell v. Flemington, 69 N. J. L.
597: 1416.
V. Welling, 24 N. J. L. 127: 1035.
Hopkins v. Calasauqua Mfg. Co., 180
Pa. St. 199: 315, 1580.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 76 Minn.
70: 1477.
V. Contra Costa County, 106 Cal.
566: 918.
y. Cravey, 85 Tex. 189: 1462, 1511,
1512, 1576.
V. Crombie, 4 N. H. 520: 890, 1030,
1034, 1521.
V. Fla. Cent. etc. E. R. Co., 97 Ga.
107: 524, 708.
V. Great Western Ry. Co., L. R. 2
Q. B. D. 224: 651.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 79
Mo. 98: 1048.
v. Keller, 16 Neb. 569: 1431, 1511,
1512, 1576.
V. Ottawa, 59 111. App. 288: 629,
1306.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 94
Md. 257: 731.
Hopkins v. Western Pac. R. R. Co.,
50 Cal. 190: 1649, 1657.
Hopkinton v. Winship, 35 N. H. 209:
701, 1071.
Hopper v. Douglas Co., 75 Neb. 329 :
159.
Hoppikus V. State Capitol Comrs., 16
Cal. 248: 922.
Hopson V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
71 Miss. 503: 1352, 1456.
Hord V. Nashville etc. R. R. Co., 2
Swan 497 : 1407.
Homaday v. State, 63 Kan. 499: 828.
Hornback v. Cincinnati etc. R. E. Co.,
20 Ohio St. 81: 840, 851, 852,
1631.
Horne v. BuflFalo, 49 Hun 76 : 933.
Hornellsville Electric R. R. Co. v.
New York etc. E. E. Co.. 83 Hun
407: 765, 772.
Horney v. Coldbrook, 65 111. App.
477: 1559.
Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York,
143 U. S. 305: 462.
Hornstein v. Atlantic etc. R. E. Co.,
51 Pa. St. 87: 1187.
Horrell v. Ellsworth, 17 Ala. 576:
413.
Horton v. Andrus, 191 N. Y. 231:
535
v. Coiwyn etc., (1908) 1 K. B.
327: 1313
V. Fulton, 130 Ga. 466: 81.
V. Grand Haven, 24 Mich. 465:
1058.
V. Hoyt, 11 la. 496: 1570.
V. Norwalk, 45 Conn. 237: 1075.
V. Williams, 99 Mich. 423: 366,
373, 382, 389, 395, 398, 404, 406.
Hortsman v. Covington etc. E. R. Co.
18 B. Mon. 218: 442, 847.
Hosher v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
60 Mo. 303: 1119, 1120, 1186.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. 60
Mo. 329: 152, 157, 858.
Hoskin v. Toronto General Trust Co.,
12 Ontario 480: 1558, 1561.
Hosmer v. Gloversville, 27 Misc. 669:
211.
V. Warner, 7 Gray 177: 1074.
V. Warner, 15 Gray 46: 929, 1079,
1119, 1185.
Hoster v. Philadelphia, 12 Pa. Super.
Ct. 224: 1555.
Hotard v. Texas & P. E. E. Co., 36
La. Ann. 450: 168.
Hotchkiss V. Auburn & Rochester, 36
Barb. 600: 955.
Hot Springs R. E. Co. v. Tyler, 36
Ark. 205: 963.
OASES CITED.
cxlvii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hot Springs R. R. Co. v. Williamson,
45 Ark. 429: 639, 659, 671.
V. Williamson, 136 U. S. 121: 640,
642.
Hotz V. Highway Comrs., 135 111. 388:
1614.
v. Hoyt, 34 111. App. 488: 167, 1606.
Hougan v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ky.
Co., 35 la. 558: 161.
Hough V. Doylestown, 4 Brews. 333:
74.
Houghtaling v. Chicago Gt. Western
Ry. Co., 117 la. 540: 91.
Houghton's Appeal, 42 Cal. 35: 930.
Houghton T. C. D. & M. R. R. Co., 47
la. 370: 104.
V. Huron Copper Co., 57 Mich. 547 :
681, 1084.
V. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.,
35 la. 558: 1473.
Housatonie etc. R. R. Co. v. Lee &
Hudson R. R. Co., 118 Mass. 391:
753, 754, 793, 798, 1609.
House V. Greensburg, 93 Ind. 533:
400.
V. Rochester, 15 Barb. 517: 928.
House Ave. Opening, 67 Barb. 350:
893.
House Ave. Opening, 3 N. Y. Supm.
Ct. 770: 893, 895, 898.
Householder v. Kansas City, 83 Mo.
488: 24, 630.
Houston V. Bartels, 36 Tex. Civ. App.
498: 634, 848.
V. Bryan, 2 Tex. fflv. App. 553:
155.
T. Houston City St. R. R. Co., 83
Tex. 548: 301, 409,427.
T. Hutcheson, 39 Tex. Civ. App.
337: 155, 233.
V. Paterson etc. Traction Co., 69
N. J. L. 168: 920,965.
V. Western W. R. R. Co., 204 Pa.
St. 321: 1133.
Houston etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 58
Tex. 476 i 846.
V. Adams, 63 Tex. 200: 1507.
V. Barr, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 57:
V. Chaffin, 60 Tex. 553: 1716.
V. Dallas, 98 Tex. 396: 488.
V. Davis, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 212:
654.
V. East, 98 Tex. 148: 162, 164.
V. Meador, 50 Tex. 77: 861.
V. Kansas City etc. Ry. Co., 109 La.
.581: 764, 766.
V. McKinney, 55 Tex. 176 : 850.
V. Milbum, 34 Tex. 224: 923, 1380.
V. Odum, 53 Tex. 343: 255.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 18 Tex.
Civ. App. 502: 934, 938, 1212.
Houston St., Matter of, 7 Hill 175:
1085.
Hovey v. Haverstraw, 124 N. Y. 273 :
1505.
V. Mayo, 43 Me. 322: 147, 1489.
V. Perkins, 63 N. H. 516: 981.
How V. Chesapeake & Delaware C.
Co., 5 Harr. Del. 245 : 144.
Howard's Appeal, 162 Pa. St. 374:
417.
Howard's Petition, 28 N. H. 157:
1070.
Howard v. Board of Co. Comrs., 25
Neb. 229: 973.
V. Board of Supervisors, 54 Neb.
443: 675, 1427.
V. Crouch, 47 Neb. 133: 1306.
T. Hutchinson, 10 Me. 335: 970,
1004, 1013, 1372.
V. Proprietors of Locks & Canals,
12 Cush. 259: 929, 1073.
V. Providence, 6 R. I. 514: 1127,
1147.
V. St. Clair Dr. Co., 51 111. 130:
12.
V. Schmidt, 70 Kan. 640: 1028,
1510, 1517.
V. State, 47 Ark. 431 : 1007, 1018.
Howard Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
130 Mo. 652: 86, 1650, 1652,
1716.
Howard Mills Co. v. Schwartz L. &
C. Co., 77 Kan. 599: 509, 551,
591, 710, 724.
Howard St., Vacation of. In re, 142
Pa. St. 601: 644.
Howcott V. Coffield, 7 Ired. L. 24:
940.
V. Warren, 7 Ired. L. 20: 940.
Howe V. Callaway, 119 Mo. App.
251: 1395.
V. Harding, 76 Tex. 17 : 1537.
V. Howard, 158 Mass. 278: 1150.
V. Jamaica, 19 Vt. 607: 973, 974,
994.
V. Ray, 110 Mass. 298: 952.
V. Ray, 113 Mass. 88: 1185.
V. West End St. R. R. Co., 167
Mass. 46: 272, 281.
V. Weymouth, 148 Mass. 605
1331.
Howell V. Buffalo, 15 N. Y. 512
1358.
V. Morrisville, 212 Pa. St. 349
391, 394, 647.
V. Redlon, 44 Kan. 558: 973, 974
V. Western Union Tel. Co., 4 Mack
ey 424: 340.
Howell's Mills State Road, 6 Whart-
on 352: 1079.
Howes V. Belfast, 72 Me. 46: 698.
cxlviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Howes y. Gruah, 131 Mass. 207: 560
Howland v. Co. Comrs., 49 Me. 143
1366.
V. School District, 15 R. I. 184
921.
V. School District, 16 E. I. 257
894.
Howley v. Central Valley R. E. Co.,
213 Pa. St. 36: 426.
V. Pittsburg, 204 Pa. St. 428: 938,
1649, 1718.
Hoy V. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159:
1507.
V. Hubbell, 125 App. Div. 60: 1521.
V. Salamanca, 57 Misc. 81: 609,
617.
Hoye V. Diehls, 78 Neb. 77: 981,
1511, 1520.
V. Swan's Lessee, 5 Md. 237: 494,
590.
Hoyt V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 117 la.
296: 1116, 1208, 1209, 1213.
V. Cirleason, 65 Fed. 685: 875.
V. Hudson, 27 Wis. 656: 148, 234,
235.
V. Southern New Eng. Tel. Co., 60
Conn. 385: 350, 1487, 1488.
Hubbard v. Bell, 54 111. 112: 103.
V. Kansas City, St. Joseph etc. R.
R. Co., 63 Mo. 68: 840, 843, 851,
852
V. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 80 Me. 39 :
706, 1042, 1383.
V. Hartford, 74 Conn. 452: 1427.
V. Medford, 20 Ore. 315: 468.
V. Toledo, 21 Ohio St. 379: 523,
625.
V. Webster, 118 Mass. 599: 1309.
V. Wickliffe, 2 A. K. Marsh. 503:
1077.
V. Wickliflfe, 1 Litt. 80: 1077.
Huber v. Gazley, 18 Ohio 18: 365.
V. Merkel, 117 Wis. 355: 162, 164,
471, 495.
Hubert v. Missouri etc. R. R. Co., 80
Mo. App. 87: 1545.
Hiuckenstein v. Allegheny, 165 Pa.
St. 367 : 634.
Huddleston v. Eugene, 34 Ore. 343:
175.
V. West Bellevue, 111 Pa. St. 110:
155, 233.
Hudson V. Cuero Land & Emigration
Co., 47 Tex. 56: 424.
V. Voreis, 134 Ind. 642: 1362,
1571.
Hudson & Delaware Canal Co. v. N.
Y. & Erie R. E. Co., 9 Paige,
323: 410, 416, 728, 1608.
Hudson etc. R. E. Co. v. Wendell,
112 App. Div. 822: 826.
Hudson etc. E. E. Co. v. Wendel, 122
App. Div. 917: 808, 898.
V. Wendell, 186 N. Y. 535: 826.
v. Wendel, 193 N. Y. 166: 808, 898.
Hudson Eiver E. E. Co. v. Cutwater,
3 Sand. 689: 697, 1670, 1685.
Hudson Eiver E. & T. Co. v. Day, 54
Fed. 545: 931.
Hudson Eiv. Telephone Co. v. For-
restal, 56 Misc. 133: 339.
V. Watervliet T. & E. E. Co., 61
Hun 140; 417, 1621, 1622.
V. Watervliet T. &. E. E. Co., 135
N. Y. 393: 343, 417, 911, 1621.
Hueston v. Eaton etc. E. E. Co., 4
Ohio St. 685: 1165, 1547.
V. Miss. & Rum Riv. Boom Co., 76
Minn. 251: 91.
HuflF V. Donehoo, 109 Ga. 638: 459,
658, 670.
Huffman v. State, 21 lud. App. 449:
337.
Huffmire v. Brooklyn, 22 App. Div.
N. Y. 406 : 142.
V. Brooklyn, 162 N. Y. 584: 57, 67.
Huggins V. Hurt, 23 Tex. Civ. App.
404: 975, 1512, 1576.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 1 Miscl.
110: 1196.
Hughes V. Anderson, 68 Ala. 280:
145.
V. Arkansas etc. R. R. Co., 74 Ark.
194: 490, 1288, 1643.
V. Bingham, 135 N. Y. 347: 873.
V. Clark, 134 N. C. 457: 878, 879,
889.
V. Mermod, 121 Mo. 98 : 924, 1409.
V. Metropolitan El. E. E. Co., 130
N. Y. 14: 177, 180, 183, 187,
265, 1137, 1261, 1555, 1584.
V. Metropolitan El. E. R. Co., 57
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 378: 1261, 1555,
1584.
V. Milligan, 42 Kan. 396: 927,
1004, 1167, 1568.
V. Miss. & Mo. R. R. Co., 12 la.
261: 245, 251.
V. Sellers, 34 Ind. 337: 941, 978,
996, 1390.
V. Todd, 2 Duv. Ky. 188: 18, 807.
V. Trustees of Morden College, 1
Ves. Sr. 188: 821, 1572.
Hulburt V. Harris, 3 App. Div. 30:
570.
Hulett V. Missouri etc. R. R. Co., 80
Mo. App. 87 : 325.
Huling V. Kaw Valley R. E. Co., 130
U. S. 559: 1011, 1515, 1517.
Hull V. Baird, 73 la. 528: 569, 570,
575.
CASES CITED.
cxlix
[The references are to tlie pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Hull V. Chicago etc. Ey. Co., 65 la.
713: 851, 852.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 21 Neb.
371: 1018, 1026, 1626.
V. Decker, 48 Me. 255 : 930.
V. Kansas City etc. Ry. Co., 70
Neb. 756: 838.
V. Phillips, 128 Mo. App. 247:
1561.
V. Westfield, 133 Mass. 433: 1523.
Hullin V. Second Municipality of
New Orleans, 11 Rob. La. 97:
1669, 1685.
Hulse V. Powell, 21 Tex. Civ. App.
471: 1618.
Humboldt Co. v. Dinsmore, 75 Cal.
604: 974, 1361, 1365.
Humer v. Mayer, 1 Humph. 403:
197.
Humes v. Knoxville, 1 Humph. 403:
209, 212, 213.
V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 115 U. S.
512: 475.
V. Railroad Co., 82 Mo. 221: 475.
V. Shugart, 10 Leigh, 332: 899.
Humeston etc. R. R. Co. v. Chicago
etc. R. R. Co., 74 Iowa 554 : 767,
1610.
Hummett v. Phila. 65 Pa. St. 146:
10.
Humphreys v. Ft. Smith Traction L.
& P. Co., 71 Ark. 152: 297, 298,
1354.
V. Richmond & D. R. E. Co., 88 Va.
431 : 833.
V. Woodstown, 48 N. J. L. 588:
1516.
Hunt V. Ambruster, 17 N. J. Eq.
208: 459.
V. Boston, 152 Mass. 168: 1120,
1138.
V. Card, 94 Me. 386 : 698.
T. Chicago Horse & D. R. R. Co.,
121 111. 638: 302.
V. Iowa Central R. R. Co., 86 la.
15: 158, 1456, 1650, 1655.
V. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 76 Mo.
115: 1507.
V. New York, Chicago, & St. Louis
Ry. Co., 99 Ind. 593: 913.
V. Smith, 9 Kan. 137: 913, 1023,
1203, 1360.
V. Whitney, 4 Met 603 : 557, 1673.
Hunter, Matter of, 47 App. Div. 102 :
890.
Hunter, Matter of, 163 N. Y. 542:
890.
Hunter v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co.
76 la. 490: 855.
V. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 84 la.
605: 855, 1715.
Hunter v. Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co.,
107 Va. 158: 1176, 1228, 1238,
1272 1385
V. Jones, 13 Minn. 307: 1519, 1520.
V. Matthews, 12 Leigh, 228: 1083.
V. Matthews, 1 Rob. (Va.) 468:
1010.
V. Newport, 5 R. I. 325 : 1367.
v. Sandy Hill, 6 Hill, 407: 871,
872.
Hunting v. Curtis, 10 la. 152: 1669.
Huntington v. Amiss, 167 Ind. 375:
535, 575, 1086.
T. Attrill, 118 N. Y. 365: 1139.
V. Birch, 12 Conn. 142: 1033.
V. Griffith, 142 Ind. 280: 602, 616,
1597.
V. Kenowen, 12 Ind. App. 456:
1545, 1548.
Huntington County v. Kaufman, 126
Pa. St. 305: 1434.
Huntington etc. R. R. Co's. Appeal,
149 Pa. St. 133: 698.
Huntington, Road in, 11 Pa. Co. Ct.
119: 700.
Huntress v. Effingham, 17 N. H. 584:
1389.
Huntsville v. Ewing, 116 Ala. 576:
159, 1648, 1659.
Huntting v. Hartford St. Ry. Co., 73
Conn. 179: 349.
Hupevt V. Anderson, 35 la. 578:
1701.
Hurd V. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 73
Kan. 83: .533, 731, 1577, 1614.
Hurdman v. North Eastern R. R.
Co., L. R. 3 C. P. D. 168: 145.
Hurford v. Omaha, 4 Neb. 336: 1597.
Hurley v. Jones, 165 Pa. St. 34:
1634.
V. South Thomaston, 101 Me. 538:
604.
V. West St. Paul, 83 Minn. 401:
884.
Hurniker v. Contooeook Valley R. R.
Co., 29 N. H. 146: 1523.
Hursh V. First Division of St. Paul
etc. R. R. Co., 17 Minr. 439:
1634.
Hurst V. Martinsburg, 80 Minn. 40:
705: 1025.
Hussey v. Bryant, 95 Me. 49: 1519.
Hussner v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co.,
30 Hun 409: 247, 1635.
V. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 114 N.
Y. 433: 271, 314, 1298, 1553,
1651, 1658.
Husted V. Greenwich, 11 Conn. 383:
995.
Huston V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co.,
21 Ohio St. 235 : 1247, 1484.
cl
OASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Huston V. Clark, 112 111. 344: 1028.
V. Fort Atkinson, 56 Wis. 350:
1489.
Hutchins v. Vandalia L. & D. Dist.,
217 111. 561 : 924.
Hutchinson v. Delano, 46 Kan. 345:
84, 1605.
V. Parkersburg, 25 W. Va. 226:
631, 942.
V. Storrie, 92 Tex. 685: 10, 463,
464, 1005.
Hutchinson W. L. & P. Co. v. Hut-
chinson, 144 Fed. 256: 3?1, 411.
Hutlacher v. Harris, 2 Wright 491 :
1350.
Hutt V. Chicago, 187 111. 145: 981.
Hutton V. Indiana Cent. R. K. Co.,
7 Ind. 522: 251, 307.
V. London & S. W. Ry. Co., 18 L.
J. Ch. N. S. 345: 1612.
Hyde v. Boston etc. St. Ey. Co., 194
Mass. 80: 211, 226, 319, 606.
V. Fall River, 189 Mass. 439:
379, 391, 454, 627.
V. Fall River, 197 Mass. 4: 370,
378, 391.
V. Middlesex Co., 2 Gray 267:
1343.
Hyde Park v. Cemetery Ass., 119 111.
141: 736, 737, 785.
V. Dyer, 7 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 244:
1561.
V. Dunham, 85 111. 569: 1195.
V. Spencer, 118 111. 446: 828, 912,
914.
V. Washington Ice Co., 117 111.
233: 1231.
V. Wiggin, 157 Mass. 94: 930,
1075.
Hyde Park T. H. Light Co. v. Porter,
167 111. 276: 454, 1648, 1659.
Hydes Ferry Turnpike Co. v. David-
son Co., 91 Tenn. 291 : 409, 414.
Hyland v. Ossining, 127 App. Div.
291: 1592.
Hyman v. Ann Arbor E. R. Co., 141
Mich. 84: 428.
Hymes v. Aydelott, 26 Ind. 431 : 922.
Hyneman v. Blake, 19 Cal. 579:
1042.
Hynes v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 54 App.
Div. 256 : 1296.
Hyslop V. Finch, 99 111. 171: 696,
706, 1195, 1416.
I.
Idaho Springs v. Woodward, 10 Colo.
104: 144.
Ihmsen v. Momngahela Nav. Co., 32
Pa. St. 153; 625.
I. & G. N. Ev. Co. V. Benitos, 59 1
Tex. 326: 1546.
I. & G. N. Ry. Co. V. Bost, 2 Tex.
Civ. Cas. 334: 846, 1473.
V. Klausj 64 Tex. 293: 88.
V. Pape, 62 Tex. 313: 1451.
Illinois & Mich. Canal Co. v. C. &
R. I. R. R. Co., 14 111. 314: 410,
416.
Illinois & St. Louis R. R. Co. v.
Febringer, 82 111. 129: 151.
Illinois & St. Louis R. R. & Coal Co.
V. Switzer, 117 111. 399: 1246.
Illinois & Wis. R. E. Co. v. Van
Horn, 18 111. 257: 1119, 1120,
1378.
Illinois Central E. R. Co. v. Allen,
39 111. 205: 937.
V. Anderson, 73 111. App. 64: 846.
V. Anderson, 73 111. App. 621 : 849,
1472.
V. Bloomington, 76 111. 447 : 490.
V. Bloomington, 167 111. 9: 891.
V. Champaign, 163 111. 524, 1701.
V. Chicago, 138 111. 453: 749, 985.
V. Chicago, 141 111. 586: 751, 1287.
V. Chicago, 156 111. 98: 751, 1292.
V. Chicago, 169 111. 329: 1122, 1131
1243, 1287.
V. Chicago, 173 111. 471: 115, 712.
V. CJiicago, 176 XJ. S. 646: 712.
V. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 121 HI.
483: 772.
V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. 122 111.
473: 753, 757, 793, 796, 798, 931.
V. Comrs., 161 111. 247: 1288.
V. Copiah Co., 81 Miss. 685: 491,
1288, 1644.
V. Davis, 71 111. App. 99: 327.
V. Ferrell, 108 HI. App. 659: 91,
1548, 1553, 1653.
V. Grabill, 50 III. 242: 649, 1662.
V. Hasenwinkle, 232 III. 224 : 1028,
1478.
V. Heisner, 45 111. App. 143: 154,
159.
V. Heisner, 93 III. App. 469: 152.
V. Heisner, 192 111. 571: 152, 153,
154.
V. Hodge, 21 Ky. L. R. 1479: 1474.
V. Hoskins, 80 Miss. 730: 1347,
1625.
V. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387: 105,
108, 110, 111, 112, 114, 119, 123,
128, 129.
V. Interstate Com. Com. 203 U. S.
441: 480.
V. Kreeble, 95 III. App. 185: 639.
V. Le Blanc, 74 Miss. 650: 1352.
1626, 1629.
V. Lockwood, 112 III. App. 423: 91,
144, 1653, 1663.
V. Lostant, 167 HI. 85: 980, 1343.
CASES CITED.
cli
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Illinois Central R. E. Co. v. Miller,
68 Mias. 760: 147, 149, 155.
V. Normal, 175 111. 562: 751, 1426.
V. Railroad Co., 85 111. 211: 1578.
V. Rucker, 14 111. 153: 1038, 1040,
1080, 1638.
T. Schmidgall, 91 111. App. 23: 639,
1297 1302.
V. Smith, lib Ky. 203: 89, 1124,
1639, 1648, 1652.
V. Swalm, 83 Miss. 631 : 491, 1288,
1511, 1642, 1644.
V. Thomas, 75 Miss. 54: 1580.
V. Trustees of Schools, 212 111. 406:
448, 654, 661, 663, 1243, 1338.
V. Trustees of Schools, 128 111.
App. Ill: 448, 654.
V. Turner, 194 111. 575: 304, 639,
1297 1302.
T. Turner, 97 111. App. 219: 304,
639, 1297, 1302;
V. Walthen, 17 111. App. 582: 1474,
1482.
V. Wilboum, 74 Miss. 284: 93,
1452.
V. Willenberg, 117 111. 203: 1485,
1645.
Illinois etc. Ry. Co. v. Easterbrook,
211 111. 624: 1195.
V. Freeman, 210 III. 270: 1080,
1208, 1312.
V. Humiston, 208 111. 100: 1138,
1310 1379.
V. Ring, 219 111. 91 : 1314, 1379,
V. Mayrand, 93 111. 591: 994. 1^36.
V. McCIintock, 63 111. 514: 1380.
V. McCIintock, 68 111. 296: 1325.
V. St. Louis, 2 Dill. 70: 422, 1496.
Ulinoia Southern Ry. Co. v. Borders,
201 111. 459: 859.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Beloit, 109 Wis.
418: 115.
Illinois State Trust Co. v. St. Louis
etc. Ry. Co. 208 111. 419: 7, 917,
1053.
lUsley V. Portland & Rochester R.
R. Co., 56 Me. 531 : 1536.
Imber v. Springfield, 30 Mo. App.
669: 630, 634, 1029.
Imbescheid v. Old Colony R. R. Co.,
171 Mass. 209: 1164, 1319, 1320,
1323.
Imlay v. Railroad Co., 26 Conn. 256 :
196.
V. Union Branch R. R. Co. 26 Conn.
249: 242, 246, 279, 315, 323,
1293
Imler v. Springfield, 55 Mo. 119: 234.
Imperial Gas Co. v. Broadbout, 7 H.
L. 600: 457, 1524.
V. Broadbout, 7 DeG. McN. & G.
436: 1524.
Improvement Co. v. Hoboken, 36 N.
J. L. 540: 201.
Independence Ave. Boulevard, In Re,
128 Mo. 272: 895, 926, 1409.
Independent Nat. Gas Co. v. Butler
Water Co., 210 Pa. St. 177: 784,
1577, 1615, 1624.
Indiana Central R. R. Co. v. Hun-
ter, 8 Ind. 74: 1192, 1205.
V. Oakes, 20 Ind. 9 : 897.
V. Boden, 10 Ind. 96: 246, 251,
1550.
Indiana County, 51 Pa. St. 296: 1388.
Indiana etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 100
Ind. 409: 831, 936, 1028, 1177,
1346.
V. Allen, 113 Ind. 308: 1545.
V. Allen, 113 Ind. 581: 1631.
V. Brittingham, 98 Ind. 294: 831.
V. Connera, 184 111. 178: 1254.
V. Eberle, 110 Ind. 542: 152, 178.
V. Finnell, 116 Ind. 414: 850.
V. McBroom, 114 Ind. 198 : 1631.
V. Patehett, 59 111. App. 251 : 188,
1639.
V. Rinehart, 14 Ind. App. 588 : 995,
1247.
V. Stauber, 185 111. 9: 1314, 1379.
Indiana Natural Gas & O. Co. v.
Jones, 14 Ind. App. 55: 1343.
Indiana Oolithic Limeatone Co. v.
Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 107
Ind. 301 : 1576.
Indiana Power Co. v. St. Joseph &
Elkhart Power Co., 159 Ind. 42:
801, 900, 907.
Indiana Ry. Co. v. Hoffman, 162 Ind.
593: 304.
Indianapolis v. Board of Church Ex-
tension, 28 Ind. App. 319: 891.
V. Consumers' Gas Trust Co., 144
Fed. 640: 725.
V. Consumers' Gas Trust Co., 140
Ind. 107: 476.
V. Croas, 7 Ind. 9 : 182, 366, 877.
V. Cumberland Gravel Road Co.,
93 Ind. 360: 927.
V. Huffer, 30 Ind. 235: 143.
v. Kingsbury, 101 Ind. 200: 182,
366, 425, 877.
V. Lawyer, 38 Ind. 348 : 233.
Indianapolis Cable St. R. R. Co. v.
Citizens' St. R. R. Co., 127 Ind.
369: 268, 910.
Indianapolis & Cumberland Gravel
Road Co. V. Belt Ry. Co., 110
Ind. 5: 428.
V. Christian, 93 Ind. 360: 922, 927.
Indianapolis etc. Gravel Road Co. v.
State, 105 Ind. 37: 1010, 1012,
1499.
clii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. T43-1719.]
Indianapolis etc. R. R. C!o. v. Brower,
12 Ind. 374: 1430.
V. Calvert, 110 Ind. 555: 307,
1583.
V. Christian, 93 Ind. 360: 976.
V. Cook, 102 Ind. 133: 1112.
V. Hartley, 67 111. 439: 172, 200,
242, 246, 251, 279, 726, 1635.
V. Hood, 130 Ind. 594: 1407.
V. Indianapolis etc. Rapid Transit
Co., 33 Ind. App. 337 : 743, 759,
793.
V. Lawrenceburg, 37 Ind. 489:
1642.
V. Lewis, 119 Ind. 218 : 835.
V. Newsom, 54 Ind. 121: 976, 983.
V. Price, 153 Ind. 31 : 940, 1560.
V. Pugh, 85 Ind. 279: 1119, 1120.
V. Reed, 52 Ind. 357: 912.
V. Reynolds, 116 Ind. 356: 835, 836.
V. Smith, 52 Ind. 428: 246, 319.
V. Smythe, 45 Ind. 322; 1390.
Indianapolis Northern Traction Co.
V. Dunn, 37 Ind. App. 248: 1146.
Indianapolis etc. Traction Co. v. Lar-
rabee, 168 Ind. 237: 1310, 1312.
V. Shepherd, 35 Ind. App. 601:
1112, 1145.
Indianapolis Water Co. v. Am. Straw-
board Co., 53 Fed. 970: 71, 82,
84.
V. Multe, 126 Ind. 373 : 855.
Indianola L. I. & C. Co. v. Montgom-
ery, 85 Miss. 304: 878, 889.
Ingalls V. Byer's Administrator, 94
Ind. 134: 854, 1557.
Inge V. Birmingham etc. Ry. Co. 3
DeG. McN. & G. 658: 1533.
V. Police Jury, 14 La. Ann. 117:
936.
Ingleside Mfg. Co. v. Charleston L.
& W. Co., 76 S. C. 95: 1624.
Ingraham v. Camden & R. Water
Co., 82 Me. 335: 987, 1522.
V. C. T>. & M. R. R. Co. 34 la. 249 :
251.
Ingram v. C. D. & M. R. R. Co., 38
la. 669: 251.
V. Me. Water Co., 98 Me. 566: 91,
550, 558, 930.
V. State, 39 Ala. 247: 478.
V. Wilson, 4 Humph. 424: 1077.
Inhabitants of Hamilton v. Wain-
wright, 52 N. J. Eq. 419: 160.
Inland Empire Ry. Co. v. McKinley,
48 Wash. 675: 1427.
Inmann v. Tripp, 11 R. I. 520: 233.
Innes v. Manhattan R. R. Co. 3 App.
Div. 541: 1144.
Inskeep v. Leeony, 1 N. J. L. 112:
694.
Interlaken Land Co. v. Seattle, 47
Wash. 603: 1233, 1239.
International Bridge & T. Co. v.
McLane, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 665:
1348.
International etc. Ry. Co. v. Capers,
33 Tex. Civ. App. 283: 1639.
v. Slusher, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 631:
152.
Interstate Consol. R. R. Co. v. Early,
46 Kan. 197: 211, 323, 604, 617.
Iowa College v. Davenport, 7 la. 213:
1159, 1570.
Iowa St., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 611: 918.
Ipswich V. Co. Comrs. of Essex, 10
Pick. 519: 1087, 1417.
Ipswich Mills v. County Comrs. 108
Mass. 363: 1712.
Ireland v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
52 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 450 : 1295.
Irish V. Burlington & S. Ry. Co., 44
la. 380: 1535, 1578.
Iron Mt. R. R. Co. v. Bingham, 87
Tenn. 522: 200, 243, 255, 309,
313, 316, 325.
Iron R. R. Co. v. Ironton, 19 Ohio
St. 299: 678, 800, 802.
Irrigation v. De Lappe, 79 Cal. 351 :
587.
Irrigation Dist. v. Williams, 76 Cal.
360: 587.
Irving V. Ford, 65 Mich. 241: 884,
886.
V. Media Borough, 10 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 132: 73, 74, 77, 870, 1637.
V. Media Borough, 194 Pa. St. 648:
73, 74, 870.
Irwin V. Armuth, 129 Ind. 340:
1422.
V. Great Southern Tel. Co., 37 La.
Ann. 63: 341.
V. Seobee, 3 T. B. Monroe 50:
1078.
V. Yeager, 74 la. 174: 16, 1507.
Iselin V. Starin, 144 N. Y. 453 : 881,
890.
Isham V. Smith, 21 Wis. 32 : 1364.
Isom V. Low Fare Ry. Co. 10 Ohio
C. C. (N. S.) 89: 302.
V. Mississippi Central R. R. Co.,
36 Miss. 300: 1173, 1179.
Israel v. Jewett, 29 la. 475: 1204.
V. Met. El. R. R. Co. 10 Miscl.
722: 1296, 1299, 1437.
Issenhuth v. Baum, 11 S. D. 222:
1029, 1098.
Ives V. East Haven, 48 Conn. 272:
1027, 1028, 1034, 1387.
Ivey V. Georgia etc. R. R. Co., 84
Ga. 536: 639, 1588, 1615.
OASES CITED.
cliii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Jacob V. Louisville, 9 Dana, 114:
1182.
Jacobs V. Clearview Water Supply
Co., 220 Pa. St. 388: 1, 6, 499,
501, 505, 508, 538, 591, 673.
Jacobs, Matter of, 33 Hun 374 : 492.
Jacobs, Matter of, 98 N. Y. 98 : 479,
480, 492.
Jacobs's Petition, Matter of, 3 Harr.
Del. 321: 993.
Jacquelin v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 9
Miscl. 329: 1584.
Jager v. Dey, 80 la. 23: 715.
V. New York, 75 App. Div. 258:
1338, 1554.
•Jamaica v .Board of Comrs., 56 Ind.
466: 1408.
Jamaica etc. Plank Road Co. v. New
York etc. Ry. Co., 25 Hun 585:
1164, 1610.
Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co. v. Brook-
line, 121 Mass. 5: 352.
James v. Darlington, 71 Wis. 173:
375, 400, 406, 1596.
V. Ontario etc. R. R. Co., 12 Ont.
624: 1319.
V. Sammis, 132 N. Y. 239: 865.
V. West Chester, 220 Pa. St. 490:
1226, 1332.
James Kinney, Petition of, 5 Harr.
18: 1023.
James River & Kanawha Co. v.
Thompson, 3 Gratt. 270: 788.
V. Turner, 9 Leigh 313: 1180.
Jamestown etc. R. R. Co. v. Jones,
7 N. D. 619: 431, 957.
Jamieson v. Board of Comrs., 56 Ind.
466: 1441.
V. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 87 la.
265: 1326.
V. Ind. Nat. Gas & O. Co., 128 Ind.
555: 14, 470.
V. Kings County Elevated R. R.
Co., 147 N. Y. 322: 1143, 1151,
1304.
Jamison v. Bell Tel. Co., 186 N. Y.
493: 1630.
v. Burlington etc. Ry. Co., 69 la.
670: 1401, 1406.
V. Springfield, 53 Mo. 224: 1004,
1546, 1548.
Jane Evans, In re, 42 L. J. Ch. 357:
957.
Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288 :
57, 99, 125, 128, 129, 136, 139,
141.
Janesville Bridge Co. v. Stoughton, 1
Pinney 667: 409.
Janssen v. Lammers, 29 Wis. 88:
1708.
Jabb V. Hull Dock Co., 9 A. & E.
N. S. 443: 625, 1274.
Jackman v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,
15 Neb. 524: 847, 1454.
Jackson v. Big Sandy etc. R. R. Co.,
63 W. Va. 18: 419, 1569.
V. Centerville etc. R. R. Co., 64
Iowa, 292: 829, 947, 1629.
v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 41 Fed.
656: 313, 325, 040, 1298.
v. Edwards, 7 Paige, 386: 946.
V. Edwards, 22 Wend. 498: 943,
946.
V. Edwards, 22 Wend. 519: 943.
V. Harrington, 2 Allen, 242: 95.
V. Hatheway, 15 Johns. 447: 1486,
1491.
v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281: 53.
V. Jackson, 16 Ohio St. 163: 178,
217.
V. Pittsburgh, 36 Pa. Supr. Ct.
274: 948, 1564.
V. Portland, 63 Me. 55: 1251.
V. Rankin, 67 Wis. 285: 722, 980,
1363.
V. Rutland & Burlington R. R. Co.,
25 Vt. 150: 1477.
V. State, 104 Ind. 516: 1518.
V. Stevenson, 156 Mass. 496: 429.
V. Winn's Heirs, 4 Littell, 322
746, 1160.
Jackson etc. Traction Co. v. Comrs
of Railroads, 128 Mich. 164
329, 769, 770.
Jackson Co. v. Waldo, 85 Mo. 637
1186.
Jackson Co. H. R. R. Co. v. Inter
state R. T. Ry. Co., 24 Fed. 306
411.
Jackson St., In re, 47 Wash. 243
1108.
Jacksonville v. Dean, 145 111. 23
84, 453.
V. Doan, 48 111. App. 247 : 84, 453.
V. Lambert, 62 111. 519: 141.
V. Loar, 65 111. App. 218: 1337.
Jacksonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams,
27 Fla. 443: 1018, 1513, 1626.
V. Adams, 28 Fla. 631 : 748, 1347.
V. Adams, 29 Fla. 260: 1422, 1424.
V. Adams, 33 Fla. 608: 924, 925,
1422, 1424.
V. Caldwell, 21 111. 75: 1129.
V. Cox, 91 111. 500: 154.
V. Kidder, 21 111. 131 : 1246.
V. Lockwood, 33 Fla. 573: 315,
1293, 1549, 1552, 1648, 1657.
V. Thompson, 34 Fla. 346: 315,
325, 351, 647.
V. Walsh, 106 111. 253: 1271.
cliv
OASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Janvrin v. Poole, 181 Masa. 463:
1418.
Jarboe v. Carrollton, 73 Mo. App.
347: 325.
Jarden v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
3 Whart. 502: 1569.
Jarvis v. Grafton, 44 W. Va. 453:
890.
Jasper Ck). Elee. Ry. Co. v. Curtis,
154 Mo. 10: 834, 842, 850.
Jaynes v. Omaha St. R. R. Co., 53
Neb. 631: 180, 191, 197, 274,
295, 333, 640.
Jeffers v. Annapolis, 107 Md. 268:
297, 281, 282, 1589.
Jefferson v. Delaehaise, 22 La. Ann.
26: 706, 1106, 1358.
V. New York El. R. R. Co. 132 N.
y. 483: 1121.
Jefferson Co. v. Cowan, 54 Mo. 234:
973, 974.
Jefferson etc. R. R. Co. v. Hazeur, 7
La. Ann. 182: 1061.
V. New Orleans, 31 La. Ann. 478:
1571.
Jeffersonville v. Myers, 2 Ind. App.
532: 224, 1356.
Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Bowen,
40 Ind. 545: 1109.
V. Dougherty, 40 Ind. 33: 1160,
1167.
V. Esterle, 13 Bush. 667 : 249, 252,
1293, 1551, 1648, 1657, 1662.
Jeffrey v. Blue Hill Turnpike Co., 10
Mass. 368: 1526.
Jeffries v. Jeffries, 117 Mass. 184:
429.
V. Maceown, 30 Ind. 226: 1464.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 3
Houst. Del. 447: 1343.
V. Swampscott, 105 Mass. 535:
1361, 1371, 1373, 1571.
Jemison v. Bell Telephone Co., 186
N. Y. 493: 339.
Jenal v. Green Island Dr. Co., 12
Neb. 163: 495, 505, 564, 570,
577.
Jenkins v. Central Ontario R. R. Co.,
4 Ont. 593: 712, 1068, 1071.
V. Riggs, 100 Md. 427 : 1362, 1510.
V. Stetler, 118 Ind. 275: 1489.
V. Wilmington & W. R. R. Co., 110
N. C. 438: 157.
Jenks V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
17 Phila. 65: 1189, 1200, 1201.
V. Stump, 41 Colo. 281 : 1004, 1007.
Jennings v. Le Roy, ' 63 Cal. 397 :
1718.
Jennings, Ex parte, 6 Cow. 518: 97,
99.
Jerabek v. Kennedy, 61 Neb. 340:
1129, 1180, 1201.
Jeremy Imp. Co. v. Commonwealth,
106 Va. 482 : 484.
Jerome v. Ross, 7 Johns. Ch. 315:
813, 825, 1602.
Jerome Ave., Matter of, 120 App. Div.
201: 1196.
Jerome Ave., Matter of, 120 App.
Div. 297: 1328.
Jersey City v. Central R. R. Co., 40
N. J. Eq. 417: 708.
V. Gardner, 32 N. J. Eq. 586 : 1578.
V. Gardner, 33 N. J. Eq. 622 : 1526,
1578.
V. Fitzpatrick, 30 N. J. Eq. 97:
1631.
T. Hamilton, 70 N. J. L. 48: 1430.
V. Morris Canal & B. Co., 12 N.
J. Eq. 547: 1491.
V. National Docks R. R. Co., 55
N. J. L. 194: 898.
V. Sackett, 44 N. J. L. 428: 1528.
Jersey City etc. R. R. Co. v. Central
R. R. Co., 48 N. J. Ch. 379: 766,
767, 1410.
V. Jersey City & H. R. R. Co., 20
N. J. Eq. 61: 268, 427, 762,
1283, 1610.
Jersey City & Hoboken Horse R. R.
Co. V. Jersey City & Bergen R.
R. Co., 21 N. J. Eq. 550: 427,
762, 763, 764, 1283, 1610.
Jersey City Water Comrs., Matter
of, 31 N. J. L. 72: 1669, 1671,
1685.
Jessup V. Grand Trunk R. R. Co.,
28 Grant Ch. 583: 841.
V. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 7 V. C.
App. 128: 841.
V. Loucks, 55 Pa. St. 350: 1499.
Jessup & M. Paper Co. v. Ford, 6
Del. Ch. 52: 69, 81.
Jessup etc. Co. v. Ford, 6 Del. Ch.
52: 1604.
Jeter v. Board, 27 Gratt. 910: 1075.
Jewell V. Gardiner, 12 Mass. 311:
1345.
Jewett V. Somerset Co., 1 Me. 125:
1444.
V. Swett, 178 111. 96: 154, 1606.
V. Swett, 71 111. App. 641: 154.
J. G. Brill Co. V. Philadelphia, 167
Pa. St. 1: 1309.
Jockbeck v. Board of Comrs., 53 Kan.
780: 538, 824, 896.
John & Cherry Streets, Matter of, 19
Wend. 659: 495, 589.
John Monat Lumber Co. v. Denver,
21 Colo. 1: 889.
Johns V. Marion County, 4 Ore. 46:
983.
OASES CITED.
clv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Johnson v. Alameda County, 14 Cal.
106: 1162.
V. Atlantic & St. Lawrence R. E.
Co., 35 N. H. 569: 158, 461.
T. Atlantic City R. R. Co., 73 N.
J. L. 767: 857, 1559, 1630, 1633.
V. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 45 N.
J. Eq. 454: 1261, 1460, 1461,
1462,^1463, 1569.
V. Boorman, 63 Wis. 268 : 866.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 37 Minn.
519, 1314.
v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 80 Wis.
641: 148, 158.
V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Ey. Co., 58 la. 537: 816.
V. Clayton County, 61 la. 89: 1421.
V. Clontarf, 98 Minn. 281: 973,
1512, 1513, 1569, 1571.
V. Cox, 42 Misc. 301 : 404.
T. Crow, 87 Pa. St. 184: 408, 412.
V. Dadeville, 127 Ala. 244: 882.
V. Freeport & Miss. Riv. Ry. Co.,
Ill 111. 413: 994, 1045, 1119,
1128, 1131, 1134, 1135.
V. Freeport & Miss. River Ry. Co.,
116 111. 521: 994, 1423.
V. Grays Point Terminal Ry. Co.
Ill Mo. App. 378: 151.
T. Joliet & Chicago R. R. Co., 23
111. 202: 922, 998, 999, 1015,
1162.
T. Met. W. S. El. R. R. Co., 160
111. 477: 1467.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 10
Miscl. 136: 1151, 1302.
V. New York etc. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
76 App. Div. 564: 339.
V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 18 R. I.
642: 181, 183, 191, 320, 351:
366, 382, 391, 404, 744, 1338.
v. Ontario etc. R. R. Co., 11 U. C.
203: 952.
T. Ontario etc. R. R. Co., 11 U. C.
Q. B. 246: 1635.
V. Parkersburg, 16 W. Va. 402:
631, 659, 671, 1549.
V. Pettit, 120 App. Div. 774:
1559
V. Rankin, 70 N. C. 550: 1170.
V. St. Louis, 137 Fed. 439: 643,
1549.
V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 32 Ark.
758: 1522.
V. School Trustees, 26 Grant Ch.
204: 821.
V. Shelter Is. Grove & Camp-Meet-
ing Ass., 47 Hun 374 : 880.
V. Shelter Island Grove & Camp-
Meeting Ass., 122 N. Y. 330:
880.
Johnson v. Sherman Co. I. W. P. & I.
Co., 71 Neb. 452: 850.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 71 S. C. 241:
1523.
V. State, I Ga. App. 196: 365, 876.
V. Stephenson, 39 111. App. 88:
1033, 1420.
V. Supervisors of Clayton Co., 61
la. 89: 512.
V. Sutliff, 17 Neb. 423 : 1440, 1436,
1437.
V. Thompson-Houston Electric Co.,
54 Hun 469: 345.
V. Utica Water Works Co., 67
Barb. 415: 731.
V. White, 26 R. I. 207: 149, 155,
156, 233, 1455.
Johnson City v. Wolfe, 103 Tenn.
277: 882, 884.
Johnson Co. v. Minnear, 72 Kan.
326: 515.
Johnson, In re, 49 N. J. L. 381 : 1020,
1095.
Johnston v. Callery, 173 Pa. St. 129 :
936.
v. Callery, 184 Pa. St. 146: 1705.
V. District of Columbia, 118 U. S.
19: 142.
V. Lonstorf, 128 Wis. 17 : 375, 388,
400, 405, 513, 1596.
V. Rankin, 70 N. C. 550: 22, 23,
1082, 1164, 1571.
V. Supervisors, 19 Johns. 272:
1531.
V. Vandyke, 6 McLean, 422: 943.
Johnstown v. Frederick, 36 N. Y.
App. Div. 44: 1437.
Johnsville v. Smith, 90 App. Div.
618: 1348.
V. Smith, 184 N. Y. 341 : 1348.
Joliet V. Blower, 155 111. 414: 629,
1245, 1254.
V. Blower, 49 111. App. 464: 629,
1249.
V. Spring Creek Dr. Dist., 222 111.
441: 924.
Joliet & Chicago R. R. Co. v. Bar-
rows, 24 111. 562: 1413, 1669.
Jolly V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., 16
Pa. Co. Ct. 1: 300, 1587, 1590.
V. Wimbledon etc. R. R. Co., 1 B.
& S. 807: 1626.
Jones V. Adams, 19 Nev. 78: 71.
V. Asheville, 116 N. C. 817: 953.
V. Bangor, 144 Pa. St. 638: 618,
632, 1353, 1718.
V. Bird, 5 B. & Aid. 837 : 206.
V. Bright, 140 Ala. 268 : 870.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 68 111.
380: 994, 1138, 1251.
V. Clark, 7 Jones Law 418: 1073.
clvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Jones V. Conn, 39 Ore. 30: 71, 72.
V. Commonwealth, 1 Bush (Ky.)
34: 19.
V. Erie & W. E. K. Co., 151 Pa. St.
30: 449.
V. Erie & W. R. R. Co., 169 Pa. St.
333: 306, 327.
V. Florida etc. R. R. Co., 41 Fed.
70: 957, 1570, 1576.
V. Franklin Co. Comrs. 130 N. C.
451: 1523.
V. GoflFstown, 39 N. H. 254: 1096.
V. Houston, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 1 :
1307.
Y. Met. El. R. R. Co., 59 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 437: 1427.
V. Miller, 2 Va. Dec. 232: 1565.
V. New Orleans etc. Co., 70 Ala.
227: 1202, 1347, 1351.
V. North Ga. Elec. Co., 125 Ga.
618: 7, 536, 537, 672.
V. Oxford, 45 Me. 419: 1527.
V. Pettibone, 2 Wis. 308 : 104.
V. Phillips, 30 Me. 455: 1345,
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 143 Pa. St. 374:
859.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 11 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 202: 749.
V. Portland, 57 Me. 42 : 1019.
V. Railroad Co., 151 Pa. St. 30:
267.
v. St. Louis etc. Ey. Co., 84 Mo.
151: 152.
V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 67
S. C. 181: 847, 1451, 1457, 1639.
V. Seattle, 23 Wash. 753: 229,
1307, 1566.
V. Seligman, 81 N. Y. 190: 1645,
1646, 1647.
V. Skinner, 61 Me. 25 : 976.
V. Stafford Justices, 1 Leigh 584:
1638.
V. Theiss, 30 Ind. 311 : 1399.
V. United States, 48 Wis. 385: 92,
738.
V. Van Bochove, 103 Mich. 98:
837, 1504.
V. Venable, 120 Ga. 1 : 521, 534.
V. Wabash etc. R. E. Co., 18 Mo.
App. 251: 157.
V. Walker, 2 Paine C. C. 688: 6,
672, 745.
V. Wills Valley E. E. Co., 30 Ga.
43, 1182.
V. Zink, 65 Mo. App. 409: 707,
1086.
Jones' Heirs v. Barclay, 2 J. J.
Marsh. 73: 516, 519, 955, 1017,
1135.
Joplin & W. R. R. Co. v. Kansas City
etc. R. R. Co., 135 Mo. 549:
908.
Joplin Con. Min. Co. v. Joplin, 124
Mo. 129: 84, 653, 981, 1008.
Jordan v. Benwood, 42 W. Va. 312:
148, 156, 233.
V. Chenoa, 166 111. 530: 886.
V. Greig, 33 Colo. 360: 996.
V. Haskell, 63 Me. 189 : 1503.
V. Hyatt, 3 Barb. 275: 12.
V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. S.
385: 448, 1303, 1555.
V. School District, 60 Me. 540:
1409.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 42 Minn.
172: 148, 157.
V. Woodward, 40 Me. 317: 502,
550, 1495.
Jordan et al.. Petitioners, 32 Me.
472: 1417.
Jorgenson v. Superior, 111 Wis. 561:
615, 617, 619, 1356, 1550.
Joseph V. Truckenmiller, 183 Mo. 9:
1107.
V. Zimmerman, 142 Mo. 155: 1186.
Joy V. Grindstone Neck Water Co.,
85 Me. 109: 1247, 1445.
Joyce V. East St. Louis El. St. E. R.
Co., 43 111. App. 157: 322, 1355.
Judd V. Hartford, 72 Conn. 350 : 143.
Judge V. New York Central etc. R. R.
Co., 56 Hun 60: 1630.
Judson V. Bridgeport, 25 Conn. 426:
1086, 1515.
Julia Building Ass'n v. Bell Tel. Co.,
88 Mo. 258: 341, 643.
Juliatta V. Smith, 12 Ida. 288: 865.
Junction Pass. E. R. Co. v. Williams-
port Pass. R. R. Co., 154 Pa. St.
116: 304.
Jungblum v. Minneapolis etc. E. E.
Co., 70 Minn. 153: 152, 1650,
1655.
Jurries v. Virgens, 104 Minn. 71:
1515.
Justice V. Nesquehoning Valley E.
E. Co., 87 Pa. St. 28 : 1348, 1351,
1626, 1629.
V. Philadelphia, 169 Pa. St. 297:
953.
T. Philadelphia, 169 Pa. St. 503:
952, 1560.
Justices etc. v. Griffin etc. Eoad Co.,
15 Ga. 39: 779, 1057.
V. Plank Road Co., 9 Ga. 475: 706,
779.
Justices of Williamson v. Jefferson,
1 Coldw. 419: 1531.
Juvinall v. .Jamesburg Dr. Dist., 204
111. 106: 924.
OASES CITED.
clvii
[Tlie references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
K.
Kaiser v. St. Paul S. & T. F. E. E.
Co., 22 Minn. 149: 319.
Kaje V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 57
Minn. 422: 320, 351, 382, 388,
399, 444.
Kal-celdy v. Columbia E. R. Co., 37
Wash. 675: 327, 377, 399, 406,
1560, 1583.
Kakkie v. St. Paul etc. Ey. Co., 44
Minn. 438: 352.
Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo H. L. & P.
Co., 124 Mich. 74: 360, 361, 410.
Kales V. Spokane Val. L. & W. Co.,
42 Wash. 43: 137.
Kamer v. Clatsop Co., 6 Ore. 238:
975, 1069.
Kamm v. Nonnand, 50 Ore. 9: 81,
1604.
Kanaga v. St. Louis etc. E. E. Co.,
76 Mo. 207: 858, 1627, 1631.
Kanawha etc. E. E. Co. v. Glen Jean
etc. E. E. Co., 45 W. Va. 119:
901.
Kane v. Baltimore, 15 Md. 240 : 536,
1495.
V. New York El. E. R. Co., 125
N. Y. 164: 180, 181, 183, 187,
197, 198, 199, 202, 240, 255, 264,
265, 1296.
Kankakee etc. E. E. Co. v. Chester,
62 111. 235: 1369.
V. Horan, 131 III. 288: 90, 95,
1638, 1648, 1653.
V. Horan, 22 111. App. 145: 151,
156, 1648, 1655.
V. Horan, 23 111. App. 259: 151.
V. Horan, 30 111. App. 552 : 90, 95,
1648, 1653.
V. Straut, 102 111. 666: 1107.
Kankakee Water Co. v. Eeeves, 45
111. App. 285 : 145.
Kanne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis
Ey. Co., 30 Minn. 423: 1461,
1626, 1628.
V. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ey. Co.,
33 Minn. 419: 1626.
Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125:
170.
V. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46: 170.
Kansas Cent. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 22
Kan. 285: 1477.
V. Allen, 24 Kan. 33: 1119, 1120,
1125, 1128.
V. Board of Co. Comrs., 45 Kan.
716: 1290.
Kansas City v. Baird, 98 Mo. 215:
678, 1057.
V. Brady, 52 Kan. 297: 169.
V. Butterfield, 89 Mo. 646: 1109.
V. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585: 894.
V. Duncan, 135 Mo. 571: 1011.
Kansas City v. Hennegan, 152 Fed.
249: 931, 932.
V. Hill, 80 Mo. 523 : 923.
V. Hyde, 196 Mo. 498: 1071.
V. Hyde, 196 Mo. 515: 1071.
V. Kansas City Belt R. R. Co., 102
Mo. 633: 354, 487.
V. Kansas City Belt Ry. Co., 187
Mo. 146: 490, 1422.
V. Kansas City etc. R. E. Co., 84
Mo. 410: 1378.
V. Kansas City etc. E. E. Co., 189
Mo. 245: 1403.
V. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Kan.
331: 1410, 1673.
V. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo. 458: 9,
674.
V. Mastin, 169 Mo. 80: 1011.
V. Met. Water Co., 164 Fed. 728:
931.
V. Morse, 105 Mo. 510: 1270.
V. Mulkey, 176 Mo. 229: 1703.
V. Napiecek, 76 Kan. 693: 1270,
1344.
V. No. Am. Trust Co., 110 Mo.
App. 647: 1563.
V. Scarritt, 169 Mo. 471: 872, 892.
V. Slangstrom, 53 Kan. 431: 88,
92, 93.
V. Street, 36 Mo. App. 666: 1109.
V. Vineyard, 128 Mo. 75: 926.
V. Ward, 134 Mo. 172: 1011, 1186.
Kansas City etc. E. Co. v. Baird, 41
Kan. 69: 1128, 1311.
V. Baker, 183 Mo. 312: 873.
V. Baker, 196 Mo. 593: 1557.
V. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585: 893,
1029, 1377.
V. Cook, 57 Ark. 387: 158, 1638.
V. Cox, 41 Mo. App. 499: 926.
V. Dawley, 50 Mo. App. 480: 1119,
1130, 1310, 1312.
V. Fisher, 49 Kan. 17: 1228.
V. Fisher, 53 Kan. 512: 1018, 1513,
1540, 1541, 1543, 1545.
V. Hurst, 42 Kan. 462 : 1428.
V. Kansas City etc. E. E. Co. 118
Mo. 599: 1281.
v. Kansas City etc. R. E. Co., 129
Mo. 62: 1619.
V. Kennedy, 49 Kan. 19: 1391.
V. Kregelo, 32 Kan. 608: 1246,
1314, 1330, 1342, 1477.
V. Lackey, 72 Miss. 881 : 87, 88, 89,
1456.
V. Littler, 70 Kan. 556: 1208.
V. La. Western E. E. Co., 116 La.
178: 533, 714, 764, 769.
V. Merrill, 25 Kan. 421 : 1208, 1392.
V. Morley, 45 Mo. App. 304: 354.
elviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Kansas City etc. E,. R. Co. v. Riley,
33 Kan. 374: 147.
V. St. Joseph Terminal R. R. Co.,
97 Mo. 457: 312, 328, 657, 765,
769, 1282.
V. Schwake, 70 Kan. 141: 252, 260,
1297.
V. Shoemaker, 160 Mo. 425: 1310,
1315.
V. Smith, 51 La. Ann. 1079: 1426.
V. Smith, 72 Miss. 677: 89.
V. Spencer, 72 Miss. 491 : 487.
V. Splitlog, 45 Kan. 68: 1150, 1241,
1545.
V. State, 74 Neb. 868: 868.
V. Story, 96 Mo. 611: 926. 1176.
V. Turley, 71 Kan. 256: 1387.
V. Vickroy, 46 Kan. 248: 1120, 1231,
1236, 1241.
V. View, 156 Mo. 608: 1557.
V. Weaver, 86 Mo. 473: 1254, 1557.
V. Weidenmann, 77 Kan. 300: 1128,
1139, 1225.
V. Wiggal, 82 Miss. 223: 96.
Kansas Citj Interurban Ry. Co. v.
Davis, 197 Mo. 669: 708, 715,
997, 1043, 1044.
Kansas City M. Co. v. Riley, 133 Mo.
574: 882.
Kansas City Suburban Belt R. R. Co.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 118
Mo. 599: 771.
V. McElroy, 161 Mo. 584: 1150,
1186, 1217.
V. Noreross, 137 Mo. 415: 1137,
1210.
Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v. Burns, 70
Kan. 627: 1477, 1633.
V. Cuykendall, 42 Kan. 234: 251,
311, 325.
V. LeFlora, 49 Fed. 119: 426, 1474,
1608, 1615.
V. Mahler, 45 Kan. 565: 252, 311,
V. McAfee, 42 Kan. 239: 252, 311,
316.
V. N. W. Coal & M. Co., 161 Mo.
288: 528, 530, 592, 824, 1042,
1045, 1050, 1052, 1068, 1070.
V. Payne, 49 Fed. 114: 410, 413,
426, 1474, 1608, 1615.
V. Phipps, 4 Kan. App. 252: 1010,
1461.
Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hopkins, 18
Kan. 494: 840.
v. Mihlman, 17 Kan. 224: 1551,
1648, 1658, 1715.
V. Streeter, 8 Kan. 133: 1004. 1626.
Karber v. Pfeil, 56 Wis. 429: 1520.
Karnes v. Drake, 103 Ky. 134: 711,
1077.
Karst V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 22
Minn. 118: 237, 1306, 1648, 1657.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 23 Minn.
401: 237, 1306.
Katharine Water Co., 32 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 94: 918.
Katz V. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116:
162, 163.
Kauflfman v. Greismer, 26 Pa. St. 407:
146.
ICaufman v. Pittsburgh etc. R. R.
Co., 210 Pa. St. 440: 1134.
v. Tacoma etc. R. R. Co., 11 Wash.
632: 256, 304, 324, 640, 1294,
1300, 1549, 1649, 1657.
Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green
Bay & M. Canal Co., 142 U. S.
254: 495, 522, 523, 1432.
Kavanagh v. Mobile etc. R. R. Co.,
78 Ga. 271: 296, 308, 314, 315,
1581, 1591.
KSivanaugh v. Brooklyn, 32 N. Y.
489: 234.
Kay V. Glade Creek etc. R. R. Co., 47
W. Va. 467: 1123, 1315, 1316,
1379.
V. Kirk, 76 Md. 41: 79, 88.
Kean v. Elizabeth, 54 N. J. L. 462:
370, 371, 384, 390, 406.
V. Elizabeth, 55 N. J. L. 337: 370,
371, 384, 390, 406.
V. Stetson, 5 Pick. 492: 1634.
Kearney v. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 129 N. Y. 76: 1296, 1554,
1584, 1665.
v. Themanson, 48 Neb. 74: 147,
149, 158.
Kearney Tp. V. Ballentine, 54 N. J. L.
194: 698.
Kearns v. Thomas, 37 Wis. 118: 1400.
Kearsley v. Gibbs, 44 N. J. L. 169:
1368.
Keasy v. Louisville, 4 Dana (Ky.)
154: 209, 211, 238.
Keating v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.
141: 229, 230,442, 1453.
Keck V. Vanghause, 127 la. 529 : 89.
Keech v. People, 22 111. 478: 1106.
Keefer v. Bridgeport, 68 Conn. 401:
706.
Keehn v. McGillicudy, 15 Ind. App.
580: 602.
Keeler, Ex parte, 45 S. C. 537: 485.
Keeley v. New York, 6 Miscl. 516:
1167.
Keeling v. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 205
Pa. St. 31: 1616.
Keeling's Road, 59 Pa. St. 358: 519.
Keenan, Ex parte, 21 Ala. 558: 1415,
1638.
CASES CITED.
clix
[The references are to tbe pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 74S-1719.1
Keenan v. Comrs.' Court, 26 Ala.
568: 1091, 1094, 1420.
Keene v. Bristol, 26 Pa. St. 46: 1168,
1570.
V. Chapman, 25 Me. 126: 1522.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 79
Hun 451 : 1305.
Kehoe v. Philadelphia, 199 Pa. St. 45:
1251, 1457.
Kehrer v. Richmond City, 81 Va.
745: 212.
Kiefer v. Bridgeport, 68 Conn. 401:
1634.
Keigwin v. Drainage Comrs., 115 III.
347: 1431, 1510, 1576.
Keim v. Philadelphia, 2 Pa. Co. Ct.
149: 883.
Keine v. Cass County, 71 Neb. 677:
1435.
Keith V. Bingham, 100 Mo. 300: 13.
V. Brockton, 147 Mass. 618: 1717.
Keithsburg & East R. R. Co., v.
Henry, 79 m. 290: 1122, 1128,
1194, 1309, 1311, 1314.
Kelenke v. West Homestead, 216 Pa.
St. 476: 630.
Kellar v. Earl, 98 Wis. 488: 1636.
V. Riverton Consolidated Water
Co., 34 Pa. Supr. a. 301: 731.
Keller v. Bading, 64 111. App. 198:
1559.
V. Corpus Christi, 50 Tex. 614: 17.
V. Harrisburg etc. R. R. Co., 151
Pa. St. 67: 1713.
V. Harrisburg etc. R. R. Co., 161 Pa.
St. 594: 1535.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 151 Pa.
St. 67: 1708.
V. Riverton Water Co., 161 Pa. St.
422: 1068.
Kelley v. Green Bay etc. R. R. Co.
80 Wis. 328: 1578.
V. Horton, 2 Cow. 424: 1634, 1636.
V. Kennard, 60 N. H. 1: 514.
V. New York, 6 Misc. 516: 85, 1184.
V. Pittsburg, 85 Pa. St. 170: 466.
Kelliner v. Miller, 97 Mass. 71: 1147.
Kellinger v. Forty-second Street etc.
R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206: 178, 269,
307.
Kellogg V. Kirksville, 132 Mo. App.
519: 84, 1654.
V. Malin, 50 Mo. App. 496: 1500.
V. New Britain, 62 Conn. 232: 84.
V. Thompson, 66 N. Y. 88: 168,
866, 1491.
Kellor's Appeal, 2 Walker's Pa.
Supm. 32: 948.
Kelly V. Danby, 46 Vt. 504: 701.
V. Donahoe, 2 Met. (Ky.) 482:
1489.
V. Dunning, 39 N. J. Eq. 482: 146.
V. Harrison, 2 Johns. Cas. 29; 943.
V. Minneapolis, 57 Minn. 294: 226.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co. 5
Mont. Co. L. R. 175: 819.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 28 Ind.
App. 457: 91, 1639, 1716.
Kelsay v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 41
Ind. App. 128: 1644.
Kelsey v. King, 32 Barb. 410: 335,
678.
Kelso, In re, 147 Cal. 609: 467.
Kelsoe v. Oglethorpe, 120 Ga. 951:
886, 890, 1492, 1568.
Kemp v. Penn. R. R. Co., 156 Pa.
St. 430: 847.
V. Polk County, 46 Ore. 546 : 978.
V. Smith, 7 Ind. 471: 995, 1021,
1406.
V. Southeastern R. R. Co., 7 L. R.
Ch. 364: 1061.
Kemper v. Collins, 97 Mo. 644: 872,
886.
V. Louisville, 14 Bush. 87: 66, 234.
Kemper's Lessee v. Cincinnati etc.
Turnpike Co., 11 Ohio 392: 815.
Kenan, In re, 109 Ga. 819: 726.
Kendall v. Columbia, 74 S. C. 539:
212, 613, 618, 1525.
V. Post, 8 Or. 141 : 923.
V. Railroad Co., 55 Vt. 438: 1536,
1537, 1538, 1539, 1540.
Kendriek v. Towle, 60 Mich. 368
1323.
Kenedy v. Erwin, Busbee L. 387
495.
Kenesin v. Arlington, 144 Mass. 456
912.
Kenkele v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 55
Hun 398: 1295.
Kennebec Water District v. Water-
ville, 96 Me. 234: 21, 498, 503,
675, 733, 788, 789, 930, 1263,
1265.
V. Waterville, 97 Me. 185: 788,
1263, 1265.
Kennedy v. Detroit R. R. Co., 108
Mich. 390: 307, 1588.
V. Dubuque & Pacific R. R. Co., 2
Iowa 521: 1204.
V. Indianapolis, 103 U. S. 599: 1194.
V. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.,
22 Wis. 581: 947, 949, 1226,
1.564.
V. Minneola etc. Traction Co., 77
App. Div. 484: 273.
V. Minneola etc. Traction Co., 178
N. Y. 508: 273.
clx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-14:2 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Kennedy v. State, 109 Ind. 236: 1514.
Kennett's Petition, 24 N. H. 139: 437,
917, 1118, 1362.
Kenney v. Kansas City etc. E. R. Co.,
69 Mo. App. 569: 147, 157.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 74
Mo. App. 301 : 94.
V. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 208 Pa.
St. 30: 748.
Kenniaon v. Beverly, 146 Mass. 467:
145.
Kensington's Case, 2 Rawle, 445: 781,
788.
Kensington v. Wood, 10 Pa. St. 93:
1137.
Kensington & Oxford Turnpike, In re,
97 Pa. St. 260 : 1383.
Kent V. Board of County Comrs., 42
Kan. 534: 1395, 1568.
V. Pratt, 73 Conn. 573: 881.
V. St. Joseph, 72 Mo. App. 42:
1306.
v. Wallingford, 42 Vt. 651: 1530,
1683.
Kent Co. v. Goodwin, 98 Md. 84: 153.
Kenton Co. Ct. v. Bank Lick Turn-
pike Co., 10 Bush. 529: 782.
Kentucky Cent. E. R. Co. v. Clark,
5 Ky. L. R. 184: 180, 253.
V. Paris, 95 Ky. 627: 865.
Kentucky etc. R. R. Co. v. Harrison,
4 Ky. L. R. 448: 1358.
Kentucky & Ind. Bridge Co. v. Held,
16 Ky. L. R. 160: 1144.
V. Kreiger, 93 Ky. 243: 310, 314.
Kenyou v. New York Cent. etc. R. R.
Co., 29 App. Div. N. Y. 80: 1651,
1658.
Keokuk etc. Ry. Co. v. Donnell, 77 la.
221 : 1046, 1073, 1624.
Kepley v. Taylor, 1 Blackf. 492:
549, 553, 1519.
Kepple V. Keokuk, 61 Iowa 653 : 603,
616.
Kern v. Isgrig, 132 Ind. 4: 1568,
1574, 1576.
Kern Island Irr. Co. v. Bakersfield,
151 Cal. 403: 835.
Kemochan v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 161
N. Y. 339: 1554, 1562.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 128 N.
Y. 559: 182, 1298, 1663, 1665.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 130 N.
Y. 651: 1121.
Kerr v. South Park Comrs., 117 U. S.
379: 539, 1143.
V. West Shore R. R. Co., 127 N. Y.
269: 788.
Kerrigan v. Backus, 69 App. Div. 329 :
Kerr's Petition, Matter of, 42 Barb.
119: 684, 788.
Kersey v. Schuylkill Riv. E. S. R. R.
Co., 133 Pa. St. 234: 1188, 1201,
1274, 1339.
Kershaw v. Philadelphia, 10 Pa. Co.
Ct. 153: 1550, 1718.
V. Philadelphia, 20 Pbila. 318:
618, 1551, 1649, 1656.
Kersley v. Gibbs, 44 N. J. L. 169:
1386.
Kester v. Western Union Tel. Co.,
108 Fed. 926: 339.
Ketcham v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
76 App. Div. 619: 258.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 177
N. Y. 247 : 258.
Kettle River R. R. Co. v. Eastern
R. R. Co., 41 Minn. 461: 533,
832
Kewanee v. Otley, 204 111. 402: 82,
83, 1604, 1650, 1654.
Keyes v. Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 467:
1382, 1514.
V. Tait, 19 la. 123: 974, 1516.
Keyport v. Freehold etc. R. R. Co.,
74 N. J. L. 480: 878, 890.
Keyes v. Morin Co., 42 Cal. 252:
1415, 1416.
V. Williamson, 31 Ohio St. 561:
1033.
Keyser v. Lake Shore etc. Ry. Co.,
142 Mich. 143 : 1294, 1304, 1550,
1648, 1657.
Keysport v. Cherry, 51 N. J. L. 417:
710.
Keystone Bridge Co. v. Summers, 13
W. Va. 476: 948.
Keystone State Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Ridley Park, 28 Pa. Super. Ct.
635: 362.
Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1: 478.
Kidder v. Jennison, 21 Vt. 108: 1018.
V. Oxford, 116 Mass. 165: 1319.
V. Peoria, 29 111. 77: 1018, 1513.
Kidder Tp. Road, 1 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 10: 1091.
Kiebler v. Holmes, 58 Mo. App. 119:
935, 1558, 1560.
Kiecher v. Killbuck Turnpike Co.,
33 Ind. 333: 1628.
Kiekenapp v. Supers., 64 Minn. 547:
1082.
Kiernan v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
123 111. 188: 1109, 1150, 1176,
1200, 1202, 1312, 1313, 1506.
Kiesel v. Ogden City, 8 Utah 237:
143.
Killbuck Private Road, 77 Pa. St.
39: 707, 721, 1362.
CASES CITED.
clxi
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719. J
Kimball v. Board of Supervisors, 46
Cal. 19: 922.
V. Homan, 74 Mich. 699: 364, 367,
384, 388, 400, 406, 1004.
V. Kenosha, 4 Wis. 321: 196, 197,
366, 384.
>. Salt Lake City, 32 Utah, 253:
631, 634, 1307, 1308, 1323.
V. Yates, 14 111. 464: 1096.
Kimball Admx. v. Rockland, 71 Me.
137: 1526, 1530, 1683.
Kimble v. White Water Valley Canal
Co., 1 Ind. 285: 1445, 1522.
Kime v. Cass County, 71 Neb. 677:
1162, 1172, 1569, 1571, 1713.
Kimel v. Kimel, 4 Jones Law 121:
923, 1345.
Kincaid v. Indianapolis Nat'l Gas
Co., 124 Ind. 577: 172, 176,
200, 337, 1594, 1615.
Kine v. Defenbaugh, 64 111. 291: 24.
King, Matter of, 42 Misc. 480 : 1362,
1381.
King V. Bristol Dock Co., 6 B. & C.
181: 206.
V. Bristol Dock Co., 12 East 429:
83.
T. Brown, 31 Pa. Supr. Ct. 50:
1325.
V. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 71 la. 696:
160.
V. Danville, 32 Ky. L. R. 1188: 74,
1654.
V. Davenport, 98 111. 305 : 14, 485.
V. Granger, 21 R. I. 93: 143.
V. Greenwood Cem. Assn., 67 Ohio
St. 240: 924, 927, 1397.
V. Hayes, 80 Me. 206: 486.
V. Hungerford Market Co., 4 Barn.
& Adol. 596: 1257.
V. Iowa Midland R. R. Co., 34 la.
458: 1139, 1147.
V. Kent, 10 Barn. & Ores. 477:
1358.
V. Minneapolis Union Ry. Co., 32
Minn. 224: 1276.
V. New York, 36 N. Y. 182: 929,
1397.
V. New York, 102 N. Y. 171: 938.
V. Norfolk & W. R. R. Co., 90 Va.
210: 836, 1504.
V. Nottingham Waterworks, 6 A.
& E. 355: 1533.
V. Philadelphia Co., 154 Pa. St.
160: 337.
V. Portland, 38 Ore. 402: 10, 463.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Fed.
1017: 1560, 1631.
V. Tarlton, 2 Harris & McH. (Md.)
473: 1135.
v. United States, 59 Fed. Rep. 9:
92, 1716.
King V. Vicksburg Ry. & Lt. Co., 88
Miss. 456: 453, 454, 655, 661,
664, 1175, 1337, 1668.
V. Wycombe Ry. Co., 28 Beav. 104 :
822.
v. Wycombe Ry. Co., 29 L. J. Ch.
N. S. 462: 822.
Kingman County Comrs. v. Ply-
mouth, 6 Cush. 306: 1416.
Kingman et al.. Petitioners, 153
Mass. 566: 535.
Kings Co. v. Sea View Ry. Co., 23
Hun 180: 1583, 1622.
Kings County El. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 20 Hun 217 : 921.
Kings County Elevated Ry. Co., Mat-
ter of, 82 N. Y. 95: 260.
Kings Co. Fire Ins. Co. v. Stevens,
101 N. Y. 411: 368, 380, 388.
King's Lake L. & -D. Dist. v. Jami-
son, 176 Mo. 557 : 1082.
Kingsland v. Clark, 24 Mo. 24: 1255.
V. New York, 35 Hun 458: 130.
V. New York, 110 N. Y. 509: 428,
1262, 1342.
King's Leasehold Estates, L. R. 16
Eq. Cas. 521: 1260.
King's Prerogative etc'., 12 Coke 12 :
16.
King's Road, 1 Dall. 11: 1388.
Kingston Road, In re, 134 Pa. St.
409: 1366, 1376.
Kingston Tp. Road, 5 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 43: 1387.
Kinion v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
118 Mo. 577: 956.
Kinnealy v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
69 Mo. 658: 459.
Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty, 21 Ohio
C. C. 384: 380.
v. Beatty, 65 Ohio St. 264: 371,
380, 388, 392, 398, 1595.
Kinney v. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 208
Pa. St. 30: 743.
Kinnie v. Bare, 68 Mich. 625: 564,
569, 570, 576, 979, 980, 1088.
Y. Bare, 80 Mich. 345: 1034, 1380.
Kinsey v. New York, 75 App. Div.
262: 1338, 1554.
V. New York, 177 N. Y. 568: 1338,
1554.
v. Union Traction Co., 169 Ind.
563: 280, 286, 289, 292, 313, 334,
1589, 1591.
Kinsman St. R. R. Co. v. Broadway
& N. St. R. R. Co., 36 Ohio St.
239: 426, 427, 762, 763, 764,
1283.
Kinston etc. B^ R. Co. v. Stroud, 132
N. C. 413: 919, 1050.
clxii
JASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-l'719.]
Kip V. New York & Harlem E. E.
Co., 6 Hun 24: 748, 1624.
V. New York & Harlem R. R. Co.,
67 N. Y. 227: 689.
Klrby v. Boylston Market Assn., 14
Gray 252: 492.
V. Chicago ete. Ry. Co., 106 Fed.
551: 931.
V. Citizens' R. Co., 48 Md. 168:
354.
V. Citizens' Telephone Co., 17 S. D.
362: 342.
V. Panhandle etc. Ry. Co., 39 Tex.
Civ. App. 252: 1216, 1219, 1251.
Kirchman v. West & So. Towns St.
R. R. Co., 58 111. App. 515: 1587.
Kirk's Appeal, 28 Pa. St. 185: 1419.
Kirk V. Kansas City ete. R. R. Co.,
51 La. Ann. 664: 846, 847, 1485.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 51
La. An. 667: 846, 847.
V. Lynd, 106 U. S. 315: 19.
Kirkendall v. Hunt, 4 Kan. 514:
1570.
V. Omaha, 39 Neb. 1: 1179, 1215,
1308.
Kirkhart v. Roberts, 123 la. 137:
1070, 1623.
Kirkland v. Atlantic etc. Ry. Co.,
126 Ga. 246 : 728.
V. State, 72 Ark. 171 : 484.
Kirn v. Cape Girardeau etc. E. R.
Co. 124 Mo. App. 271: 1696.
Kirtland v. Meriden, 39 Conn. 107:
1683.
Kishler v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 134
Gal. 636: 1227, 1233.
Kiskiminitas Tp. Road, 32 Pa. St. 9:
1423.
Kissam v. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 86
Hun 598: 1555.
Kissinger v. Hanselman, 33 Ind. 80:
512, 517, 1033.
Kitsap County v. Melker, 50 Wash.
29: 1020.
Kittell V. Missisquoi R. R. Co., 56
Vt. 96: 1536, 1538, 1540, 1541.
Kivett V. McKeitham, 90 N. C. 106:
857.
Klages V. Philadelphia etc. R. E. Co.,
160 Pa. St. 386: 1324.
Klaus V. Jersey City, 69 N. J. L.
127, 608, 619, 1532, 1718.
Klein v. St. Paul etc. Ey. Co., 30
Minn. 451: 1404, 1405.
Klenk v. Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381:
881, 885.
Klenke v. West Homestead, '216 Pa.
St. 476: 632, 636.
Klicker v. Guilbaud, 47 N. J. L. 277 :
721.
Klinger v. Bickal, 117 Pa. St. 326:
468.
Klipstein v. New York El. E. E. Co.,
8 Miscl. 457: 924.
Klopp V. Chicago etc. Ey. Co., (la.)
119 N. W. 373: 1332.
Klosterman v. Chespeake etc. Ey.
Co., 114 Ky. 426: 1299, 1657.
Klous V. Commonwealth, 188 Mass.
149: 1127.
Klug V. Jeflers, 88 App. Div. 246:
882, 884.
Knapp v. MeAuley, 39 Vt. 275: 1631.
V. New York El. E. E. Co., 4 Miscl.
408: 1379.
Knapp & C. Mfg. Co. v. New York
etc. E. E. Co., 76 Conn. 311:
246, 1549, 1635.
Knapp Stout & Co. v. St. Louis, 153
Mo. 560: 384, 392, 398, 1595.
V. St. Louis, 156 Mo. 343: 384,
392, 398, 1595.
V. St. Louis Transfer R. R. Co. 126
Mo. 26: 254, 311, 314, 1582,
1591, 1592.
Knauft V. St. Paul etc. R. E. Co., 22
Minn. 173: 1225, 1321.
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Forty-sec-
ond Street E. R. Co., 85 App.
Div. 530: 115.
V. Forty-second Street R. E. Co.,
176 N. Y. 408: 115.
V. Philadelphia & Reading R. E
Co., 15 Phila. 48: 315.
Knight V. Ala. Midland E. R. Co,
101 Ala. 407: 841.
V. Albemarle etc. Jl. R. Co., 110
N. C. 58: 93.
V. Albemarle etc. R. R. Co., Ill
N. C. 80: 92, 1454.
V. Aroostook Riv. R. R. Co., 67 Me.
291: 698.
V. CarroUton R. E. Co., 9 La. Ann.
284: 304.
V. Heaton, 22 Vt. 480: 1402.
Knoblauch v. Minneapolis, 56 Minn.
321: 678, 1011, 1057, 1085.
Knock V. Metropolitan Ey. Co., 38 L.
J. C. P. 78: 625.
V. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 4 L. R. C.
P. 131 : 625.
Knorr v. Germantown R. R. Co., 5
Whart. 256 : 1523.
Knoth V. Barclay, 8 Colo. 300: 929,
956.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 109 App.
Div. 802: 1588.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 187 N. Y.
243: 1588.
CASES CITED.
clxiii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Knowles' Petition, 22 N. H. 361 : 513,
1365.
Knowles' Petition, 23 N. H. 193:
1437.
Knowles v. Knowles, 25 R. I. 325:
887, 1492.
V. Muscatine, 20 la. 248: 721, 1362.
V. Norfolk. & S. R. R. Co., 102 N.
C. 381 : 132, 1456, 1523.
Knox V. Chalomer, 42 Me. 150: 103.
V. Epsom, 56 N. H. 14: 1034.
T. Met. El. R. R. Co., 58 Hun 517 :
1584, 1591.
T. Met. El. R. R. Co., 128 N. Y.
625: 1584, 1591.
V. New York, 55 Barb. 404: 356.
Knoxville v. Africa, 77 Fed. 501 : 297,
298, 305.
V. Bird, 12 Lea, 121: 468.
V. Harth, 105 Tenn. 436: 613.
Knoxville etc. R. R. Co. v. Beeler, 90
Tenn. 548 : 836.
Knoxville W. Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U.
S. 22: 410, 411, 417.
Kobbe V. New Brighton, 23 App. Div.
243: 453, 1613.
Kobs V. Minneapolis, 22 Minn. 159:
233.
Koeb V. Del. L. & W. R. R. Co., 53
N. J. L. 256: 167, 470, 1475.
V. Del. L. & W. R. R. Co., 54 N. J.
L. 401: 88, 144.
V. Ky. & Ind. Bridge Co., 26 Ky. L.
R. 216: 640, 1356.
V. North Ave. R. R. Co., 75 Md.
222: 267.
V. Sackman-Phillips Inv. Co., 9
Wash. 405: 231, 1309, 1339.
V. Williamsport Water Co., 65 Pa.
St. 288: 1523.
Koeffler v. Milwaukee, 85 Wis. 397:
237, 1597.
Koehler v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
9 App. Div. 449: 1355.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 159 N.
Y. 218: 1355, 1562.
Koehmel v. New Orleans etc. R. R.
Co., 27 La. Ann. 442: 253, 307.
Koelle V. Kuecht, 99 111. 396 : 532.
Koenig v. Winona Co., 10 Minn. 238 :
1424.
V. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 27 Neb.
699: 686, 1578.
Koeppen v. Sedalia, 89 Mo. App. 648 :
237.
Koerper' v. St. Paul & N. R. R. Co.,
42 Minn. 340; 1211.
Kohl V. United States, 91 U. S. 367:
672, 931, 932.
Kohlhepp V. West Roxbury, 120 Mass.
596: 1518.
Kokomo V. Mahan, 100 Ind. 242 : 210,
238, 602, 617, 1597.
Koopman v. Blodgett, 70 Mich. 610 :
80, 1604.
Kopetzky v. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 14 Miscl. 311: 1304.
Kopp V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 41
Minn. 310: 441, 1338, 1453.
Koppikus V. State Capitol Comrs., 16
Cal. 248: 927, 1004.
Kornder v. Kings County El. R. R.
Co., 61 App. Div. 439: 1555.
Kossler v. Pittsburgh etc. Ry. Co.,
208 Pa. St. 50, 1188, 1201, 1213,
1241, 1273.
Kothe V. Board of Suprs., 19 S. D.
427 : 942, 972, 1029.
Kotz V. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., 188 111.
578: 658, 1457, 1472.
Kough V. Darcey, 11 N. J. L. 237:
1636.
Kownslar v. Ward, Gilmer, Va. 127 :
1359.
Kraeer v. Pa. R. R. Co., 218 Pa. St.
569: 842, 864, 1485, 1646.
Kramer v. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co.,
5 Ohio St. 140: 923, 927, 1013,
1192.
V. Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. R.
Co., 5 Ohio St. p. 165: 1016.
V. Los Angeles, 147 Cal. 668: 501.
Krause v. Oregon Steel Co., 45 Or.
378: 92, 1604.
Kreigh v. Chicago, 86 111. 407: 197,
357.
Kremer v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 51
Minn. 15: 857, 1176, 1627, 1632.
v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 54 Minn.
157: 1626.
Krenick v. Cordova, 95 Minn. 372:
1031.
Kreuger v. Wis. Telephone Co., 106
Wis. 96: 339, 1593.
Kroffe V. Springfield, 86 Mo. App.
530: 237.
Krone v. Kings County El. R. R. Co.,
50 Hun 431 : 1614.
Kronenwetter's Appeal, 135 Pa. St.
176: 1386.
Kroop V. Forman, 31 Mich. 144: 706,
969, 1361, 1420.
Krug V. St. Mary's Borough, 152 Pa.
St. 37: 93.
Kruger v. Le Blanc, 70 Mich. 76 : 865,
867, 1358, 1516.
Krumweide v. Manhattan R. R. Co.,
9 Miscl. 552: 1196, 1296, 1300.
Kucheman v. C. C. & D. Ry. Co., 46
la. 306: 200, 242, 247, 251, 323,
1293, 1299, 1335.
clxiv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Kuh V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
58 N. Y. Supr. 138: 1145, 1150.
Kuhl V. Chicago & N. W. E. R. Co.,
101 Wis. 42: 248, 621, 858, 1719.
Kuhn V. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., Ill
111. App. 323: 450, 655, 661.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 7 Misel.
53: 1301.
V. Truman, 15 Kan. 423 : 939.
Kundinger v. Saginaw, 59 Mich. 355 :
1013, 1084, 1395, 1402.
Kuschke v. St. Paul, 45 Minn. 225:
229, 987, 1011, 1021, 1504.
Kushequa R. R. Co. v. Pittsburgh
etc. R. R. Co., 200 Pa. St. 526:
900.
Kyle V. Auburn etc. R. R. Co., 2
Barb. Ch. 489: 1386, 1446, 1483.
V. Board of Comrs., 94 Ind. 115:
1393
V. Logan, 87 111. 67: 867.
V. Malin, 8 Ind. 34: 919.
V. Miller, 108 Ind. 90: 1378.
V. Texas & N. 0. R. R. Co., 3 Tex.
Civ. App. p. 518: 533.
Kyne v. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co.,
8 Houst. 185: 780.
L.
Labry v. Gilmour, 121 Ky. 367: 197,
199.
Lacey, Ex parte, 108 Cal. 326: 469.
Lachlan v. Gray, 105 la. 259 : 387.
Lackawanna Ave. Viaduct, 14 Pa. Co.
Ct. 603: 1081.
Lackawanna Tp. Road, 112 Pa. St.
212: 1390.
Lackland v. North Mo. R. R. Co., 31
Mo. 180: 178, 253, 254, 307, 309.
V. North Missouri R. R. Co. 34 Mo.
259: 253, 307.
V. Railroad Co., 31 Mo. 183: 311.
Lacroix v. Medway, 12 Met. 123:
1527.
La Crosse City Ry. Co. v. Higbee, 107
Wis. 389 : 273, 274, 275.
La Crosse & Milwaukee R. R. Co. v.
Seeger, 4 Wis. 268: 1116, 1527.
Ladd V. Boston, 151 Mass. 585: 430,
957.
V. French, 6 N. Y. Supp. 56 : 1490.
V. Philadelphia, 171 Pa. St. 485
643.
La Farrier v. Hardy, 66 Vt. 200
1009, 1018, 1513.
La Fayette v. Bush, 19 Ind. 326
1160, 1570.
V. Nagle, 113 Ind. 425: 236, 601,
617, 1119. 1128, 1550. 1648, 1656,
1718.
V. Spencer, 14 Ind. 399: 210.
V. Snencer, 19 Ind. 326: 210.
La Fayette v. Shultz, 44 Ind. 97:
1681.
V. Wortman, 107 Ind. 404: 601, 617,
1135, 1137, 1550.
Lafayette etc. R. R. Co. v. Butner,
162 Ind. 400: 7, 672, 673, 927,
929, 1042, 1045, 1046, 1395.
V. Murdock, 68 Ind. 137: 424, 1221,
1353;
V. Smith, 6 Ind. 249: 1522.
V. Winslow, 66 111. 219: 1270.
La Fayette Plank Road Co. v. New
Albany & Salem R. R. Co., 13
Ind. 90: 407, 409, 410, 411, 782,
788.
Lefeau v. York County,, 20 Pa. Supr,
Ct. 573: 635.
Lafiferty v. Girardville, I Monaghan
(Pa. Supm.) 513: 235.
V. Schuylkill Riv. etc. R. R. Co.,
124 Pa. St. 297 : 952, 1259, 1635.
Laflin v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 33
Fed. 415: 1110, 1139, 1177, 1217.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 34 Fed.
859: 1150.
Lager v. Sibley County, 100 Minn.
85: 713.
Laguna Dr. Dist. v. Charles Martin
Co., 144 Cal. 209 : 497, 501, 564,
572, 573.
V. Charles Martin Co., 5 Cal. App.
166: 1067, 1070, 1378.
La Harpe v. Elm Tp^ Gas etc. Co.,
69 Kan. 97: 322, 338, 358, 536,
1622.
Lahr v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
104 N. Y. 268: 67, 178, 184. 197,
199, 202, 263, 264, 1296.
Laing v. Americus, 86 Ga. 758: 199.
V. United N. J. R. & C. Co., 54
N. J. L. 576: 1147, 1293, 1303.
1314.
Laird v. Pittsburg, 205 Pa. St. 1:
421, 539, 1494.
Lake v. Bok, 31 111. App. 45: 153.
V. Burcky, 57 111. App. 547: 382,
391, 398, 644.
V. Loysen, 66 Wis. 424: 981, 991.
V. Va. & Truckee R. R. Co., 7 Nev.
294: 408, 413.
Lake City v. Fulkerson, 122 la. 569 :
377, 395, 1502.
Lake Erie etc. R. R. Co. v. Board oi
Comrs., 57 Fed. 945: 776, 797.
V. Boswell, 137 Ind. 336: 881, 883.
V. Comrs., 63 Ohio St. 23: 569.
V. Griffin, 92 Ind. 487 : 1540, 1543.
V. Griffin, 107 Ind. 464: 1540.
T. Hancock Co., 63 Ohio St. 23:
495, ,580, 581. 776, 1341.
V. Heath, 9 Ind. 558: 923, 929.
V. Hilfiker, 12 Ind. App. 280: 154.
CASES CITED.
clxv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Lake Erie etc. R. R. Co. v. Kennedy,
132 Ind. 274: 858.
V. Kinaey, 87 Ind. 514: 1463, 1464.
1628.
v. Kokomo, 130 Ind. 224: 749,
1409.
V. Lauter, 47 111. App. 339: 1504.
T. Lee, 14 Ind. App. 328: 1646.
V. Michener, 117 Ind. 465: 1568,
1602.
V. Priest, 131 Ind. 413: 840, 854,
947.
V. Pureell, 75 111. App. 573: 87,
1648, 1652.
V. Scott, 132 111. 429: 448, 655,
671.
V. Scott, 32 111. App. 292: 655.
V. Shelby, 163 Ind. 36: 1192, 1288.
V. Whitham, 155 111. 514: 872.
V. Young, 135 Ind. 426: 93, 1601,
1604.
V. Ziebarth, 6 Ind. App. 228: 835,
836, 845.
Lake Keon Nav. etc. Co. v. Klein,
63 Kan. 484: 498, 503, 587, 591,
592, 593, 672, 675, 1496.
T. McLain etc. Co., 69 Kan. 334:
1224, 1236, 1270, 1316, 1321,
1400.
Lake Merced Water Co. v. Cowles,
31 Cal. 215: 2, 908.
Lake Pleasant Water Co. v. Contra
Costa Water Co., 67 Cal. 659:
799, 1043.
Lake Roland El. R. R. Co. v. Balti-
more, 77 Md. 352: 303, 427.
V. Frick, 86 Md. 259: 1144, 1293,
1334.
V. Hibernian Society, 83 Md. 420:
1355.
V. Webster, 81 Md. 529: 621, 1293,
1549, 1552, 1650. 1657.
V. Weir, 86 Md. 273: 1149.
Lakeside Mfg. Co. v. Worcester, 186
Mass. 552: 1127, 1240.
Lakeside Paper Co. v. State, 15 App.
Div. N. Y. 169: 80, 169.
Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co., Matter of,
65 Hun 538: 1437.
Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co. v. Balti-
more & C. R. R. Co., 149 111.
272: 764, 769, 976, 1135.
V. Brown, 16 Ohio C. C. 269: 226.
V. Chicago, 148 111. 509: 749, 895,
1287.
V. Chicago, 151 111. 359: 749, 895,
l^RT. 1292.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 100 111.
21: 1280.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 96 111.
125: 1624.
Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co. v. Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co., 97 111. 506:
1610.
V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 116
Ind. 578: 760, 893, 894, 991.
V. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St. 604:
476.
V. Elyria, 14 Ohio C. C. 48 : 197.
V. Elyria, 69 Ohio St. 414: 197,
309, 1489, 1642.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 8 Fed.
858: 754, 759, 1061, 1609.
V. Smith, 173 U. S. 684: 484.
V. Whiting, 161 Ind. 76: 175, 1445,
1457, 1487.
Lake St. El. R. R. Co. v. Brooks, 90
111. App. 173: 639, 1302.
Lake Superior & Miss. R. R. Co. v.
Greve, 17 Minn. 322: 1332, 1477.
Lake View v. Rose Hill Cem. Co.,
70 111. 192: 15, 469.
Lake Whateomb L. Co. v. Callvert,
33 Wash. 126: 1348.
Lakkie v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 44
Minn. 438: 320.
V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 44 Minn.
438: 370, 384, 1295, 1335.
Lally V. Central Valley R. R. Co.. 215
Pa. St. 436: 1129.
Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187: 18,
19.
V. Comrs. Court, 21 Ala. 772: 1411.
Lamar Co. v. Clements, 49 Tex. 348:
421, 1494.
Lamb v. Lane, 4 Ohio St. 167: 24,
924.
V. North London R. R. Co., 4 L.
R. Ch. 522: 709.
V. Pontiac etc. R. R. Co., 150 Mich.
340: 1484, 1646.
V. Rickets, 11 Ohio, 311: 104.
Lambar v. St. Louis, 15 Mo. 610:
239.
Lambe v. Love, 109 N. C. 305: 1402.
Lambert v. Howe, 14 Johns. 383:
1496.
Lamborn v. Bell, 18 Col. 346: 560,
564, 1225.
Lamm v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 45
Minn. 71: 200, 202, 253, 304,
330, 1355, 1356, 1451.
Lamming v. Galusha, 135 N. Y. 239:
1580, 1617.
La Mont v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
62 la. 193: 1150, 1243.
Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn. 181:
109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 119,
125, 127, 130, 137.
Lampley v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
R. Co., 63 S. C. 462: 92.
V. Atlantic: Coast Line R. R. Co.,
71 S. C. 156: 693.
clxvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 733-1719.)
Lampson v. Drain Comr. 45 Mich.
150: 1017, 1032.
Lancashire & Yorkshire R. R. Co. v.
Evans, 15 Beav. 322: 1611.
Lancaster v. Kennebec Log Driving
Co., 62 Me. 272: 912.
V. Leaman, 107 Ky. 35: 1376.
V. Leaman, 110 Ky. 251: 1407.
V. Pope, 1 Mass. 86: 1033.
V. Richardson, 4 Lans. 136: 347,
1491.
V. Richmond, 83 Me. 534: 1527.
Lancaster City Road, 68 Pa. St. 396 :
962, 1017, 1036.
Lancaster County v. Lancaster, 170
Pa. St. 108: 1511, 1512.
Lance v. Chicago, Mil. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 57 la. 636; 1267, 1316, 1404.
Lance's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 16: 1475.
Lancey v. King County, 15 Wash. 9:
501.
Lancy v. Boston, 185 Mass. 219 : 1003
1523, 1707, 1708, 1709.
Land v. Smith, 44 La. Ann. 931 : 877.
V. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co., 107
N. C. 72: 1713.
Landaff'a Petition, 34 N. H. 163:
1097, 1415, 1421.
Landerbrun v. Duffv, 2 Pa. St. 398:
434, 1455.
Lander v. Bath, 85 Me. 141 : 235.
Landers v. Whitefield, 154 111. 630:
865, 870.
Lane v. Boston, 125 Mass. 519: 605,
615.
V. Burnap, 39 Mich. 736: 1033,
1420.
V. Harbor Comra., 70 Conn. 685:
139.
V. Lamke, 53 App. Div. 395: 347.
V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 69 App. Div.
231: 1245, 1332.
V. Mich. Traction Co., 135 Mich.
70: 851, 1615.
V. Miller, 17 Ind. 58: 858, 966.
V. Miller, 22 Ind. 104 : 858, 1522.
V. Saginaw, 53 Mich. 442: 896.
V. Smith, 71 Conn. 65: 139.
V. Smith Bros., 80 Conn. 185: 129.
Lanesborough v. County Comrs., 22
Pick. 278: 955, 1425.
Laney v. Jasper, 39 111. 46: 145.
Langdon v. New York, 59 Hun 434;
1229, 1147.
V. New York, 93 N. Y. 129: 108,
127 132.
V. New York, 133 N. Y. 628: 1139,
1147.
Lange v. La Crosse etc. Ry. Co., 118
Wis. 558: 248, 1589.
Langford v. Co. Comrs., 16 Minn.
375: 922, 927, 1004, 1010.
Langley v. Augusta, 118 Ga. 590:
141, 1660.
Lanquist v. Chicago, 200 IH. 69:
1143, 1144, 1145, 1222, 1379.
Lansing v. Caswell, 4 Paige, 519: 817.
V. Smith, 8 Cow. 146: 133.
V. Smith, 4 Wend. 9: 133.
Lanterman v. Blairstown R. R. Co.,
28 N. J. Eq. 1: 1570.
Lantis, Matter of, 9 Mich. 324: 1416,
1417.
Lapan v. Comrs., 65 Me. 160: 1415.
Lapish V. Bangor Bank, 8 Greenl. 85
103.
La Plaisance Bay Harbor Co. v. Mon
roe. Walk. Ch. 155: 104.
Laplant v. Marshalltown, 134 la.
261: 1624.
Large v. Philadelphia, 3 Phila. 382
1036, 1570.
Larimer etc. St. Ry. Co. v. Larimer,
St. Ry. Co., 137 Pa. St. 533
300, 910.
Larkin v. Scranton, 162 Pa. St. 289
1029, 1330.
Lamed v. Briscoe, 62 Mich. 393 : 237.
Larney v. New York etc. R. R. Co,
62 App. Div. 311: 257, 1299
Laroe v. Northampton St. Ry. Co,
189 Mass. 254: 307, 606.
Laroz v. Northampton St. Ry. Co,
189 Mass. 254: 324.
Larrabee v. Cloverdale, 131 Cal. 96
90, 236.
Larsh v. Test, 48 Ind. 130: 898.
Larsen v. Oregon R. R. Co., 19 Or.
240: 957.
Larson v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 19
S. D. 284: 883.
V. Superior Short Line Ry. Co., 64
Wis. 59: 1400, 1405.
Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige 169 : 440,
441.
Lasher v. Saratoga Springs, 17 App.
Div. 624: 84.
V. Saratoga Springs, 163 N. Y. 582 :
84.
La Societa Italiana v. San Francisco,
131 Cal. 169: 1498.
Lassiter v. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 126
N. C. 509: 156, 1549, 1552, 1655,
1716.
Latah Co. v. Hasfurther, 12 Ida. 797 :
515, 1091, 1092, 1406.
V. Peterson, 2 Idaho, 1118: 515,
521.
Lathrop v. Racine, 119 Wis. 461:
463.
Lathrop Tp. Road, In re, 84 Pa. St.
126: 1390.
Latimer v. Tillamook County, 22 Or.
291: 400, 1384.
CASES CITED.
clxvii
tThe references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.r
Launstein v. Launstein, 150 Mich.
524: 146.
Laure v. Oil City St. R. R. Co., 170
Pa. St. 249 : 304.
Laurel v. Rowell, 84 Miss. 435: 375,
388, 395, 406.
Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Fran-
cisco, 152 Cal. 464: 473.
Laverty v. State, 109 Ind. 217: 1514.
Laviosa v. Chicago St. L. & N. O.
R. R. Co., 1 McGloin La. 299:
253, ,307.
Law V. Galena etc. R. R. Co., IS 111.
324: 1419.
V. Railroad, 63 N. H. 557: 1231.
V. Sanitary District, 197 111. 523:
1361.
Lawlor v. Baring Boom Co., 56 Me.
443 : 87, 94.
Lawless v. Reese, 4 Bibh 309: 678,
1004, 1032. 1403.
Lawondoski v. Wilkes-Barre etc. Ry.
Co., 35 Pa. Supr. Ct. 10: 1130.
Lawrence v. Boston, 119 Mass. 126:
1129, 1134, 1228.
V. Fairhaven, 5 Gray 110: 91, 236.
V. Great Northern R. R. Co., 16
Q. B. 642: 89.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 15
Daly, 502: 1146.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 126
N. Y. 483: 1304.
V.Miller, 2 N. Y. 245: 943.
T. Miller, 1 Sandf. 516: 943.
V. Morgan's R. & S. S. Co., 39
La. Ann. 427: 1631.
V. Nahant, 136 Mass. 477: 1030,
1641.
T. Newark, 38 N. J. L. 151: 1168.
T. New York, 2 Barb. 577: 197,
378, 388, 406, 1596.
V. Philadelphia, 154 Pa. St. 20:
392, 394, 630, 647.
V. Saratoga Lake Ry. Co., 36 Hun
467: 843, 844, 851, 852.
V. Second Municipality, 2 La. An.
651: 1319.
V. Second Municipality, 12 Rob.
La. 453: 1546, 1548.
Lawrenceburg etc. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 3 Ind. 253: 1398.
Lawrence County v. Deadwood etc.
Co., 11 S. D. 74: 961.
Lawrence & Others Appeal, 78 Pa.
St. 365: 856, 1258.
Lawrence Railroad Co. v. Cobb, 35
Ohio St. 94: 1137, 1710.
v. O'Hara, 48 Ohio St. 343: 243,
247, 924, 1136.
V. O'Hara, 50 Ohio St. 667: 940,
996, 1546, 1559.
Lawrie v. Silsby, 76 V.t. 240: 71.
Lawton, Matter of, 24 N. Y. Misc.
426: 513.
V. New Rochelle, 123 App. Div.
832: 610.
V. Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co., 75
S. C. 82: 92, 94, 1651, 1653.
V. South Bound R. R. Co., 61 S. C.
548: 148, 158.
V. Steele, 119 N. Y. 226; 480.
V. Steele, 152 U. S. 133: 14, 15,
486.
Layman v. Beeler, 113 Ky. 221 : 630,
1549.
Lazarus v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
5 App. Div. 398: 1302.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 14
App. Div. 438: 1305.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 69
Hun 190: 1301.
V. Morris, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 505 ; 812,
1499.
V. Morris, 212 Pa. St. 128: 7, 21,
709, 806, 812, 1499.
L. C. & C. R. R. Co. V. Chappell,
Rice (S. C.) 383: 684.
Lea V. Johnson, 9 Iredell Law, 15:
709.
Leach v. Day, 27 Cal. 643: 516.
Leader v. Moxon, 3 Wils. 461: 205.
Leadville v. Bohn Min. Co., 37 Colo.
248: 196, 1497.
V. Coronado Min. Co., 29 Colo. 17 :
198, 1497.
V. Coronado Min. Co., 37 Colo. 234 :
1497.
V. St. Louis S. & M. Co., 29 Colo.
40: 198, 1497.
League Island, In re, 1 Brews. Pa.
524: 588.
Leak v. Selma, Rome & Dalton R. R.
Co., 47 Ga. 345: 1438, 1439.
Leale v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
61 Hun 613: 1146, 1304.
Leary v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co., 38
Mo. 485: 1523.
Leath v. Summers, 3 Iredell Law,
108: 990.
Leavenworth v. Douglass, 59 Kan.
416: 363, 384, 390, 398.
V. Duffy, 10 Kan. App. 124: 604.
Leavenworth County Comrs. v. Es-
pen, 12 Kan. 531: 1018.
Leavenworth etc. R. R. Co. v. Atchi-
son, 137 Mo. 218: 923, 995, 1011.
v. Curtan, 51 Kan. 432: 179, 252.
320, 351, 373, 382, 388, 398
1294, 1549, 1648, 1657, 1662.
V. Herley, 45 Kan. 535: 1124, 1251
1252.
V. Meyer, 50 Kan. 25: 1034, 1098
1099, 1360.
clxviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 74S-1719.]
Leavenworth etc. R. R. Co. v. Meyer,
58 Kan. 308: 1100, 1106, 1515.
V. Paul, 28 Kan. 816: 1124, 1126,
1316.
V. Usher, 42 Kan. 637: 1252, 1455.
V. Wilkins, 45 Kan. 674: 1208,
1212, 1545.
Leavitt v. Cambridge, 120 Mass. 157 :
484.
V. Eastman, 77 Me. 117: 1018,
1033.
Lebanon v. Olcott, I N. H. 339:
1523, 1526.
Lebanon Min. Co. v. Consolidated
Co., 6 Colo. 371: 996.
Lebanon Water Co., 9 Pa. Co. Ct.
S89: 783, 918.
Leber v. Minneapolis & N. W. Ey.
Co., 29 Minn. 256: 1159, 1352.
Lebya v. Armijo, 11 N. M. 437: 976,
1412.
Lecoul V. Police Jury, 20 La. Ann.
308: 678.
Ledyard v. TenEyck, 36 Barb. 102:
109.
Lee V. Harris, 206 111. 428: 891, 1630.
V. Minneapolis, 22 Minn. 13: 211.
V. Northwestern Union Ry. Co., 33
Wis. 222: 1402.
V. Pembroke Iron Co., 57 Me. 481 :
67, 90, 95, 108.
V. Springfield Water Co., 176 Pa.
St. 223: 74, 1123.
V. Tebo & Neosho R. R. Co., 53 Mo.
178: 1186.
Ijeeds V. Camden & A. R. R. Co., 53
N. J. L. 229: 1227, 1407.
V. Richmond, 102 Ind. 372: 335,
672, 680.
Leep V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 58
Ark. 407: 479.
Leet Tp. Road, 159 Pa. St. 72: 1363,
1389.
Lefevre's Appeal, 32 Cal. 565: 1135.
Lefel V. Overchain, 90 Ind. 5u: 1400.
Leffmann v. Long Island R. R. Co.,
120 App. Div. 528: 259, 1457.
1473.
Lefkovitz v. Chicago, 238 111. 23:
358.
Leflore v. Cannon, 81 Miss. 334: 91,
1604.
Lefrois v. Monroe County, 24 App.
Div. 421: 83, 1605.
Legg V. Legg, 34 Wash. 126: 1556.
Leggett V. Detroit, 137 Mich. 247:
736.
Lehigh Coal Co. v. WilkesBarre etc.
R. R. Co., 187 Pa. St. 145:
1228, 1231.
Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co. v. Inter-
County St. R. R. Co., 167 Pa. St.
75: 300.
Lehigh County State Road, 60 Pa.
St. 330: 1101.
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Chicago,
26 Fed. 415: 415, 631, 1120,
1131.
V. U. S. Pipe Line Co., 7 Luzerne
Leg. Reg. Rep. 77: 728.
Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. Dover &
Rockaway R. R. Co., 43 N. J. L.
528: 1105, 1106, 1701.
v. Lazarus, 28 Pa. St. 203: 1315.
V. McFarlan, 43 N. J. L. 605:
1540, 1543, 1713, 1714.
V. Phillipsburg, 73 N. J. L. 138:
698.
T. Trone, 28 Pa. St. 206: 1311.
Lehigh Water Go's Appeal, 102 Pa.
St. 515: 416.
Lehmann v. Rinehart, 90 la. 346:
976.
Lehmieke v. St. Paul, Stillwater etc.
R. R. Co., 19 Minn. 464: 1119,
1122, 1128, 1139, 1146.
Leiber v. People 33 Colo. 493: 1515.
Leiby v. Clear Spring W^ater Co., 205
Pa. St. 634: 1129, 1268.
Leigh v. Garysburg Mfg. Co., 132 N.
C. 167: 533.
Leighton v. Concord etc. R. R. Co.,
72 N. H. 224: 363, 377, 388, 401,
.405, 1412.
Leiper v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 5 Pa.
Co. Ct. 60: 1325, 1444.
V. Denver, 36 Colo. 110: 633.
Leisse et al. v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 2 Mo. App. 105 : 1693, 1694.
V. St. Louis R. E. Co., 6 Mo. App.
585: 1693, 1694.
Leitzsey v. Columbia Water Power
Co., 47 S. C. 464: 681, 823.
Leland v. Woodbury, 4 Gush. 245:
1522.
Leman v. New York, 5 Bos. 414: 236.
Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336:
109.
Lenhart v. State, 75 App. Div. 162:
1196.
Lenox v. Knox & Lincoln R. R. Co.,
62 Me. 322: 1104.
Lent, Matter of, 47 App. Div. 349:
1005, 1080.
Lent V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 55
Hun 180: 1526.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 130
N. Y. 504: 1526.
V. Tillson, 72 Cal. 404: 674, 1008,
1010.
CASES CITED.
clxix
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Lent V. Tilyou, 106 App. Div. 189:
880, 887.
Lentell v. Boston etc. St. Ry. Co.,
187 Mass. 445: 1158, 1173.
Lenz V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., Ill
Wis. 198: 621, 710, 733, 1719.
Leonard v. Cassidy, 8 Ohio C. C. 529:
226.
V. Detroit, 108 Mich. 599: 865.
V. Rutland, 66 Vt. 105: 1331.
V. Sparks, 117 Mo. 103: 1018,
1027, 1086, 1515, 1516, 1518.
^. Wading Riv. Res. Co., 113 Mass.
235: 1524.
Leopold V. Chesapeake etc. Canal Co.,
1 Gill 222 : 780.
V. Chicago, 150 111. 568: 1219.
LeRoy v. Leonard, (Tenn. Ch. App.)
35 S. W. 884: 882.
Leroy etc. R. R. Co. v. Hawk, 49
Kan. 638: 1128.
V. Ross, 40 Kan. 598: 1124, 1125,
1203 1312.
V. Small, 46 Kan. 300: 862, 1547.
Lesher v. Wabash Navigation Co., 14
in. 85: 688.
Lesley v. Klamath Co., 44 Ore. 491:
970.
Leslie v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 474: 893,
894.
L'Esperanee v. Great Western R. R.
Co., 14 U. C. Q. B. 187 : 158, 847.
Less V. Butte, 28 Mont. 27 : 630, 632,
1549.
Lessieur v. Custer Co. 61 Neb. 612:
1135.
Lester v. Lobley, 7 A. & E. 124: 961.
V. Lobley, 34 E. C. L. R. 86: 961.
Lester Real Estate Co. v. St. Louis,
169 Mo. 227: 1601.
V. St. Louis, 170 Mo. 31 : 1695.
Letherman v. Hauser, 77 Neb. 731 :
400, 406, 973, 1513, 1596.
Levant v. Comrs 67 Me. 429: 1414.
Levee Comrs. v. Allen, 60 Miss. 93:
1086.
V. Daney, 65 Miss. 335: 1157, 1426,
1713.
V. Harkleroads, 62 Miss. 807:
1310.
V. Hendricks, 77 Miss. 483: 1119,
1176, 1227.
V. Lee, 85 Miss. 508: 1229, 1378.
V. Nelms 82 Miss. 416: 1119, 1128,
1138, 1143.
Levee District v. Farmer, 101 Cal.
178: 363. 377, 386, 388, 390.
Levenson v. Boston El. Ry. Co. 191
Mass. 75: 1144, 1151.
Leverett v. Middle Georgia etc. R. R.
Co., 96 Ga, 385: 728.
Levering v. Philadelphia etc. R. R.
Co., 8 W. & S. 459: 1464, 1628.
Levering St. In re, 14 Phila. 349:
612, 631, 636.
Levisay v. Delp, 9 Baxt. 415: 1608.
Levi V. Worcester Consol. St. Ry.
Co., 193 Mass. 116: 428.
Levin v. Goodwin, 191 Mass. 341:
457.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 165 N.
Y. 572: 1137.
Levis V. Newton, 75 Fed. 884 : 337.
Leviston v. Junction R. R. Co., 7
Ind., 597: 1522.
Levitt V. Eastman, 77 Me. 117: 1517.
Lewis V. Baker, 39 Neb. 636: 1492.
V. Darby, 166 Pa. St. 613: 630,
636, 1353.
V. Englewood El. R. R. Co., 223 111.
223: 1130, 1149.
V. Germantown etc. R. R. Co., 16
Phila., 608: 688, 778.
V. Germantown etc. R. R. Co., 16
Phila. 621: 754, 759, 788, 793,
796.
V. Homestead, 194 Pa. St. 199:
612, 634.
V. Johnson, 76 Fed. 476: 129.
V. Jones, 1 Pa. St. 336: 1486.
V. McGuire, 3 Bush (Ky.) 202:
19.
V. New Britain, 32 Conn. 568:
1341.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,' 162 N.
Y. 202: 257, 866.
V. Portland, 25 Ore. 133: 118, 137.
V. Rough, 26 Ind. 398 : 1574.
V. Seattle, 5 Wash. 741: 1160,
1161, 1188, 1203, 1207, 1216,
1546.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 5 S. D.
148: 707, 1517.
V. Springfield Water Co., 176 Pa.
St. 230: 1129.
V. Washington, 5 Gratt. 265:
513, 520.
V. Wilmington etc. R. E. Co., 11
Mich. Law 91: 937.
Lewis County v. Gordon, 20 Wash.
80: 501, 570, 581.
V. McGeorge, 47 Wash. 414: 735,
1348.
V. Schobey, 31 Wash. 357: 895.
Lewis Street, Matter of, 2 Wend.
472: 183, 1326.
Lewiston v. Co. Comrs., 30 Me. 19:
917, 1363.
Lewiston etc. R. R. Co. v. Ayer, 27
App. Div. 571: 1217.
cLxx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Lewiston Road, 8 Pa. St. 109 : 1707,
1708.
Lewiston Road, 84 Pa. St. 410: 1388.
Lewis Tp. Imp. Co. v. Royer, 38 Ind.
App. 151: 91.
Lexington v. Long, 31 Mo. 369 : 1089,
1207.
Lexington Ave., Matter of, 29 Hun
303: 738.
Lexington Ave. Opening, Matter of,
50 How. Pr. 113: 1393.
Lexington etc. R. R. Co. v. Apple-
gate, 8 Dana, 289 : 178, 369, 388,
524.
V. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 14 Gray
266: 476.
Lexington etc. Turnpike Co. v. MC'
Murtry, 3 B. Mon. 516: 423, 957.
Lexington Print Works v. Canton,
167 Mass. 341: 912, 1571.
v. Canton, 171 Mass. 414: 1617.
Lex or Mica St., In re, 12 Phila. 622 :
1682.
Leyba v. Armijo, 11 N. M. 437: 707,
1004, 1420.
L'Hote V. New Orleans, 51 La. Ann.
93: 473.
V. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 587:
473.
Liber v. Minneapolis & North West-
ern Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 256 : 1353.
Liberty Alley, In re, 8 Pa. St. 381:
721.
Libmann v. Manhattan E. R. Co., 59
Hun 428 : 923.
Liekly v. Bishopp, 150 Mich. 256:
1083.
Lidgerwood v. Miekalek, 12 N. D.
348: 977, 1673.
Lieber v. People, 33 Colo. 493: 868.
Lieberman v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
141 111. 140: 268, 718, 898, 1042,
1075, 1222, 1246, 1247, 1426.
Liebole v. Traster, 41 Ind. App. 278:
1571.
Liedel v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 89
Minn. 284: 533, 1457, 1473.
Lien v. Norman County, 80 Minn.
68: 501, 565, 567, 576, 739.
Ligare v. Chicago, 139 111. 46: 132,
135, 788.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 166 111.
249 : 748, 920, 1228, 1236.
Ligat V. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St.
456: 729, 923.
Lightcap V. North Judson, 154 Ind.
43: 886.
Lile V. Gibson, 91 Mo. App. 480: 577.
Liles V. Cawthorn, 78 Mias. 558: 69.
Lilley v. Pa. R. R. Co., 219 Pa. St.
447: 1129.
Lilley v. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 213
Pa. St. 247: 748.
Limerick etc. Turnpike Co.'s Appeal,
80 Pa. St. 425 : 233.
Limerick, Inhabitants of, 18 Me. 183:
1408.
Limerick Tp. Road, 16 Pa. Co. Ct.
567: 1087.
Lime Rock E. E. Co. v. Farnsworth,
86 Me. 127 : 982, 1482.
Linblom v. Ramsey, 75 111. 246
1461.
Lincoln v. Colusa Co., 28 Cal. 662
706, 893, 894, 1707, 1710.
V. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 1
335.
V. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 368,
447, 453, 1130, 1208, 1244, 1334.
V. Grant, 38 Neb. 369: 1523, 1526.
Lincoln County v. Brock, 37 Wash.
14: 1188, 1204.
Lincoln etc. R. E. Co. v. Sutherland,
44 Neb. 526: 149, 158.
Lincoln St. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 41
Neb. 737: 149, 155.
Lind V. Clemens, 44 Mo. 540: 893,
894.
V. San Luis Obispo, 109 Cal. 340:
84, 453, 1604.
Lindell v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co., 25
Mo. 550: 722.
Lindell's Admr. v. Hannibal & St.
Joseph R. R. Co., 36 Mo. 543:
1523.
Linden Land Co. v. Milwaukee Elec.
Ry. & Lt. Co., 107 Wis. 493:
273, 292.
Linderwood v. Michalek, 12 N. D.
348. 977.
Lindner v. Yazoo etc. R. E. Co., 116
La. 262: 1546.
Lindsay v. Commissioners etc., 2
Bay (S. C.) 38: 22.
V. Hubbard, 44 Conn. 109 : 458.
V. Lindley, 20 Ark. 573: 413.
V. Omaha, 30 Neb. 512: 364, 375,
406.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 149 Ala. 349 :
90.
Lindsay Irrigation Co. v. Mehi;ten3,
97 Cal. 676: 587.
Line v. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 218 Pa.
St. 604: 1245.
Lingo V. Burford, 112 Mo. 149: 1033,
1186, 1518.
Linhart v. Buiff, 11 Cal. 280: 996.
Link v. Brooks, Phillips Law 499:
1516.
Linning v. Barnett, 134 Ind. 332:
400.
Lins V. Seefield, 126 Wis. 610: 878.
CASES CITED.
clxxi
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Linton v. Armstrong Water Co., 29
Pa. Supr. Co. 172: 1546, 1560.
V. Sharpsburg Bridge Co., 1 Grant's
Cases 414: 680.
Linton Pharmacy v. McDonald, 48
Misc. 125: 437.
Lionberger v. Pelton, 62 Neb. 252:
1461, 1463.
Lipes V. Hand, 104 Ind. 503: 566,
575, 922, 1371.
Lipfeld V. Charlotte etc. R. R. Co.,
41 S. C. 285: 475.
Lippincott v. Harvey, 72 Md. 572:
874, 877.
Lisbon v. Merrill, 12 Me. 210: 1415,
1417.
Lister v. Lobley, 7 A. & E. 124: 952.
V. New York, 79 Hun 479 : 456.
Litchfield v. Pond, 105 App. Div.
229: 434, 738, 1154, 1634, 1635.
V. Pond, 186 N. Y. 66: 434, 738,
1154, 1634, 1635.
v. Vernon 41 N. Y. 123: 14.
V. Wilman, 2 Root, Conn. 288:
1492.
Little V. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 96 App.
Div. 559: 1630.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 65 Minn.
48: 934.
.V. May, 3 Hawks N. C. 599 : 1029.
V. Stanbank, 63 N. C. 285: 95,
1345.
V. Thompson, 24 Ind. 146: 975,
1017.
Little Britain Road, 27 Pa. St. 69:
1088, 1103.
Littlefield v. Boston & Maine R. R.
Co., 65 Me. 248: 1528~
Littlejohn v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co.,
219 HI. 584: 584, 841, 842, 855.
V. Cox, 15 La. Ann. 67: 516.
Little Miami Elevator Co. v. Cincin-
nati, 30 Ohio St. 629: 523.
Little Miami etc. R. R. Co. v. Day-
ton, 23 Ohio St. 510: 750.
Little Miami L. H. & P. Co. v. White,
5 OhioN. P. (N. S.) 201: 536.
Little Miami R. R. Co. v. CoUett, 6
Ohio St. 182: 1203.
V. Comrs., 31 Ohio St. 338: 780,
1643.
V. Perrin, 16 Ohio 479: 1406.
V. Naylor, 2 Ohio St. 235: 308,
729.
V. Wliitaere, 8 Ohio St. 590: 1523.
Little Nestucca Road Co. v. Tilla-
mook Co., 31 Ore. 1: 782, 792,
1261, 1266, 1572.
Little Rock etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen,
41 Ark. 431: 1176, 1200, 1201,
1243, 1311, 1312. 1314.
Little Rock etc. R. R. Co. v. Allister,
62 Ark 1 : 952.
V. Allister, 68 Ark. 600: 1206,
1217, 1561.
V. Bimie, 59 Ark. 66: 843.
V. Chapman, 39 Ark. 463: 1648,
1655.
V. Greer, 77 Ark. 387: 639, 1716.
V. McGehee, 41 Ark. 202: 1236,
1545.
V. Newman, 73 Ark. 1: 320, 383,
392.
V. Payne, 33 Ark. 816: 475.
V. Wallis, 82 Ark. 447: 151.
Little Rock Junction Ry. Co. v.
Woodruff, 49 Ark. 381: 1119,
1228, 1229, 1263, 1378.
Littleton v. Berlin Mills Co., 73 N.
H. 11: 710, 738, 1154, 1158,
1164, 1634.
Ldtz V. West Hammond, 230 111. 310:
828, 829.
Litzell V. Philadelphia, 211 Pa. St.
1: 882.
Liverman v. Roanoke etc. R. R. Co.,
114 N. C. 692: 935, 936, 1177.
Livermon v. Roanoke etc. R. R. Co.,
109 N. C. 52: 829, 936, 1559,
1564.
Livermore v. Jamaica, 23 Vt. 361:
1188.
V. Norfolk County, 186 Mass. 133:
964.
Livermore, Inhabitants of, 11 Me.
275: 1381.
Livingston v. Board of Comrs., 42
Neb. 277 : 1159, 1162.
V. Ellis Co., 30 Tex. Civ. App. 19:
485.
V. McDonald, 21 la. 160: 145, 146.
V. New York, 8 Wend. 85 : 23, 183,
923, 1175, 1196.
V. Paducah, 80 Ky. 656 : 463.
V. Sulzer, 19 Hun 375 : 1257.
V. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. 507: 410.
Floyd V. Fair Haven, 67 Vt. 167:
1271, 1342.
V. Philadelphia, 17 Phlla. 202: 631,
636, 1550.
Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 :
595.
Loble v. Philadelphia, 174 Pa. St.
Ill: 1431.
Loeber v. Butte General Elec. Co., 16
Mont. 1: 1594.
Lobman v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
18 Minn. 174: 1018.
Lockhart v. Craig St. R. R. Co., 8 Pa.
Co. Ct. 470: 272, 642, 1586.
clxxii
CASES CITED.
LThe references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Lockhart v. Craig St. K. E. Co., 139
Pa. St. 319: 172, 175, 177, 272,
335, 642, 1586, 1590.
Loeke v. Highway Comr., 107 Mich.
631: 1082.
Lockett V. Fort Worth etc. E. R. Co.,
78 Tex. 211 : 159, 454.
Lock Haven Bridge Co. v. Clinton Co.,
157 Pa. St. 379: 736, 781, 782.
Loekie v. Mutual Union Tel. Co., 103
111. 401: 814, 1317, 1319, 1495.
Lockland v. Smiley, 26 Ohio St. 94:
887.
Lockman v. Morgan County, 32 111.
App. 414: 1395.
Lockport & Buffalo R. R. Co., Matter
of, 77 N. Y. 557: 897, 991, 1045,
1053.
Lockwood V. Charlestown, 114 Mass.
416: 733.
V. Gregory, 4 Day, 407: 989, 1384.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 37
Conn. 387: 130.
V. Ohio River R. R. Co., 103 Fed.
243: 838.
V. St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20 : 10.
V. Wabash R. R. Co., 122 Mo. 86:
254, 311, 314, 1582, 1591.
Lodge V. Martin, 31 App. Div. N. Y.
13: 1255.
v. Phila. Wilmington & Baltimore
R. R. Co., 8 Phila. 345: 815
V. Railroad Co., 9 Phila. 543 : 1366.
Loeber v. Butte General Electric Co.,
16 Mont. 1: 344, 345.
Logan V. Boston EI. Ry. Co., 188
Mass. 414: 1304.
V. Kiser, 25 Ind. 393: 1399.
V. Rose, 88 Cal. 263: 889.
V. Stogdale, 123 Ind. 372 : 498, 499,
516.
V. Vernon etc. R. R. Co., 90 Ind.
552: 1519.
Logan Nat. Gas & Fuel Co. v. Chilli-
cothe, 65 Ohio St. 186: 483.
V. Wiler, 72 Ohio St. 628: 1700.
Logansport v. McMillan, 49 Ind. 493:
1119.
V. Pollard, 50 Ind. 151: 1020.
V. Seybold, 59 Ind. 225: 23, 26,
466.
V. Shirk, 88 Ind. 563: 808, 1501.
V. Shirk, 129 Ind. 352: 1409.
V. Wright, 25 Ind. 512: 143.
Logansport etc. Ry. Co. v. Buchanan,
52 Ind. 163: 913, 1220.
Logansport Ry. Co. v. Logansport,
114 Fed. 688: 303.
Lohman v. St. Paul, Stillwater etc.
R. R. Co., 18 Minn. 174: 1535,
1571, 1615.
Lohr V. Somerset & C. R. R. Co. 2
Monaghan (Pa. Supm.) 507:
859.
Lohse V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co. 44 Mo.
App. 645: 1695.
Loker v. Damon, 17 Pick. 284: 1469.
Loloff V. Sterling, 31 Colo. 102; 1122,
1138, 1146, 1243, 1251, 1456.
Lombard v. Stearns, 4 Cush. 60 : 536.
Lonaconing etc. Ry. Co. v. Consoli-
dated Coal Co., 95 Md. 630 : 272,
281, 295.
Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Rapid City E.
& G. Lt. Co., 16 S. D. 451: 80,
1604.
London v. Coffey, 178 Mass. 489: 10.
V. Sample Lumber Co., 91 Ala.
606: 984, 1390.
Londonderry Tp. Road, 6 Pa, Co. Ct.
391: 1105.
London etc. Ry. Co. v. Bradley, 3
McN. & G. 336: 1611.
V. Smith, 1 McN. & G. 216: 1012.
V. Trustees of Gower Walk School,
L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 40 : 657.
V. Truman, L. R. 11 H. L. 45:
450, 451, 714, 1068.
London Mills v. White, 208 111. 289:
361.
Long's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 114: 690.
Long V. Billings, 7 Wash. 267, 520,
521, 673.
V. Galley, 91 Mo. 305: 1387.
V. Comrs.' Court, 18 Ala. 482: 1094.
1421.
V. Duluth, 49 Minn. 280: 409, 411,
413.
V. Elberton, 109 Ga. 28: 657, 669.
V. Emporia, 59 Kan. 46; 84, 825,
1035.
V. Fuller, 68 Pa. St. 170: 538,
1167.
V. Harrisburg & P. R. R. Co., 126
Pa. St. 143: 1187, 1206, 1215.
V. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 89
Ky. 544: 862.
V. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., (Ky.)
14 S. W. 78: 862.
V. State, 74 Md. 565: 479.
V. Tulley, 91 Mo. 305: 1410.
V. Wilson, 119 la. 267: 172, 179,
181, 183, 369, 375, 376, 388, 404.
Long Branch Comrs. v. West End R.
R. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 566: 716.
Long Eaton Recreation Groimds Co.
V. Midland Ry. Co., (1902) 2 K.
B. 574: 430, 957, 1338.
Longfellow v. Quimby, 29 Me. 196:
1510.
Long Island R. E. Co., In re, 143 N.
Y. 67: 714.
OASES CITED.
clxxiii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Long Island E. R. Co., Matter of, 6
N. Y. Supreme Ct. 298: 1348.
Long Island R. R. Co., Matter ol, 189
N. Y. 428: 308.
Long Island R. R. Co. v. Bennett, 10
Hun 91: 1010, 1196.
V. Eeilly, 89 App. Div. 166: 1379.
long Island Water Supply Co. v.
Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685: 745,
1432.
Longmont v. Parker, 14 Colo. 386:
628, 643, 665, 666.
Long Point Road, 5 Harr. Del. 152 :
1402.
Longworth v. Cincinnati, 48 Ohio St.
637: 881, 1320, 1546, 1547.
V. Meriden & W. R. E. Co., 61
Conn. 451: 319, 1356, 1451, 1452.
V. Sedevic, 165 Mo. 221: 366, 383,
404, 882, 1596.
Longvvorthy v. Dubuque, 13 la. 86:
465.
428: 73, 1603.
Looby V. Austin, 19 111. App. 325:
1517.
Loomis V. Andrews, 49 Cal. 239 :
1461.
loop V. Chamberlain, 17 Wis. 504:
1636.
v. Chamberlain, 20 Wis. 135: 1635,
1636.
Lorain v. Rolling, 3 Ohio C. C. (N.
S.) 660: 455.
Lorain St. R. R. Co. v. Sinning, 17
Ohio C. C. 649: 1202.
Lord V. Atkins, 138 N. Y. 184: 366,
878.
Lonsdale Co. v. Woonsocket, 25 R. I.
V. Meadville Water Co., 135 Pa.
St. 122: 72, 73, 74.
Lorden v. Coffey, 178 Mass. 489:
463.
Loree v. Smith, 100 Mich. 252: 1417.
Lorenz v. Jacob, 63 Cal. 73: 494.
Lorie v. North Chicago City R. R.
Co., 32 Fed. 270 : 269.
Loring v. Boston, 12 Gray 209: 1683,
1711.
Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18: 104.
Los Angeles v. Dehail, 97 Cal. 13:
913
V. Kysor, 125 Cal. 463: 888.
V. Leaves, 119 Cal. 164: 698.
T. Poraeroy, 124 Cal. 597: 164, 743,
815, 817, 979, 1107, 1176, 1222,
1229, 1233.
V. Pomeroy, 132 Cal. 340: 1410.
Los Angeles Cam. Assn. v. lios An-
geles, 95 Cal. 420: 842.
V. Los Angeles, 103 Cal. 461: 153,
235.
V. Los Angeles, 32 Pae. 240: 881,
889.
Los Angeles Co. v. Reyes (Cal.) 32
Pac. 233: 515.
V. San Jose Land & W. Co., 96
Cal. 93: 920, 1041.
Los Angeles etc. R. R. Co. v. Rump,
104 Cal. 20: 1316, 1317, 1436.
Los Angeles Ry. Co. v. Los Angeles,
152 Cal. 242: 302, 303.
Losch's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 72: 966,
1403.
Loshbaugh v. Birdsell, 90 Ind. 466:
1132.
Lostutter v. Aurora, 126 Ind. 436:
172, 175, 355.
Lotzee v. Cincinnati, 61 Ohio St. 272:
220.
Lough V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
116 la. 31: 1201, 1204, 1208,
1311, 1320, 1443.
Loughbridge v. Harris, 42 Ga. 501 :
22, 498, 551, 562.
Loughram v. Des Moines, 72 la. 382 :
84, 453, 1650, 1054.
Louis V. Lanigan, 97 Mo. 175: 942.
Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S.
285: 476.
Louisiana etc. Ry. Co. v. Moseley,
115 La. 757: 1084.
V. Moseley, 117 La. 313: 1045,
1075.
V. Vicksburg etc. Ry. Co., 112 La.
915: 760.
Louisiana & Frankford Plank Road
Co. V. Pickett, 25 Mo. 535: 923,
1186.
Louisiana Ice Mfg. Co. v. New Or-
leans, 43 La. Ann. 217: 1491.
Louisiana Nav. & Fisheries Co. v.
Doullut, 114 La. 906: 593, 1071.
Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Jones,
113 La. 29: 1227, 1230.
V. Kohn, 116 La. 159: 1365, 1378,
1386.
V. Morere, 116 La. 997: 1082, 1128,
1145, 1149, 1150.
V. Sarpy, 117 La. 156: 1128, 1130.
V. Xavier Realty Co., 115 La. 328:
1061, 1063, 1065, 1066, 1212,
1222, 1329.
Louisiana Western R. R. Co. v. Cross-
man, 111 La. 611: 1386.
V. La. Cent. L. & I. Co., 119 La.
927: 1377.
Louisville v. Bannon, 99 Ky. 74: 363,
382, 389, 391, 395, 398, 405.
V. Bitzer, 115 Ky. 359: 10, 463.
clxxiv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol,
Louisville v. Coleburne, 108 Ky. 420:
1656.
V. Hegan, 20 Ky. L. R. 1532: 630.
V. Kaye, 122 Ky. 599 : 1306.
V. Norris, 111 Ky. 903: 141, 142,
1660, 1716.
V. Louisville Rolling Mill Co., 3
Buish 416: 221, 1597.
V. Snow, 107 Ky. 536: 877, 886,
890.
Louisville Bagging Mfg. Co. v. Cen-
tral Pass. R. R. Co., 95 Ky. 50:
272, 329.
Louisville City R. R. Co. v. Central
Pass. R. R. Co., 87 Ky. 223: 427,
762, 763, 1282, 1283.
Louisville etc. Elec. Ry. Co. v.
Whipps, 118 Ky. 121: 843, 844,
852, 1138.
Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Asher, 12
Ky. L. R. 815: 1183, 1202, 1225.
V. Asher, 15 S. W. 517: 1183, 1201,
1251.
V. Barrett, 91 Ky. 487: 1202.
v. Beck, 119 Ind. 124: 1545, 1547,
1631.
V. Berkey, 136 Ind. 591: 1631.
V. Brinton, 109 Ky. 180: 154, 831,
846, 1455.
V. Brown, 17 B. Mon. 763: 245,
252.
V. Bowling Green Ry. Co., 110 Ky.
788: 303, 328, 1611.
V. Chapell, Rice (18 S. C.) 383:
524.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 97 III.
506: 764.
V. Cincinnati etc. Ry. Co., 3 Ohio
N. P. (N. S.) 109: 314.
V. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 481:
422, 1495.
V. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 35:
865.
V. Cornelius, 111 Ky. 752: 154,
1650, 1655, 1716.
V. Covington, 2 Bush 526: 841.
V. Cumnock, 25 Ky. L. R. 1330:
328, 635.
V. Day, 67 Miss. 227: 939.
V. Dickson, 63 Miss. 380: 1347,
1353.
V. Dryden, 39 Ind. 393 : 923.
V. Faulkner, 2 Head 65: 1667.
V. Finlay, 86 Ky. 294: 319, 382,
389, 454.
V. Finlay, 7 Ky. L. R. 129: 253,
1297.
V. Geibel, 9 Ky. L. R. 813 : 448.
V. Glazebrook, 1 Bush 325: 1182,
1316.
V. Hennin, 14 Ky. L. R. 526: 368,
375, 388, 404.
V. Hodge, 6 Bush 141: 319.
I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Hopson,
73 Miss. 773: 1226.
V. Ingram, 12 Ky. L. R. 456: 1176,
1183.
V. Ingram, 14 S. W. 534: 1182,
1183, 1201, 1378.
V. Interstate R. R. Co., 107 Va.
225: 772.
V. Interstate R. R. Co., 108 Va.
502: 722, 762, 1155, 1569.
V. Leibfreid, 92 Ky. 407 : 297, 1486,
1629, 1632.
V. Louisville City Ry. Co., 2 Du-
vall 175: 415.
V. McAfee, 30 Ind. 291 : 160.
V. McVean (Ky.) 34 S. W. 525:
1081.
V. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587: 488.
V. Mississippi T. R. R. Co., 92
Tenn. 681: 764.
V. Mobile etc. R. R. Co., 124 Ala.
162: 297, 298, 1589.
V. Mossman, 90 Tenn. 157: 866.
v. Neafus, 93 Ky. 53: 850, 852,
853.
v. N. O. Terminal Co., 120 La.
978 • 329
V. Orr, 91 Ky. 109: 252, 310, 448,
1303, 1545, 1549.
V. Orr, 10 Ky. L. R. 677: 1545.
V. O. V. B. & T. Co., 105 Ky. 600:
863.
V. People's St. R. R. Co., 101 Ala.
331: 1425.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 68 Miss.
806: 896, 1086, 1426.
V. Power, 119 Ind. 269: 852, 853.
V. Quinn, 14 Lea 65: 1165, 1635.
V. Rudd (Ky.) 30 8. W. 604:
1625.
V. Ryan, 64 Miss. 399 : 1145, 1232,
1392 1672.
V. Scomp, 124 Ky. 330: 1314, 1445,
1457, 1459, 1472, 1639, 1660.
V. Scott, 132 111. 429: 663.
V. Smith, 128 Fed. 1: 864, 1619.
V. Smith, 125 Ky. 336: 1478, 1479.
V. Smith, 31 Ky. L. R. 1: 1479.
V. Sparks, 12 Ind. App. 410: 158,
1648, 1655.
V. State, 3 Head 523: 1643.
V. Stephens, 96 Ky. 401: 829, 873.
V. Taylor, 96 Ky. 241: 833.
V. Thompson, 18 B. Mon. 735:
1182.
V. Whitley County Court, 95 Ky.
215: 306, 314, 322, 777, 793,
956, 1623.
V. Whitsell, 125 Ky. 433: 76, 1654,
1661.
V. Zachritz, 13 Ky. L. R. 141:
1657.
OASES CITED.
clxxv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.)
Louisville etc. R. E. Co. v. Whitsell,
31 Ky. L. K. 76: 77, 1639, 1716.
Louisville etc. Terminal Co. v. Jacobs,
109 Tenn. 727: 450, 453, 655,
661, 1668.
V. Lellyett, 114 Tenn. 368: 450,
655, 661, 1459, 1474, 1639, 1659.
Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas
Co., 115 U. S. 683: 410, 492,
736.
Louisville Ry. Co. v. Poster, 108 Ky.
743: 272, 274.
Louisville So. R. R. Co. v. Cogar,
15 Ky. L. R. 444: 253, 310,
639.
T. Hooe, 18 Ky. L. R. 521: 253,
310, 448, 639.
Louisville Steam Forge Co. v. Meh-
ler, 112 Ky. 438: 224.
Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati,
75 Fed. 716: 30L
Louk V. Woods, 15 111. 256: 1100,
1103, 1516.
Loveland v. Berlin, 27 Vt. 713: 516.
Low, Matter of, 103 App. Div. 530:
1437.
Low V. Galena etc. R. R. Co., 18 111.
324: 526, 1094.
Lowe V. Aroma, 21 111. App. 598:
1516.
V. Brannan, 105 Ind. 247: 1381.
V. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151: 485.
V. Lawrenceburg R. M. Co., 161
Ind. 495: 401.
y. Omaha, 33 Neb. 587: 630, 1179,
1199, 1201, 1216, 1228, 1306,
1308.
T. Ryan, 94 Ind. 450: 1407.
Lowell V. Boston, 111 Mass. 454:
549, 554, 558, 565, 566.
T. Shaw, 15 Me. 242: 1540, 1543.
T. Washington County R. R. Co.,
90 Me. 80: 714.
Lowenthal v. New York, 5 Lans.
532: 143.
Lower v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 59
la. 563: 685, 904, 1361.
Loweree v. Newark, 38 N. J. L. 151
1187, 1529.
Lower Merian Road, 58 Pa. St. 66
1364.
Lower Salford Road, 25 Pa. St. 524
1069.
Lower Windsor Road, 29 Pa. St. 18
1082.
Lowery v. Pekin, 186 111. 387 : 1568
Lowndes County v. Bowie, 34 Ala,
461: 1167.
Lownsdale v. Gray's Harbor Boom
Co., 36 Wash. 198: 98.
Lowther v. Bridgeman, 57 W. Va.
306: 342, 361.
Lucas V. Sawyer, 17 la. 517: 943.
V. Wattles, 49 Mich. 380: 1323.
Lucas & Chesterfield Gas & Water
Board, In re, (1908) 1 K. B.
571: 1238.
Ludlam v. Swain, 73 N. J. L. 162:
1381.
Ludlow V. Detwiler, 20 Ky. L. R.
894: 231, 630, 664.
V. Froste, 20 Ky. L. R. 216: 231.
V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 Lans.
128: 441, 442, 443.
V. Norfolk, 87 Va. 349: 1423.
Ludlow Street, Matter of, 59 App.
Div. 180: 690, 696, 918.
Ludlow Street, Matter of, 172 N. Y.
542: 690, 696, 917.
Lull V. Curry, 10 Mich. 397: 1461.
V. Fox & Wisconsin Improvement
Co., 19 Wis. 100: 963.
Lullamire v. Kaufman Co., 3 Tex.
Ct. of App. p. 392: 1018.
Lumberman's Ins. Co. v. St. Paul,
77 Minn. 410: 1563.
V. St. Paul, 82 Minn. 497: 929,
1564.
V. St. Paul, 85 Minn. 234: 1361.
Lummery v. Braddy, 8 la. 33: 899.
Lumsden v. Milwaukee, 8 Wis. 485:
1091, 1571.
Lund V. Idaho etc. R. R. Co., 50
Wash. 574: 181, 640, 1580, 1615.
V. Midland Ry. Co., 34 L. J. Eq.
276: 1067.
V. New Bedford, 121 Mass. 286 : 74,
952, 1514.
Lusby V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
73 Miss. 360: 728.
Luscombe v. Milwaukee, 36 Wis. 511:
614, 619.
Lutgen V. Stearns County Comrs.,
99 Minn. 499: 1025.
Luther v. Winnisimmet Co., 9 Cusb.
171: 147.
Lutterloh v. Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306:
346, 356, 1594.
Lux V. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255: 70, 141,
587, 1603.
Luxton V. North River Bridge Co.,
147 U. S. 337 : 932, 1423.
V. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.
S. 525: 96, 513, 522, 737.
Lybe's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 626: 161,
165.
Lycett V. Stafford & Uttoxeter Ry.
Co., 13 Eq. Cas. L. R. 261:
1537.
V. Stafford v. Uttoxeter Ry. Co.,
41 L. J. Eq. 474: 1537.
Lycoming Gas & W. Co. v. Meyer,
99 Pa. St. 615: 53, 623, 652.
clxxvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Lykens Tp. Road, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 145 :
1105.
Lyle V. Chicago etc. E. E.. Co., 55
Minn. 223: 1018, 1020, 1513.
Lyles V. Texas etc. R. R. Co., 73 Tex.
95: 640.
Lyman v. Boston, 164 Mass. 99: 1131,
1141.
V. Burlington, 22 Vt. 131: 1091,
1093, 1097.
V. Gedney, 114 111. 388: 1500.
V. Suburban R. R. Co., 190 111. 320 :
842, 843.
Lynch v. Forbes, 161 Mass. 302: 678,
1057, 1060, 1067.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 129
N. Y. 274: 923, 1554, 1555, 1584,
1617.
V. New York, 76 N. Y. 60: 234.
V. RutlAid, 66 Vt. 570: 1009,
1018, 1513, 1626.
V. Stone, 4 Denio, 356: 1523.
Lynn etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R.
R. Co., 114 Mass. 88: 765.
Lyon V. Fishmongers Co., L. R. 1
App. Cases 662: 125, 128.
V. Gormley, 53 Pa. St. 261 : 1480.
V. Green Bay & Minn. Ry. Co., 42
Wis. 538: 1094, 1225, 1226, 1348.
V. Hammond etc. R. R. Co., 167
111. 527: 1149, 1247, 1426,
V. Hamor, 73 Me. 56: 516, 721.
V. Jerome, 15 Wend. 569: 687.
V. Jerome, 26 Wend. 485 : 687, 688.
V. McDonald, 78 Tex. 71: 1475.
Lyon Co. Comrs. v. Kiser, 26 Kan.
279: 1115.
Lyons v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 26 App.
Div. N. Y. 57: 1144.
V. Philadelphia etc. Ry. Co., 209
Pa. St. 550: 953, 1258.
Lyons Cem. Assn., Matter of, 93 App.
Div. 19: 542.
Lytle V. Breckenridge, 3 J. J. Marsh.
663: 407.
M.
Mahler v. Brumder, 92 Wis. 477:
513.
Mabon v. Halsted, 39 N. J. L. 640:
1673, 1684.
MacArthur v. The King, 8 Can. Exch.
245: 372, 382, 647.
MacDonnell v. Caledonia Canal
Comrs., 8 S. & D. 881: 97.
Macey v. Indianapolis, 17 Ind. 267:
238.
V. Metropolitan Board of Works,
33 L. J. Oh. 377: 1612.
▼. Met. El. R. R. Co., 69 Hun 365 :
1584, 1664.
Macey v. Met. El. R. R. Co., 128 N.
Y. 624: 1584, 1664.
Macfarland v. Saunders, 25 App. Cas.
D. C. 438: 1394.
MacGinnitie v. Silvers, 167 Ind. 321 :
385.
Macintosh v. Nome, 1 Alaska, 492:
363.
Mack V. Commissioners of Highways,
41 111. 378: 713.
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 10 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 102: 948.
Macon v. Daley, 2 Ga. App. 355:
629, 1306, 1307.
V. Dannenberg, 113 6a. 1111: 158.
V. Harris, 73 Ga. 42: 316.
V. Harris, 75 Ga. 761: 300, 316,
1581.
V. Hill, 58 Ga. 595: 210, 224,
237.
V. Owen, 3 Ala. 116: 899, 1361.
V. Patty, 57 Miss. 378: 14, 26.
V. Wing, 113 Ga. 90: 179, 181.
Macon Consol. St. R. R. Co. v. Ma-
con, 112 Ga. 782: 491.
Macon etc. R. R. Co. v. Bowen, 45
Ga. 531: 834, 860, 1354.
V. Macon & D. R. R. Co., 86 Ga.
83: 712.
V. Riggs, 87 Ga. 158: 787, 789,
831.
Macungie Tp. Road, 26 Pa. St. 221:
1093, 1419.
Macy V. Indianapolis, 17 Ind. 267:
210, 213.
Madden v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
66 Miss. 258: 965, 1086, 1520,
1629, 1633.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 21 Ohio C. 0.
73: 190, 351, 366, 377, 384, 388,
404, 405, 1596.
Maddox v. Ware, 2 Bailey 314: 1000.
Madera Co. v. Raymond Granite Co.,
138 Cal. 244: 1410.
V. Raymond Granite Co., 139 Cal.
128: 515, 980, 1434.
Madera Irrigation Dist., In re, 92
Cal. 296: 587.
Madera Ry. Co. v. Raymond Gran-
ite Co., 3 Cal. App. 668: 497,
501, 527, 528, 533.
Madison v. Daley, 58 Fed. 751: 709,
912, 915.
V. Gallagher, 159 111. 105: 869.
v. Ross, 3 Ind. 236: 91, 94.
Madison Road, 37 Pa. St. 417: 402.
Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Ber-
nard Min. Co., 196 U. S. 239:
931, 932.
Madson v. Spokane Val. L. & W. Co.,
40 Wash. 414: 137, 1607, 1612,
1615.
OASES CITED.
clxxvii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1T19.]
Maffet V. Quine, 93 Fed. Rep. 347:
551, 1663.
Magee v. Brooklyn, 144 N. Y. 265:
935, 948, 1561, 1564.
V. London etc. R. R. Co., 6 Grant
U. C. 170: 177, 1609.
V. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127: 333,
341.
<!. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 13 Pa.
Super. Ct. 187: 155.
Magee Furnace Co. v. Common-
wealth, 166 Mass. 480: 1455.
Magnolia Ave., In re, 117 Pa. St.
50: 1098.
Magnolia Ave., In re, 20 Phila. 387:
1371.
Magnolia, Steam Boat, v. Marshall,
39 Miss. 109: 104.
Magnolia St., 8 Phil. 468: 1105.
Magnolia, The, 20 How. 296: 103.
Maguire v. Centerville, 76 Ga. 84:
153.
Mahady v. Brunswick R. R. Co., 91
N. Y. 148: 254, 269, 309, 316.
Mahaffey v. Beech Creek R. R. Co.,
163 Pa. St. 158: 1215, 1262,
1342.
Mahler v. Brunder, 92 Wis. 477:
888.
Mahon v. New York Central R. R.
Co., 24 N. Y. 658: 423, 1635.
V. Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co.,
Hill & Denio's Supplement, 156:
244, 248.
Mahoney v. Beaver Meadow etc. R.
R. Co., 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 344: 642,
1587.
V. Spring Valley Water Works, 52
Cal. 159: 688.
Mahoney Tp. v. Comry, 103 Pa. St.
362: 687, 824.
Maine & Hamburgh St. Canal, Mat-
ter, 50 How. Pr. 70 : 776.
Main St., Altering etc.. Matter of,
30 Hun 424: 696.
Main St., Altering etc.. Matter of,
98 N. Y. 454: 696.
Mairs v.. Gallahue, 9 Gratt. 94: 1358,
1360.
Maise v. Kruse, 85 Wis. 302: 1505.
Maitland v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 9
Miscl. 616: 327.
Major V. Taylor, 1 A. K. Marsh.
552: 1359.
Makepiece v. Worden, 1 N. H. 16:
1490.
Mak-Saw-Ba Club v. Construction
Comr., 169 Ind. 204: 1395.
Malcolm v. New York Bl. R. R. Co.,
147 N. Y. 308: 1296, 1299.
Mallard v. LaFayette, 5 La. Ann.
112: 1688.
Mallory v. Bradford, 1 Pa. Dist. Ct.
670: 337, 1594.
V. Huntington, 64 Conn. 88: 1116.
Mallott V. Johnston, 106 111. App.
545: 1639, 1653, 1663.
Malone v. Toledo, 28 Ohio St. 643:
808, 1500.
V. Toledo, 34 Ohio St. 541: 807,
808, 1500, 1707, 1708.
V. Waukesha Elee. Lt. Co., 120
Wis. 485: 345, 1594.
V. Williams, 18 Tenn. 390: 470.
Malott V. Mersea, 9 Ontario 611: 79,
1604.
Malthers v. Shields, 2 Met. (Ky.)
553: 465.
Maltman v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
41 111. App. 229: 327, 639, 643,
880, 1717.
Manchester Road, 15 Pa. Co. Ct.
623: 1383.
Manda v. Orange, 75 N. J. L. 251:
707, 709, 976.
Manderson, In re, 51 Fed. 501: 680,
1154.
Mangam v. Sing Sing, 26 N. Y.
App. Div. 464: 1504.
Manhattan Co., Ex parte, 22 Wend.
653: 779.
Manhattan R. R. Co. v. Astor, 126
App. Div. 907: 305, 679.
V. Comstock, 74 App. Div. 341:
1379.
V. Kent, 80 Hun 557 : 1437.
v. McKee, 1 App. Div. 488: 1444.
V. New York, 89 Hun 429: 229,
750.
V. O'Sullivan, 6 App. Div. 571:
1397.
V. O'Sullivan, 8 App. Div. 320:
1465.
V. O'Sullivan, 150 N. Y. 569: 1397.
V. Stroub, 68 Hun 90: 1078.
v. Stroub, 70 Hun 363: 1410.
V. Stuyvesant, 126 App. Div. 848:
1139.
V. Taber, 78 Hun 434: 1437, 1467.
V. Tompkins, 59 App. Div. 572:
1393.
Manheim Tp. Road, 12 Pa. Supr.
279: 401.
Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473 :
86, 1612, 1613, 1614.-
Manion v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
90 Ky. 491 : 1673, 1674.
Maniqunet v. Commissioners of
Roads, 4 McCord (S. C.) 541:
22.
Manistee etc. R. R. Co. v. Fowler,
73 Mich. 217; 980, 984, 1419.
Manitowoc Clay Product Co. v. Mani-
towoc etc. R. R. Co., 135 Wis.
94: 1247, 1484.
clxxviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Mankin v. State, 2 Swan 206: 1373.
Mann v. Bergman, 203 111. 406: 877,
879, 889.
V. Marston, 12 Maine 32: 1372.
V. Willey, 51 App. Div. 169: 1605.
V. Willey, 168 N. Y. 664: 1605.
Mannel v. Detroit etc. Ry. Co., 139
Mich. 106: 272.
Manning v. Bruce, 186 Mass. 282:
455, 1519, 1613.
V. Lowell, 130 Mass. 21: 233.
V. Lowell, 173 Mass. 100: 1127,
1147, 1149, 1232, 1268.
V. Port Reading R. R. Co., 54 N.
J. Eq. 46: 1616.
V. Shreveport, 119 La. 1044: 630,
632, 633, 1183, 1308.
Mansfield's Appeal, 158 Pa. St. 314:
1402.
Mansfield v. Balliet, 65 Ohio St. 451 :
70, 82, 84.
V. Hunt, 19 Ohio C. C. 488: 84,
1654.
Mansfield etc. R. R. Co. v. Clark, 23
Mich. 519: 980, 1058, 1088.
Manson v. Boston, 163 Mass. 479:
1339.
V. South Bound R. R. Co., 64 S. C.
120: 420, 1618.
Mantel! v. Buevrus Tel. Co., 20 Ohio
C. C. 345: "339, 1593.
Manteufel v. Wetzel, 133 Wis. 619:
146.
Manton v. South Shore Traction Co.,
121 App. Div. 410: 1587.
Mantorville Ry. & Tr. Co. v. Sllnger-
land, 101 Minn. 488: 1186, 1217,
1219.
Manufacturer's Land & Imp. Co. v.
Camden, 71 N. J. L. 490: 608.
V. Camden, 73 N. J. L. 263: 608.
Manufacturers' Nat. Gas. Co. v. Les-
lie, 22 Ind. App. 677: 1176, 1251,
1456.
Manufacturing Co. v. Green, 39 La.
Ann. 455: 12.
Manville Co. v. Worcester, 138 Mass.
89 • 702
Marble v. Whitney, 28 N. Y. 297:
860, 1100, 1101.
Marblehead v. County Comrs. of Es-
sex, 5 Gray 451: 787.
Marcey v. Fries, 18 Kan. 353: 1185,
1345.
March v. New York, 69 App. Div.
1: 276.
V. Portsmouth & Concord R. R. Co.,
19 N. H. 372: 1138, 1142, 1247,
1251, 1322.
Marchant v. Maple Grove, 48 Minn.
271: 865, 867.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 153 U.
S. 380: 656. 1432.
Marietta Chair Co. v. Henderson, 121
Ga. 399: 362, 363, 377, 398, 406.
Marion Co. v. Harper, 44 111. 482:
1398.
Marin Co. Water Co. v. Marin Co.,
145 Cal. 586 : 804, 805.
Mariner v. Shulte, 13 Wis. 692:
104.
Marino v. Central R. R. Co., 69 N.
J. L. 628: 1484, 1646.
Marion Co. Lumber Co. v. Tilghman
L. Co., 75 S. C. 220: 901.
Marion etc. R. R. Co. v. Ward, 9 Ind.
123: 1073.
Mariposa Co. v. Knowles, 146 Cal.
1: 515.
Mark v. State, 97 N. Y. 572: 1707,
1708.
Market v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 87
Hun 213: 1299.
Market St. Ry. Co. v. Central R. R.
Co., 51 Cal. 583: 268, 765.
Market St. Widening, Matter of, 11
Phila. 409: 1380.
Markham v. Anaraosa, 122 Iowa 689 :
237.
f. Atlanta, 23 Ga. 402: 210, 1597.
V. Brown, 37 Ga. 277: 438, 472.
Markowitz v. Kansas City, 125 Mo.
485: 1138, 1306, 1337, 1648,
1656, 1660.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 216 Pa.
St. 535: 1120, 1129.
Marks v. Bradshaw Mt. R. R. Co.,
8 Ariz. 379: 1233.
Markwardt v. Guthrie, 18 Okla. 32:
84.
Marling v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co.,
67 Iowa 331: 1519.
Marlor v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
166 Pa. St. 524: 697.
Marquette etc. R. R. Co. v. Harlow,
37 Mich. 554: 861.
V. Longyear, 133 Mich. 94: 966,
997, 1071, 1378.
V. Probate Judge, 53 Mich. 217:
1385, 1389.
Marsden v. Cambridge, 114 Mass.
490: 1263.
Marsh, Matter of, 10 Hun 49: 976.
Marsh, Matter of, 71 N. Y. 315: 893,
894, 898, 1044.
Marsh v. Fairbury, 163 111. 401: 874,
877, 887.
v. Lehigh etc. R. R. Co., 215 Pa.
St. 141: 1485, 1645.
V. Milwaukee Lt. H. & T. Co., 134
Wis. 384: 284.
V. Oregon City, 105 Mo. 226 : 1008.
V. Portsmouth & Concord R. R. Co.,
19 N. H. 372: 1311.
CASES CITED.
clxxix
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Marshall v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 16
Pa. Supr. Ct. 615: 350, 1338,
1639.
V. Chicago, 77 111. App. 351: 1271.
Marshall Fishing Co. v. Hadley Falls
Co., 5 Cush. 602: 1439, 1442.
Marshalltown v. Forney, 61 Iowa
578: 199, 395, 398, 1502.
Marsh et al., Petitioners, 2 Aiken
239: 1393.
Marson v. London, Chatham & Dover
Ey. Co., 37 L. J. Ch. 483: 822.
V. London, Chatham & Dover Ey.
Co., L. E. 6 Eq. Cas. 101: 822.
Martin, Ex parte, 13 Ark. 198: 22,
23, 90, 1155.
Martin v. Benoist, 20 Mo. App. 262:
147.
V. Beverley, 5 Call 444 : 976.
V. Brooklyn, 1 Hill 545: 1670,
1678, 1696.
V. Burns, 155 N. Y. 23: 498, 501,
544.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 220 111.
97: 994, 1115.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 47 Mo.
App. 452: 180, 224, 1549, 1552,
1649, 1656, 1660.
V. District of Columbia, 205 U. S.
135: 10, 464.
V. Dix, 52 Miss. 53: 23, 466.
V. Fillmore County, 44 Neb. 719:
1176, 1179, 1205.
v. Franklin Co., 62 Maine 455 : 978.
V. Gainesville etc. E. E. Co., 78 Ga.
307: 141.
T. Gleason, 139 Mass. 183: 823.
V. London etc. Ey. Co., 1 L. E. Eq.
Cas. 145: 948.
V. Louisville, 97 Ky. 30: 382, 400,
1522.
v. Marks, 154 Ind. 549: 372, 1596.
V. New York etc. E. E. Co., 62 N.
Y. 331 : 475.
V. Eiddle, 26 Pa. St. 415: 145, 146.
V. Eushton, 42 Ala. 289: 708, 1358,
1516.
V. St. Louis, 139 Mo. 246: 1324.
V. Stillwell, 50 N. J. L. 530: 1370.
V. Tyler, 4 N. D. 270: 580, 923,
1154, 1159, 1160.
V. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367: 115.
Martini v. Gzonski, 13 U. C. Q. B.
298: 1455.
Martinsville etc. E. E. Co. v. Bridges,
6 Ind. 400: 978.
Maryland etc. E. R. Co. v. Hiller, 8
App. Cas. D. C. 289: 1188.
Maryland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ruth, 106
Md. 644: 338, 1667.
Marylebone Imp. Act, In re, L. E.
12 Eq. Cas. 389: 953.
Marylebone Improvement Act, In I'e,
40 L. J. Eq. 697 : 953.
Marysville etc. R. R. Co. v. Ingram
(Ky.) 30 S. W. 8: 1294.
Marysville Water Co. v. West Fair-
view etc. St. Ry. Co., 13 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 365: 739.
Mason v. Brooklyn City etc. R. R.
Co., 35 Barb. 373: 268, 726, 728.
v. Chicago, 163 111. 351: 874, 880.
V. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co., 17
W. Va. 396: 411, 414, 651, 1570.
v. Iowa Cent. Ey. Co., 131 Iowa
468: 1047, 1069.
v. Kennebec & Portland E. E. Co.,
31 Maine 215: 1311, 1522.
V. Lake Erie etc. Ey. Co., 9 Biss.
239: 809, 1500.
V. Mattoon, 95 HI. App. 525: 83,
1604.
V. Ohio Eiver E. E. Co., 51 W. Va.
183: 313, 1C22.
v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 71 S. C.
150* 832
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 74 S. C.
557: 832, 1123.
V. Stokes Bay Pier & Ey. Co., 32
L. J. Ch. 110: 1533.
Mason City etc. E. E. Co. v. Boynton,
158 Fed. 599: 1392, 1674.
V. Boynton, 204 U. S. 570: 931,
932.
V. Wolf, 148 Fed. 961: 382, 391,
647, 654, 664, 1337.
Mason City Salt & Mining Co. v.
Mason, 23 W. Va. 211 : 1570.
Massachusetts Central R. R. Co. v.
Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg E.
E. Co., 121 Mass. 124: 1278.
Masters v. McHolland, 12 Kan. 17:
513, 1034, 1555.
Masters etc. Ey. Co., In re, (1901) 2
K. B. 84: 958, 1260.
Masters etc. Ey. Co., In re, (1900) 2
Q. B. 677: 958, 1260.
Matheny v. Aiken, 68 S. C. 163: 84,
1523.
Mathews v. Droud, 114 Ind. 268:
1028, 1407.
V. St. Paul etc. E. R. Co., 18 Minn.
434: 857, 1164, 1634.
Mathewson v. Supervisors, 8 Pa. Co.
Ct. 204: 1011.
Mathias v. Drainage Comrs., 49 Mich.
465: 984.
Matson v. Port Townsend etc R. R.
Co., 9 Wash. 449: 840.
Matteson v. New York Cent. etc. E.
R. Co., 218 Pa. St. 527: 87.
clxxx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Matthews v. Belfast Mfg. Co., 35
Wash. 662: 81, 1604.
V. Duryee, 4 Keys 525 : 946.
V. Stillwater G. & E. L. Co., 63
Minn. 493: 452, 454.
Mattingly v. District of Columbia,
97 U. S. 687: 734, 735.
V. Plymouth, 100 Ind. 545: 602,
616.
Mattison v. Alton etc. Traction Co.,
235 111. 346 : 303.
Mattlage v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
14 Daly 1: 305, 1585.
V. New York El. Ey. Co., 67 How.
Pr. 232: 305, 308, 314, 712, 1590.
V. New York El. E. E. Co., 1 Miscl.
339: 1296, 1302.
V. New York El. R. E. Co., 14
Miscl. 291: 1614.
Mattuson v. Lehigh Val. E. R. Co., 36
Pa. Supr. Ct. 66: 144.
Mauldin v. Greenville, 53 S. C. 285:
613.
V. Greenville, 64 S. C. 444: 613,
618, 619, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1391.
Mauser v. Northern etc. E. R. Co., 2
Eng. E. R. Cases 380: 1601.
Maust V. Pennsylvania etc. St. Ry.
Co., 219 Pa. St. 568: 1588.
Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co., 41
Mich. 453: 858, 977, 1354.
V. Central D. & P. Tel. Co., 51 W.
Va. 121 : 342, 343, 643, 1594.
V. La Brune, 68 Iowa 689 : 1404.
May v. Boston, 158 Mass. 21: 840,
1141, 1330.
V. Carbondale Traction Co., 167
Pa. St. 343: 642, 1294.
v. Kornhaus, 9 W. & S. 121: 1547.
Mayer v. New York, 127 App. Div.
926: 611.
V. New York, 193 N. Y. 535: 611,
1524.
Maynard v. Northampton, 157 Mass.
218: 1231.
Mayo V. Springfield, 136 Mass. 10:
231.
V. Springfield, 138 Mass. 70: 231.
V. Turner, 1 Mumford 405: 1374.
Mayor, Matter of, 20 Misc. 520: 1084,
1085.
Mayor v. Brown, 9 Heisk. 1: 197.
V. Hopkins, 13 La. Ann. 326: 1496.
Mays V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.,
75 S. C. 455: 489.
Maysville etc. R. R. Co. v. Ball, 108
Ky. 241 : 1357.
V. Conner (Ky.) 29 S. W. 344:
310.
Maysville etc. R. R. Co. v. Ingram
(Ky.) 30 S. W. 8: 253, 310, 448,
1303, 1549, 1552, 1648, 1657.
V. Pelham (Ky.) 20 S. W. 384
1520.
May Town Road, 4 Yeats 470: 1081,
Mayville v. Wilcox, 61 Hun 223: 140.
McAfee's Heirs v. Kennedy, 1 Litt.
Ky. 92: 1358.
McAlister v. Reed, 59 Mo. App. 70
1259
McAlUlly V. Horton, 75 Ala. 491
1411.
McAllister v. Pickup, 84 Iowa 65
869.
V. Reed, 53 Mo. App. 81: 1258,
1556.
McAntire v. Joplin Tel. Co., 75 Mo.
App. 535: 349.
McArthur v. Kelly, 5 Ohio 139 : 523.
v. McEachin, 64 N. C. 454: 1640.
V. Morgan, 49 Conn. 347 : 899, 1387.
McAuley v. C. C. & I. 0. Ry. Co., 83
111. 348: 1047.
V. Western Vermont R. R. Co., 33
Vt. 311: 860, 1631, 1632
McBride v. Akron, 11 Ohio C. C. 610:
84.
V. Chicago, 22 111. 576 : 12.-
V. State, 130 Ind. 525: 955, 1510.
McCaffrey v. Smith, 41 Hun 117:
357.
McCall V. Marion County, 43 Ore.
536: 1392, 1407, 1439.
McCallister v. Shney, 24 Iowa 362:
976, 1032, 1033.
McCandless v. Richmond etc. R. E.
Co., 38 S. C. 103: 15.
McCandless' Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 210:
495, 520, 529.
McCandless v. Richmond & D. R. R.
Co., 38 S. C. 103: 475.
McCandless Road, 110 Pa. St. 605:
1419.
McCann v. Johnson Co. TeL Co., 69
Kan. 210: 341.
V. Mt. Gilead Cemetery, 166 Ind.
573: 784, 822.
V. Oregon R. R. Co., 13 Ore. 455:
118.
V. Otoe Co., 9 Neb. 324: 828, 1116.
V. Sierra Co., 7 Cal. 121: 1162,
1570.
McCarter v. Hudson Co. Water Co.,
70 N. J. Eq. 525: 170.
V. Hudson Co. Water Co., 70 N.
J. Eq. 595: 169.
McCarthy v. Far Rockaway, 3 App.
Div. 379: 149, 155, 211, 233.
V. Met. Board of Works, L. R. 7
C. P. 508: 372, 644.
CASES CITED.
clxxxi
tThe references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
McCarthy v. Met. Board of Works, L.
E. 8 C. P. 191 : 372, 644, 650.
V. Met. Board of Works, L. R. 7
Bng. & I. App. 243: 372, 644,
662, 671.
V. Murphy, 119 Wis. 159: 128, 129.
V. St. Paul, 22 Minn. 527: 606, 615,
617, 618, 1307, 1718.
V. Southern Pac. Co., 144 Cal. 677:
1496.
V. Southern Pac. Co., 148 Cal. 211 :
679, 969, 1496.
V. Syracuse, 46 N. Y. 194: 1488.
V. Whalen, 19 Hun 503: 970.
McCartney v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
112 111. 611: 726.
McCarty v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 34
111. App. 273: 327, 643, 1378.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 34 111.
App. 273: 639.
V. Clark County, 101 Mo. 179:
1626.
V. St. Paul, 22 Minn. 527 : 1550.
V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 31 Minn.
278: 846.
McCaah v. Burlington, 72 Iowa 26:
603, 1306.
McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 11 : 458,
952.
V. Dunlap, 4 B. Mod. 57 : 516, 519.
V. ^Valle^, 12 Cal. 500: 458, 1162.
McChesney v. Chicago, 161 111. 110:
1701.
llcClain v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
90 Iowa 646: 1504.
V. People, 9 Colo. 190: 1466.
MeClane v. McClane, 207 Pa. St.
465: 831, 1569.
McClarren v. Jefferson School, 169
Ind. 140: 695, 1347.
MeClary v. Hartwell, 25 Mich. 139:
1058, 1367.
MeCloskey v. McDaniel, 37 Ind. App.
59 : 884, 886, 890.
McCIaysburg Road, 4 S. & R. 200:
1081.
McClean v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 67
Iowa 568: 1120, 1293.
McClellan v. Fisher, 16 Gray 185:
939
McClelland v. Miller, 28 Ohio St.
488: 1516, 1521.
McClenachan v. Curwin, 6 Binn. 509 :
1156, 1157.
V. Curwin, 3 Yeats 362: 1156, 1157.
McCleneghan v. Omaha R. E. Co., 25
Neb. 523: 93, 153.
McClinton v. Pittsburg etc. R. R.
Co., 66 Pa. St. 404: 1160, 1546,
1625, 1629, 1713.
V. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chi-
cago R. R. Co., 68 Pa. St. 408:
1626.
McClinton v. Railroad Co., 16 P. F.
Smith 409: 1349.
MeCloskey v. Pacific Coast Co., 160
Fed. 794: 129, 131.
V. Atlantic City E. R. Co., 70 N.
J. L. 20: 159, 326.
McClure's Appeal, 137 Pa. St. 590:
1081.
McClure v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co., 130
Ala. 436: 1159, 1161, 1620.
v. Groton, 50 N. H. 49 : 1025.
V. Red Wing, 28 Minn. 186: 234.
McColgan v. Baltimore Belt E. E.
Co., 85 Md. 519: 1566.
McComb V. Akron, 15 Ohio 474: 214,
215.
V. Bell, 2 Minn. 295 : 13.
McCombs V. Pittsburgh, 194 Pa. St.
348: 1201.
V. Stewart, 40 Ohio St. 647: 808,
1499.
McConnell v. Am. Bronze Powder
Mfg. Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 447: 1505.
V. Lexington, 12 Wheat. 582: 872.
MeConnell's Mill Eoad, 32 Pa. St.
285: 1364.
McCook Irr. & W. P. Co. v. Crews, 70
Neb. 109 : 70, 71, 76.
McCord V. Doniphan Branch Ey. Co.,
21 Mo. App. 92: 860.
V. High, 24 Iowa 336 : 75.
V. Sylvester, 32 Wis. 451: 550,
1343.
McCord's Road Case, 13 S. & R. 83:
1363.
McCormack v. Brooklyn, 108 N. Y.
49: 687, 1526, 1530.
McCormick, Appeal of, 165 Pa. St.
386: 237.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 57
Mo. 433: 1446, 1451, 1455.
V. Kansas City, St. Joe & C. B. E.
E. Co., 70 Mo. 359: 155.
V. LaFayette, 1 Ind. 48: 1163, 1165,
1170.
V. Terre Haute & Eichmond E. E.
Co., 9 Ind. 283: 1522.
V. West Chicago Park Comrs., 118
111. 655: 1392.
McCosh V. Burlington, 72 Iowa 26:
618.
McCotter v. New Shoreham, 21 R. I.
43: 707, 894, 895, 957, 961.
McCoy V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 13
Fed. 3: 476.
V. Graudy. 3 Ohio St. 463 : 459.
McCray v. Fairmont, 46 W. Va. 442 :
155, 233.
McCrea v. Champlain, 35 App. Div.
N. Y. 89: 697.
V. Port Royal R. R. Co., 3 S. C.
.381: 090, 697.
clxxxii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
McCready v. Metropolitan El. R. E.
Co., 76 Hun 531: 1299, 1300.
V. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.,
30 Utah 1 : 1698.
McCrory v. Griswold, 7 Iowa 248:
1421.
McCruden v. Rochester R. R. Co., 5
Misc. 59: 350, 1486.
McCue V. Bellingham Bay Water Co.,
5 Wash. 156: 1505.
MoCulIey v. Cunningham, 96 Ala.
583: 551, 595, 988.
McCullom V. Uhl, 128 Ind. 304: 1510.
McCullough V. Brooklyn, 23 Weud.
458: 1527, 1530, 1531.
V. Campbellsport, 123 Wis. 334:
212, 229, 231, 439.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 52 Minn.
12: 441, 1453.
V. State, 41 S. C. 220: 478.
V. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102: 594.
McCune v. SwaflFord, 5 Iowa 552:
, 1396.
McCunley v. Weller, 12 Cal. 500:
1155.
McCutchen v. Texas etc. Ry. Co., 118
La. 436: 864, 1714.
McDaniel v. Columbus, 87 Ga. 440:
1576.
V. Columbus, 91 Ga. 462: 535, 1070.
McDermott v. New Castle, 13 Pa.
Co. Ct. 474: 1018, 1359, 1365.
V. Warren etc. R. R. Co., 172 Mass.
197: 621, 1529.
McDevitt V. People's Nat'l Gas Co.,
160 Pa. St. 367: 172, 175, 337,
367, 644, 1524.
McDonald v. Payne, 114 Ind. 359:
980, 982, 1576.
V. Red Wing, 13 Minn. 38: 17.
V. Southern Cal. R. R. Co., 101
Cal. 206: 848.
V. Stark, 176 111. 456: 877, 890.
V. Western N. C. Insane Asylum,
101 N. C. 656: 1406.
V. Wilson, 59 Ind. 54: 980, 983.
McDough V. Clark, 7 B. Men. 448:
899, 1311.
McDowell V. Asheville, 112 N. C. 747:
1532.
V. Blue Ridge etc. Ry. Co., 144 N.
C. 721: 853.
McElheny v. McKeesport etc. Bridge
Co., 153 Pa. St. 108: 1128.
McElroth V. Lakeville, 92 Minn.
248: 1399.
McElroy v. Kansas City, 21 Fed. R.
257: 26, 631, 1160, 1597.
V. Kansas City etc. Air Line, 172
Mo. 576: 1186.
McElroy v. Manhattan R. E, Co., 6
App. Div. 367: 1302.
McEwan v. Pennsylvania etc. R. R.
Co., 72 N. J. L. 419: 806, 977.
McEwen v. Preece, 45 Wash. 612:
866.
McFadden v. Johnson, 72 Pa. St.
335: 937, 1560.
V. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 41 Tex.
Civ. App. 350: 153.
McFarlan v. Morris Canal & B. Co.,
44 N. J. L. 471: 1650, 1653,
1713, 1714.
McFarland v. Lindekugel, 107 Wis.
474: 366, 889, 1596.
V. Orange etc. R. R. Co., 13 N.
J. Eq. 17: 712.
McGann v. People, 194 111. 526: 302,
532.
V. People, 97 111. App. 587 : 302.
McGar v. Bristol, 71 Conn. 652: 601,
617, 620.
McGavock v. Omaha, 40 Neb. 64:
1004, 1009, 1550.
McGean v. Manhattan R. E. Co., 117
N. Y. 219: 1121, 1124.
McGee's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 470:
363, 384, 392, 394, 647.
McGee v. Hennepin County, 84 Minn.
472: 739.
McGee Irrigation Ditch Co. v. Hud-
son, 85 Tex. 587: 141, 587.
McGehee v. Tidewater Ry. Co., 108
Va. 508: 152, 1667.
V. Mathis, 21 Ark. 40: 586.
McGillis V. Willis, 19 111. App. 311
1450.
McGinnis v. St. Louis, 157 Mo. 191
878.
McGinnitie v. Silvers, 167 Ind. 321
388.
McGourin v. DeFuniak Springs, 51
Fla. 502: 884.
McGram v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
67 App. Div. 37 : 1555.
McGrath v. ^Vatertown, 181 Mass.
380: 1074, 1707, 1708.
McGregor v. Equitable Gas Co., 139
Pa. St. 230: 813, 1251.
McGrew v. Kansas City, 64 Kan.
61; 357.
V. Kansas City, 69 Kan. 606: 357.
McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L. 356:
440.
V. Wilkes-Barre, 36 Pa. Supr. Ct.
418: 1492.
McHale v. Easton & B. Transit Co.,
169 Pa. St. 416: 352.
McIIhenny v. Trenton, 148 Mich. 381:
356.
Mcllvoy V. Speed, 4 Bibb 85 : 1370.
CASES CITED.
clxxxiii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Mclntire v. State, 5 Blackf. 384:
1174, 1175, 1192.
V. Western N. C. R. R. Co., 67 N.
C. 278: 1164, 1165, 1170, 1523.
Mclntyre v. Easton & Amboy R. R.
Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 425: 941, 962,
1024.
V. El Paso Co., 15 Colo. App. 78:
420, 1494, 1618.
V. Lukes, 77 Tex. 259: 1018, 1029,
1513.
V. Marine, 93 Ind. 193: 1010, 1012.
McKay v. Pennsylvania Water Co.,
6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 364: 728.
McKean v. New England R. R. Co.,
199 Mass. 292 : 454.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 75
Conn. 343 : 246, 1549.
McKee v. Delaware & H. Canal Co.,
52 Hun 52: 79, 1637.
V. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 125
N. Y. 353: 79, 80, 1637.
V. Grand Rapids, 137 Mich. 200:
1615.
V. Hull, 69 Wis. 657 : 860.
V. St. Louis, 17 Mo. 184: 963.
v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 49 Mo.
App. 174: 91, 1650, 1653.
McKean v. Delaware Canal Co., 49
Pa. St. 424: 108, 117.
V. Porter, 134 Ind. 483: 996.
McKeesport v. Citizens' Pass. R. R.
Co., 2 Pa. Supr. Ct. 249: 299.
McKenna v. Brooklyn Union El. R.
R. Co., 95 App. Div. 226: 182,
1562.
V. Brooklyn Union El. R. R. Co.,
184 N. Y. 391: 182, 1562.
T. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 69 Ark.
104: 1628.
McKenney v. County Comrs., 40 Me.
136: 1089.
McKennon v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co.,
69 Ark. 104: 814, 1522.
McKenny v. Monongahela Navigation
Co., 14 Pa. St. 65: 1523.
McKenzie v. Gilmore, 33 Pac. 262:
881.
V. Haines, 123 Wis. 557: 887.
V. Miss. & Rum River Boom Co.,
29 Minn. 288: 67, 90, 94.
McKeon v. New England R. R. Co.,
199 Mass. 292: 1252, 1636.
McKernan v. Indianapolis, 38 Ind.
223: 1514.
McKevin v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co.,
45 Fed.' 464: 1526.
McKey v. Hyde Park, 134 U. S. 84:
882, 885.
McKinney v. Nashville, 102 Tenn.
131: 1229, 1230, 1233, 1240.
McKinnon v. Cedar Rapids etc. Ry.
& Lt. Co., 126 la. 426: 1409.
McKinsey v. Bowman, 58 Ind. 88 :
1150.
McKusick V. Stillwater, 44 Minn.
372: 993, 1085, 1186.
McLachlan v. Gray, 105 la. 259:
363, 384, 388, 395, 406.
McLaman v. McMeley, 56 Mo. App.
556: 878.
McLauchlin v. Railroad Co., 5 Rich.
583: 248, 255.
McLaughlin v. Dorsey, 1 Harris &
McHenry, 224: 940.
V. Municipality No. 2, 5 La. Ann.
504: 1688.
V. Sandusky, 17 Neb. 110: 722,
1574.
V. State, 8 Ind. 281: 1522.
McLean v. Brush Electric Lt. Co.,
9 Cinn. Law Bull. 65: 344.
V. Great Western R. R. Co., 33
U. C. Q. B. 198: 1031.
V. Llewellyn Iron W^orks, 2 Cal.
App. 346: 182, 366.
McLellan v. County Comrs., 21 Me.
390: 1100, 1103.
v. Crofton, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 307:
996.
McLemon v. McNeley, 56 Mo. App.
556: 183.
McLendon v. Railroad Co., 54 Ga.
293: 936.
McLeod V. Savannah, Albany etc. R.
R. Co., 25 Ga. 445: 413.
V. So. Deerfield Water Supply Dist.
193 Mass. 6: 710.
McLucas V. St. Joseph etc. Ry. Co..
67 Neb. 603: 1478, 1479, 1633.
McMahon v. Cincinnati & Chicago
Short Line R. R. Co., 5 Ind.
413: 698, 1205, 1376.
V. Council Bluffs, 12 la. 268: 236,
335, 336.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 41 La.
Ann. 827: 640, 666, 1161, 1294,
1303, 1334, 1337, 1582, 1615.
McMamara v. Taft, 196 Mass. 597:
81.
McManus v. Carmichael, 3 la. 1 :
104.
V. McDonough, 107 111. 95: 925,
1028.
McMasters v. Commonwealth, 3
Watts 292: 1187.
McMeekin v. Central Carolina Power
Co., 80 S. C. 512: 536, 1624.
McMicken v. Cincinnati, 4 Ohio St.
394: 1011, 1012.
McMillan v. Baker, 20 Kan. 50:
1571, 1573.
clxxxiv
OASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
McMillan v. Board of Co. Comrs., 92
Minn. 16: 576.
V. Butte, 30 Mont. 220: 11, 464.
V. Klaw & Erlanger Con. Co., 107
App. Div. 407: 199, 373.
McMillin Printing Co. v. Pittsburg
etc. R. R. Co., 216 Pa. St. 504:
1233, 1257, 1277.
McMinn v. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co.,
147 Pa. St. 5: 849, 1457.
McMullen v. State, 105 Ind. 334:
1088, 1371, 1510.
McMuIlin V. Leitich, 83 Cal. 239:
892.
McMurray-Judge Architectural Iron
Works V. St. Louis, 138 Mo.
608: 1601.
McMurtrie v. Stewart, 21 Pa. St.
322 : 728.
McNally v. Smith, 12 Allen, 455:
1523.
McNamara v. Commonwealth, 184
Mass. 304: 623, 1268.
V. Minn. Cent. R. R. Co., 12 Minn.
388: 1407, 1425.
McNeil V. Hicks, 34 La. Ann. 1090:
422, 1494, 1496.
McNichols v. Wilson, 42 la. 385:
1429.
McNulta V. Rolston, 5 Ohio C. C.
330: 180, 319.
McOsker v. Burrell, 55 Ind. 425:
722.
McPherson v. Holdridge, 24 111. 38:
1099, 1571.
V. Leathers, 29 Ind. 65: 1406.
McPike V. West, 71 Mo. 199: 1569,
1574.
McQuade v. The King, 7 Can. Exch.
318: 372, 382, 391, 647.
McQuaid v. Portland & V. R. R.
Co., 18 Ore. 237: 180, 201, 282,
313, 316.
McQuigg V. Cullins, 56 Ohio St. 649 :
190, 385, 386, 387, 388, 404,
405, 1596.
McQuillen v. Hatton, 42 Ohio St.
202: 495, 501, 580.
McRae v. Wilmington R. R. Co., 2
Jones Law 186: 413.
McReynolds v. Baltimore etc. Ry.
Co., 106 111. 152: 1379.
V. Burlington & Ohio Ry. Co., 106
III. 152: 1195.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 110
Mo. 484: 1546, 1547.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 34
Mo. App. 581 : 1209.
McRoberts v. Wagliburn, 10 Minn.
23: 130, 407, 413, 781, 1008.
McSweeny v. Commonwealth, 185
Mass. 371: 429, 626, 733.
McVey v. Heavenridge, 30 Ind. 100:
1400.
McWethy v. Aurora Elec. Lt. & P.
Co., 202 111. 218: 344, 1594.
McWhirter v. Cockrell, 2 Head 9:
1061.
McWilliams v. Jewett, 14 Miscl. 491 :
922.
Meacham v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 4
Cush. 291: 1185, 1207.
V. Seattle, 45 Wash. 380 : 878, 882,
891.
Mead v. Ballard, 7 Wall. 290: 841.
V. Haynes, 3 Rand. 33: 104, 969.
V. Haynes, 3 Rand. 417: 104.
V. Hein, 28 Wis. 533: 937.
V. Mellette, 18 S. D. 523: 164,
1604.
V. Portland, 45 Ore. 1: 360.
V. Portland, 200 U. S. 148: 238.
Meade v. Topeka, 75 Kan. 61: 865,
867.
V. United States, 2 Ct. of Claims
224: 745.
Meadville Nat. Gas Co. v. Meadville
Fuel Gas Co., 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 448:
411.
Meagher, Matter of, 35 Misc. 601 :
976, 989, 990, 1044, 1060, 1067.
Mears v. Wilmington, 9 Ired. L. 73:
229, 237.
Meehan v. Wiles, 93 Ind. 52: 1396,
1400, 1407, 1409.
Meek v. Meade County, 12 S. D. 163:
828.
Meeker' v. Chicago, 23 111. App. 23:
1527, 1625, 1673.
V. Puyallup, 5 Wash. 759: 892.
Meginnis v. Nunamaker, 64 Pa. St.
374: 1555.
Megrath v. Nickerson, 24 Wash. 235:
869.
Mehrhof Bros. Brick Mfg. Co. v.
Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 51 N.
J. L. 56: 119, 131, 133.
Meier v. Portland Cable R. R. Co.,
16 Ore. 500: 878.
Meigs' Appeal, 12 P. F. Smith 28:
1350.
Meigs V. Milligan, 177 Pa. St. 66:
429.
Meilly v. Zurmehly, 23 Ohio St. 627:
1465.
Meinzer v. Racine, 68 Wis. 241 : 236.
Melandy v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
132 111. App. 431: 91, 93, 94,
1639, 1653, 1662.
Melenbacker v. Salamanca, 116 App.
Div. 691: 609, 617, 1525.
V. Salamanca, 188 N. Y. 370: 609,
617, 1525.
CASES CITED.
clxxxv
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Melendy v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 132
III. App. 431: 91, 94, 1653, 1662,
Melizet's Appeal, 17 Pa. St. 449:
943.
Mellen v. Western R. R. Co., 4 Gray
301: 1639.
Mellichar v. Iowa City, 116 la. 390:
1671, 1700.
Mellor V. Philadelphia, 160 Pa. St.
614: 372, 382, 385, 391, 394, 630,
636, 646, 647, 671.
Melon St., In re, 182 Pa. St. 397:
181, 187, 191, 364, 368, 3/4,
382, 391, 894, 403, 404, 646, 651,
1666.
Melon St., In re, 1 Pa. Super. Ct.
63: 382, 394, 644.
Melrose v. Cutter, 157 Mass. 461:
1496.
Memphis v. Bolton, 9 Heisk. 508:
1180.
V. Hastings, 113 Tenn. 142: 733,
1158, 1169.
V. Wright, 6 Yerg. 497: 422, 1495,
1496.
Memphis etc. R. R. Co. v. Birming-
ham etc. R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 571:
738, 769, 1281, 1396.
T. Hopkins (Ala.) 18 So. 845:
1425.
v. Organ, 67 Ark. 84: 864, 869,
1545, 1714.
V. Parsons Town Co., 26 Kan. 503 :
1031, 1034, 1626.
V. Payne, 37 Miss. 700: 1634.
V. Union Ry. Co., 116 Tenn. 500:
677, 739, 760, 761, 768, 1068.
Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 6
Coldw. 419: 505, 544, 591.
Memphis State Line R. R. Co. v.
Forest Hill Cem. Co., 116 Tenn.
400: 543, 784.
Memphis Tel. Co. v. Hun, 16 Lea.
456: 343, 350, 1488.
Menage v. Minneapolis, 104 Minn.
195: 875.
Menard Co. v. Kincaid, 71 111. 587:
6, 695.
Mendenhall v. Clugish, 84 Ind. 94:
993.
Mendez v. Dugart, 17 La. Ann. 171:
1499.
Mendocino Co. v. Peters, 2 Cal. App.
24: 514, 913.
Mendon v. County Comrs., 2 Allen
463: 1417.
V. County Comrs.) 5 Allen 13:
1418.
V. Worcester Co., 10 Pick. 235:
1089.
Meng V. Coffee, 67 Neb. 500: 69,
71.
Menges v. Albany, 56 N. Y. 374:
925.
Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind. 380:
786, 934, 1384.
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Atlantic &
P. R. R. Co., 63 Fed. 513: 425.
V. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co., 63 Fed.
910: 412, 832.
V. Texas & P. R. R. Co., 51 Fed.
529: 483.
Mercantile Trust etc. Co. v. Collins
Park etc. R. R. Co., 101 Fed.
347: 764.
Merced Falls Gas & Elec. Co. v. Tur-
ner, 2 Col. App. 720: 361, 491.
Mercer v. McWilliams, Wright
(Ohio) 132: 1165.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 36 Pa.
St. 99: 255, 368.
V. Williams, Walker Ch. (Mich.)
85: 1574.
Mercer County v. Wolff, 237 111. 74:
683, 704, 896, 1072, 1548.
Mercer Co. Traction Co. v. United
N. J. R. R. & C. Co., 64 N. J.
Eq. 588: 302.
V. United N. J. R. R. & C. Co., 65
N. J. Eq. 574: 302.
V. United N. J. R. R. & C. Co., 68
N. J. Eq. 714: 302, 771.
Mercer etc. R. R. Co. v. Delaware
etc. R. R. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 464:
1463, 1464.
Mercer, Road in, 14 S. & E. 447:
700.
Merchants P. & D. Tel. Co. v. Citi-
zens Tel. Co., 123 Ky. 90: 419,
1622.
Merchant St., In re, 9 Phila. 590:
976.
Merchants' Union. Barb Wire Co. \.
Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 70
la. 105: 298, 620, 1553.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 79 la.
614: 1354.
Meredith v. Sayre, 32 N. J. Eq. 557 :
1595.
Meriam v. Brown, 128 Mass. 391 :
1348.
Meridian v. Farmers' L. 4; T. Co,,
143 Fed. 67: 410.
V. Higgins, 81 Miss. 376: 1179.
V. Poole, 88 Miss. 108: 891.
Merom Gravel Co. v. Pearson, 33 Ind.
App. 174: 1365.
Merrick v. Baltimore, 43 Md. 219:
1673.
V. Intramontaine R. R. Co., 118
N. C. 1081: 277.
clxxxvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Merrick Water Co. v. Brooklyn, 32
App. Div. 454: 163.
Merrifield v. Worcester, 110 Mass.
216: 82.
Merrill v. Berkshire, 11 Pick. 269:
954, 1089.
V. Calkins, 74 N. Y. 1 : 1580.
Messenger v. Manhattan K. R. Co.,
129 N. Y. 502: 193, 265, 448, 1290,
1303, 1304.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 129 N. Y.
648: 1333.
Messer v. Wildman, 53 Conn. 494:
1410.
Messerole v. Brooklyn, 8 Paige 198:
1571.
Messner v. Lykens etc. St. Ry. Co.,
13 Pa. Supr. Ct. 429: 1592.
Metcalf V. Bingham, 3 N. H. 459:
515.
V. Nelson, 8 S. D. 87: 161.
Methodist Church v. Baltimore, 6
Md. 391: 678, 1010.
Methodist Episcopal Church v. Wy-
andotte, 31 Kan. 721: 211, 238.
Metlar v. Middlesex etc. Traction Co.,
72 N. J. L. 524: 708, 717.
Metier v. Easton & Ambry R. R. Co.,
25 N. J. Eq. 214: 1325, 1569.
T. Easton & Ambry R. R. Co., 37
N. J. L. 222: 1225, 1227, 1321,
1323, 1438, 1439.
Metropolitan Bd. of Works v. Mc-
Carthy, L. R. 7 Eng. & I. App.
243: 214, 651.
V. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 37 L. J.
C. P. 281 : 1453.
V. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 38 L. J.
C. P. 172: 1453.
V. Saut, 38 L. J. Eq. 7: 1557.
Metropolitan City Ry. Co. v. Chicago
West Div. Rv. Co., 87 111. 317:
743, 744, 747, 789, 920, 1036,
1044, 1071.
Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., In r^
76 Hun 375: 1109, 1377.
Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 128 N. Y. 600: 1425.
Metropolitan El. R. R. Co. v. Dom-
inick, 55 Hun 198: 743, 897,
977, 987, 1043.
Metropolitan Gas Co. v. Hyde Park,
27 111. App. 361 : 416, 1621.
Metropolitan R. R. Co. v. Broadway
R. R. Co., 99 Mass. 238: 761,
1284.
V. Chicago West Div. Ry. Co.,
87 HI. 317: 791.
V. Highland R. R. Co., 118 Mass.
290: 761, 1282, 1283, 1284.
Metropolitan R. R. Ca v. Macfar-
land, 20 App. Cas. D. C. 421:
488.
V. Quincy R. R. Co., 12 Allen 262:
761, 1283, 1284.
Metropolitan St. R. R. Co. v. Toledo
EI. St. R. R. Co., 9 Ohio C. C.
664: 765, 768.
V. Walsh, 197 Mo. 392: 525, 1119,
1129, 1138, 1146, 1147, 1148,
1228, 1229.
Metropolitan Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Col-
well Lead Co., 67 How. Pr. 365:
1593.
V. Colwell Lead Co., 50 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 488 : 339, 1593.
Metropolitan Tr. Co., Matter of. 111
N. Y. 588 : 1072.
Metropolitan Water Co. v. Kansas
City, 164 Fed. 738: 931, 1167.
Metropolitan West Side El. R. R.
Co. V. Clancy, 153 111. 270: 1195,
1215.
V. Dickinson, 161 111. 22: 1130,
1426.
V. Esehner, 233 111. 210: 991, 1136.
V. Goll, 100 III. App. 323: 53, 57,
323, 448, 654, 663, 1337.
V. Siegel, 161 III. 638: 1274, 1422.
V. Springer, 159 111. 434: 1211,
1378.
V. Springer, 171 111. 170: 190, 266,
438, 1195, 1243, 1335, 1426.
V. Stickney, 150 111. 362: 1195,
1215, 1313, 1665.
V. White, 166 111. 375: 1133.
Metty V. Marsh, 124 Ind. 18: 982,
1407.
Metuchen v. Pa. R. R. Co., 71 N. J.
Eq. 404: 1643.
Metzler & Hugus's Road, 62 Pa. St.
151: 1096, 1371.
Mewes v. Crescent Pipe Line Co., 170
Pa. St. 364: 1128, 1130, 1131.
Meyer v. Burlington, 52 la. 560:
1306.
V. Covington, 103 Ky. 546: 1057.
V. Lincoln, 33 Neb. 566: 1492.
V. Tacoma etc. Co., 8 Wash. 144:
69, 161, 164.
V. Teutopolis, 131 HI. 552: 363,
396, 399.
Meyers v. Brown, 55 Ind. 596: 978.
V. Hudson Co. Elec. Co., 63 N.
J. L. 573: 361.
V. St. Louis, 8 Mo. App. 266:
107.
V. Schuylkill Riv. E. S. R. R. Co.,
5 Pa. Co. Ct. 634: 1128.
V. Vermillion, 7 Ohio N. P. (N. S.)
90: 155, 1606.
OASES CITED.
clxxxvii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Miami Coal Co. v. Wighton, 19 Ohio
St. 560: 679, 709.
Michael v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 610:
1512.
Michigan Air Line Ry. Co. v. Barnes,
40 Mich. 383: 947, 949, 962,
1084.
V. Barnes, 44 Mich. 222: 1097,
1365.
Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Bay City,
129 Mich. 264: 890.
V. Bullard, 120 Mich. 416: 1474.
V. Probate Judge, 48 Mich. 638:
1384.
V. Spring Creek Dr. Dist., 215 111.
501: 924, 1195.
Michigan etc. R. R. Co. v. Monroe
Circ. Judge, 144 Mich. 44: 929.
Mich. Tel. Co. v. Benton Harbor,
121 Mich. 512: 342, 362.
V. St. Joseph, 121 Mich. 502: 342,
362.
Micon V. Tallahassee Bridge Co., 47
Ala. 652: 1608.
Middleborough v. New York etc. R.
R. Co., 179 Mass. 520: 1158.
Middle Creek Elec. Co. v. Hughes, 34
Pa. Co. Ct. 270: 679.
Middle Creek Road, 9 Pa. St. 69:
1358.
Middlesex Co. v. Lowell, 149 Mass.
509: 82, 83, 453, 1604.
V. McCue, 149 Mass. 103 : 168.
Middlesex etc. Traction Co. v. Met-
lar, 70 N. J. L. 98: 709, 717.
Middleton v. Flat River Booming Co.,
27 Mich. 533: 80, 1604.
V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co., 127
la. 433: 620.
V. Sage, 8 Conn. 221: 103.
Middletown, Matter of, 82 N. Y. 196:
896, 963, 1009.
Middletown v. Pritchard, 3 Scam.
510: 103.
Middletown etc. R. R. Co. v. Middle-
town Electric R. R. Co., 4 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 32: 910.
Midland Counties R. R. Co. v. Oswin,
1 Collyer 74: 831, 1558.
Midland R. R. Co. v. Checkley, 36
L. J. Ch. 380: 825.
V. Checkley, 4 L. R. Eq. Cas. 19:
1496.
V. Galey, 141 Ind. 483: 1425.
V. Smith, 109 Ind. 488: 984, 996.
V. Smith, 113 Ind. 233: 1568, 1578.
V. Smith, 125 Ind. 509: 1712.
V. Smith, 135 Ind. 348: 1578.
Mifflin V. Comrs., 5 S. & R. 69: 1528.
V. Railroad Co., 16 Pa. St. 182:
248, 423, 624.
Mifflin Bridge Co. v. Juniata Co.,
144 Pa. St. 365: 1135, 1145,
1264, 1265.
Mifflinville Bridge, 206 Pa. St. 420:
753.
Mifflinville Bridge, 209 Pa. St. 587:
753.
Mihollin v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 165: 978,
1028.
Mikesell v. Durkee, 34 Kan. 509:
300, 316, 1593.
Milan v. Sproul, 36 Ga. 393: 1028,
1414.
Milbridge etc. Elec. R. R. Co. Ap-
pellants, 96 Me. 110: 272, 299,
321, 358.
Milburn v. Cedar Rapids, 12 Iowa
246: 200, 243, 251.
Miles v. Benton Tp., 11 S. D. 450:
587.
V. Worcester, 154 Mass. 511: 439,
1508.
Milhau V. Sharp, 15 Barb. .193:
244, 268.
V. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611: 297, 298,
301, 1586.
Military Parade Ground, Matter of,
60 N. Y. 319: 1670.
Mill V. White Water Valley Canal
Co., 4 Ind. 431: 1711.
Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429:
586.
V. Webster City, 113 la. 220: 603,
618, 1123, 1126.
Millbury v. Blackstone Canal Co., 8
Pick. 473 : 956.
Millcreek Road, 29 Pa. St. 195 : 722,
1003.
Miller v. Asheville, 112 N. C. 759:
1152, 1254, 1319, 1323.
V. Auburn & Syracuse R. R. Co., 6
Hill 61: 857.
V. Bank of Belleville, 148 Mich.
339: 9, 1604.
V. Banks, 146 Ind. 219: 1381.
V. Beaver & LeRoy, 37 Minn. 203:
1186, 1215.
V. Black Rock Spring Imp. Co.,
99 Va. 747: 161, 163.
V. Board of Comrs., 3 Ohio C. C.
617: 786, 1429.
V. Brown, 56 N. Y. 383: 707.
V. Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co., 29 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 515: 92.
V. Chicago & E. R. R. Co., 60 111.
App. 51: 152, 1251, 1454.
V. Colonial Forestry Co., 73 Conn.
500: 512.
V. Corinna, 42 Minn. 391 : 363, 400,
865.
elx:
XXVlll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vo'. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Miller v. Cornwell, 71 Mich. 270: 91,
93, 1615.
V. Craig, 11 N. J. Eq. 175: 586.
V. Edison Elee. 111. Co., 97 App.
Div. 638': 454.
V. Edison Elec. 111. Co., 184 N. Y.
17: 454.
V. Graham, 17 Ohio St. 1: 1012,
1022.
V. Green Bay etc. R. R. Co., 59
Minn. 169: 425, 1473.
V. Indianapolis, 123 Ind. 196: 876.
V. Jensen, 102 Minn. 391: 567,
576.
V. Junction Canal Co., 41 N. Y.
98: 1443.
V. Keokuk & Pes Moines Ry. Co.,
63 la. 680: 1251, 1454, 1551,
1650, 1653, 1716.
V. Mobile, 47 Ala. 163: 1571.
V. Morristown, 47 N. J. Eq. 62:
156, 1606.
V. Newark, 35 N. J. L. 462: 1267,
1409.
V. Newport News, 101 Va. 432:
80.
V. New York, 21 Barb. 513 : 490.
V. New York etc. E. R. Co., 125
N. Y. 118: 168.
V. Porter, 71 Ind. 521: 978, 980,
1023, 1510.
V. Prairie du Chien & McGregor
Ry. Co., 34 Wis. 533: 1047, 1406.
V. Railroad Co. 6 Hill 61 : 322.
V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 162 Mo.
424: 1226, 1320, 1546.
V. Schenck, 78 la. 372: 1665.
V. Sterling, 198 111. 523 : 1309.
V. St»wman, 26 Ind. 143: 866.
V. Township Committee, 24 N. J.
L. 54: 1531.
V. Troost, 14 Minn. 365: 550, 898.
V. Union County, 48 Ore. 266:
1390, 1424.
V. Weber, 1 Ohio Circ. Ct. 130:
1124.
V. Webster City, 94 la. 162: 347.
V. Windsor Water Co., 148 Pa.
St. 429: 1149.
V. Wisenberger, 61 Ohio St. 561:
79.
v. Ypsilanti etc. Ry. Co., 125 Mich.
171: 349.
Millerd v. Reeves, 1 Mich. 107: 858.
Millett V. County Comrs., 80 Me.
427: 401, 1683.
Millick V. Philadelphia, 11 Phila.
354: 1325.
Milligan v. State, 60 Ind. 206 : 912.
Milliken v. Denny, 141 N. C. 224:
881.
Milliser v. Wagner, 133 Ind. 400:
1409.
Mills V. Board of Comrs., 50 Kan.
635 : 400, 401, 969.
V. Brooklyn, 32 N. Y. 489: 142,
234.
V. County Comrs., 3 Scam. 53:
1261.
V. East Syracuse, 20 Miscl. N. Y.
651: 1529.
V. Evans, 100 la. 712: 865.
V. Nashua, 63 N. H. 42 : 142.
V. Parlin, 106 111. 60: 318, 532,
1581.
V. St. Clair Co., 8 How. 569: 409,
709, 1637.
V. Seattle etc. R. R. Co., 10 Wash.
520: 840.
V. United States, 46 Fed. 738:
139.
V. Van Voorhies, 20 N. Y. 412:
946.
Millvale, Borough of. Appeal of, 131
Pa. St. 1: 299, 308.
Milton V. Wacker, 40 Mich. 229:
1032, 1361, 1420.
Milwaukee v. Gimbel Bros., 130 Wis.
31: 1623.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 7 Wis.
85: 321, 1583, 1622.
Milwaukee Boiler Co. v. Wadhams
etc. Co., 126 Wis. 32: 372, 1596.
Milwaukee El. R. & L. Co. v. Mil-
waukee, 95 Wis. 39: 1506.
Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co. v. Eble,
4 Chand. 72: 1180, 1225, 1317.
V. Faribault, 23 Minn. 167: 750,
798, 1609.
V. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 271: 524,
1059.
V. Stolze, 101 Wis. 91 : 1670, 1671.
V. Strange, 63 Wis. 178: 860, 1560.
Milwaukee etc. Traction Co. v. Mil-
waukee Northern Ry. Co., 132
Wis. 313: 901, 904, 912.
V. Milwaukee Northern Ry. Co.,
132 Wis. 342 : 901.
Milwaukee Southern Ry. Co., In re,
124 Wis. 490: 778, 784, 793,
997, 1049.
Milwaukee St. R. R. Co. v. Adlam,
85 Wis. 142: 353, 1620.
Mims v. Macon & Western R. R. Co.,
3 Ga. 333: 684, 687, 1537, 1540,
1541.
Mine Hill etc. R. R. Co., v. Zerbe, 2
Walker's Pa. Supm. 409: 952,
961, 1523.
Mine Mill etc. R. R. Co. v. Lippin-
cott, 86 Pa. St. 468: 861.
CASES CITED.
clxxxix
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Miner v. Buffalo etc. R. E. Co., 9 TJ.
C. C. P. 280: 156.
V. Gilmour, 12 Moort P. C. 131:
128.
V. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
123 N. Y. 242: 864, 1330, 1501.
V. New York etc. E. R. Co., 40
Hun 612: 1501.
Mineral Range Ry. Co. v. Detroit &
Lake Superior Copper Co., 25
Fed. 515: 931.
Minersville v. Schuylkill Elec. Ry.
Co., 205 Pa. St. 394: 302.
Minhinnah v. Haines, 29 N. J. L.
388: 700, 1531.
Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.
S. 181: 687.
Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 140:
922.
V. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 145: 1321,
1322, 1324.
Minneapolis Eastern R. E. Co. v.
Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467: 480,
483.
Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., In re, 39
Minn. 162: 767, 769.
Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 36 Minn. 481 : 769.
Minneapolis etc. R. E. Co. v. Britt,
105 la. 198: 888.
V. Brown, 99 Minn. 384: 863.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 116 la.
681: 893, 908, 1035.
V. Emmons, 40 Minn. 133: 475.
V. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364: 475,
487.
V. Hartland, 85 Minn. 76: 675,
749, 751, 1057, 1058.
V. Kanne, 32 Minn. 174 : 1020.
V. Manitou Forest Syndicate, 101
Minn. 132: 765, 766.
V. Marble, 112 Mich. 4: 857, 873.
V. Minneapolis & W. E. E. Co.,
61 Minn. 502: 426, 755, 756,
959.
V. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53 : 488.
V. Nester, 3 N. D. 480: 25, 924,
1076.
V. Nestor, 50 Fed. 1 : 931.
V. Nicolin, 76 Minn. 302: 533.
V. Olson, 81 Minn. 265: 1043, 1044.
V. Woodworth, 32 Minn. 452 : 1410,
1699.
Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Board of
Water Comrs., 56 Minn. 485:
106, 138.
V. Minneapolis etc. E. E. Co., 51
Minn. 304: 857, 1627, 1632.
Minneapolis Terminal Co., In re, 38
Minn. 157: 1061, 1076, 1081,
1431.
Minneapolis W. E. E. Co. v. Minneap-
olis etc. E. E. Co., 58 Minn. 128:
857, 1627, 1632.
Minnesota Belt Line E. E. Co. v.
Gluok, 45 Minn. 463: 1122, 1145.
Minnesota Canal & Power Co., v.
Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429:
494, 496, 498, 499, 501, 508, 536,
538, 593, 988.
V. Pratt, 101 Minn. 197: 536, 787,
920.
Minnesota Central E. E. Co. v. Mc-
Namara, 13 Minn. 508: 1217,
1418.
V. Patterson, 31 Minn. 42: 1424.
Minnesota etc. E. E. Co., In re, 103
Wis. 191: 1423.
Minnesota L. & T. Co. v. St. An-
thony Falls W. P. Co., 82 Minn.
505: 71, 72.
Minnesota Valley E. E. Co. v. Doran,
15 Minn. 230: 1208, 1213.
V. Doran, 17 Minn. 188: 1112, 1114,
1318.
Minot V. Cumberland Co. Comrs., 28
Maine 121: 1135.
Minton v. New York El. E. E. Co.,
130 N. Y. 332: 1554, 1584, 1664.
Miocene Ditch Co. v. Jacobson, 146
Fed. 680: 563, 1616.
V. Lyng, 138 Fed. 544: 684, 686.
Miskey v. Philadelphia, 68 Pa. St.
48: 1324.
Missionary Society v. New York El.
R. E. Co., 12 Miscl. 359: 1207,
1300.
Mississippi Central R. E. Co. v. Ca-
ruth, 51 Miss. 77: 158.
V. Mason, 51 Miss. 234: 87, 91,
158.
Mississippi etc. E. E. Co. v. Bying-
ton, 14 Iowa 572 : 1429.
V. Devaney, 42 Miss. 555: 729.
V. Eosseau, 8 Iowa 373: 1406.
V. Texas etc. E. E. Co., 4 Wood
360: 768, 1610.
V. Wooten, 36 La. Ann. 441 : 1478,
1483.
Mississippi Levee Comrs. v. Johnson,
66 Miss. 248: 927, 953.
Mississippi E. E. Co. v. McDonald,
12 Heisk. 54: 690, 1180.
Mississippi Eiver Bridge Co. v. Lon-
ergan, 91 111. 508: 107.
V. Eing, 58 Mo. 491: 1186, 1227,
1229, 1230, 1324, 1385, 1386.
Mississippi River etc. E. E. Co. v.
Jones, 54 Mo. App. 529: 1035.
Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208:
170.
V. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496: 170.
cxc
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Missouri-Edison Elec. Co. v. Weber,
102 Mo. App. 95 : 360.
Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. Anderson,
36 Tex. Civ. App. 121: 837, 1459,
1474.
V. Chenault, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 481 :
1483.
V. Crow, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 280:
152.
V. Graham, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 54:
1719.
V. Green, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 247:'
152, 1137, 1552, 1655.
V. Haines, 10 Kan. 439 : 1243, 1244,
1245, 1312.
V. Mott, 98 Tex. 91: 837, 1459,
1474.
V. Murphy, 75 Kan. 707: 1526,
1540.
V. Roe, 77 Kan. 224: 1211.
V. Schmuck, 69 Kan. 272: 1176,
1185, 1201, 1268, 1481.
V. State, 100 Tex. 420 : 489.
V. State, 100 Tex. 426: 489.
V. Texas & St. Louis Ey. Co., 4
Wood 360: 931, 1610.
V. Ward, 10 Kan. 325: 1353.
V. Wetz, 97 Tex. 581: 1485.
Missouri Pac. K. K. Co. v. Cambern,
66 Kan. 365: 584.
V. Cambern, 10 Kan. App. 581: 584.
V. Carter, 85 Mo. 448: 933, 955,
964, 1360.
V. Cass Co., 76 Neb. 396: 491, 1288,
1289.
V. Coon, 15 Neb. 232: 1127.
V. Dulaney, 38 Kan. 246: 1120,
1310.
V. Duncan, 87 Minn. 91 : 1150.
V. Gano, 47 Kan. 457 : 859, 1627.
V. Hays, 15 Neb. 224: 1310.
V. Houseman, 41 Kan. 300: 1018,
1020, 1513, 1626.
V. Humes, 115 U. S. 512: 487, 923.
V. Keys, 55 Kan. 205: 151.
V. Lee, 70 Tex. 496: 883.
V. Nebraska, 29 Neb. 550 : 472.
V. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403: 472,
1474.
V. Porter, 112 Mo. 361: 1277.
V. Eenfro, 52 Kan. 237: 147, 157.
V. Roberts, 187 Mo. 309: 1150.
V. Smith, 60 Ark. 221 : 483.
V. Webster, 3 Kan. App. 166: 92,
V. Wernway, 35 Mo. App. 449:
1222.
V. Wilson, 45 Mo. App. 1: 964.
Missouri Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 75 Kan.
707: 1543.
Missouri River etc. R. R. Co. v.
Owen, 8 Kan. 409: 1120, 1125,
1319.
V. Shepard, 9 Kan. 647 : 913, 1010.
Mitchell V. Bass, 33 Tex. 259: 1502.
V. Bond, 11 Bush. 614: 917.
V. Bourbon County, 25 Ky. L. R.
512: 1503.
V. Bridgewater, 10 Cush. 411 : 1078,
1354.
V. Denver, 33 Colo. 37 : 876, 884.
V. Franklin & Columbia Turnpike
Co., 3 Humph. 456: 1523.
V. Great Western R. R. Co., 35
U. C. Q. B. 148: 1680.
V. Harmony, 13 How. 115: 18.
V. Holderness, 29 N. H. 523: 1081.
V. Illinois etc. Co., 68 111. 286: 24.
V. Illinois etc. Co., 69 111. 280:
1667.
V. Illinois & St. Louis R. R. & Coal
Co., 85 111. 566: 1109.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 138
Mo. 326: 1511.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 56
Hun 543: 965, 1584.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 132
N. Y. 552: 1425.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 134
N. Y. 11: 965, 1584, 1663.
V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 82 Mo.
100: 996.
V. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co., 41
La. Ann. 363: 1546.
V. New York, Lake Erie & Western
E. R. Co., 36 Hun 177: 153.
V. Rome, 49 Ga. 19 : 229, 1452.
V. St. Louis, 14 Mo. App. 600:
607.
V. Smale, 140 U. S. 406: 109.
V. Thornton, 21 Gratt. 164: 1075,
1180.
V. White Plains, 62 Hun 231: 941,
1154, 1168, 1572.
Mithoff V. CarroUton, 12 La. Ann.
185: 440.
Mix V. Lafayette etc. R. R. Co., 67
111. 319: 448, 639, 994, 1295,
1303.
Mizell V. McGowan, 120 N. C. 134:
146.
V. McGowan, 125 N. C. 439 : 146.
V. McGowan, 129 N. C. 93 : 80, 147.
Moale V. Baltimore, 5 Md. 314: 431,
1690.
Mobile V. Fowler, 147 Ala. 403 : 886.
V. Louisville etc. E. E. Co., 84
Ala. 115: 303, 472, 1620.
V. Louisville etc. R. E. Co., 124 Ala.
132: 297, 304.
CASES CITED.
cxei
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Mobile V. Richardson, 1 Stew. & For.
(Ala.) 12: 829, 861.
Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S.
691: 10, 462.
Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Ala. Midland
R. R. Co., 87 Ala. 501 : 706, 70S,
753, 754, 758, 759, 788, 793, 796,
798.
V. Alabama Mid. R. R. Co., 87 Ala.
520: 758, 759, 793, 796, 798, 1464,
1609.
V. Alabama Midland R. R. Co., 116
Ala. 51: 246, 250, 1595.
V. Ala. Midland Ry. Co., 123 Ala.
145: 1568, 1574.
V. Bynum (Miss.) 15 So. 795: 87.
V. Cogshill, 85 Ala. 456: 870.
V. Fowle Lumber Co., 152 Ala. 320 :
1535, 1578, 1615.
V. Hester, 122 Ala. 249: 1200, 1202,
1392.
V. Hoye, 87 Miss. 571: 941, 1642.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 120 Ala.
21: 534, 773, 988, 1048, 1284,
1392, 1673.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 76 Miss.
731: 1285, 1286.
V. Riley, 119 Ala. 260: 1118, 1202.
Mobley v. Breed, 48 Ga. 44 : 1625.
Moellering v. Evans, 121 Ind. 195:
440, 441.
Moeschen v. Tenement House Dept.,
203 U. S. 583: 490.
Moetter v. Comrs. of Highways, 39
Mich. 726: 1032, 1420.
Moffett V. Brewer, 1 G. Greene 348:
70.
Moffitt V. South Park Comrs., 138
HI. 620: 881.
Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica & Schen-
ectady R. R. Co., 6 Paige, 554:
413, 726.
Mohawk etc. R. R. Co. v. Artcher, 6
Paige 83: 516, 819, 1609.
Moison V. Great Western R. R. Co.,
14 U. C. Q. B. 109: 93.
Mold T. Wheatcroft, 27 Beav. 510:
1537.
Molett V. Keenan, 22 Ala. 484: 1033.
Moll V. Benekler, 30 Wis. 584: 1384.
V. Sanitary District, 228 HI. 633:
1322, 1324.
Mollandin v. Union Pacific R. R. Co.,
4 McCrary 290: 640.
Molton V. Newburyport Water Co.,
137 Mass. 163: 1231.
Monaghan v. Memphis Fair etc. Co.,
95 Tenn. 108: 880.
Monagle v. County Comrs., 8 Gush.
360: 1707.
Monarch Mfg. Co. v. Omaha etc. Ry.
Co., 127 Iowa, 511: 157, 326.
Monqhet v. Great Western Ry. Co., 1
Ry. Cas. 567: 1611.
Monmouth v. Gardiner, 35 Maine
247: 956.
Monmouth County v. Red Bank etc.
Turnpike Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 91:
423, 1536.
Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Kirk, 46
Pa. St 112: 96.
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Blair, 20
Pa. St. 71: 691.
V. Coon, 6 Pa. St. 379: 691.
V. Coons, 6 W. & S. 101 : 108, 117.
V. United States, 148 U. S. 312:
108, 789, 790, 1158, 1173, 1174,
1199, 1261, 1264, 1266, 1272.
Monroe v. Crawford 163 Mo. 178 :
1004, 1513, 1569, 1571.
V. Danbury, 24 Conn. 199: 700.
V. Detroit etc. Ry. Co., 143 Mich.
315: 303.
Monroe Mill Co. v. Mensel, 35 Wash.
487: 81, 1604.
Monson v. County Comrs., 84 Maine
99: 1416.
Montana Central Ry. Co. v. Helena
etc. R. R. Co., 6 Mont. 416: 794.
Montana R. R. Co. v. Freerer, 29
Mont. 210: 1223, 1245, 1456.
V. Warren, 6 Mon. 275: 1129, 1236.
V. Warren, 137 U. S. 348: 1127,
1129.
Montclaire Military Academy v. N.
J. St. Ry. Co., 65 N. J. L.
328: 272, 302.
V. N. J. St. Ry. Co., 70 N. J. L.
229: 272, 302.
Montolair R. R. Co. v. Benson, 36
N. J. L. 557: 1146: 1225.
Montecito Val. Water Co. v. Santa
Barbara, 144 Cal. 578: 77, 864,
1603.
V. Santa Barbara, 151 Cal. 377:
72.
Montello, The, 20 Wall. 430: 103.
Monterey v. County Comrs., 7 Cush.
394: 701.
V. Molasin, 99 Cal. 290 : 864.
Monterey Co. v. Gushing, 83 Cal. 507 :
515, 959.
Montgomery, In re, 48 Fed. 896 : 680,
894, 976, 991, 1154.
Montgomery v. Baltimore etc. R. R.
Co., 29 Ind. App. 692: 1390.
V. Kelly, 142 Ala. 552: 479.
V. Lemle, 121 Ala. 609: 629, 1161,
1601, 1612.
v. Maddox, 89 Ala. 181: 629, 631,
636, 637, 659, 670, 1306, 1337.
cxcu
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Montgomery v. Moore, 140 Ala. 638 :
11, 463.
V. Parker, 114 Ala. 118: 193.
V. Santa Ana & W. R. R. Co., 104
Cal. 186: 172, 173, 175, 242,
243, 245, 248, 250, 270, 287, 289,
639, 642, 1630.
V. Shaver, 40 Ore. 244: 118, 127,
129.
V. Somera, 50 Ore. 259: 1124.
V. Townseud, 80 Ala. 489 : 629, 636,
659, 671, 1306.
V. Townsend, 84 Ala. 478 : 636.
Montgomery Co. v. Schuylkill Bridge
Co., 110 Pa. St. 54: 781, 1231,
1233, 1261, 1264, 1275.
Montgomery etc. Ry. Co. v. Sayre, 72
Ala. 443: 1112.
V. Varner, 19 Ala. 185: 1123.
V. Waltan, 14 Ala. N. S. 207 : 1461,
1469, 1619.
Montgomery Gas Lt. Co. v. City
Council, 87 Ala. 245: 411.
Montgomery Lt. & W. P. Co. v. Citi-
zens' Lt. H. & P. Co., 142 Ala.
462: 360, 408, 418.
Montgomery Southern Ry. Co. v.
Sayre, 72 Ala. 443: 1159.
Montgomery Township Road, 15 Pa.
Co. Ct. 384: 983.
Montgomery Gravel R. Co. v. Rock,
41 Ind. 263: 1316.
■ V. Stockton, 43 Ind. 328: 1205,
1310, 1311, 1445.
Montour K. Co. v. Scott, 1 Penny
503: 1317.
Montreal v. Drummond, L. R. 1 H.
L. 384: 371, 380, 392.
Montrose Canal Co. v. Loutsenhiser
Ditch Co., 23 Colo. 223 : 73.
Moody V. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key
West R. R. Co., 20 Fla. 597:
1163, 1170, 1467.
V. Saratoga Springs, 17 App. Div.
N. Y. 207: 83, 84, 85, 1605.
V. Saratoga Springs, 163 N. Y. 581 :
84, 85.
Mooers v. Kennebec & Portland R. R.
Co., 58 Maine 279: 1537, 1579.
Moon V. Sandown, 19 N. H. 93: 1081.
Mooney v. Clark, 69 Conn. 241 : 487.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 13 App.
Div. 380:. 1562.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 16
Daly 145: 1305.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 163
N. Y. 242: 1554, 1S62.
Moore's Appeal, 68 Maine 405 : 1399.
Moore v. Albany, 98 N. Y. 396: 230,
231, 442.
V. Ange, 125 Ind. 562: 513.
Moore v. Atlanta, 70 Ga. 611: 629,
1306, 1601, 1612.
V. Bailey, 8 Mo. App. 156: 1412.
V. Boston, 8 Cush. 274: 940, 1683,
1712.
V. Camden etc. Ry. Co., 73 N. J.
L. 599: 275, 1630.
V. Cape Girardeau, 103 Mo. 470:
890.
V. Clear Lake W. W., 68 Cal. 146:
73.
V. Great Southern etc. R. R. Co.,
10 Irish C. L. 46: 631, 1550.
V. Hancock, 11 Ala. 245: 1403.
V. Mclntyre, 110 Mich. 237: 1416.
V. New York, 8 N. Y. 110: 943,
944, 945, 946.
V. New York, 4 Sandf. 456: 943,
944.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 130 N.
Y. 523: 1296, 1298, 1333, 1652.
V. Roberts, 64 Wis. 538: 1520.
V. Sanford, 151 Mass. 285: 543,
1572, 1577.
V. Street Passenger R. R. Co., 3
Phila. 417: 1101.
V. Superior & St. Croix R. R. Co.,
34 Wis. 173: 698.
Moore Tp. Road, 17 Pa. St. 116: 1081.
Moorehead v. Little Miami R. R. Co.,
17 Ohio 340: 729, 1572.
Moores v. Bel Air W. & L. Co., 79
Md. 391: 1429.
Moorman v. Seattle etc. R. R. Co.,
8 Wash. 98: 852.
Moose V. Carson, 104 N. C. 431 : 183,
366, 377, 378, 388.
Moran v. Lydecker, 11 Abb. N. C.
298: 1583.
V. McClarus, 63 Barb. 185: 155.
V. Ross, 79 Cal. 159: 9, 524, 674,
683, 684.
V. Ross, 79 Cal. 549: 1192, 1200.
V. Troy, 9 Hun 540: 13.
Moravian Seminary v. Bethlehem, 153
Pa. St. 583: 1671, 1685.
Mordhurst v. Ft. Wayne etc. Traction
Co., 163 Ind. 268: 285, 289, 313,
334.
Morean v. Ditchernendy, 18 Mo. 522 :
943.
Morehouse v. Burgot, 22 Ohio C. C.
174: 1491.
Morey v. Fitzgerald, 56 Vt. 487 : 433.
Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa 82 : 465.
Morgan's Appeal, 39 Mich. 675 : 1058,
1346, 1378.
Morgan v. Banta, 1 Bibb. 579: 779.
v. Binghamton, 32 Hun 602: 83,
453, 1606.
CASES CITED.
CXClll
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Morgan v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 36
Mich. 428: 1025, 1420.
V. Des Moines & St. Louia Ry. Co.,
64 Iowa 589: 620.
V. King, 18 Barb. 277: 97.
V. King, 35 N. Y. 454: 97.
V. Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co., 130
Ind. 101: 1631.
V. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 4 L. R.
C P 97 ■ 1533
V. Miller, 59 Iowa 481 : 1568.
V. Monmouth Plank Road Co., 26
N. J. L. 99: 422.
V. New York & M. R. R. Co., 130
N. Y. 692: 1528
V. Oliver, 98 Tex. 218: 1005, 1008,
1013, 1014, 1513.
V. Reading, 3 S. & M. 366 : 104.
Morgan Civil Township v. Hunt,
104 Ind. 590: 1383.
Morgan R. R. etc. Co., Matter of, 32
La. Ann. 371: 1257.
Morgan's La. etc. Co. v. Bui'guieres
Co., 110 La. 9: 1397, 1422.
Morgan's La. & Tex. R. R. Co. v. Bar-
ton, 51 La. Ann. 1338: 1426.
V. Bourdier, 1 McGloin La. 232:
807, 954, 1017.
Morin v. Railroad Co., 30 Minn. 100:
1329.
v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 30 Minn.
100: 1225.
Moritz v. St. Paul, 52 Minn. 409:
1564.
Morley v. Buchanan, 124 Mich. 128:
159, 233.
Morrell v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 49
Minn. 526: 315, 1635.
Morrill V. Mackman, 24 Mich. 279:
858.
V. Wabash etc. R. R. Co., 96 Mo.
174: 841, 1502.
Morris v. Baltimore, 44 Md. 598:
1324.
V. Chicago, 11 111. 650: 1423.
V. Council Blufifs, 67 Iowa 343:
234.
V. Edwards, 132 Wis. 91: 400, 1018,
1098, 1513.
. V. Healy Lumber Co., 33 Wash.
451: 1667.
v. Heppenheimer, 54 N. J. L. 268 :
923, 927, 928.
v. Montgomery Traction Co., 143
Ala. 246: 272
V. New York, 55 Hun 476: 1087,
1391, 1511, 1576.
V. Philadelphia, 70 Pa. St. 333:
1325.
V. Philadelphia, 199 Pa. St. 357:
378, 406, 1595.
Morris v. Pueblo, 12 Colo. App. 290:
1358.
V. Salle (Ky.) 19 S. W. 527: 990,
1004, 1407.
v. Sault Ste Marie, 143 Mich. 672:
226, 1650, 1656.
V. Schallsville Branch etc., 4 Bush.
448: 818.
V. Turnpike Road, 6 Bush. 671:
1496.
V. Washington County, 72 Neb.
174: 710, 738, 1154, 1158.
V. Wisconsin Midland R. R. Co., 82
Wis. 541: 330.
Morris Aqueduct v. Jones, 36 N. J.
L. 206: 1404.
Morris Ave., Matter of, 56 App. Div.
122: 364.
Morris Ave., Matter of, 118 App. Div.
117: 1564.
Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. Town-
send, 24 Barb. 658: 684, 745.
Morris Canal Co. v. Jersey, 12 N. J.
Eq. 547: 432.
V. Jersey City, 12 N. J. Eq. 252:
432.
v. State, 24 N. J. L. 62 : 782.
Morris Canal etc. Co. v. Central R.
R. Co., 16 N. J. Eq. 419: 1576.
v. Ryerson, 27 N. J. L. 457: 847,
848, 1456.
V. Seward, 23 N. J. L. 219: 1459,
1667.
v. State, 14 N. J. L. 411: 1414,
1417.
Morris & C. Dredging Co. v. Jersey
^ City, 64 N. J. L. 587: 351, 372.
Morris etc. Co. v. Delaware etc. R.
R. Co., 190 Pa. St. 448: 1232.
Morris etc. R. R. Co. v. Blair, 9 N.
J. Eq. 635: 900, 901, 904, 906.
V. Central R. R. Co., 31 N. J. L.
205: 693, 728, 765.
V. Green, 15 N. J. Eq. 469: 833,
856.
V. Hoboken etc. R. R. Co., 68 N.
J. Eq. 328: 737.
V. Hudson Tunnel R. R. Co., 25
N. J. Eq. 384: 434, 1159, 1570.
V. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352: 243,
254, 297, 315, 322.
V. Newark Pass. R. R. Co., 51 N.
J. Eq. 379: 328, 765, 708.
V. Orange, 63 N. J. L. 252: 1291.
V. Prudden, 19 N. J. Eq. 386: 1588.
V. Prudden, 20 N. J. Eq. 530: 297,
406, 1588.
Morrison v. Bucksport & Bangor R.
R. Co., 67 Maine 353: 147, 157.
V. Fairmont etc. Traction Co., 60
W. Va. 441: 1129, 1180, 1202.
CXCIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Morrison v. Fonnan, 177 111. 427:
689, 1049.
V. Hinkaon, 87 111. 587: 197, 355,
643, 654, 1137.
V. Indianapolis etc. Ry. Co., 166
Ind. 511: 893, 894, 1042, 1047
V. Morey, 146 Mo. 543: 13, 586.
V. Rice, 35 Minn. 436: 943.
V. Semple, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 94: 53.
V. Thistle Coal Co., 119 Iowa 705:
513, 532.
Morrissey v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 38
Neb. 406: 150, 151, 157.
Morristown v. East Tenn. Telephone
Co., 115 Fed. 304: 343, 360, 361.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 3 Mont.
Co. L. Rep. 5: 304.
Morrow v. Commonwealth, 48 Pa.
St. 305: 728.
V. Highland Grove Traction Co.,
219 Pa. St. 619: 420, 872, 875,
1618.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 81
Tex. 405: 256, 640, 1294, 1337.
Morse v. Stockee, 1 Allen 150: 439,
1571.
V. Wheeler, 69 N. H. 292: 1410.
Morseman v. Ionia, 32 Mich. 283:
893, 894.
Morss V. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 2
Cush. 536: 1345.
Morss, Petitioner, 18 Pick. 443: 1343,
1345, 1438, 1439.
Mortimer v. Manhattan R. R. Co.,
129 N. Y. 81: 941,' 1664.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 57 N. Y.
Supr. 509: 1665.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 5mJ.
Y. Supr. Ct. 244: 180, 264.
V. Southwestern Ry. Co., 102 E. C.
L. R. 374: 1529.
V. Southwestern Ry. Co., 1 Ellis &
Ellis 375: 1529.
V. Southwestern Ry. Co., 38 L. J.
Q. B. 129: 1529.
Morton v. Burlington, 106 Iowa 50:
603, 617.
V. Franklin Co., 62 Maine 455 : 976.
v. New York, 65 Hun 32: 456.
V. New York, 140 N. Y. 207: 92,
456, 714.
Moseley v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 54
Neb. 636: 850.
V. York Shore Water Co., 94 Maine
83: 675, 733, 1060.
Moses V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co.,
21 111. 516: 200, 243, 251, 726.
V. St. Louis Sectional Dock Co.,
84 Mo. 242: 893, 894, 1036, 1520,
1626.
V. Sandford, 11 Lea 731: 410, 1261.
Mosier v. Ore. Nav. Co., 39 Ore. 256:
440, 441, 1453.
Moss V. St. Louis, Iron Mt. etc. Ry.
Co., 85 Mo. 86: 153, 1457, 1473.
Mossman v. Forrest, 27 Ind. 233:
1365.
Molitor v. First Division of St. Paul
etc. R. R. Co., 14 Minn. 285:
247.
Mott V. Consumers Water Co., 188
Pa. St. 521: 74.
V. Eno, 97 App. Div. 580: 687,
806, 813.
V. Eno, 181 N. Y. 346: 687, 806,
813.
V. New York, 2 Hilton 358: 236.
Mottman v. Olympia, 45 Wash. 361 :
371, 384, 392, 399, 647.
Moulton V. Newburyport W. Co., 137
Mass. 167: 1237, 1263.
Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. Mil-
ler, 170 Mo. 240 : 577.
Moundsville v. Ohio R. R. Co., 37
W. Va. 92: 306, 315, 1643, 1644.
Mt. Adams etc. R. R. Co. v. Winslow,
3 Ohio C. C. 425: 272, 1587,
1590.
Mountain Park Terminal Ry. Co. v.
Field, 76 Ark. 239: 494, 497,
1041, 1044, 1568, 1572.
Mt. Auburn Cable R. R. Co. v. Neare,
54 Ohio St. 153: 302, 316, 1587.
Mt. Carmel v. Bell, 52 111. App. 427 :
349, 378, 1487, 1594.
V. Shaw, 155 111. 37: 399.
V. Shaw, 52 111. App. 429: 349, 399,
1487, 1594.
Mt. Clemens v. Macomb Circ. Judge,
119 Mich. 293: 739, 1085.
V. Mt. Clemens Sanitarium Co., 127
Mich. 115: 873.
Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158
Mass. 509: 459.
Mountjoy v. Oldham, 1 A. K. Marsh.
535: 1359.
Mount Morris Square, Matter of, 2
Hill 14: 1393, 1417.
Mt. Olive V. Hunt, 51 N. J. L. 274:
1363, 1365, 1368, 1421.
Mount Pleasant Ave., Matter of, 10'
R. L 320: 1019.
Mt. Pleasant Coal Co. v. Delaware
etc. R. R. Co., 200 Pa. St. 434:
864, 1485, 1646.
Mount Sterling v. Givens, 17 111.
255: 1136.
V. Jephson, 21 Ky. L. R. 1028: 630,
634.
lit. Vernon v. Young, 124 Iowa 517:
877.
CASES CITED.
CXCT
(The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719,]
Mt. Washington R. R. Co., Petition
of, 35 N. H. 146: 1198.
Mt. Washington R. R. Co. v. Coe,
50 Fed. 637: 931.
Mt. Washington Road Co., Petition
of, 35 N. H. 134: 22, 514, 540,
923, 1177, 1272.
Mountz V. Philadelphia etc. R. R.
Co., 203 Pa. St. 128: 936, 1560.
Mouser's Case, 12 Coke 62: 16, 17.
Mowrey v. Boston, 173 Mass. 425:
1330.
Mowry v. Providence, 16 R. I. 422:
420, 1493, 1618.
Moyer v. New York Cent. etc. R. R.
Co., 88 N. Y. 351 : 89.
V. Preston, 6 Wyo. 308: 70.
Moyer Street, In re, 6 Phila. 81 :
1341.
Moynahan v. Superior Court, 42
Wash. 172: 1025.
Mueller v. St. Louis & Iron Mt. R.
R. Co., 31 Mo. 262: 1634.
Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623:
477, 568.
Muhle V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
86 Tex. 459: 1502.
Muhlker v. New York etc. R. R. Co.
60 App. Div. 621: 257.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 173
N. Y. 549: 256, 257, 258, 358.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 197
U. S. 544: 181, 258, 259.
Muir V. Johnson, 49 Wash. 66: 1607.
Muire v. Falconer, 10 Gratt. 12:
1027, 1029, 1407.
Mulholland v. Des Moines etc. R.
R. Co., 60 la. 740: 691, 1550,
1718.
Mull V. Indianapolis etc. Traction
Co., 169 Ind. 214: 498, 503, 525,
675, 688, 739.
Mullen V. Lake Drummond C. & W.
Co., 130 N. C. 496: 1454, 1456,
1649, 1653.
Muller V. Earle, 35 N. Y. Supr. Ct.
461: 1257.
V. Southern Pao. R. R. Co., 83
Cal. 240: 639, 1146, 1231, 1242,
1293.
Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206 : 972,
1004, 1007, 1011, 1013.
MuUiner v. Midland R. R. Co., L. R.
11 Ch. Div. 611: 1475.
Mullins V. Met St. Ry. Co., 126 Mo.
App. 507: 862, 1507.
Mumford v. Terry, 2 N. C. L. R. 425 :
1523.
V. Whitney, 15 Wend. 380: 857.
Mumpower v. Bristol, 90 Va. 151:
71, 76.
Mums V. Isle of Wight R. R. Co.,
17 W. R. 1081: 851.
Muncy Elec. L. H. & P. Co. v. Peo-
ple's Elec. L. H. & P. Co., 218
Pa. St. 636: 410, 412.
Muncey v. Joest, 74 Ind. 409: 1033,
1518.
Muncie Nat. Gas Co. v. Allison, 31
Ind. App. 50: 1221, 1251, 1456.
Vluncie Pulp Co. v. Keesling, 166
Ind. 479: 81.
V. Martin, 164 Ind. 30: 81.
Mundorf v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
62 Hun 465: 1252.
Mundy v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
75 Hun 479: 92, 93, 94, 456.
v. Water Comrs., 75 N. J. L. 25:
828.
Hunger v. St. Paul, 57 Minn. 9:
194, 224.
Municipality No. 1, 8 La. Ann. 377:
1020.
Municipality No. 1 v. Millanden, 12
La. Ann. 769: 1566.
V. Young, 5 La. Ann. 362: 701.
Municipality No. 2 v. White, 9 La.
Ann. 446 : 12.
Municipality No. 2 for opening Em-
phrosine St., 7 La. Ann. 72:
1159.
Munkers v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co. 60 Mo. 334: 152, 157.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 72
Mo. 514: 152, 157.
Munkwitz v. Chicago, Milwaukee &
St. Paul R. R. Co., 64 Wis. 402:
nil, 1150, 1242.
Munn v. Boston, 183 Mass. 421, 239,
376, 391, 402, 428, 1338.
V. Corbin, 8 Colo. App. 113: 486.
v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113: 480, 482,
483.
V. People, 69 111. 80 : 14.
V. People, 94 U. S. 113: 14.
Munro v. Newry etc. R. E. Co., 2
Irish Ch. 260: 1566.
Munson, Matter of, 29 Hun 325:
1670.
Munson v. Blake, 101 Ind. 78: 1371,
1383, 1404.
V. Board of Comrs., 43 La. Ann.
15: 12.
V. Brimfield Manf. Co., 15 Pick.
554: 1345.
V. Mallory, 36 Conn. 165: 357.
Murdock v. Prospect Park & Conev
Island R. R. Co., 10 Hun 598":
322.
v. Prospect Park & Coney Island
R. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 579 : 857.
CXCVl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Murdock v. Stickney, 8 Cush. 113:
112, 544, 549, 554, 557, 559.
Murhard Estate Co. v. Portland etc.
Ry. Co., 163 Fed. 194: 928, 931,
1108.
Murphy v. Beard, 138 Ind. 560 : 459,
1010.
V. Boston, 120 Mass. 419: 605.
V. Chicago, 29 111. 279: 200, 210,
243.
V. Groot, 44 Cal. 51: 1461, 1570.
V. Indianapolis, 158 Ind. 238: 143.
V. King Co., 45 Wash. 587: 1493.
V. Kingston etc. E. E. Co., 11 Ont-
tario 302 : 729.
V. Kingston etc. R. E. Co., 11 On-
tario 582: 729.
V. Southern Ey. Co., 99 6a. 207:
1614.
Murray v. Allegheny, 136 Fed. 57:
420.
V. Comrs., of Berkshire, 12 Met.
455 : 422.
V. Gibson, 21 111. App. 488: 172,
336.
V. Grass Lake, 125 Mich. 2 : 138.
V. Mefee, 20 Ark. 561: 411.
V. Norfolk Co., 149 Mass. 328:
807.
V. Pannaci, 64 N. J. Eq. 147: 166.
V. Preston, 106 Ky. 561: 97, 113.
V. Sharp, 1 Bos. 539 : 139.
V. Thompson, 35 U. C. Q. B. 28:
1535.
Murray Hill Land Co. v. Milwaukee
Lt. H. & T. Co., 110 Wis. 555:
325, 1597.
V. Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., 126
Wis. 14: 1135, 1136.
Murtha v. Lovewell, 166 Mass. 391:
457.
Murtry v. Metropolitan El. E. E.
Co., 14 Miscl. 284: 1152.
Musgrove St., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 180:
1357.
Music V. Kansas City etc. E. E. Co.,
124 Mo. 544: 1517.
Musick V. Kansas City etc. E. E. Co.,
114 Mo. 309: 927, 1369, 1511.
Muskego V. Drainage Comrs., 78 Wis.
40: 1020.
Musser v. Hershey, 42 la. 356: 104,
129.
Mussey v. Cahoon, 34 Me. 74: 1343.
Mutual Union Tel. Co. v. Katkamp,
103 111. 420: 1380.
Mver's Appeal, 153 Pa. St. 276:
1358.
Jryor V. Schuylkill Eiv. E. E. Co., 17
Phila. 468: 1236.
Myers v. Bell Tel. Co., 83 App. Div.
G23; 1630.
Myers v. Charlotte, 146 N. C. 246:
1133.
V. Chicago etc. IJv. Co., 118 la.
312: 931.
V. Daubeuliss, 84 Cal. 1: 1505,
1572.
V. Delaware etc. E. E. Co., 3 Lu-
zerne Leg. Eeg. Eep. 347: 918.
V. Kenyon, 7 Cal. App. 112: 877.
V. McGavock, 39 Neb. 843: 686.
T. Oceanside, 7 Cal. App. 87: 875,
886, 888.
V. Old Mission & Whitbeek Eoad,
7 la. 315: 1404.
V. Pownal, 16 Vt. 415: 1428.
V. St. Louis, 82 Mo. 367 : 127.
V. Schuylkill Eiv. E. S. E. E. Co.,
5 Pa. Co. Ct. 634: 1151.
V. Schuylkill Eiv. E. S. R. E. Co.,
19 Phil. 468: 1319.
V. Simms, 4 la. 500: 1396.
V. South Bethlehem, 149 Pa. St.
85: 1682.
N.
Nadin, Ex parte, 17 L. J. Ch. 421:
1258.
Nagel V. Lindell Ey. Co., 167 Mo. 89:
272, 622, 642.
Nahant v. United States, 136 Fed.-
273: 56, 462, 737, 779, 1346.
Nally V. Pennsylvania R. E. Co., 177
111. 117: 881.
Names v. Comrs. of Highways, 30
Mich. 490: 1032, 1412.
Nankin v. State, 2 Swan 206: 1511.
Nanticoke, Street in, 4 Luzerne Leg.
Eeg. Rep. 464: 1083.
Nanticoke, Street in, 4 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 513: 1087.
Napa V. Howland, 87 Cal. 84: 883.
Napier v. Brooklyn, 41 N. Y. App.
Div. 274: 966.
Narehold v. Westport, 71 Mo. App.
508: 357.
Nash V. Clark, 198 U. S. 361: 504.
V. Clark, 27 Utah 158: 495, 504,
587, 596, 597.
V. Lowry, 37 Minn. 261: 297, 299.
Nashua's Petition, 12 N. H. 425:
1081.
Nashua River Paper Co. v. Com-
monwealth, 184 Mass. 279: 1271.
Nashville v. Comr., 88 Tenn. 415:
1651, 1656, 1661, 1662.
V. Nichols, 3 Bax. 338: 613, 710.
Nashville etc. R. E. Co. v. Coward-
ine, 11 Humph. 348: 714.
V. Hammond, 104 Ala. 191: 835,
836.
V. Hobbs, 120 Ala. 600: 979, 1382,
1520, 1626.
V. Karthaus, 150 Ala. 633: 1480.
Nasmith, In re, 2 Ontario 192 : 485.
OASES CITED.
CXCVll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp- 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-171!!.]
Nason v. Woonsoeket Union R. R.
Co., 4 R. I. 377: 1251, 1455.
Nassau Cable Co., Matter of, 2 How.
Pr. N. S. 124: 922.
Nassau Cable Co., Matter of, 36 Hun
272: 921.
Nassau Electric R. R. Co., In re,
85 Hun 446: 922.
Nasson v. Railroad, 122 N. C. 856:
864.
Natick Gas Lt. Co. v. Natick, 175
Mass. 246: 352.
Natchez etc. R. R. Co. v. Currie, 62
Miss. 506: 1634.
Natchitoches Ry. & C. Co. v. Henry,
109 La. 669: 1379.
National Bank v. Matthews, 98 U.
S. 621: 837.
National Docks R. R. Co. v. Central
R. R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755: 676,
683, 712, 716, 748, 768, 1047.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 54 N. J. Eq.
10: 1611.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 54 N. J. Eq.
142: 1281.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 57 N. J. L.
265: 1281.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 57 N.
J. L. 637: 1281.
v. State, 52 N. J. L. 90: 765.
V. State, 53 N. J. L. 217: 765.
V. United N. J. R. etc. Co., 52 N.
J. Eq. 366: 1462.
V. United N. J. R. R. Co., 52 N.
J. L. 90: 767, 768, 769, 1281.
V. United N. J. R. R. Co., 53 N.
J. L. 217: 716, 766, 767, 768,
769, 985, 1250, 1281.
National Fibre Board Co. v. Lewis-
ton etc. Lt. Co., 95 Me. 318:
898, 899.
National Tel. Co. v. Baker, L. R.
(1893) 2 Ch. D. 186: 417.
National Water Works Co. v. Kansas
City, 65 Fed. Rep. 691 : 858.
V. Kansas City, 20 Mo. App. 237:
352
Natoma W. & M. Co. v. Catkin, 14
Cal. 544: 837.
Navan etc. R. R. Co., In re, 10 Irish
Rep. Eq. 113: 1323.
Neal V. Knox & Lincoln R. R. Co.,
61 Me. 298: 940, 1368.
V. Neal, 122 Ga. 804: 521, 990.
V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 47 W. Va.
316: 92, 148, 1.50, 1.58.
V. Pittsburgh & Connelsville R. R.
Co., 2 Grant's Cases, 137: 1391,
1681.
V. Pittsburgh & Connelsville R. R.
Co., 31 Pa. St. 19: 1566, 1681.
Neal V. Portland, 85 Me. 62: 919.
V. Rochester, 88 Hun 614: 78.
V. Rochester, 156 N. Y. 213: 78,
1603.
Neale v. Cogar, 1 A. K. Marsh. 589:
1358.
V. Superior Court, 77 Cal. 28:
1469.
Nealy v. Brown, 6 111. 10: 928,
1517.
Nebraska City v. Lampkin, C Neb.
27: 211.
V. Northcutt, 45 Neb. 456: 1549,
[ 1664.
Nebraska etc. R. R. Co. v. Scott, 31
Neb. 571: 324, 640, 1427.
V. Storer, 22 Neb. 90: 1401.
Nebraska R. R. Co. v. Van Dusen,
6 Neb. 160: 1395, 1399, 1400.
Nebraska Tel. Co. v. Western Inde-
pendent L. D. T. Co., 68 Neb.
772- 342 359.
V. Yoik Gas &'e1. Light Co., 27
Neb. 284: 346, 418, 911.
Nedow V. Porter, 122 Mich. 456:
957.
Ned's Point Battery, In re (1903),
2 L R. 192: 1244, 1252, 1313,
1341.
Needham v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
152 Mass. 61: 1643.
Neeld's Road, 1 Pa. St. 353: 955,
1005.
Neely v. Western Allegheny R. R.
Co., 219 Pa. St. 349: 1120, 1140.
Neff V. Cincinnati, 32 Ohio St. 215:
1113.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 202 Pa. St.
371: 428, 1263, 1338.
V. Reed, 98 Ind. 341: 50;!, 575,
723 1115
V. Smith, 91 la. 87: 1505.
Neff's Road, 3 S. & R. 210: 1091,
1094.
Nehall v. Galena etc. R. R. Co., 14
111. 273: 717.
Neilson v. Chicago, Mil. N. W. Ry.
Co., 58 Wis. 516: 1123, 1180,
1251.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 91 Wis.
557: 1323.
Neis V. Franzen, 18 Wis. 537: 1513.
Neitsey v. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co.,
5 Mackey 34 : 245, 248, 250, 309,
316, 1298.
Nelson v. Butterfield, 21 Me. 220:
960, 990, 1135.
V. Fehd, 203 111. 120: 1488.
V. Fehd, 104 111. App. 114: 1488.
V. Fleming, 56 Ind. 310: 808, 1500,
1707, 1708.
CXCVlll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Nelson v. Goodykoontz, 47 la. 32:
1673.
v. Harlan Co., 2 Neb. (Unof.) 537:
707, 1514, 1569, 1571.
V. Jenkins, 42 Neb. 133: 865, 869.
V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 40
Minn. 131: 475, 1317.
V. Miss. & Rum Riv. Boom Co., 99
Minn. 484: 86.
V. Randolph, 222 111. 531: 877, 886,
892.
V. Sneed, 76 Neb. 201: 868.
V. Vermont & Canada R. R. Co.,
26 Vt. 717: 487.
V. West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497:
231, 1306, 1307.
V. Yamhill County, 41 Ore. 560:
980.
Nemasket Mills v. Taunton, 166
Mass. 540: 74.
Neponset Meadow Co. v. Tileson, 133
Mass. 189: 458.
Nesbitt V. Trumbo, 39 111. 110: 494,
496, 516, 517.
Nescopeck Road, 1 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 316: 1094.
Neselhous v. Walker, 45 Wash. 621:
69.
Nette V. New York El. R. R. Co.,
1 Miscl. 342: 1196, 1300.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 2 Miscl.
62: 1196, 1216, 1300.
Newbert v. Toledo, 9 Ohio C. C. 462 :
220, 616.
Nevada & M. R. R. Co. v. De Lissa,
103 Mo. 125: 1119, 1123, 1672,
1675.
Nevins v. Peoria, 41 111. 502: 66,
232, 235.
New V. Ewing, 1 A. K. Marshall 55:
1017.
Newago Mfg. Co. v. Chicago etc. R.
R. Co., 64 Mich. 114: 1602.
New Albany v. Ray, 3 Ind. App. 321 :
160.
V. White, 100 Ind. 206: 1570.
V. Williams, 126 Ind. 1: 873, 882.
New Albany & Salem R. R. Co. v.
Connelly, 7 Ind. 32: 1163, 1165,
1571.
V. Higman, 18 Ind. 77: 157.
V. Huff, 19 Ind. 315: 1123.
V. O'Dailey, 12 Ind. 551: 246, 251,
1582.
V. O'Dailey, 13 Ind. 353: 251, 1550.
Newark v. Watson, 56 N. J. L. 667:
469.
V. Weeks, 71 N. J. L. 448: 608,
619, 1308.
Newark Aqueduct Board v. Passaic,
45 N. J. Eq. 393: 85, 1607.
T. Passaic, 46 N. J. Eq. 552:
1614.
New Bedford v. Co. Comrs., 9 Gray
346: 1683.
New Bedford R. R. Co. v. Aeushnet
R. R. Co., 143 Mass. 200: 762.
New Boston's Petition, 49 N. H. 328:
1081.
New Brighton v. Peirsol, 107 Pa. St.
280: 630, 636.
V. United Presbyterian Church, 96
Pa. St. 331: 630, 632, 636.
New Brighton etc. R. R. Co. v.
Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., 105
Pa. St. 13: 900,901.
New Britain v. Sargent, 42 Conn.
137: 1342.
Newburyport Water Co. v. Newbury-
port, 85 Fed. 723: 1173, 1261,
1265.
V. Newburyport, 168 Mass. 541:
740, 1261, 1265.
V. Newburyport, 193 U. S. 561:
740, 788.
Newburg Turnpike Co. v. Miller, 5
Johns. Ch. 101: 410.
Newby v. Platte County, 25 Mo. 258 :
13, 1186.
New Castle's Petition, In re, 16 Pa.
Co. Ct. 478: 1309.
New Castle v. Central D. & P. Tel.
Co., 207 Pa. St. 371: 343, 361.
491.
V. Commissioners, 87 Me. 227 : 973,
984, 995.
V. Lake Erie etc. R. R. Co., 155
Ind. 18: 260, 866.
V. Raney, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 87: 484.
New Castle etc. R. R. Co. v. Mc-
Chesney, 85 Pa. St. 522: 620.
V. Brumback, 5 Ind. 543: 1118,
1205.
V. Peru & Indianapolis R. R. Co.,
3 Ind. 464: 764.
New Central Coal Co. v. George's
Creek Coal & Iron Co.,' 37 Md.
537: 494, 498, 530, 1159, 1570.
Newcomb v. Royce, 42 Neb. 323:
1046.
V. Smith, 1 Chandler, 71: 550, 553,
672, 923, 1164.
New Decatur v. Seharfenburg, 147
Ala. 367: 629, 634, 1353, 1601,
1612.
Newell V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
35 Minn. 112: 240, 269, 279, 282,
296, 313, 335.
V. Sass, 142 111. 104: 182, 877,
1595.
V. Smith, 15 Wis. 101: 937, 1170,
1547.
V. Smith, 26 Wis. 582: 1537.
V. Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 486: 707.
CASES CITED.
CXCIX
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
New England R. R. Co. v. Board of
Comrs., 171 Mass. 135: 825.
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Bos-
ton Terminal Co., 182 Mass. 397 :
334, 358, 360.
New England Trout & Salmon Club
V. Mather, 68 Vt. 338: 109, 112,
561.
Newgass v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
54 Ark. 140: 1222, 1243, 1251,
1319, 1320, 1329, 1347, 1516.
New Hamburg etc. R. R. Co., In re,
76 Hun 76; 919.
New Hannover Road, 18 Pa. St. 220 ;
1103.
New Haven v. Heminway, 7 Conn.
186: 129.
v. New Haven & D. R. R. Co., 62
Conn. 252: 833.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 72
Conn. 225: 882, 1004.
V. Sargent, 38 Conn. 50: 1489,
1490.
New Haven etc. R. R. Co. v. County
Comrs., 173 Mass. 12: 825.
New Haven & Northampton Co. v.
Northampton, 102 Mass. 116:
1439.
New Haven Steam Saw Mill Co. v.
New Haven, 72 Conn. 276: 1324.
New Haven Water Co. v. Walling-
ford, 72 Conn. 293: 784, 802,
908.
New Jersey etc. R. R. Co. v. Suydam,
17 N. J. L. 25: 1242, 1318,
1385.
V. Tutt, 168 Ind. 205: 1119, 1120,
1176, 1222, 1245, 1251, 1310,
1314, 1445.
New Jersey Midland Ry. Co. v. Van
Syekle, 37 N. J. L. 496; 851,
854, 859.
New Jersey So. R. R. Co. v. Chand-
ler, 65 N. J. L. 173: 1419.
New Jersey Southern R. R. Co. v.
Long Branch Comrs., 39 N. J.
L. 28: 750, 793.
New Jersey Zinc & I. Co. v. Morris
C. & B. Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 398:
119, 132.
New London v. Davis, 74 N. H. 56 :
1515.
New Madrid Co. v. Phillip, 125 Mo.
61: 954, 966, 1556.
Newman v. Chicago, 153 111. 469;
912, 914.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 118
N. Y. 618: 180, 265, 1176, 1196,
1216, 1296, 1297, 1300.
New Marlborough v. County Comrs.,
9 Met. 423; 1028.
New Mexican R. R. Co. v. Hendricks,
6 N. M. 611: 254, 1124, 1125,
1294, 1550.
New Milford Water Co. v. Watson,
75 Conn. 237: 936, 1043, 1112,
1242, 1323, 1423, 1434.
New Odorless Sewerage Co. v. Wis-
dom, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 224; 82.
New & Old Decatur Belt etc. R. R.
Co. V. Karcher, 112 Ala. 676:
674, 706, 958.
New Orleans, In re, 20 La. An. 394:
440, 1137.
New Orleans v. Cotonio, 111 La. 545:
1397, 1422.
v. Elliott, 10 La. Ann. 59 : 12.
V. Manfree, 111 La. 927; 1143.
V. Morgan, 111 La. 851: 1378.
V. Murat, 119 La. 1093; 467.
V. Shroeder, 111 La. 653: 1378.
V. Sohr, 16 La. An. 393; 706,
972.
V. Steinharde, 52 La. An. 1043:
514, 678, 1057, 1378.
V. United States, 10 Pet. p. 723:
787.
New Orleans City R. R. Co. v. Cres-
cent City R. R. Co., 12 Fed. 308 :
301.
New Orleans Drainage Co., 11 La.
An. 338: 12, 569, 583.
New Orleans etc., 20 La. Ann. 407:
12.
New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. Barton,
43 La. An. 171: 1144, 1334.
V. Bougere, 23 La. An. 803: 1035.
v. Brown, 64 Miss. 479: 441, 1506.
V. Canal & C. R. R. Co., 47 La.
An. 1476: 427, 762, 763, 764,
1283
V. Delamore, 114 U. S. 501: 242.
V. Drake, 60 Miss. 621 : 927.
V. Frank, 39 La. An. 707 : 1426.
V. Frederick, 46 Miss. 1 : 1036.
V. Gay, 32 La. An. 471 : 807, 808,
813, 1061, 1075.
V. Hemphill, 35 Miss. 17: 929,
1000, 1084, 1094.
V. Jones, 68 Ala. 48; 1161, 1631.
V. Lagarde, 10 La. An. 150: 1183.
V. McNeeley, 47 La. An. 1298:
1378.
V. Morese, 48 La. An. 1273: 1426.
V. Moye, 39 Miss. 374: 253, 1179.
V. New Orleans, 26 La. An. 517:
253, 297.
V. New Orleans, 44 La. An. 728:
208. .301.
V. New Orleans, 44 La. An. 748 :
197, 298, 301.
CO
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
New Orleans etc. K. R. Co. v. Ra-
basse, 44 La. An. 178: 931, 1426.
V. Second Municipality, 1 La. An.
128: 304.
V. Southern & Atlantic Tel. Co., 53
Ala. 211: S34, 773, 791, 1043,
1425.
V. Zerringue, 23 La. Ann. 521:
1380.
New Orleans Gas. Co. v. Louisiana
Lt. Co., 115 U. S. 650: 410, 492,
736.
New Orleans Gas Lt. Co. v. Drain-
age Commission, 111 La. 838:
354.
V. Drainage Commission, 197 U. S.
453: 354.
New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gay,
31 La. Ann. 430: 807, 1183.
V. Murrell, 36 La. An. 344: 1183,
1310, 1343.
New Orleans Steamboat v. Pboebus,
11 Peters, 175: 103.
New Orleans Terminal Co. v. Fire-
men's Charitable Ass., 115 La.
441: 1430.
V. Teller, 113 La. 733: 980, 1042,
1045, 1046, 1051, 1070.
New Orleans Water Works Co. v.
Rivers, 115 U. S. 674: 410, 492,
736.
v. St. Tammany Water Works Co.,
4 Wood. 134: 15.
Newport's Petition, 39 N. H. 67 : 701,
1383.
Newport v. Newport Light Co., 84
Ky. 166: 411, 416, 1608.
V. Newport Light Co., 89 Ky. 454:
346.
V. Temescal Water Co., 149 Cal.
531: 1614.
Newport & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v.
Foote, 9 Bush. (Ky.) 264: 211,
224.
Newport etc. Bridge Co. v. Gill, 22
Ky. L. Rep. 325: 1571.
Newport Highway, Petition for, 48
N. H. 433: 1105.
Newport News etc. Ry. & Elec. Co.
V. Hampton Roads Ry. & Elec.
Co., 102 Va. 795: 301, 408, 409,
418.
V. Lake, 101 Va. 334: 883.
V. Lake, 105 Va. 311: 1348.
New Reservoir, Matter of, 1 Shel-
don (N. Y.) 408: 1253, 1378.
New River Co. v. Johnson, 105 E. C
L. R. 434: 628.
V. Johnson, 2 E & E. 435: 628.
New Rochclle Water Co., Matter of,
46 Hun 525; 536.
New Salem's Petition, 6 Pick. 470:
1034.
Newton v. Agricultural Branch R. R.
Co., 15 Gray 27: 1506.
V. Ala. Midland R. R. Co., 99 Ala.
468: 996, 1406, 1408.
V. Manufacturers Ry. Co., 115 Fed.
781: 421, 811.
V. Newton, 188 Mass. 226: 808,
823.
y. New York etc. R. R. Co., 72
Conn. 420: 320, 351, 371, 380,
388, 398.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 72
Conn. 421: 191.
V. Perry, 163 Mass. 319: 808, 1495.
Newton Rubber Works v. De Las
Cassas, 198 Mass. 156: 748.
New Union Tel. Co. v. Marsh, 96
App. Div. 122: 744, 956, 1071.
Newville Road Case, 8 Watts 172:
1353.
New Vineyard v. Somerset, 15 Me.
21: 713.
New Washington Road, 23 Pa. St.
485: 1365.
New Westminster v. Brighouse, 20
Duvall, 520: 194, 230, 442, 443,
1453.
New Whatcom v. Fairhaven Land
Co., 24 Wash. 493: 69, 109, 118,
128, 137, 1603.
New York Case, 16 Johns. 231 : 1383.
New York, Matter of, 28 App. Div.
143: 364, 399, 403, 591.
Mptter of, 34 App. Div. 468: 696.
Matter of, 39 App. Div. 589: 1210,
1276.
Matter of, 40 App. Div. 281: 1221,
1227, 1319, 1323, 1565.
Matter of, 42 App. Div. 198: 1556.
Matter of, 73 App. Div. 394: 1493.
Matter of, 74 App. Div. 197: 197,
809, 1497.
Matter of, 74 App. Div. 343: 787,
1232.
Matter of, 101 App. Div. 527:
1253, 1256, 1276.
Matter of, 104 App. Div. 445 : 920,
1053.
Matter of, 113 App. Div. 84: 1253.
Matter of, 114 App. Div. 904: 956.
Matter of, 117 App. Div. 553:
1262.
Matter of, 118 App. Div. 272:
U45, 1151, 1229.
Matter of, 120 App. Div. 819: 806,
1174, 1183, 1195, 1202, 1205.
1218, 1220.
CASES CITED.
CCl
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
New York, Matter of, 121 App. Div.
702: 429.
Matter of, 122 App. Div. 890:
1260, 1276.
Matter of, 124 App. Div. 465:
1259.
Matter of, 125 App. Div. 393:
1211, 1257.
Matter of, 128 App. Div. 150:
1559.
Matter of, 6 Cow. 571: 1393.
Matter of, 34 Hun 441: 687, 824,
1100, 1101, 1167, 1260.
Matter of, 51 Hun 416: 773, 900.
Matter of, 56 Misc. 306: 1151.
Matter of, 56 Misc. 311: 1145,
1270.
Matter of, 99 N. Y. 569: 687, 1100,
1101, 1167, 1260.
Matter of, 135 N. Y. 253: 422,
776.
Matter of, 157 N. Y. 409: 591.
ilatter of, 168 N. Y. 134: 115,
127, 132.
Matter of, 174 N. Y. 26 : 197, 809,
1497.
Matter of, 182 N. Y. 281? 1253,
1256, 1276.
Matter of, 186 N. Y. 237: 956.
Matter of, 190 N. Y. 350: 806,
1174, 1183, 1195, 1202, 1205,
1218, 1220.
Matter of, 192 N. Y. 295: 1260,
1276.
Matter of, 193 N. Y. 117: liSU,
1257.
Matter of, 193 N. Y. 503: 429.
New York v. Bailey, 2 Denio 433:
1456.
V. Bailey, 3 Hill 531: 1456.
V. Dover Street, 1 Cow. 74: 1383.
V. Furze, 3 Hill 612: 143.
V. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31: 471.
V. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 104
App. Div. 223: 1623.
V. Lord, 17 Wend. 285: 17.
V. Lord, 18 Wend. 126: 17.
V. Mapes, 6 Johns. Ch. 46: 1670,
1705.
V. Pents, 24 Wend. 668: 17.
V. Pine, 185 U. S. 93: 74: 169,
1603, 1616, 1617.
V. Starin, 106 N. Y. 1 : 407, 413,
1608.
V. Stone, 20 Wend. 139: 17.
V. Twenty- third St. R. R. Co., 113
N. Y. 311: 476.
New York Bridge Co., Matter of, 67
Barb. 295: 1117.
New York Bridge Co.'a Petition, 4
Hun 635: 1074. 1075.
New York & B. Bridge, In re, 75
Hun 558: 943, 945, 947, 1558.
New York & B. Bridge, In re, 89
Hun 219: 943, 945, 947.
New York & B. Bridge, Matter of,
18 App. Div. N. Y. 8: 1341.
New York Cable Co., Matter, of, 36
Hun 355: 922.
New York Cable Co. v. New York,
104 N. Y. 1 : 1048.
New York Cement Co. v. Consolidated
R. Cement Co., 84 App. Div. 635 :
1496.
V. Consolidated R. Cement Co., 178
N. Y. 167: 1496.
New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
Matter of, 67 Barb. 426: 731.
Matter of, 5 Hun 86: 988.
Matter of, 15 Hun 63 : 1293.
Matter of, 33 Hun 274 : 896.
Matter of, 35 Hun 306: 1277.
Matter of, 59 Hun 7: 524, 816,
1061, 1065.
Matter of, 60 N. Y. 116: 1463.
Matter of, 66 N. Y. 407: 1045,
1061, 1066, 1074.
Matter of, 70 N. Y. 191: 979.
Matter of, 77 N. Y. 248 : 524, 823.
New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co. v. Al-
dridge, 135 N. Y. 83: 122, 131,
133.
V. Auburn Interurban R. R. Co.,
178 N. Y. 75: 282.
V. Dailey, 57 Misc. 311: 713, 799,
802.
V. Haflfen, 90 Hun 260: 432.
V. Marshall, 120 App. Div. 742:
1338.
V. Marshall, 127 App. Div. 534:
1670, 1672.
V. Metropolitan Gas Light Co., 5
Hun 201: 524.
V. Metropolitan Gas Lt. Co., 63 N.
Y. 326: 783, 789, 798, 802.
V. New York, 22 App. Div. N. Y.
124: 1041, 1045.
V. Rochester. 127 N. Y. 591: 141,
1606.
V. State, 37 App. Div. N. Y. 57:
1716.
V. Warren St. R. R. Co., 188 Pa.
St. 85: 771.
New York City and Northern R. R.
Co. V. Central Union Tel. Co.,
21 Hun 261 : 775.
New York Dist. Ry. Co., Matter of,
107 N. Y. 42: 275.
New York El. R. R. Co., In re, 76
Hun 384: .327, 1300.
ceil
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1710.1
New York Elevated R. R. Co., Mat-
ter of, 3 Abb. New Cases 401:
260.
Matter of, 36 Hun 414: 1296.
Matter of, 36 Hun 427 : 1295, 1296,
1303.
Matter of, 4 Hun 502 : 1295.
Matter of, 70 N. Y. 327: 260,
304.
New York Elevated K. R. Co. v. Fifth
Nat'l Bank, 135 U. S. 432: 267,
432, 1652, 1662.
New York etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
58 Conn. 532: 487.
New York etc. R. R. Co., Matter of,
62 Barb. 85: 893, 912, 1017.
Matter of, 21 How. Pr. 434: 1360.
Matter of, 63 How. Pr. 265 : 1377.
Matter of, 1 How. Pr. N. S. 190:
1670.
Matter of, 2 How. Pr. N. S. 225:
1377.
Matter of, 4 Hun 381 : 977.
Matter of, 6 Hun 149 : 1211.
Matter of, 20 Hun 201: 784.
Matter of, 21 Hun 250: 1380.
Matter of, 26 Hun 194: 964.
Matter of, 26 Hun 592: 1437.
Matter of, 27 Hun 116: 1235, 1329.
Matter of, 27 Hun 151: 1236.
Matter of, 28 Hun 426: 1172.
Matter of, 29 Hun 1 : 1339.
Matter of, 29 Hun 269: 117.
Matter of, 29 Hun 602: 1377.
Matter of, 29 Hun, 609: 1124,
1126.
Matter of, 29 Hun 646: 1339.
Matter of, 33 Hun 148: 714, 971,
1097, 1112, 1114.
Matter of, 33 Hun 231: 1134.
Matter of, 33 Hun 270: 772.
Matter of, 33 Hun 293: 1359.
Matter of, 33 Hun 639: 1242, 1377.
Matter of, 35 Hun 220: 689, 1045,
1061, 1064.
Matter of, 35 Hun 232: 1359.
Matter of, 35 Hun 260: 1377.
Matter of, 35 Hun 306: 1387.
Matter of, 35 Hun 575: 1087.
Matter of, 35 Hun 633: 1276, 1277.
Matter of, 39 Hun 338 : 1430, 1463.
Matter of, 40 Hun 130: 1081.
Matter of, 44 Hun 194: 745, 748.
Matter of, 51 Misc. 333: 1463.
Matter of, 60 N. Y. 116: 1430.
Matter of, 64 N. Y. 60: 1376, 1377,
1393.
Matter of, 77 N. Y. 248: lOCl,
1062, 1063, 1066.
Matter of, 88 N. Y. 279: 712.
Matter of. 89 N. Y. 453: 996.
New York etc. R. R. Co. Matter of, 93
N. Y. 385: 1377, 13s8.
Matter of, 94 N. Y. 287: 143C,
1440.
Matter of, 98 N. Y. 12 : 1430, 1463,
1465.
Matter of, 98 N. Y. 447: 1242,
1377.
Matter of, 99 N. Y. 12: 689, 803,
1045, 1061, 1064.
Matter of, 101 N. Y. 685: 133,
1451.
Matter of, 102 N. Y. 704: 1377.
Matter of, 110 N. Y. 374: 772.
New York etc. Ry. Co. v. Arnot, 27
Hun 151: 1139, 1196.
V. Blacker, 178 Mass. 386: 1219,
1262.
V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 36 Conn.
196: 9, 693; 743, 761, 908.
V. Bridgeport Traction Co., 65
Conn. 410: 272, 328, 657, 767,
769, 1282, 1610.
V. Bristol, 62 Conn. 527: 487.
V. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556: 487.
V. Capner, 49 N. J. L. 555: 1095,
1099.
V. Church, 31 Hun 440: 1104.
V. Coburn, 6 How. Pr. 223: 1408.
V. Comatock, 60 Conn. 200: 1476,
1478, 1483, 1647.
V. Drummond, 46 N. J. L. 644:
751, 798.
V. Drury, 133 Mass. 167: 1320.
V. Fair Haven etc. R. R. Co., 70
Conn. 610: 424.
V. Forty Second St. R. R. Co., 50
Barb. 285, 410.
V. Forty Second St. R. R. Co., 50
Barb. 309: 410.
V. Forty Second St. R. R. Co., 26 :
How. Pr. 68: 410.
v. Gennett, 37 Hun 317: 1144,
1270, 1348.
V. Gunnison, 1 Hun 496: 527, 715.
V. Gunnison, 3 N. Y. Supm. Ct.
632: 715.
V. Hamlet Hay Co. 149 Ind. 344:
94, 1716.
V. Hammond, 132 Ind. 475: 1540,
1543, 1544, 1545.
V. Illy, 79 Conn. 526: 947, 957,
1004, 1135.
V Jones, 94 Md. 24: 154, 156.
V. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546: 524, 525,
709, 710, 714.
V. Le Fevre, 27 Hun 537: 1208.
V. Long, 69 Conn. 424: 498, 684,
911.
V. Long, 72 Conn. 10: 127, 128,
129.
CASES CITED.
cell]
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
New York etc. Ry. Co. v. Marshall,
120 App. Div. 742: 1263.
V. McBride, 45 Misc. 510: 1438.
T. Miller, 165 Mass. 514: 1485.
V. New Haven (Conn.) 71 Atl.
780: 749, 1287.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 11
Abb. N. G. 386: 912.
V. Offield, 77 Conn. 417: 499, 529,
738, 743, 745, 788.
V. Offield, 78 Conn. 1 : 529, 745.
V. Paterson, 61 N. J. L. 408: 750,
1666.
V. Price, 4 Penny. 200: 1107, 1408.
V. Providence, 16 R. I. 746: 840.
y. Railroad Comrs., 162 Mass. 81:
862.
V. Rhodes (Ind.) 86 N. E. 840:
749, 1288.
V. Speelman, 12 Ind. App. 372:
151.
V. Stanley's Heirs, 34 N. J. Eq.
55: 855, 1540, 1543, 1631.
V. Stanley's Heirs, 35 N. J. Eq.
283: 855, 1540, 1543, 1544.
V. Stanley's Heirs, 39 N. J. Eq.
361: 1317.
V. Townsend, 36 Hun 630: 1084,
1105.
V. Trimmer, 53 N. J. L. 1 : 1469,
1633.
V. Waterbury, 60 Conn. 1: 487,
753, 1287, 1288.
V. Welsh, 143 N. Y. 411: 684,
698.
V. Wheeler, 72 Conn. 481 : 740.
V. Young, 33 Pa. St. 175: 108,
684.
New York etc. Telephone Co. v.
Broome, 49 N. J. L. 624: 986.
New York & L. I. Bridge Co. v.
Smith, 90 Hun 312: 1496.
V. Smith, 148 N. Y. 540: 694, 738,
1049.
New York Min. Co. v. Midland Min.
Co., 99 Md. 506: 530, 1060, 1066,
1087, 1395.
New York Rubber Co. v. Rothery,
132 N. Y. 293: 69, 76.
New York Sanitary Utilization Co.
V. Dept. of Health, 61 App. Div.
106: 470.
Ney V. Swinnev, 36 Ind. 454: 895,
897, 1516, "1520.
Niagara Co. I. & W. S. Co. v. Col-
lege Heights Land Co., Ill App.
Div. 170: 739.
Niagara Falls & Whirlpool Ry Co.,
Matter of, 46 Hun. 94: 919.
Matter of, 68 Hun 391 : 1409.
Matter of, 108 N. Y. 375 : 495, 498,
507, 528, 672, 675, 676.
Niagara Falls & Whirlpool Ry. Co.
Matter of, 121 N. Y. 319: 528,
1076, 1081.
Niagara Falls etc. R. R. Co. v. Brund-
age, 7 App. Div. 445: 1116.
Niagara Falls R. R. Co. v. Hotchkiss,
16 Barb. 271: 1469.
Niagara L. & 0. Power Co., Matter
of, 111 App. Div. 680: 530, 538,
1463.
Niagara State Reservation, Matter
of, 16 Abb. N. C. 159: 1397.
Niagara State Reservation, Matter
of, 102 N. Y. 734: 1397.
Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge Co.
V. Buchanan, 4 Lans. 523: 1489.
Nicetown Lane, Matter of, 11 Phila.
377: 1094.
Nieholai v. Vernon, 88 Wis. 551:
1577.
Nichols V. Ann Arbor etc. R. R. Co.,
87 Mich. 361 : 240, 241, 271, 280,
282, 324, 1586, 1587, 1591.
v. Bridgeport, 23 Conn. 189: 1086,
1185, 1516, 1517.
v. Duluth, 40 Minn. 389 : 194, 195,
229, 230, 440, 442, 1453, 1488.
V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 120 N.
C. 495: 152, 1649, 1655.
V. Richmond, 162 Mass. 170: 364,
371, 377, 379, 391, 398, 666.
V. Salem, 14 Gray 490 : 1034, 1576.
V. Somerset etc. R. R. Co., 43 Me.
356: 1163, 1165, 1522.
V. Sutton, 22 Ga. 369: 1574.
Nicholson v. Me. Cent. R. R. Co.,
97 Me. 43: 911.
v. New York & N. H. R. R. Co.,
22 Conn. 74: 246, 319, 623, 1185.
V. Stockett, Walker, Miss. 67 : 377,
400.
Nicholson Borough, 27 Pa. Supr. Ct.
570: 739.
Nicherson v. Lynch, 135 Mo. 471 :
707.
Nickey v. Stearns Ranches Co., 126
Cal. 150: 494, 564, 570, 573.
Nicks V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 84
la. 27 : 226, 620, 621, 1293, 1304.
Nicoll V. New York etc. Co., 62 N. J.
L. 156: 339.
V. New York etc. Co., 62 N. J. L.
733: 338.
V. New York & Erie R. R. Co.,
12 N. Y. 121: 827, 837, 838, 839,
842.
Nicomen Boom Co. v. North Shore
B. & W. Co., 40 Wash. 315: 901,
1504, 1505, 1609.
Nicon V. Tallahassee Bridge Co., 47
Ala. 652: 413.
CCIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Niehaus v. Cooker, 134 Ala. 223:
1612.
Nielson v. Wakefield, 43 Mich. 434:
1033, 1420.
Nieman v. Detroit Suburban St. R.
E. Co., 103 Mich. 256: 272, 279,
1586, 1590.
Niemeyer v. Little Rock Junction R.
R. Co., 43 Ark. Ill: 527, 716,
1048.
Niles V. Los Angeles, 125 Cal. 572:
888.
Ninety-Fourth St. Opening, Matter
of, 22 Misc. N. Y. 32: 1327.
Ninth Ave., Matter of, 45 N. Y. 729 :
1266.
Ninth Ave. R. R. Co. v. New York
Elevated R. R. Co., 3 Abb. New
Cases, 347: 260.
Nischen v. Hawes (Ky.), 21 S. W.
1049: 821, 973, 1376.
Nishnabotna Dr. Dist. v. Campbell,
154 Mo. 151: 706, 1011, 1017,
1384.
Nittany Val. R. R. Co. v. Empire
Steel & I. Co., 218 Pa. St. 224:
1560, 1563.
Noble V. Aasen, 8 N. D. 77: 155.
V. Des Moines & St. Louis Ry. Co.,
61 la. 637: 1441.
V. St. Albans, 56 Vt. 522 : 144.
Noble Street Case, 5 Whart. 333:
1383.
Noble Street, Matter of, 1 Ashmead
276: 1563.
Noblesville v. Lake Erie & W. R. R.
Co., 130 Ind. 1: 892.
Noeton v. Penn. R. R. Co., 32 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 555: 394.
Noe V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 76 la.
360: 91, 150, 1123, 1132.
Noel V. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37: 943.
V. Sale, 1 Call 495: 1425.
Nolan V. Brockway Park Imp. Co.,
76 Hun 458 : 122.
V. New Britain, 69 Conn. 668: 83,
1604.
Nolensville v. Baker, 4 Humph. 315:
422.
Noll \. Dubuque etc. R. R. Co., 32
la. 66: 8, 1497, 1502, 1505.
Nolmsville Turnpike Co. v. Quimby,
8 Humph. 476: 1511.
Nolte V. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio C. C. 503:
220, 602, 633.
Noon V. Scranton City, 7 Pa. Co. Ct.
123: 438, 1496, 1546, 1548.
Noonan v. Albany, 79 N. Y. 470 : 233.
Norfleet v. Cromwell, 70 N. C. 634:
571, 579, 584.
Norfolk v. Chamberlain, 89 Va. 196:
14, 1180, 1219.
Norfolk V. Nottingham, 96 Va. 34.
888.
Norfolk etc. R. R. Co. v. Carter, 91
Va. 587: 148, 149, 155, 156,
1455, 1456.
V. Davis, 58 W. Va. 620; 1110,
1230, 1232, 1241, 1268.
V. Lynchburg Cotton Mills Co., 106
Va. 376: 709, 718.
V. Nighbert, 46 W. Va. 202: 1377.
. V. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667; 480,
482.
V. Pendleton, 88 Va. 350: 481.
V. Perdue, 40 W. Va. 442 : 1547.
V. Stephens, 85 Va. 302: 1317.
V. Consolidated Turnpike Co., 100
Va. 243: 297, 298.
V. Ely, 101 N. C. 8: 1042, 1074,
1076.
Norfolk Southern R. R. Co. v. Ely,
95 N. C. 77: 697, 1395, 1397,
1402.
Norman v. Ince, 8 Okla. 412: 145.
Normandale Lumber Co. v. Knight,
89 Ga. Ill: 520, 521, 1058.
Norrell v. Augusta Ry. & Elec. Co.,
116 Ga. 313: 1491.
Norris v. Baltimore, 44 Md. 398 :
1689.
v. Clymer, 2 Pa. St. 277 : 458.
V. Pueblo, 12 Colo. App. 290: 958.
V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 28
Vt. 99: 87, 846.
V. Waco, 57 Tex. 635 : 462, 466.
Norristown's Appeal, 3 Walker (Pa.
Supr. Ct.) 146: 616, 630, 632,
636.
Norristown etc. Turnpike Co. v. Bur-
kett, 26 Ind. 53: 923, 926, 1135,
1159.
Norristown & Whitpain Road, 4 Pa.
St. 337: 1367.
North Alton v. Dorsett, 59 111. App.
612: 629, 1306, 1307.
North Am. Cold Storage Co. v. Chi-
cago, 211 U. S. 306: 485, 486.
Northampton v. Abell, 127 Mass. 507 :
1514.
Northampton Bridge Case, 116 Mass.
442: 781, 824, 1401.
North Ark. etc. Ry. Co. v. Cole, 71
Ark. 38: 1082, 1314, 1315.
North Baltimore Pass. R. R. Co. v.
Baltimore, 75 Md. 247 : 301, 408.
V. North Ave. R. R. Co., 75 Md.
233: 427, 762, 763, 764, 1283.
North Berwick v. Comrs. of York, 25
Me. 69: 516.
North Branch Canal Co. v. Hireen, 44
Pa. St. 418: 809.
North Carolina R. R. Co: v. Carolina
Central R. R. Co., 83 N. C. 489 :
761.
OASES CITED.
CCV
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Goodwin,
110 N. C. 175: 1442, 1443.
North Chester v. Eckfeldt, 1 Mona-
ghan (Pa. Supm. Ct.) 732: 618,
1128, 1130, 1649, 1656, 1718.
North Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Lake
View, 105 111. 207 : 487.
North Chicago St. R. R. Co. v.
Chetham, 58 111. App. 318: 1586.
North Chillicothe v. Burr, 185 111.
322: 892.
North Coast Ry. Co. v. No. Pac. Ry.
Co. 48 Wash. 529 : 758, 759.
Northeastern Neb. R. R. Co. v. Fra-
zier, 25 Neb. 42: 966, 1208, 1213,
1426.
V. Frazier, 25 Neb. 53: 1129, 1223.
North Eastern R. R. Co. v. Payne,
8 Rich. S. C. 177: 726.
V. Sineath, 8 Rich. L. 185: 1317.
Northern Central R. R. Co. v. Balti-
more, 21 Md. 93: 1583, 1622.
V. Baltimore, 46 Md. 425: 752,
1291.
V. Canton Co., 104 Md. 682: 1580,
1589.
V. Harrisburg Elec. Co., 177 Pa.
St. 142: 1611.
V. Holland, 117 Pa. St. 613: 327,
643, 691, 692.
Northern Coal & Iron Co. v. Wilkes-
Barre, 218 Pa. St. 269: 780.
Northern Countries Invest. Trust Co.
V. Enyard, 24 Wash. 366: 1480.
Northern Ohio Ry. Co. v. Hancock
Co. Comrs., 63 Ohio St. 32: 581,
776.
Northern Pac. etc. R. R. Co. v. Cole-
man, 3 Wash. 228 : 1329, 1425.
V. Forbes, 15 Mont. 452: 1233,
1480, 1481.
Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. B. & M.
R. R. Co., 4 Fed. 298: 1570.
V. Duncan, 87 Minn. 91: 1229,
1262.
Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Ely, 25
Wash. 384: 1480.
V. Georgetown, 50 Wash. 580: 1701,
1703.
V. Basse, 28 Wash. 353: 1480.
V. Jackman (Dak.) 50 N. W.
123: 1533.
V. Murray, 87 Fed. 648: 1663.
V. St. Paul, Minneapolis etc. R. R.
Co., 1 McCrary 302: 765, 1160,
1571.
V. Smith, 171 U. S. 260: 1631.
V. Spokane, 45 Wash. 229 : 1480.
V. Spokane, 56 Fed. 915: 879, 883,
1479.
V. Spokane, 64 Fed. 506: 883.
Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Townsend,
190 U. S. 267: 1479.
Northern Pacific Terminal Co. v.
Lowenberg, 9 Sawyer 348: 931.
V. Portland, 14 Ore. 24: 1086, 1517.
Northern R. R. Co. v. Concord &
Claremont R. R. Co., 27 N. H.
183: 759, 1364.
V. Earhart, 167 Mo. 612: 1213.
V. Englewood, 62 N. J. L. 188:
915.
Northern Traction Co. v. Dunn, 37
Ind. App. 248: 1192.
V. Rainer, 37 Ind. App. 264: 1192.
Northern Transportation Co. v. Chi-
cago, 7 Biss. 45: 437.
V. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635 : 437.
North Hempstead v. Gregory, 53 App.
Div. 350: 127, 129, 130.
North Hudson Co. R. R. Co. v. Boor-
aem, 28 N. J. Eq. 450 : 947, 1227,
1347, 1352, 1564.
North Judson v. Lightcap, 41 Ind.
App. 565 : 234.
North Lebanon Tp. Road, 3 Pa. Co.
Ct. 401 : 1099.
North Lebanon Tp. Road, 6 Pa. Co.
Ct. 598: 1364.
North Manheim v. Reading etc. R. R.
Co., 18 Phil. 650: 781.
North Missouri R. R. Co. v. Gott,
25 Mo. 540: 697.
V. Lackland, 25 Mo. 515: 1424,
1669, 1685.
V. Reynal, 25 Mo. 534: 1424, 1669,
1685.
North Pacific R. R. Co. v. Reynolds,
50 Cal. 90: 1309.
North Penn. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 26
Pa. St. 238: 952, 961, 1257.
V. Inland Traction Co., 205 Pa. St.
579: 328.
North Reading v. Co. Comrs., 7 Gray
109: 1366.
North Riv. Boom Co. v. Smith, 15
Wash. 138: 958.
North River Water Front, Matter of,
118 App. Div. 685: 1257, 1276.
North River Water Front, Matter of,
120 App. Div. 849: 1198.
North River Water Front, Matter of,
189 N. Y. 508: 1257, 1258, 1276.
North Shore R. R. Co. v. Pion, 14
App. Cas. 612: 127, 128, 129,
131.
V. Pion, 14 Duvall 677: 127, 128,
131.
North Spring Water Co. v. Tacoma,
21 Wash. 517: 408, 409.
North Thirteenth Street, Matter of,
5 Hun 175: 1461, 1670.
CCVl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
North Union Tp. Road, 150 Pa. St.
512: 1389.
North Vernon v. Voegler, 89 Ind. 77 :
233.
V. Voegler, 103 Ind. 314: 142, 210,
237, 1251, 1551, 1648, 1656.
North & West Branch Ry. Co. v.
Swank, 105 Pa. St. 555: 846.
Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde
Park, 70 111. 634: 14, 452, 455,
469.
V. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659: 14,
452, 455, 469.
N. W. Telephone Exch. Go. v. Chicago
etc. Ry. Co., 76 Minn. 334: 682,
775, 793, 796, 977, 1072.
V. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140: 360,
362, 489, 682.
V. Twin City Telephone Co. 89
Minn. 495: 418, 419, 1621.
Northwood v. Raleigh, 3 Ontario 347 :
156.
Norton v. Hodges, 100 Mass. 241 :
961.
V. London etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 9 Ch.
623: 1494.
V. Peck, 3 Wis. 714: 1165.
T. Studley, 17 111. 556: 1162.
V. Truitt, 70 N. J. L. 611: 1381,
1382
V. Waikill Valley R. R. Co., 61
Barb. 476: 824.
V. Waikill Valley R. R. Co., 63
Barb. 77: 1017.
V. Waikill Valley etc. R. R. Co.,
42 How. Pr. 228: 679.
Norvall v. Canada Southern R. R. Co.,
28 U. C. C. P. 309: 1523, 1626.
Norwalk v. Blatz, 9 Ohio C. C. 417:
83, 866.
Norway Plains Co. v. Bradley, 52 N.
H. 86: 104.
Norwich v. Story, 25 Conn. 44: 700.
Norwich R. R. Co. v. Wodehouae, 11
Beav. 282: 1619.
Norwegian Street, 81 Pa. St. 349:
915.
Norwood, In re, 161 Mass. 259: 487.
Norwood T. Baker, 172 U. S. 269:
10, 14, 23, 464, 1203, 1219, 1432.
V. Gonzales Co., 79 Tex. 218: 700,
1567.
Norwood etc. R. R. Co., Matter o'f,
47 Hun 489: 1347.
Nosaer v. Seelev, 10 Neb. 460 : 898.
Nottingham v."B. & P. R. R. Co., 3
McArthur 517 : 250, 319.
Novich V. Trinity etc. Ry. Co., 45
Tex. Civ. App. 664: 654, 1337.
Novotney v. Danforth, 9 S. D. 301:
440, 441.
Noyes v. Chapin, 6 Wend. 461: 829.
Noyes v. Cosselman, 29 Wash. 635:
1607.
V. Mason City, 53 la. 418: 1550.
v. Springfield, 116 Mass. 87: 1416.
Nugent v. New York, 58 Misc. 453:
609, 1718.
Null V. White Water Valley Canal
Co., 4 Ind. 431: 1522.
V. Zierle, 52 Mich. 540: 983, 1419.
Nunnamaker v. Columbia etc. R. R.
Co., 47 S. C. 485: 710, 846.
Nussbaum v. Bell Co., 97 Tex. 86:
153.
Nutter V. Gallagher, 19 Or. 375: 112.
Nutting v. Kings Co. El. R. R. Co.,
91 Hun 251: 1425.
Nye V. Taunton Branch R. R. Co.,
113 Mass. 277: 838.
Nypano Ry. Co. v. Wadaworth Salt
Co., 9 Ohio C. C. 114: 1109,
1244, 1273.
Oak CliflF Sewerage Co. v. Marsalis,
30 Tex. Civ. App. 42: 892.
Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.,
118 Cal. 160: 118.
V. Thompson, 151 Cal. 572: 698.
O'Bannan v. Jackson, Sneed 201:
1360.
Oberfelder v. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 138 N. Y. 181 : 1372.
O'Brien v. Ball, 119 Mass. 28: 1255.
V. Baltimore Belt R. Co., 74 Md.
363: 324, 622, 1581, 1592.
V. Central Iron etc. Co., 158 Ind.
218: 190, 351, 369, 372, 382.
V. Commissioners of Baltimore
County, 51 Md. 15: 734.
V. Norwich & Worcester Ry. Co.,
17 Conn. 371: 133.
V. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. St. 589:
630, 632, 636.
V. St. Paul, 25 Minn. 331 : 67, 233.
V. Shenley Park etc. Ry. Co., 194
Pa. St. 336: 1229.
V. Penn. Schuylkill Val. R. R. Co.,
4 Mont. Co. L. R. 57: 641, 1649.
V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 119 Pa,
St. 184: 618, 630, 636, 646, 1549,
1550, 1652, 1660.
Obst V. Covell, 93 Minn. 30: 1222,
1561.
Occum Co. V. Sprague Manuf. Co., 35
Conn. 496: 548, 899.
Ocean City R. R. Co. v. Bray, 57
N. J. Eq. 164: 1577.
Ocean City Land Co. v. Ocean City,
73 N. J. L. 493: 420.
Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Associa-
tion V. Ashbury Park, 40 N. J.
Eq. 447: 161.
OASES CITED.
CCVH
[The reterences are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Ockerhausen v. Tyson, 71 Conn. 31 :
133.
Oconee Elec. Lt. & P. Co. v. Carter,
111 Ga. 106: 679, 708, 726, 1623.
O'Connell v. Bowman, 45 111. App.
654: 869.
V. Chicago Terminal Transfer R.
E. Co., 184 111. 308: 242, 868,
1580.
V. East Tenn. V. & G. R. R. Co., 87
Ga. 246: 89, 150.
O'Connor v. Fond du -uac, A. & P.
Ry. Co., 52 Wis. 526 : 158.
V. Nova Scotia Tel. Co., 22 Duvall
276: 350, 1488.
V. Pittsburgh, 18 Pa. St. 187: 211.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 56 Iowa
735: 251, 320, 351.
V. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 122
Cal. 681: 1580.
Octoraro Water Co.'s Petition, 15 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 767: 169, 934.
Odd Fellows Cem. Assn. v. San Fran-
cisco, 140 Cal. 226: 473.
V. San Francisco, 140 Cal. 609 : 14.
Ode V. Manhattan R. K. Co., 56 Hun
199: 1298, 1651, 1658.
O'Dea V. State, 16 Neb. 241 : 1505.
Odell V. Bretney, 62 App. Div. 595:
357.
V. DeWitt, 53 N. Y. 643: 1158.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 3
Miscl. 335: 1664.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 130
N. Y. 690: 1296, 1299, 1300.
Odneal v. City of Sherman, 77 Tex.
182: 355.
O'Donnell v. White, 23 R. I. 318:
231 439.
V. White, 24 R. I. 483: 159, 212,
612, 616.
V. Preston, 74 App. Div. 86 : 357.
V. Syracuse, 102 App. Div. 80: 79.
V. Syracuse, 184 N. Y. 1 : 79.
Odum V. Rutledge etc. R. R. Co., 94
Ala. 488: 1116, 1481.
Oehler v. New York El. R. R. Co., 4
App. Div. 152: 1664.
Ortman v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 32
Kan. 419: 1408.
Oettinger v. District of Columbia, 18
App. Cas. D. C. 375: 881.
Offield V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
203 U. S. 372: 745.
OiTutt V. Montgomery Co., 94 Md.
115: 324.
Oftelie V. Hammond, 78 Minn. 275:
147, 149.
Ogburn v. Conner, 46 Cal. 346: 145.
Ogden V. Philadelphia, 143 Pa. St.
430: 25, 618, 630, 633, 636, 1718.
Ogden V. Stokes, 25 Kan. 517: 1520.
Ogden City R. R. v. Ogden City, 7
Utah 207: 298, 763.
Ogden St. Opening, Matter of, 63 Hun
188: 1082.
Ogle V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
3 Hous. Del. 302: 864.
O'Hara v. Lexington & Oliio R. R.
Co., 1 Dana (Ky.) 232: 524.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 25 Pa.
St. 445: 991, 1358.
O'Hara Tp. Road, In re, 87 Pa. St.
366: 1366.
O'Hare v. Chicago etc. R. E. Co., 139
111. 151: 677, 679, 1074, 1143,
1426.
V. Dubuque, 22 Iowa 144: 465.
V. Railroad Co., 139 111. 151: 1046.
Ohio V. Carman, Tappan (Ohio) 162:
1372.
Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Barker, 134
111. 470: 1100, 1101.
V. Bridgeport, 63 111. App. 224:
780, 1645.
V. Combs, 43 111. App. 119: 91, 152,
159.
V. Long, 52 111. App. 670: 91.
V. Neutzel, 43 111. App. 108: 91,
152, 1454, 1651, 1653.
V. Ramey, 139 111. 9: 90, 94.
V. Ramey, 39 111. App. 409: 151.
V. Thillman, 143 111. 127: 90, 93,
94, 1649, 1653.
V. Thillman, 43 111. App. 78: 90,
94, 152, 1454, 1635.
V. Webb, 142 111. 402: 90.
V. Wallace, 14 Pa. St. 245: 1365.
V. Dooley, 32 111. App. 228: 158.
V. Gallagher, 33 Pa. Ct. Ct. 489:
1506.
V. Gallagher, 17 Pa. Dist. Co. 142 :
1506.
V. Russell, 115 111. 52: 487.
V. Wachter, 123 111. 440: 90, 93,
1548, 1651, 1653, 1662.
V. Wachter, 23 111. App. 415: 1638.
V. Webb, 142 111. 402: 94.
Ohio Oil Co. V. Indiana, 177 U. S.
190: 164, 471.
V. Indiana, 177 U. S. 212: 471.
V. Indiana, 177 U. S. 213: 471.
V. State, 150 Ind. 694: 471.
V. State, 150 Ind. 698: 471.
Ohio Riv. R. R. Co. v. Blake, 38 W.
Va. 718: 1086, 1427.
V. Harness, 24 W. Va. 511: 1360.
V. Johnson, 50 W. Va. 499: 1472.
V. Ward, 35 W. Va. 481: 1098,
1581.
Ohio Valley R. & T. Co. v. Kerth, 130
Ind. 314: 1131.
covin
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Ohio Val. R. E. Co. v. Simpson, 11
Ky. L. R. 719: 843, 852.
Oklahoma v. Oldahoma Gas & Blee.
Co. 13 Okl. 454: 361, 411.
Oklahoma City etc. Ey. Co. v. Dun-
ham, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 575:
323, 1458, 1472.
Old Colony etc. R. R. Co. v. Ply-
mouth Co., 14 Gray 155 : 55, 67,
1289, 1290, 1292.
Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Fall River,
147 Mass. 455: 749, 1510, 1614.
V. F. P. Robinson Co., 176 Mass.
387: 1141.
V. Framingham Water Co., 153
Mass. 561: 793, 796, 1169.
V. Miller, 125 Mass. 1: 1319, 1320,
1331.
Old Colony R. R. Co., In re, 163
Mass. 356: 487.
Old Town V. Dooley, 81 111. 255:
1487.
Olean v. Steyner, 135 N. Y. 341:
366, 1137, 1327, 1328.
Olean St. R. R. Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co.,
75 App. Div. 412: 772.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 468:
772.
O'Learv v. Pittsburg Terminal Ry.
Co., 210 Pa. St. 522: 819, 1569,
1572.
Olive v. Sabine etc. R. R. Co., 11 Tex.
Civ. App. 208: 835, 1478.
Oliver v. Monona County, 117 la. 43:
975, 1016, 1510, 1518.
V. Thompson's Run Bridge Co., 197
Pa. St. 344: 1050.
V. Union Point etc. R. R. Co., 83
Ga. 257: 922, 1397, 1461, 1463,
1570.
Oliver Schlemmer Co. v. Steinman &
M. Furn. Co., 2 Ohio N. P. (N.
S.) 293: 368, 370, 375, 404, 405,
1596.
V. Steinman & M. Furn. Co., 7
Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 468: 368, 375,
404, 405, 1596.
Oliphant v. Atkinson Co. Comrs., 18
Kan. 386: 969, 1518, 1571.
Olmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. 532:
504, 548.
V. Proprietors of the Morris Aque-
duct Co., 47 N. J. L. 311: 536,
1044, 1060, 1062, 1063, 1066.
V. Proprietors of the Morris Aque-
duct Co., 46 N. J. L. 495: 536,
1044, 1060, 1062, 1063, 1066.
Olney v. Wharf, 115 111. 519: 243,
1553.
Olson V. Merrill, 42 Wis. 203: 104,
125.
Olson V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 38
Minn. 419: 154.
V. Seattle, 30 Wash. 687: 939,
1569.
Olympia v. Mann, 1 Wash. 380 : 468.
Omaha v. Croft, 60 Neb. 57: 1233,
1234, 1546.
V. Clarke, 66 Neb. 33: 1556, 1642.
v. Flood, 57 Neb. 124: 1718.
V. Hanover, 49 Neb. 1: 879.
V. Howell Lumber Co., 30 Neb.
633: 1179.
V. Kramer, 25 Neb. 492: 630, 635,
659, 660, 664, 667, 1124, 1306,
1337.
V. McGavock, 47 Neb. 313: 227.
V. Rediok, 61 Neb. 163 : 1546, 1548.
V. Schaller, 26 Neb. 522 : 630, 1216,
1308.
V. Williams, 52 Neb. 40: 619.
Omaha Belt R. R. Co. v. McDermott,
25 Neb. 717: 640, 664, 1243,
1294, 1300.
Omaha B. & T. Ry. Co. v. Reed, 3
Neb. (Unof.) 793: 947, 962,
1399, 1404.
v. Reed, 69 Neb. 514: 947, 961,
1399, 1404.
V. Whiting, 68 Neb. 389 : 1347.
Omaha etc. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 14
Neb. 170: 88, 94.
V. Brown, 16 Neb. 161: 88.
V. Brown, 29 Neb. 492: 93, 1664.
V. Doney, 3 Kan. App. 515: 1176,
1243.
V. Gerrard, 17 Neb. 587: 1136.
V. Janecek, 30 Neb. 276: 448, 640,
654, 655, 671, 1294, 1303, 1337.
V. Menk, 4 Neb. 21: 1343, 1530.
V. Moschel, 38 Neb. 281: 449, 654,
1715.
V. Rediek, 16 Neb. 313: 1631.
V. Rickards, 38 Neb. 847 : 864, 867,
868, 871, 980, 981, 984.
V. Rogers, 16 Neb. 117: 640.
V. Standen, 22 Neb. 343: 91, 1650,
1653, 1716.
V. Standen, 29 Neb. 622: 93.
V. Struden, 22 Neb. 343: 659.
V. Walker, 17 Neb. 432: 1109,
1112, 1329.
Omaha Horse R. R. Co. v. Cable
Tramway Co., 32 Fed. 727: 667.
Omaha L. & T. Co. v. Douglass Co.,
62 Neb. 1: 630, 1127.
Omaha, Niobrara & Black Hills R.
R. Co. V. Umstead, 17 Neb. 459 :
1112.
Omaha Southern R. R. Co. v. Beeson,
36 Neb. 361: 964, 1152, 1499,
1502.
OASES CITED.
CCIX
[!*« references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Omaha Southern R. R. Co. v. Todd,
39 Neb. 818: 1144, 1176, 1179,
1200, 1208, 1243, 1244, 1312,
1313.
O'Malley v. Commonwealth, 182
Mass. 196: 1138, 1141, 1148.
O'Neal V. Sherman, 77 Tex. 182:
709, 839, 1488, 1595.
One Hundred & Seventy-third Street,
In re, 78 Hun 487 : 1328.
One Hundreth & Sixteenth Street,
Opening of. Matter of, 1 App.
Div. 436: 879.
One Hundred and Sixty-third St.,
Matter of, 61 Hun 365: 929,
1384.
One Hundred and Thirty-eighth St.,
Matter of, 60 How. Pr. 290:
1379.
One Hundredth & Twenty-seventh
Street, Matter of, 56 How Pr.
60: 432.
Oneida St., Matter of, 37 App. Div.
N. Y. 266: 1005.
Oneida St. Matter of, 22 Misc. N. Y.
235: 947, 1005.
O'Neil V. Armstrong, 17 Phila. 273:
357.
O'Neill v. Hoboken, 72 N. J. L. 67:
577.
V. Hudson, 41 N. J. L. 161 : 1673,
1675, 1684.
Oneonta etc. R. R. Co. v. Coopers-
town etc. R. K. Co., 85 App. Div.
284: 772.
Onondaga Co. v. White, 38 Miso.
587: 1670.
Onset St. R. R. Co. v. Comity Comrs.,
154 Mass. 395: 271, 622, 1415.
Onthank v. Lake Shore etc. Ry. Co.,
71 N. Y. 194: 835, 864.
Opelousas etc. Ry. Co. v. Bradford,
118 La. 506: 1222, 1227, 1228,
1229, 1242.
V. St. Landry Cotton Oil Co., 118
La. 290: 1222.
Opening First St., Matter of, 66
Mich. 42: 683.
Opening of Streets through Girard
College Grounds, 10 Phila. 145:
747.
Opinion of the Justices, 25 N. H.
538: 63.
Opinion of the Justices, 41 N. H.
555: 594.
Opinion of Justices, 186 Mass. 603:
462.
Opinion of Justices, 190 Mass. 611:
462.
Opinion of the Justices, 103 Me. 506 :
14, 474.
Opinion of the Justices, 66 N. H.
629: 20, 22, 789, 1156, 1173.
Opp v. Timmons, 149 Ind. 236: 514
Oran Comrs. v. Hoblit, 19 111. App,
259: 1412.
Orange Belt R. R. Co. v. Craver, 32
Fla. 28: 1128, 1176, 1243, 1375
Orange Co. v. Ellsworth. 98 App
Div. 275: 704, 1029, 1042, 1055.
Orange House v. Montgomery Co
218 Pa. St. 204: 1407.
Orange Street, Matter of, 50 How
Pr. 244: 1022.
Ordway v. Canisteo, 66 Hun -569: 80
O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley Drain
ing Co., 32 Ind. 169: 501, 564
565, 566, 571.
O'Reilly v. New York El. R. R. Co.
76 Hun 283: 1296, 1299.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 148 N
Y. 347: 1296, 1299, 1554, 1614.
Oregon v. Memphis etc. R. R. Co., 51
Ark. 235: 1537.
Oregon & Cal. R. R. Co. v. Barlow, 3
Ore. 311: 1112, 1223.
Oregon Cascade R. R. Co. v. Bailey,
3 Ore. 164: 753.
Oregon Central R. R. Co. v. Wait, 3
Ore. 91: 1206.
V. Wait, 3 Ore. 428: 1206.
Oregon City v. Oregon etc. R. R. Co.,
44 Ore. 165: 875, 882.
Oregon City Trans. Co. v. Columbia
St. Bridge Co., 53 Fed. 549:
96.
Oregon etc. R. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 7
Utah 505: 1223.
v. Oregon Steam Nav. Co., 3 Ore.
178: 827, 1386.
V. Day, 3 Wash. Ter. 252: 856,
1712.
Oregon R. R. & Nav. Co. v. McCor-
mick, 46 Wash. 45 : 1080.
V. Mosler, 14 Ore. 519: 1348.
V. Owsley, 3 Wash. Ter. 38: 1247,
1249, 1356.
Oregon Ry. Co. v. Bridwell, 11 Ore.
282: 1392.
v. Hill, 9 Ore. 377: 1159.
Oregon Ry. etc. Co. v. Oregon Real
Estate Co., 10 Ore. 444: 894,
897.
Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v. Fox,
28 Utah 311: 1206.
V. Jones, 29 Utah 147 : 1322.
V. Postal lei. Cable Co., 104 Fed,
623: 1284, 1286.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., Ill Fed.
842: 714, 775, 796, 799, 804,
1048, 1050, 1066, 1068, 1284,
1286.
cex
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.>
Oregon Short Line E. R. Co. v. Quig-
ley, 10 Ida. 770: 956, 1479, 1620.
V. Russell, 27 Utah 457: 1379.
Organ v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 51
Ark. 235: 127, 129, 697, 1159,
1241, 1540, 1542, 1543, 1544,
1578, 1617.
Oritz V. Hansen, 35 Colo. 100: 587,
674, 708, 988.
Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. Jefferson
etc. R. R. Co., 51 La. An 1605:
754, 799, 1229, 1235.
Ormerod v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
13 Fed. 370: 131.
Orono v. County Comrs., 30 Me. 302 :
1098.
Oroville etc. R. R. Co. v. Leggett, 161
Fed. 571: 932.
Orr V. Quinby, 54 N. H. 590 : 2, 433,
434, 588, 1164.
Orriek School Dist. v. Dorton, 125
Mo. 439: 706, 1047, 1048.
Orrington v. County Comrs. of Pen-
obscot Co., 51 Me. 570: 1380.
Orth V. Milwaukee, 92 Wis. 230:
1245.
Ortman v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 32
Kan. 419: 1108.
Orton V. Metuchen, 66 N. J. L. 572:
302.
V. Tilden, 110 Ind. 131: 1028.
Ortwine v. Baltimore, 16 Md. 387:
1551.
Osborn v. Hart, 24 Wis. 89: 495, 516,
517.
V. Norwalk, 77 Conn. 663: 73, 866.
Osborne v. Auburn Telephone Co.,
189 N. Y. 393: 339, 1593.
V. Auburn Telephone Co., Ill App.
Div. 702: 339, 350, 1593.
V. Detroit, 32 Mich. 282: 1017.
V. Knife Falls Boom Co., 32 Minn.
412: 99.
V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 35 Fed. Rep.
84: 640, 1582.
V. Mo. Pac. R R. Co., 147 U. S.
248: 640, 641, 1582.
Osburn v. Chicago, 105 111. App. 217:
145/, 1472.
Osgood V. Chicago, 154 111. 194:
1306, 1308, 1309, 1337.
V. Chicago, 44 111. App. 532: 629,
1306, 1308.
Oshkosh V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co.,
74 Wis. 534: 1643.
Osterheldt v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa.
St. 355: 878, 879, 889, 1327.
Ostrom V. San Antonio, 77 Tex.
345: 1492, 1569, 1572.
V. Sills, 24 Out. 526: 148.
Oswego Falls Bridge Co. v. Fish, 1
Barb. Ch. 547: 409.
Oswego V. Oswego Canal Co., 6 N. Y.
257: 887.
Otis Co. V. Ludlow Mfg. Co., 186
Mass. 89: 549, 554, 899.
Otero Canal Co. v. Fosdick, 20 Colo.
552* 1459
Otoe Co. V. Heys, 19 Neb. 289: 1116,,
1342.
Ottawa V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 25
111. 43: 1576.
V. Yentzer, 160 111. 509: 868, 88U
Ottawa etc. R. R. Co. v. Adolph, 41
Kan. 600: 1124.
V. Larson, 40 Kan. 301: 252, 311,
330.
V. Peterson, 51 Kan. 604: 252,
1294, 1652.
Ottawa Gas Light Co. v. Graham, 28
111. 73: 166, 649.
Otten V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 150
N. Y. 395: 1302.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 2 App.
Div. 396: 1302.
Ottendorf v. Agnew, 13 Daly 16:
356.
Ottenot V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
119 N. Y. 603: 226, 319, 1553,
1651, 1658.
Otto V. Conroy, 76 Neb. 517: 1057.
Ottumwa etc. Ry. Co. v. McWil-
liams, 71 la. 164: 830, 834, 838,
851.
Ouimet v. Montreal, 7 Ontario 193:
1259, 1274.
Ouken v. Riley, 65 Tex. 468 : 1029.
Oury V. Goodwin, 3 Ariz. 255: 587,
672.
Overman v. May, 35 la. 89: 1489.
V. St. Paul, 39 Minn. 120: 231,
1018, 1032, 1513, 1516, 1634.
Overman Silver Mining Co. v. Cor-
coran, 15 Nev. 147: 562.
Owazarzak v. Gulf etc. Ry. Co., 31
Tex. Civ. App. 229: 489, 1483.
Owen V. Brockport, 208 111. 35: 892.
V. Jordan, 27 Ala. 608: 1358.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 12 Wash.
313: 938, 1354, 1629.
V. Springfield, 83 Mo. App. 557:
1695.
Owen County v. Morgan, 22 Ky. L.
R. 922: 947, 1564.
Owens V. Crossett, 105 111. 354 : 1572.
V. Lancaster, 182 Pa. St. 257: 79,
84, 453, 1637.
V. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. 67 Tex.
679: 152.
Owensboro v. Muster, 111 Ky. 856:
884.
CASES CITED.
cexi
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Owensboro etc. R. R. Co. v. Gray, 14
Ky. L. R. 79: 1670, 1698.
V. Griffith, 92 Ky. 137 : 842
Owensborough etc. R. R. Co. v. Sut-
ton, (Ky.) 13 S. W. 1086: 309,
1086.
Owings V. Worthington, 10 G. & J.
283: 516, 989, 1516.
Orvis V. Elmira etc. R. R. Co., 17
App. Div. N. Y. 187: 93.
Owners of Ground v. Albany, 15
Wend. 374: 539, 1005, 1011,
1438.
Owners of Land v. People, 113 111.
296; 1518.
Owosso V. Richfield, 80 Mich. 324:
912, 914, 1025, 1085.
Owston V. Grand Trunk R. R. Co.,
28 Grant Ch. 431 : 953, 1556.
Oxford V. Brands, 45 N. J. L. 332:
1106, 1368, 1386.
». Columbia, 38 Ohio St. 87: 1492.
V. Philadelphia, 19 Phila. 483:
633.
V. Willoughby, 87 App. Div. 609:
1623.
V. Willoughby, 181 N. Y. 155:
1623.
Oxford Alley, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 221:
1384.
Oyler v. Ross, 48 Neb. 211: 970.
P.
Pace V. Freeman, 10 Ired. L. 103:
1135.
Pacific Coast R. R. Co. v. Porter, 74
Cal. 261: 1203, 1223.
Pacific Gas Imp. Co. v. Ellert, 64
Fed. 421: 119.
Pacific Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Ir-
vine, 49 Fed. 113: 339.
V. Oregon etc. R. R. Co., 163 Fed.
967: 775, 823.
V. Western Union Tel. Co.. 50 Fed.
493: 412, 832, 1476.
Pacific R. R. Co. v. Chrystal, 25 Mo.
544: 1186.
V. Leavenworth City, 1 Dill. 393:
306.
V. Perkins, 36 Neb. 456: 1024.
V. Reed, 41 Cal. 256: 249.
V. Seely, 45 Mo. 212: 833.
V. Wade, 91 Cal. 449: 426, 427,
761, 763, 1283.
Pack V. Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. Co.,
5 W. Va. 118: 928.
Packard v. Bergen Neck R. R. Co.,
48 N. J. Eq. 281: 915, 1461,
1464, 1563.
V. Bergen Neck R. R. Co., 54 N. J.
L. 229: 1187, 1247, 1366.
Packard v. Bergen Neck R. R. Co.,
54 N. J. L. 553: 1132, 1187,
1200, 1247, 1366.
V. County Comrs., 80 Me. 43: 979,
984.
Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661: 114.
V. Sunbury etc. R. R. Co., 19 Pa.
St. 211: 709, 900.
Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80:
594.
V. Sorrels, 50 Ark. 466: 356, 1488.
Paducah v. Allen, 111 Ky. 361: 658,
1138, 1337.
Paducah etc. R. R. Co. v. Dipple, 16
Ky. L. R. 62: 1549.
V. Storall, 12 Heisk. 1: 1100, 1207.
Page V. Baltimore, 34 Md. 558: 745,
748.
V. Belvin, 88 Va. 985: 1457.
V. Boston, 106 Mass. 84: 1717.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 70 111.
324: 1177, 1195.
V. Heineberg, 40 Vt. 81: 827, 837,
838, 1500.
V. Huckins, 150 Mich. 103: 154.
V. O'Toole, 144 Mass. 303: 809,
Pagel V. County Comrs., 17 Mont.
586: 984, 1363, 1571.
Pagels V. Oaks, 64 la. 198: 513, 1032,
1033, 1069, 1416.
Paige V. Schenectady Ry. Co., 77
App. Div. 571: 1586, 1587.
V. Schenectady Ry. Co., 84 App.
Div. 91: 273.
V. Schenectady Ry. Co., 178 N. Y.
102: 273.
Paine v. Boston, 4 Allen, 168: 1138,
1142.
V. Delhi, 116 N. Y. 224: 143.
V. Leicester, 22 Vt. 44: 513, 1421.
V. Lettsville, 103 la. 481: 236.
V. Woods, 108 Mass. 160: 109,
948, 980, 1133, 1217.
Paine Lumber Co. v. Oshkosh, 86
Wis. 397: 431, 1572.
V. Oshkosh, 89 Wis. 449: 1505.
V. United States, 55 Fed. 854: 92,
128 129 136
Painter 'v. St. Clair, 98 Va. 85: 672,
673, 675, 687, 707, 709, 1515,
1569, 1571.
Painter's Lateral R. R. Co., 198 Pa.
St. 461: 707, 1460.
Paisier v. Board of Co. Comrs., 68
Minn. 297: 1407.
Palairet's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 479:
590.
Palatine v. Kreuger, 121 111. 72: 173,
1486, 1487.
V. Kreuger, 20 111. App. 420: 1486,
1487.
CCXll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Palatka etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 23
Fla. 546: 780.
Palethorp v. Philadelphia etc. R. R.
Co., 2 Walker's Pa. Supm. 487:
859.
Palmer v. Clinton, 52 111. App. 67:
890.
V. Conway, 22 N. H. 144: 1088.
V. East River Gas Co., 115 App.
Biv. 677: 890.
V. Hickory Grove Cem., 84 App.
Div. 600: 1625.
V. Higliway Comr., 49 Mich. 45:
996.
V. Harris Co., 29 Tex. Civ. App.
340: 1057, 1377.
V. Larchmont Electric Co., 6 App.
Div. 12: 345, 1593.
V. Larchmont Electric Co., 158 N.
Y. 231: 175, 344.
V. Logansport etc. Gravel R. Co.,
108 Ind. 137: 422, 1595.
V. Mulligan, 3 Caines Rep. 307:
71, 76.
V. O'Donnell, 15 lU. App. 324: 233.
V. Rich, 12 Mich. 414: 973.
v. State, Wright (Ohio), 364: 722.
V. Union El. R. R. Co., 64 111. App.
534: 1585.
Palmer Co. v. Ferrill, 17 Pick. 58:
1185, 1215.
Palmer etc.. Matter of, 9 A. & E.
463: 953.
Palmer etc.. Matter of, 36 E. C. L. R.
253: 953.
Palmer's Private Road, 16 Pa. Co.
Ct. 340: 721.
Palmyra v. Morton, 25 Mo. 593: 13.
Palo Alto Road, 160 Pa. St. 104:
402.
Palo Alto Road View, 13 Pa. Co. Ct.
537: 701.
Panhandle etc. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 42
Tex. Civ. App. 340: 1329.
Panton Turnpike Co. v. Bishop, 11
Vt. 198: 422.
Pape V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 74
App. Div. 175: 257.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co. 175
N Y. 504: 257.
Papooshek v. Winona etc. R. R. Co.,
44 Minn. 195: 247, 1127, 1128,
1131.
Pappenheim v. Railway Company,
128 N. Y. 436: 182, 1553, 1554,
1584, 1591, 1663.
Papworth v. Milwaukee, 64 Wis.
389: 1488.
Paquet v. Mt. Tabor St. R. R. Co.,
18 Or. 233: 271, 282, 313. 316.
Paradise Road, 29 Pa. St. 20: 1100,
1101.
Paret v. Bayonne, 39 N. J. L. 559:
828
V. Bayonne, 40 N. J. L. 333 : 1548.
v. New York El. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y.
Supr. 441: 1664.
Parham v. Decatur County, 9 Ga.
341: 22, 23, 24, 672, 674, 1095,
1163, 1571.
Paris V. AUred, 17 Tex. Civ. App.
125: 84, 1649, 1654.
V. Coltraine, 3 Hawks. (N. C.)
312: 1438.
V. Current, 15 Ky. L. R. 126: 237.
V. Mason, 37 Tex. 447 : 1163, 1183,
1571.
Parisa v. Dallas, 83 Tex. 253 : 882.
Paris Elec. L. & R. R. Co. v. S. W.
Tel. & Tel. Co, (Tex. Civ. App.)
27 S W. 902: 418.
Paris etc. R. R. Co. v. Greimer, 84
Tex. 443: 1626.
Parish v. Gilmanton, 11 N. H. 293:
948, 962, 1021, 1031.
Paris Mountain Water Co. v. Green-
ville, 53 S. C. 82: 354, 613, 660.
Parke's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 137: 727.
Park V. C. & S. W. R. R. Co., 43 la.
636: 320, 351, 372, 374, 383,
651.
Parke v. Seattle, 5 Wash. 1: 229,
1309.
V. Seattle, 8 Wash. 78: 942, 1145.
Parker v. Adams, 55 N. J. L. 334:
1069.
V. Am. Woolen Co., 195 Mass. 591 :
81.
V. Atchison, 46 Kan. 14: 604, 618,
1306, 1308, 1337.
V. Atkinson, 58 Kan. 29 : 89.
y. Boston Sc M. R. E. Co., 3 Cush.
107: 226, 623.
V. Boston, 15 Pick. 198: 1109.
V. Catholic Bishop, 146 111. 158:
363, 382, 391, 396, 398, 406, 644,
1595.
V. Catholic Bishop, 41 111. App. 74
363, 382, 391, 396, 398, 406.
V. Commonwealth, 178 Mass. 199
468.
V. Cutter Milldam Co., 20 Me. 253
133.
V. East Tenn. etc. R. R. Co., 13
Lea 669: 1165, 1526, 1570.
V. Ft. Worth etc. R. R. Co., 84
Tex. 333: 985, 1018, 1513, 1518.
V. Framingham, 8 Met. 260: 368.
V. Hotchkiss, 25 Conn. 321: 71.
V. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 109 Mass.
506: 691.
V. Nashua, 59 N. H. 402: 235.
V. Norfolk Co., 150 Mass. 489:
1468.
CASES CITED,
CCXlll
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Parker v. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co. 119
N. C. 676: 155.
V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co. 123 N. C.
71: 155, 1449.
V. People, 111 111. 581: 486.
V. Rogers, 8 Ore. 183, 118.
V. St. Paul, 47 Minn. 317: 1503,
1504.
V. Smith, 17 Mass. 413: 368.
V. Superior Court, 25 Wash. 544:
1042, 1043, 1044, 1397, 1399,
1424.
V. Taylor, 7 Ore. 435: 118.
V. West Coast Packing Co., 17 Ore.
510: 118.
Parker Co. v. Jackson, 5 Tex. Civ.
App. 36: 424.
Parker, Petitioner, 36 N. H. 84 : 948.
Parkersburg Gas. Co. v. Parkersburg,
30 W. Va. 435: 413, 416.
Parkham v. Justices etc. 9 Ga. 341 :
498.
Parkhurst v. Salem, 23 Ore. 472:
301.
V. Vanderveer, 48 N. J. L. 80 : 981,
1023.
Parks V. Boston, 8 Pick. 218: 514.
V. Boston, 15 Pick. 198: 1221,
1222, 1255, 1320.
V. Dallas Terminal etc. Co., 34
Tex. Civ. App. 341: 1429.
V. Hampden Co., 120 Mass. 395:
395, 1186.
V. Newburyport, 10 Gray 28: 147.
T. Southern Ry. Co., 143 N. C.
289: 156, 1455, 1707, 1708.
V. Wisconsin Central R. R. Co., 33
Wis. 413: 1123.
Parmelee v. Oswego etc. R. R. Co., 7
Barb. 599: 787.
V. Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 6
N. Y. 24: 839.
Parnell v. Comra.' Court, 34 Ala.
278: 1414.
Parny v. Citizen Water Works Co.,
59 Hun 196: 1603.
Parriott v. Hampton, 134 la. 157:
889, 1493.
Parrott v. Chicago Gt. Western Ry.
Co., 127 la. 419: 1455, 1506.
V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 3 Ohio
St. 330: 249, 255.
V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 10
Ohio St. 624 : 247, 249, 255, 330,
448, 1295, 1303.
V. Lawrence, 2 Dill. 332: 414.
Parry v. Citizens' Water Works Co.,
59 Hun 196: 69, 72, 74.
V. New Orleans M. & C. R. R. Co.,
55 Ala. 413: 250.
V. Richmond, 27 Ind. 66: 858, 860.
Parsell v. State, 30 N. J. L. 530:
1082.
Parsonfield v. Lord, 23 Me. 511:
1371.
Parsons v. Clark, 76 Me. 476: 1489.
V. Detroit etc. Ry. Co., 122 Mich.
462: 844.
V. Howe, 41 Me. 218: 715.
V. Hunt, 98 Tex. 420: 859.
v. Pettingill, 11 Allen, 507: 17.
V. VanWyck, 56 App. Div. 329:
421.
V. Waterville etc. Ry. Co., 101 Me.
173: 272.
Parsons etc. R. R. Co. v. Montgom-
ery, 46 Kan. 120: 1380.
Parsons' Water Co. v. Knapp, 33
Kan. 752: 1124, 1495.
Parst V. Bayonne, 39 N. J. L. 559:
1116.
Partridge v. Arlington, 193 Mass.
530: 965, 1525, 1707.
V. Ballard, 2 Me. 50 : 1390.
V. Great Western R. R. Co., 8 U.
C. C. P. 97: 937, 1559.
Pasadena v. Stinson, 91 Cal. 238:
738 1334.
Paschall St., 81 Pa. St. 118: 1092,
1103.
Passaic v. Paterson Bill Posting Co.,
71 N. J. L. 75: 471.
V. Paterson Bill Posting Co., 72
N. J. L. 285: 57, 67, 471, 540.
Passyunk Ave., In re, 2 Pa. Co. Ct.
269: 1189.
Patch v. Boston, 146 Mass. 52: 1133,
1138, 1151.
Patchin v. Brooklyn, 2 Wend. 377:
1108.
V. Brooklyn, 8 Wend. 47: 1108.
V. Brooklyn, 10 Wend. 664: 1418.
V. Doolittle, 3 Vt. 457 : 514, 1461.
V. Morrison, 3 Vt. 590: 1461.
Patent v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
43 Legal Intel. 79 : 692.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 17
Phil. 291: 692.
V. Phil. & Reading R. R. Co., 14
Weekly Notes (Pa.) 545: 643.
Paterson's Appeal, 129 Pa. St. 109:
1614.
Paterson v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 17
Grant U. C. 521 : 1540.
V. Duluth, 21 Minn. 493: 367.
V. Railroad Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 331 :
1619.
Paterson etc. R. R. Co. v. Kamlah,
42 N. J. Eq. 93: 859, 1320, 1631.
V. Kamlah, 47 N. J. Eq. 331 : 1320.
V. Newark, 61 N. J. L. 80: 1250,
1292.
CCXIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Paterson v. Nutley, 72 N. J. L. 123 :
1291.
V. Paterson, 72 N. J. L. 112: 750.
V. Paterson, 24 N. J. Eq. 158:
268.
Paterson etc. Traction Co. v. DeGray,
70 N. J. L. 59: 690, 697, 1395,
1397.
Patoka Tp. v. Hopkins, 131 Ind. 142:
154, 1606.
Patrick v. Commissioners, etc., 4 Me-
Cord (S. C.) 541: 22, 1153.
V. Omaha, 1 Neb. (Unof.) 250:
484.
V. Young Men's C. Ass., 120 Mich.
185: 873, 892.
Patridge v. Arlington, 193 Mass.
530: 1718.
Patten's Petition, 16 N. H. 277 : 992,
995, 1103.
Patten v. New York Elevated R. R.
Co., 3 Abb. New Cases 306: 260.
V. Northern Cent. R. R. Co., 33 Pa..
St. 426: 1315.
Patterson's Appeal, 129 Pa. St. 109:
1576.
Patterson v. Boom Co., 3 Dill. 465:
543, 807.
V. Boom Co., 98 U. S. 403: 543.
T. Boston, 20 Pick. 159: l!S55,
1259, 1274.
V. Boston, 23 Pick. 425: 1259,
1274.
V. Chicago, D. & V. R. R. Co., 75
111. 588, 639, 1581.
V. Duluth, 21 Minn. 493: 384.
V. Mead, 148 Mich. 659: 973, 993.
V. Munyau, 93 Cal. 128 : 864.
V. People's Nat. Gas Co., 172 Pa.
St. 554: 882.
V. Vail, 43 la. 142: 348.
V. Wollman, 5 N. D. 608: 413,
1608.
Patton V. Clark, 9 Yerg. 268: 1095,
1426.
V. Olympia D. & L. Co., 15 Wash.
210: 315, 1554.
V. Philadelphia, 175 Pa. St. 88:
1339.
V. Rome, 124 Ga. 52g: 378, 379.
V. State, 50 Ark. 53 : 864.
Paul V. Carver, 24 Pa. St. 207: 376,
393
V. Detroit, 32 Mich. 108: 1058,
1104.
Paulsen v. Portland, 149 U. S. 30:
1013.
Pause V. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 92: 635,
1271, 1272, 1306.
Pawcatuck Val. St. Ry. Co. v. West-
erly, 22 R. I. 307: 491.
Pawnee Co. v. Storm, 34 Neb. 735:
1011, 1013, 1709.
Paxton v. Yazoo R. R. Co., 76 Miss.
536: 1477.
Paxton etc. Irr. Canal & L. Co. v.
Farmers' etc. Irr. & L. Co., 45
Neb. 884: 675.
Payne v. English, 79 Cal. 540: 119,
132, 137, 652, 1607.
V. Kansas etc. R. R. Co., 46 Fed.
546: 426, 680, 1474.
v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 112
Mo. 6: 157.
V. Morgan's R. R. etc. Co., 38 La.
Ann. 164: 152, 1476.
V. Morgan's R. R. Co., 43 La. Ann.
981: 160, 1546, 1547.
V. Wayland, 131 la. 659: 452, 454.
Peabody v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 191
Mass. 513: 1216, 1300.
V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 181 Mass.
76: 325, 1549.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 187
Mass. 489: 325, 1144, 1145, 1151,
1306, 1323.
V. Sweet, 3 Ind. 514: 1017, 1032.
Peach Bottum Road, In re, 3 Penny.
Pa. 541: 1034, 1100, 1383.
Pearce v. Chicago, 176 111. 152: 1534.
V. Chicago, 67 111. App. 671 : 1534.
V. Gilmer, 54 111. 25 : 1362.
V. Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 428: 614,
619.
Pearce's Heirs v. Patton, 7 B. Mon.
162: 459, 494, 591.
Pearl Street, Matter of, 19 Wend.
651: 1385.
Pearl St. Opening of, In re. 111 Pa.
St. 565: 880.
Pearsall v. Eaton Co., 71 Mich. 438:
375, 386, 388, 400, 405.
V. Eaton County, 74 Mich. 558 : 56,
57, 185, 369, 375, 386, 388, 400,
405, 1004, 1058.
V. Post, 20 Wend. Ill: 726, 867,
871, 872.
Pearsoll v. Post, 22 Wend. 425 : 872.
Pearson v. Allen, 151 Mass. 79: 183,
366, 384, 392.
V. Island County, 3 Wash. 497:
1402.
V. Johnson, 54 Miss. 259: 543, 1159,
1170.
Peart v. Meeker, 45 La. Ann. 421 :
440.
Pease v. Paterson etc. Traction Co.,
69 N. J. L. 165 : 780, 887.
CASES CITED.
CCXV
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Peavey v. Calais R. R. Co., 30 Me.
498: 693, 711, 1048.
V. Wolfborough, 37 N. H. 286 : 955,
1029, 1103, 1368.
Peay v. Salt Lake City, 11 Utah, 331 :
137.
Peck V. Goodberlett, 109 N. Y. 180:
147.
V. New Albany & Chicago R. R. Co.,
101 Ind. 366: 731.
V. Smith, 1 Conn. 103: 1486.
V. Schenectady etc. Ry. Co., 67 App.
Div. 359 : 273, 1586.
V. Schenectady etc. Ry. Co., 170
N. Y. 298: 273, 1586.
V. Van Rensselaer, 8 Blackf. Ind.
312: 748.
V. Whitney, 6 B. Mon. 117: 1367.
Peckham v. Dutchess Co. R. R. Co.,
145 N. Y. 385: 1484, 1645, 1647.
V. Lebanon, 39 Conn. 231: 513.
V. School District, 7 R. I. 545:
1106.
Peden v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 73
la. 328: 840, 852, 855, 1652,
1655.
Peddicord v. Baltimore etc. H. R.
R. Co., 34 Md. 463: 211, 238,
268, 281.
Pcdrick v. Raleisth etc. R. R. Co.,
143 N. C. 485: 133.
Peel V. Atlanta. 85 Ga. 138: 438, 629,
664, 666, 670.
Pegler v. Highway Comrs., 34 Mich.
359: 1034.
V. Hyde Park, 176 Mass. 101 : 1260,
1271, 1276, 1277, 1319.
Pegram v. New York El. R. R. Co., 8
Miscl. 425: 1664.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 147 N.
Y. 135: 182, 923, 1663, 1664.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 59 N.
Y. Supr. Ct. 570: 1664.
Peify V. Mountain Water Supply Co.,
214 Pa. St. 340: 495, 1569, 1572.
Peik V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 94 U.
S. 164: 15, 480.
Pekin v. Brereton, 67 111. 477 : 629.
V. Winkel, 77 111. 56: 629.
Pelham Manor v. New Rochelle Wat-
er Co., 143 N. Y. 532 : 336.
Pell V. Northampton etc. R. R. Co.,
L. R. 2 Ch. App. 100: 1537,
1578.
Pembroke v. Canadian Cent. R. R.
Co., 3 Ont. 503: 297, 299.
V. County Comrs., 12 Cush. 351 :
979 1381.
Pence v.' Bryant, 54 W. Va. 263: 375,
395, 406, 1596.
Penfield v. New York, 115 App. Div.
502: 79.
Peninsular R. R. Co. v. Howard, 20
Mich. 18: 1083.
Penley, Complt., 89 Me. 313: 1200.
Penley v. Me. Cent. R. R. Co., 92 Me.
59: 94.
Pennell v. Card, 96 Me. 392: 1135,
1519, 1535.
Penn Gas Coal Co. v. Versailles Fuel
Gas Co., 131 Pa. St. 522: 439,
1569.
Penniman v. St. Johnsbury, 54 Vt.
306: 212.
Pennock v. Crescent Pipe Line Co.,
170 Pa. St. 372: 1130.
Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 296 :
233.
Pennsburg Alley, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 213 :
1034, 1087.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson,
113 Pa. St. 126: 71.
Pennsylvania Co.'s Appeal, 115 Pa.
St. 529: 1665.
Pennsylvania Co. v. Bond, 202 111. 95 :
197, 375, 1596.
V. Erie & Pittsburgh R. R. Co., 108
Pa. St. 621: 855
V. Ohio Riv. Junction R. R. Co., 204
Pa. St. 356: 900, 1619.
V. Piatt, 47 Ohio St. 336: 425,
1546, 1578.
V. Plotz, 125 Ind. 26: 881, 883.
V. Stanley, 10 Ind. App. 421: 179,
190, 319, 372, 382.
Pennsylvania Company for Insurance
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co.,
151 Pa. St. 334: 449, 655.
Pennsylvania etc. R. R. Co. v. Bun-
nell, 81 Pa. St. 414: 995, 1120,
1139 1317
V. Root, 53 N. J. L. 253: 1131.
Pennsylvania Gas Coal Co. v. Ver-
sailles Fuel Gas Co., 131 Pa. St.
522: 1496.
Pennsylvania Hall, Matter of, 5 Pa.
St. 204: 476.
Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Heiss, 141 111. 35: 639, 1355,
1540, 1542, 1544.
Pennsylvania Nat. Gas Co. v. Cook,
123 Pa. St. 170: 625.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 128
Pa. St. 509: 1067.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 115
Pa. St. 514: 640, 1574, 1581,
1583.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 93
Pa. St. 150: 679, 680, 711, 753,
796, 1010.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 80
Pa. St. 265: 760, 831.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 33
Pa. Co. Ct. 251: 1682.
CCXVl
OASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 3
Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. 454: 754,
799, 1387.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Angell, 41
N. J. Eq. 316: 57, 309, 446, 447,
451, 1583, 1592.
V. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 60 Md. 263:
772, 1154, 1173.
V. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co., 63 Md.
263: 427, 756, 762, 772.
V. Bogert, 209 Pa. St. 589: 753.
V. Braddock El. R. R. Co., 11 Pa.,
Co. Ct. 163: 771.
V. Braddock Electric R. R. Co.,
152 Pa. St. 116: 770, 771.
V. Bruner, 55 Pa. St. 318: 1359.
V. Chicago, 181 111. 289 : 199, 1618.
V. Conshohocken R. R. Co., 15 Pa.
Co. Ct. 454: 771.
V. Cooper, 58 Pa. St. 408: 1324.
V. Diehm, 128 Pa. St. 509: 677,
679, 1057, 1063, 1068.
V. Duncan, 111 Pa. St. 352: 693.
V. Ely, 107 Pa. St. 166: 952, 961,
1634, 1635.
V. Edgewood, 200 Pa. St. 45 : 1489.
V. Freeport, 138 Pa. St. 91: 1504.
V. Friday, 4 Penny. 158: 1457.
V. Greensburg etc. R. R. Co., 176
Pa. St. 559: 331.
v. Heister, 8 Pa. St. 445: 1187.
V. Inland Traction Co., 25 Pa.
Super. Ct. 115: 328.
V. Keiffer, 22 Pa. St. 356: 1097,
1438.
V. Lippincott, 116 Pa. St. 472: 449,
640, 655.
V. Lutheran Congregation, 53 Pa.
St. 445: 923, 994.
V. Marchant, 119 Pa. St. 541: 449,
640, 655, 656, 664, 665, 666, 668,
671.
V. Miller, 112 Pa. St. 34: 74, 77,
1476.
V. Miller, 132 U. S. 75: 26, 267,
475, 640i 693.
V. Montgomery Co. Pass. R. R. Co.,
14 Pa. Co. Ct. 88: 172, 274,
1586.
V. Montgomery Co. Pass. R. R. Co.,
167 Pa. St. 62: 172, 177, 274,
282, 1589, 1591.
V. National Docks etc. R. R. Co.,
51 Fed. 858: 768.
V. National Docks etc. R. R. Co., 56
Fed. 677: 768.
V. National Docks etc. R. R. Co.,
58 Fed. 929: 768.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 23 N.
J. Eq. 157: 117, 131.
V. Parkersburg etc. St. Ry. Co., 26
Pa. Supr. Ct. 159: 300.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Pearsoll,
173 Pa. St. 496: 835.
V. Philadelphia Belt R. R. Co., 10
Pa. Co. Ct. 625: 298, 778.
v. Philadelphia Co., 220 Pa. St.
100: 483.
V. Porter, 29 Pa. St. 165: 992, 995.
V. Reichert, 58 Md. 261 : 1345.
V. Stanley, 10 Ind. App. 421: 320,
351.
V. Suburban Rapid Transit Co., 11
Pa. Co. Ct. 591: 771.
V. Thompson, 45 N. J. Eq. 870:
446, 1583, 1592.
V. Turtle Creek Val. R. R. Co., 179
Pa. St. 584: 300, 920.
V. Warren St. R. R. Co., 188 Pa.
St. 74: 771.
Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co. v. Clary,
125 Pa. St. 442: 940, 1151, 1200,
1232, 1241, 1242, 1561.
v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 7
Pa. Co. Ct. 490: 771.
v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 157
Pa. St. 42: 301, 306, 308, 327.
v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 160
Pa. St. 232: 753, 778.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 160
Pa. St. 277: 771.
V. Reading Paper Mills, 149 Pa. St.
18: 331, 1595.
V. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 167 Pa. St.
576 759.
V. Wa'lsh, 124 Pa. St. 544: 641, 664,
665, 666.
V. Ziemer, 124 Pa. St. 560: 640,
1147, 1324, 1549, 1651, 1717.
Pennsylvania Steel Co.'s Appeal, 161
Pa. St. 561: 1422.
Pennsylvania Telephone Co. v. Hoov-
er, 27 Pa. Co. Ct. 61 : 682.
V. Hoover, 24 Pa. Supr. Ct. 96:
679, 709.
V. Hoover, 209 Pa. St. 555: 679,
680, 709.
Penny, In re, 7 Ellis & B. 660: 656.
Peimy v. Commonwealth, 173 Mass.
507: 1313.
V. Penny, L. R. 5 Eq. Cas. 227:
1257, 1260.
Penobscot Log Driving Co. v. West
Branch etc. Co., 99 Me. 452:
1135.
Penrhyn Slate Co. v. Granville Elec.
L. & P. Co., 84 App. Div. 92:
1603, 1616.
V. Granville Elec. Light & P. Co.,
181 N. Y. 80: 1603, 1616.
Penrice v. Wallis, 37 Miss. 172: 1179,
1571.
Pensacola etc. R. R. Co. v. Hyer, 32
Fla. 539: 96.
V. State, 25 Fla. 310: 483.
CASES CITED.
CCXVll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Pensacola Gas Co. v. Pebley, 25 Fla.
381: 166.
Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1: 687, 775,
832.
People V. Adam, 74 App. Div. 604:
1411, 1412.
V. Adam, 79 App. Div. 306: 1411,
1412.
V. Adam, 83 App. Div. 620: 1411,
1412.
V. Adirondack R. R. Co., 39 App.
Div. 34: 540.
v. Adirondack R. R. Co., 160 N. Y.
225: 1, 9, 21, 540, 675, 736, 743,
900, 909, 927, 1009, 1164, 1624.
V. Allen, 37 App. Div. N. Y. 248:
1018.
V. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 217 111.
594: 197, 398, 400, 406.
V. Barnard, 48 Hun 57 : 763.
V. Barnard, 110 N. Y. 548: 763.
V. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 117 N. Y. 150:
9, 743, 744, 1496.
V. Beaudry, 91 Cal. 213: 890.
V. Blake, 19 Cal. 579: 808, 922,
1061.
V. Blocki, 203 111. 363 : 318, 532.
V. Board of Assessors, 59 Hun 407 :
928, 1005, 1013.
V. Board of Health, 140 N. Y. 1:
484.
V. Board of R. R. Comrs., 4 App.
Div. 259: 909.
V. Board of R. R. Comrs., 124
App. Div. 47: 920, 1411, 1412.
V. Board of Supervisors, 33 Cal.
487: 695.
T. Board of Trustees, 137 N. Y. 88:
912.
v. Bowen, 30 Barb. 24: 337, 338.
V. Bridges, 142 111. 30: 471.
v. Brighton, 20 Mich. 57: 930,
1086, 1413.
V. Brooklyn, 6 Barb. 209: 13,
1195.
V. Brooklyn, 9 Barb. 535: 13.
V. Brooklyn, 49 Barb. 136: 1106,
1107, 1417.
V. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419: 10, 13,
14, 744.
V. Brooklyn, 1 Wend. 318: 1670,
1678.
V. Brown, 47 Hun 459: 1005, 1362.
V. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1: 482.
V. Buflfalo, 76 N. Y. 558: 17.
V. Burton, 65 N. Y. 452: 1029,
1132.
V. Calder, 89 App. Div. 503: 433.
V. Calder, 153 Mich. 724: 740.
People V. Canal Appraisers, 9 Barb,
496: 1708.
V. Canal Appraisers, 13 Hun 64
1401.
V. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 461
105, 106, 117.
V. Canal Appraisers, 13 Wend. 355
94.
V. Canal Board, 7 Lans. 220: 1374,
1409, 1515.
V. Carman, 47 Hun 380: 1409.
V. Central Union Tel. Co., 192 111.
307: 359, 410.
V. Champion, 16 Johns. 61: 1637.
V. Cheritree, 4 N. Y. Supm. Ct.
289: 1417.
V. Chicago Telephone Co., 220 111.
238: 631, 1623.
V. Clean St. Co., 225 111. 470: 199.
V. Cline, 23 Barb. 197: 1082.
V. Coler, 60 App. Div. 77: 1324.
V. Corer, 168 N. Y. 644: 1324.
V. Collins, 19 Wend. 56: 1364,
1637.
V. Colorado Eastern R. R. Co., 8
Colo. App. 301 : 1049.
V. Commissioners, 27 Barb. 94:
1058, 1100, 1101, 1515, 1517,
1638.
V. Commissioners, 3 Hill 599 : 1396,
1402.
V. Commissioners, 42 Hun 463:
1638.
V. Commissioners, 16 Mich. 63:
1033.
V. Commissioners, 37 N. Y. 360:
778.
V. Commissioners, 1 N. Y. Supm.
Ct. 193: 1638, 1670.
V. Comrs. of Greenbush, 24 Wend.
367: 1078.
V. Commissioners of Highways, 53
Barb. 70: 378, 387, 395.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 103 111.
640: 1638.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 188 III.
150: 1409.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 57 N. Y.
549: 821.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 13 Wend.
310: 1637.
V. Comrs. of Land Office, 135 N. Y.
447: 105, 122.
V, Common Council, 20 How. Pr.
491: 1530, 1678.
V. Common Council, 2 Misc. 7 : 697,
1531.
V. Common Council, 78 N. Y. 56:
1671, 1679.
V. Common Council, 140 N. Y. 300 :
697, 1531.
ccxvm
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol.
People V. Conner, 46 Barb. 333: 1091.
V. County Court, 28 Hun 14: 1047.
V. Co. Court, 152 N. Y. 214 : 1412.
V. Covert, 1 Hill 674: 1417.
V. Crayeroft, 111 Cal. 544: 300.
V. Crissman, 41 Colo. 450: 460.
V. Curyea, 16 111. 547 : 1637.
V. Dains, 38 Hun 43: 1079, 1081,
1418.
V. Davidson, 79 Cal. 166: 889.
V. Decatur etc. Ry. Co., 120 111.
App. 229: 1622.
V. Delany, 120 App. Div. 801 : 1532.
V. Delaware etc. Co., 81 App. Div.
335: 781, 1642, 1643.
V. Delaware etc. Co., 177 N. Y. 337 :
781, 1642, 1643.
V. Delaware etc. K. R. Co., 11 App.
Div. 280: 1287.
V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co., 79 Mich.
471: 491, 1290.
V. Detroit United Ry. • Co., 134
Mich. 682: 488.
V. District Court, 11 Colo. 147:
534, 745, 1470.
V. Diver, 19 Hun 263: 1364.
V. D'Oench, 111 N. Y. 359: 468.
V. Dodge, 45 Hun 310: 1080.
V. Drain Comrs., 40 Mich. 745:
1415, 1416, 1417.
V. Eaton, 100 Mich. 208 : 341.
V. Eel River etc. R. R. Co., 98
Cal. 665: 881, 883.
V. Eggleston, 13 How. Pr. 123:
1069.
V. Eldredge, 3 Hun 541: 1196.
V. Ellison, 115 App. Div. 254: 361,
489.
V. Ellison, 188 N. Y. 523: 361,
489.
V. Ferris, 41 Barb. 121: 1107.
V. Ferris, 36 N. Y. 218: 1421.
V. First Judge of Columbia, 2 Hill
398: 1083, 1418.
V. Fisher, 116 App. Div. 677: 806,
813
V. Fisher, 190 N. Y. 468: 7, 672,
675, 1061, 1064.
V. Fitch, 78 Hun 321: 1531.
V. Fitch, 147 N. Y. 355: 609, 1531,
1532.
V. Ft. Wayne & E. R. R. Co., 92
Mich. 522: 272, 277, 313.
V. Foss, 80 Mich. 559: 1486, 1489.
V. Friend, 233 111. 572: 398.
V. Gallagher, 4 Mich. 244: 23.
V. Gardner, 24 N. Y. 583: 1358,
1515.
V. General Electric Ry. Co., 172 HI.
129: 1618.
V. Geneva etc. Traction Co., 112
App. Div. 581 : 491.
I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
People V. Geneva etc. Traction Co.,
186 N. Y. 516: 491.
V. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389: 479,
480.
V. Gilon, 76 Hun 346: 609, 619,
1095, 1365.
V. Gilon, 121 N. Y. 551: 609, 1005,
1013, 1417.
V. Gloversville, 128 App. Div. 44:
879, 1327.
V. Goodwin, 5 N. Y. 568: 820,
, 1418.
V. Grand Appraisers, 9 Barb. 496:
1707.
V. Gray, 49 Hun 465: 1005, 1013.
V. Green, 85 App. Div. 400: 471,
1532 1533.
V. Griswold, 67 N. Y. 59: 1637.
V. Griswold, 2 N. Y. Supm. Ct.
351: 1637.
V. Haines, 49 N. Y. 587: 437.
V. Hamburg, 58 Misc. 643: 1532,
1637.
V. Harris, 203 111. 272: 197, 199,
373.
V. Harris, 63 N. Y. 391: 1406.
V. Haverstraw, 80 Hun 385: 927,
1164, 1167.
V. Haverstraw, 137 N. Y. 88: 911.
V. Hawley, 3 Mich. 330: 14, 477.
V. Hayden, 6 Hill 359: 1532.
V. Hesterberg, 184 N. Y. 126: 471.
V. Hibernia S. & L. Soc, 84 Cal.
634: 877.
V. Hildreth, 126 N. Y. 360: 1412,
1413.
V. Hinds, 30 N. Y. 470: 1100.
V. Highway Comrs., 88 111. 141
1532.
V. Highway Comrs., 14 Mich. 528
1033.
V. Highway Comrs., 15 Mich. 347
701.
V. Highway Comrs., 16 Mich. 63
1516.
V. Highway Comrs., 35 Mich. 15
376, 386, 388, 391.
V. Highway Comrs., 38 Mich. 247
1027.
V. Highway Comrs., 40 Mich. 165
1032, 1420.
V. Highway Comrs., 13 Wend. 310
1362.
V. Horton, 8 Hun 357: 821.
V. Hulbert, 131 Mich. 156: 73, 74,
137.
V. Hyde Park, 117 HI. 462: 1673.
V. Hynds, 30 N. Y. 470: 1102.
V. Ingham Co., 20 Mich. 95: 384,
387, 888, 406.
T. Jefferds, 2 Hun 149: 1533.
CASES CITED.
CCXIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol: I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
People V. Jefferson Co. Ct., 55 N. Y.
604: 579.
V. Jessup, 28 App. Div. 524: 96.
V. Jessup, 160 N. Y. 249: 96.
V. Johnson, 237 111. 237: 886, 887,
888.
V. Jones, 63 N. Y. 306: 1069.
V. Jones, 2 N. Y. Supr. Ct, 360:
917, 1058.
V. Judge of Recorder's Court, 40
Mich. 64: 969, 1638.
V. Judges of Dutchess County, 23
Wend. 360: 821, 1419.
V. Keating, 62 App. Div. 348 : 357.
V. Keating, 168 N. Y. 390: 357.
V. Kerr, 37 Barb. 357: 268.
T. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188: 178, 196,
197, 198, 298, 321.
V. Kimball, 4 Mich. 95: 24.
T. Kingman, 24 N. Y. 599: 821.
V. Kniskern, 50 Barb. 87: 1517.
V. Kniskern, 54 N. Y. 52 : 1017.
V. La Grange, 2 Mich. 187: 1025,
1325.
V. Lake County, 33 Cal. 487: 701,
1370.
V. Lake Shore etc. Ry. Co., 52
Mich. 277: 490.
V. Lake St. El. R. R. Co., 54 111.
App. 348: 1623.
V. Landreth, 1 Hun 544: 1083,
1416.
V. Law, 34 Barb. 494: 268. 1586.
T. Law, 22 How. Pr. 109: 247,
1580.
y. Lawrence, 54 Barb. 589: 1405.
V. Lee, 29 Hun 216: 1404.
V. Leonard, 87 App. Div. 269:
611.
▼. Lewis, 26 How. Pr. 378: 1389.
V. Loew, 39 Hun 490: 1155.
V. Loew, 102 N. Y. 471: 1155.
V. Lowell, 9 Mich. 144: 1531, 1532.
V. Lyon, 114 App. Div. 583: 1177,
1229.
v. Lyon, 186 N. Y. 545: 1177,
1229.
V. Marin Co., 103 Cal. 223: 889.
v. Marshall, 6 111. 672: 23.
V. May, 27 Barb. 238 : 1402.
V. Marx, 99 N. Y. 376: 478.
V. McCarthy, 102 N. Y. 630: 1139.
V. McGann, 34 Hun 358: 478.
V. McDonald, 69 N. Y. 362 : 734.
V. McRoberts, 62 111. 38: 1162.
V. Michigan Southern R. R. Co., 3
Mich. 496: 922, 1164, 1166, 1497,
1707, 1708.
V. Miller, 82 Cal. 153: 1018, 1513,
1571.
V. Morgan, 97 App. Div. 267 : 1531.
People v. Morrison, 54 App. Div. 262 :
1360.
V. Morrison, 165 N. Y. 644: 1360.
V. Mosier, 56 Hun 64: 1412, 1420.
V. Mould, 37 App. Div. 35: 122,
1618.
v. Mott, 2 Hun 672: 1106.
V. Mott, 60 N. Y. 649: 1106.
V. Muh, 101 App. Div. 423: 610.
v. Muh, 183 N. Y. 540: 610.
v: Murray, 5 Hill 468: 1535.
V. Mutual Gas Lt. Co., 38 Mich.
154: 1623.
V. Myers, 73 Hun 43: 1531.
V. Nearing, 27 N. Y. 306 : 564, 568,
579.
V. Newton, 112 N. Y. 396: 269,
304.
V. New York & H. R. R. Co., 45
Barb. 73: 715, 728.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
61 App. Div. 494: 1484.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
156 N. Y. 570: 750.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
168 N. Y. 187: 1484.
V. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1: 302, 426,
762, 1502.
V. Osborn, 32 N. Y. Supp. 358:
867, 870.
V. Osborn, 20 Wend. 186: 1404,
1405.
V. Otis, 90 N. Y. 48: 66.
V. Palmer, 52 N. Y. 83: 1087.
v. Park etc. R. R. Co, 76 Cal. 156:
421, 1494.
V. Parks, 58 Cal. 624 : 572.
V. PfeiiTer, 59 Cal. 89: 1423.
V. Phillips, 88 App. Div. 560: 610.
V. Pitt, 64 App. Div. 316: 464.
V. Pitt, 169 N. Y. 521: II, 464.
V. Pittsburgh R. R. Co., 53 Cal.
694: 529.
V. Piatt, 17 Johns. 195: 486.
V. Pope, 53 Cal. 437: 1491.
V. Porter, 26 Hun 622: 459.
V. Port Jervis, 100 N. Y. 283: 972.
V. Potter, 36 Hun 181 : 1081.
V. Reed, 81 Cal. 70: 877, 884.
V. Rierecker, 58 App. Div. 391 : 479.
V. Rierecker, 169 N. Y. 53 : 479.
V. Robertson, 17 How. Pr. 74:
1018.
V. Robinson, 29 Barb. 77: 941.
V. Rochester, 50 N. Y. 525: 681.
V. Rock Island, 215 111. 488: 1492.
V. Ruby, 59 111. App. 653: 1638.
V. Ruthruff, 40 Mich. 175: 1032,
1420.
V. St. Lawrence, 5 Cow. 292: 1531,
1532.
ccxx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol
People V. St. Louis, 5 Gil. 351 : 103.
V. Salem, 1 Cow. 23: 1637.
V. Salem, 20 Mich. 452: 524, 684.
v. Sanitary District, 210 111. 171:
San Luis Obispo, 116 Cal. 617:
83, 1604.
Sass, 171 111. 357: 1532.
Scio, 3 Mich. 121: 1532.
Schuyler, 69 N. Y. 242: ]531,
1532.
Scott, 8 Hun 566: 1084.
Severance, 125 Mich. 556; 127.
Silberwood, 110 Mich. 103: 108,
140.
Simon, 176 111. 165: 460.
Smith, 15 111. 326: 1401.
Smith, 7 Hun 17: 1034, 1420.
Smith, 21 N. Y. 595: 503, 675,
923, 1008.
South Park Comrs., 221 111. 522:
297.
Sperry, 116 Cal. 593: 881.
Springfield, 12 Mich. 434: 1382.
Springwells, 13 Mich. 462 : 1069.
Stedman, 57 Hun 280: 1017,
1420.
Stillings, 75 App. Div. 569 : 735,
1719.
Stillings, 76 App. Div. 143: 735,
1719.
Stillings, 124 App. Div. 195:
1411, 1412.
Stuart, 97 111. 123: 862.
Suburban R. R. Co., 178 111.
594: 302.
Supervisors, 3 Barb. 332: 24.
Suprs. of Westchester, 4 Barb.
64: 697.
Supervisors, 12 Barb. 446: 24.
Supervisors, 32 Barb. 473 : 1358,
1638.
Supervisors, 36 How. Pr. 544:
1023.
Supervisors, 26 Mich. 22: 564.
Supervisors of Richmond Coun-
ty, 20N. Y. 252: 829.
Supervisors, (N. Y. Supm.) 35
N. Y. Supp. 91: 914.
Supervisors, 7 Wend. 530: 1409,
1638.
Supervisors of Oneida County,
19 Wend. 102 : 437.
Sutter St. Ry. Co., 117 Cal. 604:
1623.
Syracuse, 63 N. Y. 291: 1083,
1087.
Syracuse, 78 N. Y. 56: 1671,
1679.
Talmage, 46 Hun 603 : 1419.
Taylor, 34 Barb. 481 : 979, 1087.
Thayer, 63 N. Y. 348: 1511.
I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.)
People V. Thompson, 65 How. Pr.
407: 344.
V. Thompson, 67 How. Pr. 491:
779.
V. Thompson, 98 N. Y. 6: 779, 793.
V. Thornton, 122 App. Div. 287:
952, 961.
V. Tallman, 36 Barb. 222: 1004,
1010, 1013.
V. Township Board, 2 Mich. 187
1531, 1532.
V. Township Board, 25 Mich. 153
738.
V. Township Board, 38 Mich. 558
1033.
V. Toynbee, 2 Parker (N. Y.) 490;
23.
V. Trustees, 137 N. Y. 88: 914.
V. Underbill, 144 N. Y. 316: 878,
890.
V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 20 Colo.
186: 487.
V. Van Alstyne, 32 Barb. 131:
1418.
V. Van Alstyne, 3 Keyes 35: 513.
V. Van Brunt, 99 App. Div. 564:
1419.
V. Wallace, 4 N. Y. Supreme Ct.
438: 1412.
v. Walsh, 96 111. 232: 357.
V. Wasson, 64 N. Y. 167: 1639,
1640.
V. West Chicago St. R. R. Co., 115
111. 172: 488.
V. Westchester Suprs., 4 Barb. 64:
1681.
V. Whitaker, 101 Cal. 597: 1364.
V. White, 11 Barb. 26: 808, 1500.
V. Whitney's Point, 32 Hun 508:
915, 978, 1018, 1381.
V. Whitney's Point, 102 N. Y. 81:
1381 1532
V. Wieboldt,' 233 111. 572: 396,
406.
V. Williams, 51 111. 63: 1162, 1194.
V. Williams, 36 N. Y. 441: 1100,
1102.
V. Wolverine Mfg. Co., 141 Mich.
455: 890.
V. Zoll, 97 N. Y. 203: 609, 618,
1718.
People's Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Capital
Gas & Elec. Lt. Co., 116 Ky. 76:
408, 412.
People's Gas Lt. Co. v. Jersey City
Gas Lt. Co., 46 N. J. L. 297 : 338,
1621, 1666.
People's Nat. Gas. Co. i-. Pittsburgh,
1 Pa. Co. Ct. 311: 1621.
People's Passenger Ry. Co. v. Bald-
win, 14 Phila. 231 : 732.
OASES CITED.
CCXXl
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
People's Passenger Ey. Co. v. Market
St. Pass. E. E. Co., 8 Pa. Co.
Ct. 273: 717.
V. Maschall St. E. E. Co., 20 Phila.
203: 910.
V. Union Pass. E. E. Co., 15 Pa.
Co. Ct. 498: 764.
People's E. E. Co., Matter of, 112
N. Y. 578: 922.
V. Grand Ave. E. E. Co., 149 Mo.
245: 1446.
V. Memphis E. E. Co., 10 Wall.
38: 298, 301.
People's Eapid Transit Co. v. Dash,
125 N. Y. 93: 267, 268, 719.
People's Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Berks etc.
Turnpike Eoad Co., 23 Pa. Co.
Ct. 401: 682.
Peoria v. Kidder, 26 111. 351: 12.
Peoria Co. v. Harvey, 18 111. 364:
1400.
Peoria etc. Ey. Co. v. Barnum, 107
111. 160: 1108: 1112.
V. Barton, 38 111. App. 469: 92,
1639.
V. Birhett, 62 111. 332: 24, 1246.
V. Black, 58 111. 33: 1409.
V. Bryant, 57 111. 473: 1136, 1311.
V. Lansie, 63 111. 264: 1136.
V. Mitchell, 74 111. 394: 1392.
V. Peoria etc. E. E. Co., 66 111.
174: 754, 799, 1392.
V. Peoria & F. Ry. Co., 105 III.
110: 1047, 1246.
T. Rice, 75 111. 329: 965, 1673.
V. Sawyer, 71 111. 361: 994, 1109,
1310, 1311, 1312.
V. Schertz, 84 111. 135: 1581.
V. Warner, 61 111. 52: 999, 1004,
1010, 1013, 1014, 1015.
Peoria etc. Traction Co. v. Vance,
225 111. 270: 1195.
V. Vance, 234 111. 36: 1121, 1122,
1127, 1131, 1260, 1267, 1268,
1361.
Peoria Gaslight etc. Co. v. Peoria
Terminal R. E. Co., 146 111. 372 :
1109, 1147, 1148.
Pepin V. Elizabeth, 57 N. J. L. 653:
1324.
Pepper v. Union Ey. Co., 113 Tenn.
53: 313, 1582, 1591.
Pere Marquette E. R. Co. v. U. S.
Gypsum Co., (Mich.) 117 N. W.
733: 533.
Perkins v. Fielding, 119 Mo. 149:
881, 883, 884.
V. Haywood, 132 Ind. 95: 1029,
1444.
V. Jewett, 11 Allen 9: 879.
T. Maine Central R. E. Co., 72 Me.
95: 858, 1636.
Perkins v. Morrestown etc. Turnpike
Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 499: 422, 1617.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 103 Mo.
54: 475
V. St. Louis etc R. E. Co., 143
Mo. 513: 1435.
Perkiomen R. R. Co. v. Bromer, 217
Pa. St. 263: 850.
Perley v. B. G. & M. R. R Co., 57
N. H. 212: 1446.
V. Chandler, 6 Mass. 454: 1488.
Perrine v. Farr, 22 N. J. L. 356:
515, 1156.
y. Pa. E. E. Co., 72 N. J. L. 398:
319, 351, 847, 1356, 1452.
Perry v. Board of Supervisors, 133
la. 281: 1638.
V. Lehigh Val. E. E. Co., 9 Miscl.
515: 1457, 1476.
V. New Orleans M. & C. E. E. Co.,
55 Ala. 413: 248, 298.
V. Oregon, 139 111. App. 606: 485.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. E. R. Co.,
2 Pa. Co. Ct. 59: 1399.
V. Sherborn, 11 Cush. 388: 996.
V. Webb, 21 La. An. 247: 516.
V. Wilkes-Barre & K. Pass. R. R.
Co., 4 Luzerne Leg. Rep. 519:
277, 642.
V. Wilson, 7 Mass. 393: 100, 679,
680.
V. Worcester, 6 Gray 544: 87, 236.
Perry County R. R. Extension Co. v.
Newport etc. R. R. Co., 150 Pa.
St. 193: 771.
Perrysburg Canal & Hydraulic Co. v.
Fitzgerald, 10 Ohio St. 513: 24.
Peru V. Barrett, 100 Me. 213: 412,
413.
V. Brown, 10 Ind. App. 597: 143.
Peters v. Fergus Falls, 35 Minn. 549 :
67, 153.
V. Griffee, 108 Ind. 121: 1030.
v. Hastings & Dakota Ry. Co., 19
Minn. 260: 1400.
V. Lewis, 28 Wash. 366: 155.
Petersburg R. R. Co. v. Burtons, 1
Va. Dec. 397: 247.
Petersburg School Dist. v. Peterson,
14 N. D. 344: 711, 713, 911,
1225, 1229, 1236, 1271, 1435,
1436.
Peterson, Matter of, 94 App. Div.
143: 929.
Peterson v. Beha, 161 Mo. 513: 983.
V. Brown, 22 Utah 43 : 1635.
V. Ferreby, 30 la. 327 : 1463, 1464.
V. Fisher, 71 Neb. 238: 973, 1018,
1513.
V. Hopewell, 55 Neb. 670: 1571.
V. Navy Yard etc. Ry. Co., 5 Phila.
199: 268.
CCXXll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Peterson v. Santa Rosa, 119 Cal.
387: 83, 1604.
V. Smith, 6 Wash. 163: 926.
V. Waltham, 150 Mass. 564: 1523.
Peter Townsend, Matter of, 39 N. Y.
171: 496, 522, 684.
Petrie v. Milwaukee Lt. H. & T. Co.,
134 Wis. 394: 284.
Pettengill v. County Comrs., 21 Me.
377: 976.
Pettersou v. Waske, 45 Wash. 307:
868.
Pettibone v. Hamilton, 40 Wis. 402:
375, 400, 406, 878, 1596.
V. LaCroase & Milwaukee R. R.
Co., 14 Wis. 443: 1537.
Pettigrew v. Evausville, 25 Wis. 223:
233.
Pettis V. Providence, 11 R. I. 372:
1036.
Pettit T. Grand Junction, 119 la.
352: 356, 1659.
V. Macon, 95 Ga. 645: 881.
Pewaukee v. Savoy, 103 Wis. 271:
131.
Peyser v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
13 N. Y. C. P. 122: 1295.
V. New York Elevated R. R. Co.,
12 Abb. New Cases 276 : 263.
Peyton v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
62 Hun 536: 1304.
Pfaender v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 86
Minn. 218: 1382, 1514, 1628.
Pfeifer v. Sheboygan etc. R. R. Co.,
18 Wis. 155 : 1540, 1542.
Pfeififer v. Brown, 165 Pa. St. 267:
79, 84.
Pflegar v. Hastings & D. Ry. Co., 28
Minn. 510: 1310.
Pfleger, In re, L. R. 6 Eq. 426: 1254,
1557.
Pfoutz V. Penn. Telephone Co., 24 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 105: 679, 709.
Phelps V. Detroit, 120 Mich. 447:
227, 236, 319, 325, 1650, 1656.
V. Lake St. El. R. R. Co., 165 111.
526: 1585.
V. Lake St. El. R. R. Co., 60 111.
App. 471: 1585.
V. Morehouse, 12 La. An 649: 409.
Phifer v. Carolina Central R. R. Co.,
72 N. C. 433: 1407, 1410, 1431,
1571.
V. Cox, 21 Ohio St. 248: 1491.
Philadelphia v. Citizens' Pass R. R.
Co., 151 Pa. St. 128: 304.
V. Comrs. of Fairmount Park, 16
Pa. Co. Ct. 625: 421.
Philadelphia v. Dickson, 38 Pa. St.
247: 1626, 15^0. 1682.
V. Dyer, 41 Pa. be. 463: 949, 1261,
1323, 1325, 1530.
V. Empire Passenger R. R. Co., 3
Brews. 547: 255.
V. Fairmount Park Comrs., 16 Pa.
Co. Ct. 625: 1494.
V. Field, 58 Pa. St. 320: 23.
V. McManes, 175 Pa. St. 28: 421.
V. Penn. Hospital, 143 Pa. St. 367 :
13.
V. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 7 Pa. Co.
Ct 390: 322.
V. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 58 Pa. St.
253: 1492.
V. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 19 Phil.
507: 322, 717, 1622.
V. Randolph, 4 W. & S. 514: 235,
236.
V. River Front R. R. Co., 173 Pa.
St. 334: 299.
V. Rudderow, 166 Pa. St. 241: 630,
634, 636, 1187, 1308.
V. Scott, 81 Pa. St. 80: 15, 491,
492.
V. Scott, 9 Phila. 171: 491.
V. Slocum, 14 Phil. 141: 347.
V. Thirteenth etc. R. R. Co., 8
Phil. 648: 1587.
V. Ward, 174 Pa. St. 45: 1063,
1486.
V. Wiskey, 68 Pa. St. 49: 1325.
V. Wright, 100 Pa. St. 235: 26,
612.
Philadelphia Ball Club v. Philadel-
phia, 182 Pa. St. 362: 1308.
V. Phila., 192 Pa. St. 632, 1306,
1308.
Philadelphia etc. Ferry Co. v. Inter
City Link R. R. Co., 73 N. J. L.
86: 527, 782, 994, 1047.
Philadelphia & Gray's Ferry Passen-
ger Ry. Go's Appeal, 102 Pa. St.
123: 729, 791.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 6 Whart-
on 25 : 243, 248, 255, 1419.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal
1 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 129: 182.
Philadelphia etc. Ry. Go's Appeal,
102 Pa. St. 123: 411.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
120 Pa. St. 90: 781.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
187 Pa. St. 123: 755.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
2 Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. 243:
771.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
2 Walker's Supm. Ct. Rep. 291:
182, 246, 248.
CASES CITED.
CCXXHl
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.'s Appli-
cation, 7 Phila. 461: 1467.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Go's. Petition,
32 Pa. Co. Ct. 337: 716.
Phidadelphia etc. R. R. Co. v. Berks
County, 2 Woodward's Decs.
361: 301, 306, 327.
T. Cake, 95 Pa. St. 139: 1359.
V. Cooper, 105 Pa. St. 239: 1160,
1627.
V. Davis, 68 Md. 281: 145, 152,
159.
T. Getz, 105 Pa. St. 547: 1277.
V. Getz, 113 Pa. St. 214: 1277.
V. Johnson, 2 Whart. 275: 1436,
1438.
V. Lawrence, 10 Phila. 604: 1481.
V. Obert, 109 Pa. St. 193: 1135.
V. Patterson, 3 Walker's Pa. Sup.
Ct. 143: 1152.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. E. Co.,
151 Pa. St. 569: 1565.
V. Pennsylvania etc. R. R, Co., 16
Phila. 636: 760.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co., 7
Pa. Co. Ct. 381: 771.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co., 7
Pa. Co. Ct. 491: 771.
T. Philadelphia, 47 Pa. St. 325:
492.
T. Philadelphia, 9 Phila. 563: 746,
750.
T. Pottsville Water Co., 182 Pa.
St. 418: 73.
T. Railroad Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct.
513: 982, 1262, 1342.
T. Rogers, 2 Walker's Pa. Sup.
275: 1315, 1316, 1339.
V. Shipley, 72 Md. 88: 1393.
V. Smick, 2 Whart. 273: 1408.
y. Smith, 64 Fed. 679: 93.
T. Trimble, 4 Wharton, 47: 1311,
1365.
V. Williams, 54 Pa. St. 103: 731,
823.
Philadelphia etc. St. Ry. Co.'s Peti-
tion, 203 Pa. St. 354: 427, 529,
763, 788, 1424.
Philadelphia Trust etc. Co. v. Mer-
chantville, 75 N. J. L. 451 : 824,
898, 1068.
Philbrick v. University Place, 106 la.
352: 892.
Phillips v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 71
S. C. 571: 1252, 1457, 1636.
V. Council Bluffs, 63 la. 576
1597.
V. County Comrs., 83 Me. 541
1384, 1415.
V. County Comrs., 122 Mass. 258
733.
Phillips V. Dunkirk, Warren & Pitta
burgh R. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177
248.
V. Hutchinson, 34 Ind. App. 486
1510.
V. Marblehead, 148 Mass. 326
U27.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 14
App. Div. 595: 1426.
V. Pease, 39 Cal. 582: 1324, 1325,
1423.
V. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 184 Pa. St.
537: 1244.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 130 N. C.
513: 22, 24, 425, 966, 1473, 1546,
15.59.
V. St. Claire Inclined Plane Co.,
153 Pa. St. 230: 880, 1523.
V. St. Clair Inclined Plane Co., 166
Pa. St. 21: 1210.
V. Scales Mound, 195 111. 353:
679, 706, 708, 989, 1174, 1227,
1229.
V. Sherman, 61 Me. 548: 954.
V. Sherman, 64 Me. 171: 80, 81.
V. South Park Commissioners, 119
111. 626: 1162, 1320, 1325.
V. Thompson, 1 Johns. Ch. 131:
827, 829, 858.
V. Tucker, 3 Met. (Ky.) 69: 1082,
1363.
V. Watson, 63 la. 28 : 532.
Phillip Trusts, In re, L. E. 6 Eq.
250: 1254, 1557.
Phinizy v. City Council of Augusta,
47 Ga. 260: 144.
Phipps V. Kansas etc. R. R. Co., 58
Kan. 142: 959.
V. North Pelham, 61 App. Div.
442: 610, 618.
V. West Maryland R. R. Co., 66
Md. 319: 200, 242, 247.
Phoenix v. Gannon, 123 App. Div.
93: 358, 361.
Phoenix Water Co. v. Phoenix, 9
Ariz. 430: 408, 409.
Phyfe V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
11 Miscl. 70: 1301.
Piatt V. Covington & Cincinnati
Bridge Co., 8 Bush 31 : 409.
Pichon V. Martin, 35 Ind. App. 167:
1192, 1201, 1207.
Pick V. Rubicon Hydraulic Co., 27
Wis. 433: 937, 1180.
Pickens v. Coal Riv. Boom & T. Co.,
58 W. Va. 11: 92, 94, 1651, 1653,
1668.
Pickerill v. Louisville, 125 Ky. 213:
145, 153, 494, 1661.
Pickering v. State, 106 Ind. 228:
1018, 1514.
Pickering's Lessee v. Rutty, 1 S. & R.
511: 590.
CCXXIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.)
Pickert v. Richfield Park R. R. Co.,
25 N. J. Eq. 316: 1579.
Pickett V. Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 131
Ind. 562: 1714.
Pickford v. Lynn, 98 Mass. 491: 1030,
1420.
Pickles V. Ansonia, 76 Conn. 278:
601, 618, 619, 1307, 1718.
Pickman v. Peabody, 145 Mass. 480:
723.
Pickneyville v. Hutchinga, 63 111.
App. 137: 91, 1548, 1653.
V. Rhine, 63 111. App. 139: 91,
1648, 1653.
Pickup V. Phila. etc. Ry. Co., 29 Pa.
Super. Ct. 631: 309.
Piedmont etc. Ry. Co. v. Speelman,
67 Md. 260: 712, 1568, 1577.
Pierce v. Boston, 164 Mass. 92: 1121,
1141.
V. Boston & L. R. R. Co., 141 Mass
481: 1474, 1482.
V. Chicago etc. Elee. R. R. Co.,
(Wis.) 119 N. W. 297: 1332.
V. County Comrs., 63 Me. 252:
1358.
T. Drew, 136 Mass. 75: 337, 341,
342, 534, 1593.
V. Gibson County, 107 Tenn. 224:
141, 453, 1605, 1606.
V. Roberts, 57 Conn. 31: 877, 1618.
y. Somersworth, 10 N. H. 369 : 422.
v. Worcester & Nashua R. R. Co.,
105 Mass. 199: 1314.
Piercy v. Morris, 2 Iredell Law 168:
1406.
Pier No. 15, Matter of, 95 App. Div.
501: 1262.
Pier 39, Matter of, 62 App. Div. 271:
1258.
Pier 39, Matter of, 168 N. Y. 254:
1258.
Pierpont v. Harrisville, 9 W. Va.
215: 1569, 1574.
Pierson v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 191
Mass. 223: 1120, 1146, 1152,
1297, 1304.
V. Speyer, 178 N. Y. 270: 71.
Pike Tp. Road, 30 Pa. Supr. Ct. 644 :
1101.
Pile V. Pile, 3 L. R. Ch. D. 36: 1563.
Pillsbury v. Alexander, 40 Neb. 242 :
878
V. Brown, 82 Me. 450: 867, 870.
V. Springiaeld, 16 N. H. 565: 1374,
1670.
Pinchin v. London & Blackwall Ry.
Co., 5 DeG. McN. & G. 851: 823.
V. London & Blackwall Ry. Co., 24
L. J. N. S. Ch. 417: 813.
Pine V. New York, 76 Fed. 418: 1603.
Pine V. New York, 103 Fed. 337 : 74,
169, 1603, 1617.
V. New York, 112 Fed. 98: 74, 169,
1603, 1617.
Pine Bluflf etc. Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 78
Ark. 83: 1252, 1669, 1671, 1672.
Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 606 :
462.
Pingree v. Co. Comrs., 30 Me. 351:
706, 1358, 1420.
Pingrey v. Cherokee & D. R. R. Co.,
78 la. 438: 1128, 1252, 1311,
1314, 1315.
Pinkerton v. Boston & Albany R. R.
Co., 109 Mass. 257 : 939.
Pinkham v. Chelmsford, 109 Mass.
225: 1119, 1128, 1240, 1633.
Pinkstaff v. Steffy, 216 111. 406: 146.
Pinney v. Winstead, 79 Conn. 606:
1097, 1098, 1135, 1520, 1568,
1573.
Pinnix v. Lake Drummond Canal Co.,
132 N. C. 124: 153, 439.
PioUet V. Simmons, 106 Pa. St. 95:
1486, 1487.
Pion V. North Shore R. R. Co., 14
Duvall 677: 129.
Piper V. Connersville & Liberty Turn-
pike Co., 12 Ind. 400: 923, 1100.
V. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 14 Kan.
568: 1345.
Pipkin V. Wynns, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 402:
423.
Pippin v. May, 78 Ark. 18: 515, 521.
Piscataqua Bridge Co. y. N. H.
Bridge Co., 7 N. H. 35: 22, 411,
412, 413, 791, 1155, 1170, 1608.
Piscataway & B. Tps., In re, 54 N. J.
L. 539: 700.
Pitcher v. United States, 1 Ct. of CI.
7: 458.
Pitkin V. Springfield, 112 Mass. 509:
734, 1221.
Pittock V. Central Dist. & Print. Tel.
Co., 31 Pa. Supr. Ct. 589: 425,
1636.
Pitton V. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio C. C.
593: 220.
Pitts y. Baltimore, 73 Md. 326 : 884.
Pittsburg, District of, 2 W. & S. 320:
21, 432.
Pittsburg y. Brown, 82 Me. 450 : 865.
y. Cluley, 74 Pa. St. 262: 1517.
V. Consolidated Gas. Co., 34 Pa.
Super. Ct. 374: 352, 491.
V. Epping-Carpenter Co., 194 Pa.
St. 318: 887, 890, 1623.
y. Irwin's Exrs., 85 Pa. St. 420:
1535.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 205 Pa.
St. 13: 299, 300.
CASES CITED,
CCXXV
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Pittsburg V. Scott, 1 Pa. St. 309:
498, 504, 543, 710, 1165, 1167,
1521.
Pittsburgh etc. R. E. Co.'s Appeal,
130 Pa. St. 190: 1428, 1429.
Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 1
Penny 449: 297, 299.
Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v. Beck,
152 Ind. 421: 1545.
V. Bentley, 88 Pa. St. 178: 1254.
V. Benwood Iron Worlcs, 31 W. Va.
TIO: 317, 495, 499, 531, 533.
V. Bruce, 102 Pa. St. 23: 424, 709,
808, 1499, 1500, 1629.
V. Chicago, 159 111. 369 : 309.
V. Commonwealth, 101 Pa. St. 192:
1643.
V. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. St. 583:
422.
V. Crothersville, 159 Ind. 330: 449.
V. Crown Point, 150 Ind. 536: 865.
V. Garlick, 20 Ohio C. C. 561 : 808,
1474, 1497, 1500, 1503.
V. Gilleland, 56 Pa. St. 445: 1446,
1451, 1454, 1457.
V. Greenville, 69 Ohio St. 487:
1041, 1609, 1610, 1624.
V. Hall, 25 Pa. St. 336: 954, 1369.
V. Jones, 111 Pa. St. 204: 410,
1261.
V. Jones, 59 Pa. St. 433: 1627,
1629.
V. Lyons, 159 111. 576: 1426.
V. McClosky, 110 Pa. St. 436: 1187,
1315, 131?.
V. Noftsger, 148 Ind. 101: 179,
251, 1315.
V. Noftsger, 26 Ind. App. 614:
1657.
V. Oliver, 131 Pa. St. 408: 940,
1627, 1633.
V. Patterson, 107 Pa. St. 461:
1139, 1140, 1241, 1272, 1274.
V. Peet, 152 Pa. St. 488: 815.
v. Perkins, 22 Ohio C. C. 630: 784,
829.
V. Perkins, 49 Ohio St. 326: 936,
1226, 1559.
V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., 159
Pa. St. 331: 530, 731, 900, 904,
912.
V. Point Bridge Co., 165 Pa. St.
37: 304, 423, 1621.
V. Reich, 101 111. 157: 639, 643,
1211.
T. Robinson, 95 Pa. St. 426: 1120,
112,3, 1131, 1187, 1216, 1218.
V. Rose, 74 Pa. St. 362: 622.
V. Sanitary District, 218 111. 286:
675, 776, 977, 988, 989, 1042,
1045, 1056, 1063, 1066.
Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v. Swin-
ney, 97 Ind. 586: 940, 1669,
1685.
V. Tod, 72 Ohio St. 156: 919, 1422.
V. Vance, 115 Pa. St. 325: 1130,
1140, 1228, 1232.
V. West Chicago St. R. R. Co., 54
111. App. 273: 328, 657, 765,
767, 1611.
V. Woloott, 162 Ind. 399: 749,
1056, 1192, 1288.
Pittsburgh Junction R. R. Co.'s Ap-
peal, 122 Pa. St. 511: 753, 700,
793, 796, 798, 1609.
Pittsburgh Junction R. E. Co. v. Al-
legheny Valley R. R. Co., 146
Pa. St. 297: 760, 798.
V. Fort Pitt St. Pass. R. R. Co.,
192 Pa. St. 44: 771.
Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank of Commerce
V. Shoenberger, HI Pa. St. 95:
814.
Pittsfield & North Adams R. R. Co.,
V. Foster, 1 Cush. 480: 1089.
Pittston Road, 4 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 305: 1300.
Pitt Tp. Road, 1 Pa. St. 356: 1390.
Pitzer V. Williams, 2 Rob. Va. 241:
1029.
Placke V. Union Depot R. R. Co., 140
Mo. 634: 272, 1586, 1587.
Plainfield v. Packer, 11 Conn. 576:
992.
Plains Tp. Road, 7 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 233: 1094, 1100, 1101.
Plan 100, In re, 143 Pa. St. 414: 012,
633.
Planet P. & F. Co. v. St. Louis etc.
R. R. Co., 115 Mo. 613: 1582.
Plank Road Co. v. Ramai^e, 20 Pa.
St. 95: 1156, 1157, f310, 1317.
V. Rea, 20 Pa. St. 97: 1187.
V. Thomas, 21 Pa. St. 91: 1118,
1156, 1157.
Plant V. Long Island R. R. Co., 10
Barb. 26: 239, 244, 437.
Plath V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 88
Hun 263: 1304.
Piatt V. Bright, 22 N. J. Eq. 128:
1564.
V. Bright, 29 N. J. Eq. 128: 947,
949, 1563.
V. Bright, 31 N. J. Eq. 81: 947,
049, 1563, 1564.
V. Bright, 32 N. J. Eq. 362: 947,
949, 1653.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 74 la.
127: 422, 1496, 1618.
V. Miltord, 66 Conn. 320: 600,
618, 1306.
V. Oneonta, 88 App. Div. 192: 358.
CCXXVl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Piatt V. Oneonta, 183 N. Y. 516: 358.
V. Penn. Co., 47 Ohio St. 366: 1473.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 43 Ohio
St. 228: 425, 1192, 1473.
V. Root, 15 Johns. 213: 71, 76.
Piatt Bros. & Co. v. Waterbury, 72
Conn. 531: 57, 66, 453, 725, 1604,
1606, 1612.
V. Waterbury, 80 Conn. 179: 83,
1654.
Platter v. Seymour, 86 Ind. 323 : 234.
Plattsmouth v. Breck, 32 Neb. 297:
643, 1337.
Plattsmouth Water Co. v. Smith, 57
Neb. 579: 79, 1604.
Pleasant v. Kost, 29 111. 490: 12.
Pleasant Hill v. Comrs., 71 Ohio St.
133: 700.
Pleasant Water Co. v. Contra Costa
Water Co., 67 Cal. 659 : 783.
Plecker v. Rhodes, 30 Gratt. 795:
522.
Plessy, Ex parte, 45 La. Ann. 80:
488.
Plimmons v. Frisby, Winston Law
201: 516.
Plott V. Western North Carolina R.
R. Co., 65 N. C. 74: 1548.
Plum V. Kansas City, 101 Mo. 525:
1324, 1326.
V. Morris Canal Co., 10 N. J. Eq.
256: 211.
Plumb V. Grand Rapids, 81 Mich.
381: 871 881, 890.
Plum Creek Tp. Road, 110 Pa. St.
544: 1034.
Plumer v. Johnston, 63 Mich. 105:
369, 385, 388, 878, 886, 888.
V. Wausau Boom Co., 49 Wis. 449:
965.
Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S.
461: 478.
Plummer v. Sheldon, 94 Cal. 533:
881.
V. Sturtevant, 32 Me. 325: 438.
V. Waterville, 32 Me. 506: 1510,
1512.
Plymouth v. Chestnut Hill & N. R.
R. Co., 168 Pa. St. 181: 302.
V. County Comrs., 16 Gray, 341:
1100.
V. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., 139
Mich. 347: 1290, 1292.
V. Russell Mills, 7 Allen 438 : 1640.
Plymouth Cordage Co., In re, 135
Fed. 1000: 996.
Plymouth R. R. Co. v. Colwell, 30
Pa. St. 337: 711.
Plymouth Road, 5 Rawle 150: 1105.
Plympton v. Woburn, 11 Gray 415:
1307. I
Pocopsen Road, 16 Pa. St. 15: 519.
Pocopson Road, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 617:
983.
Pochila V. Calvert etc. Ry. Co., 31
Tex. Civ. App. 398: 1183, 1201,
1216, 1297, 1300.
Pocantioo W. W. Co. v. Bird, 130 N.
Y. 249: 495, 496, 501, 507, 536,
684, 909, 913, 920, 1061.
Pohlman v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 131
Iowa 89: 157.
Poillon V. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 132:
591, 1546, 1547.
Point Pleasant Elec. Lt. & P. Co. v.
Bayhead, 62 N. J. Eq. 296: 362.
Polack V. S. F. Orphan Asylum, 48
Cal. 490: 362, 363, 383, 390, 399.
Pollard V. Dickinson County, 71 Iowa
438: 993, 1409.
V. Ferguson, 1 Litt. 196: 1100,
1107.
V. Moore, 51 N. H. 188: 1671.
Pollard's Lessee v. Hogan, 3 How.
212: 2, 110.
Pollock V. Maysville etc. R. R. Co.,
103 Ky. 84: 1479.
V. Morris, 105 N. Y. 676: 1557.
Polly V. Saratoga etc. R. R. Co. 9
Barb. 449: 22, 434, 1011, 1098.
Pomeroy v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 25
Wis. 641: 937, 1352, 1500.
V. Granger, 18 R. I. 024 : 443.
V. Milwaukee & Chi. R. R. Co., 16
Wis. 640: 247.
Pomona Branch R. R. Co. v. Camden
etc. R. R. Co. (N. J.) 20 Atl.
350: 1461, 1402.
Pond V. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 42
Hun 567: 1295.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 112
N. Y. 186: 1553, 1554, 1651,
1657.
V. Milford, 35 Conn. 32 : 1086.
Ponder v. Quitman Ginnery, 122 Ga.
29: 451.
Ponischil v. Hoquiam Sash & Door
Co., 41 Wash. 303: 303, 371, 380,
392, 396, 398, 647.
Pontchartrain R. R. Co. v. La Fa-
yette & Pontchartrain R. R. Co.,
10 La. Ann. 741 : 727.
Pontiac v. Carter, 32 Mich. 164: 211,
212, 213; 238.
V. Lull, 111 Mich. 509: 996.
Pool V. Breese, 114 111. 594: 1410,
1573.
V. Butler, 141 Cal. 46: 1673.
V. Simmons, 134 Cal. 621 : 1050.
V. Trexler, 76 N. C. 297: 565, 507,
571, 579.
OASES CITED.
ccxxvn
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Poole V. Falls Road Elec. R. E. Co.,
88 Md. 533: 197, 272, 306.
V. Lake Forest, 238 111. 305: 875.
Poor V. Blake, 123 Mass. 543: 1468,
1704.
Pope V. Sliinhattan Ey. Co., 79 App.
Div. 583: 1562.
T. Union, 18 N. J. Eq. 282: 878.
Port V. Huntington etc. R. R. Co.,
168 Pa. St. 19: 1310, 1311, 1646.
Port Angeles Pac. R. R. Co. v. Cooke,
38 Wash. 184: 1392, 1674.
Porter v. Allen, 8 Ind. 1: 103.
V. Armstrong, 129 N. C. 101 : 579.
V. Armstrong, 132 N. C. 66: 1607.
V. Armstrong, 134 N. C. 447: 579,
1397.
V. Armstrong, 139 N. C. 179: 579,
1106.
V. Carpenter, 39 Fla. 14: 3G6.
V. County Comrs., 13 Met. 479:
1010.
V. Durham, 74 N. C. 767: 145, 146.
V. Kansas City etc. R. E. Co., 103
Mo. App. 422: 1660.
T. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 120
N. Y. 284: 1652, 1662.
V. Midland R. R. Co., 125 Ind. 476:
1631, 1648, 1657.
V. North Missouri R. R. Co., 33
Mo. 128: 243.
V. Railroad Co., 33 Mo. 128: 311.
V. Scranton City, 36 Pa. Supr. Ct.
218: 1272, 1308.
v. Stout, 73 Ind. 3: 962, 1518.
Porterfield v. Bond, 38 Fed. 391: 450,
1457.
Port Huron etc. Ey. Co. v. Callanan,
61 Mich. 12: 926.
V. Voorliies, 50 Mich. 506: 1097,
1210.
Forth V. Manliattan R. E. Co., 134
N. Y. 615: 1585, 1590.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 58 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 366: 1585, 1590.
Portland v. Kamm, 10 Ore. 383: 1123,
1245, 1410, 1453.
V. LeeSam, 7 Ore. 397: 1705.
V. Midland E. R. Co., 125 Ind. 476:
246.
Portland etc. R. E. Co. v. Clarke
County, 48 Wash. 509, 1427.
V. County Comrs., 64 Me. 505:
1429.
V. County Comrs. 65 Me. 292 : 1390.
V. Deering, 78 Me. 61 : 490, 1290.
v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 46 Me.
69: 691.
V. Ladd, 47 Wash. 88 : 929.
V. Portland, 14 Ore. 188: 422, 1490.
Portland & G. Turnpike Co. v. Bobb,
88 Ky. 226: 893, 894, 980, 991,
1044.
Port Reading R. R. Co., In re, 75 N.
J. h. 430: 1684.
Port Richmond etc. R. R. Co. v.
Staten Island etc. R. R. Co., 71
Hun 179: 773.
v. Staten Island etc. R. R. Co., 144
N. Y. 445 : 773.
Portsmouth Gas Light Co. v. Shana-
han, 65 N. H. 233 : 354.
Port Townsend v. Lewis, 34 Wash.
413: 1630.
Port Townsend Southern E. E. Co.
V. Barbare, 46 Wash. 275: 1147,
1231, 1392.
Post V. Kreischer, 32 Hun 49: 139.
V. Logan, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 59:
1255
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 125 N. Y.
697: 1605.
V. Rutland R. R. Co., 80 Vt. 551 :
707, 013, 1514, 1569, 1573.
T. West Shore etc. R. R. Co., 50
Hun 301 : 855, 1540.
V. West Shore etc. R. E. Co., 123
N. Y. 580: 855, 1540.
Postar V. Henderson, 1 Ind. 62: 1399.
Postal Tel. Cable Co., Ex parte, 72
S. C. 552: 1412.
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Ala. etc. Ry.
Co., 68 Miss. 314: 1285, 1426.
V. Alabama G. S. R. R. Co., 92 Ala.
331: 924.
V. Baltimore, 79 Md. 502 ; 342, 463.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 30 Ind.
App. 654, 733, 775, 799.
V. Cleveland etc. Ry. Co., 94 Fed.
234: 775.
V. Eaton, 170 111. 520: 338, 1630.
V. Farmville etc. E. E. Co., 96 Va.
OGl: 774.
V. Kuhnem, 127 Ga. 20: 1634.
V. Louisiana Western Ry. Co., 49
La. An. 1270; 1286.
V. Louisville etc. R. E. Co., 43 La.
An. 522: 1286, 1426.
V. Morgan's etc. S. S. Co., 49 La.
Ann. 58: 775, 799, 1286.
V. Norfolk etc. E. R. Co., 88 Va.
920: 774.
V. Ore. Short Line R. E. Co.. lU
Fed. 787: 775, 799, 1048, 1050,
1285.
V. Ore. Short Line E. R. Co., lOt
Fed. 623: 988, 1050.
v. Ore. Short Line R. R. Co., 23
Utah 474: 534, 775, 799, 934,
988, 1048, 1050, 1062, 1003, 1064,
1068.
CCXXVlll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Peyton, 124
Ga. 746: 1377.
V. Southern R. R. Go., 89 Fed. 190
775, 799.
V. Southern R. R. Co., 98 Fed. 190
734.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 122 Fed. 156
932.
Poston V. Terry, 5 J. J. Marsh. 220
1077, 1360.
Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Peterson, 12
Ida. 769: 7, 97, 504, 541, 726.
Potomac S. B. Co. v. Upper S. B.
Co., 109 U. S. 672: 131.
Pottawattamie Go. Comrs. v. O'Sul-
livan, 17 Kan. 58: 1185, 1203,
1214.
Potter V. Ames, 43 Cal. 75: 1022,
1162, 1634, 1710.
V. Coltis, 156 N. Y. 16: 358.
V. Indiana etc. R. R. Co., 95 Mich.
389: 135.
V. McCounack, 127 Ind. 438: 1407
V. Putnam, 74 Conn. 189: 1326.
Potts V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 4
Mont. Co. L. R. 121: 1207.
V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 119 Pa.
St. 278: 1212.
V. Quaker Citv El. R. R. Co.,
12 Pa. Co. Ct. 593: 268, 1585,
1590.
V. Quaker City El. R. R. Co., 161
Pa. St. 396: 2CS, 297, 719, 1585,
1590.
Pott's Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 414: 1387.
Pottsgrove Road, 2 Walker's Pa.
Supm. Ct. 503: 1094.
Pottsgrove Tp. Road, 4 Mont. Co. L.
Rep. 114: 785.
Pottstown Gas Co. v. Murphy, 39
Pa. St. 257: 166.
Pottsville V. People's R. R. Co., 148
Pa. St. 175: 425, 1472.
Poudler v. Minneapolis, 103 Minn.
479: 878.
Poughkeepsie Bridge Co., Matter of,
108 N. Y. 483: 672, 673, 675,
709, 728, 1044.
Poughkeepsie etc. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 63 Barb. 151: 1212.
Poulan V. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.
Co., 123 Ga. 605: 678, 704, 749.
751, 752, 939, 1056, 1288, 1568.
Poundstone v. Baldwin, 145 Ind. 139:
575, 995, 1034.
Powell V. Clelland, 82 Ind. 24: 1555.
V. Gilmain, 38 111. App. 611: 877.
V. Greensburg, 150 Ind. 148: 749.
V. Hitchner, 32 N. J. L. 211: 989,
1381.
V. Lash, 64 N. C. 456: 95.
Powell V. Macon etc. R. E. Co., 92 Ga.
209: 298, 639, 1613.
V. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678:
15, 478.
V. Sammon, 31 Ala. 552: 407, 412,
491.
V. Whitaker, 88 Pa. St. 445: 1565.
Powelton Ave., In re, 11 Phila. 447:
915.
Power V. Athens, 26 Hun 282: 408,
412, 1608.
V. Athens, 99 N. Y. 592: 408, 412,
1608.
V. Ridgeway, 149 Pa. St. 317: 1523.
Power's Appeal, 29 Mich. 504: 1026,
1058.
Powers V. Armstrong, 19 Ga. 427:
1163.
V. Bears, 12 Wis. 213: 928, 1165,
1169, 1570.
V. Bergen, 6 N. Y. 358 : 459.
V. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 89 Hun
288: 1301.
V. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 157 N.
Y. 105: 1334.
V. City Council of Springfield, 116
Mass. 84: 700.
V. Council Bluffs, 45 la. 652: 1551,
1648, 1659, 1716.
V. Council Bluffs, 50 la. 197: 235.
V. Hazleton etc. R. R. Co., 33 Ohio
St. 429: 1048.
V. Hurmet, 51 Mo. 136: 1520.
V. Irish, 23 Mich. 429: 976, 977.
V. Railwav Co., 33 Ohio St. 429:
894, 898", 1242.
V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 158 Mo.
87: 89, 1649, 1652.
V. State Line Telephone Co., 116
App. Div. 737: 339, 1593.
Pownal, Inhabitants of, 8 Me. 271:
916.
Povnder v. Great Northern Ry. Co.,
2 Phillips 330: 1570.
Prahl V. Brown County, 104 Minn.
227: 1378, 1423.
Prairie Co. v. Fink, 65 Ark. 492:
781.
Prather v. Chicago So. Ry. Co., 221
111. 190: 815, 1061, 1063, 1060,
1247, 1249.
v. Ellison, 10 Ohio 396: 1491.
V. Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co.,
52 Ind. 16: 26, 731, 1059, 1060,
1061, 1062, 1163, 1165.
V. Western U. Tel. Co., 89 Ind.
501: 807.
Pratt v. Brown, 3 Wis. 603; 550,
672, 695.
V. Buffalo City Ry. Co., 19 Hun
30: 183, 1581.
CASES CITED.
CCXXIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Pratt y. Des Moines etc. E. R. Co.,
72 la. 249: 1648, 1657, 1715,
1717.
V. Holmes St. R. R. Co., 49 Mo.
App. 63: 1353.
V. New York R. R. Co., 77 Hun
139: 112»4.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
90 Hun 83: 1582, 1614.
V. People, 13 Hun 664: 1514.
V. Eoseland R. R. Co., 50 N. J.
Eq. 150: 1569.
V. Saline Valley Ry. Co., 130 Mo.
App. 175: 1254, 1546.
V. Stratford, 14 Ontario 260: 1550.
V. Stratford, 16 U. S. App. 5:
631.
Preble v. Portland, 45 Me. 241: 1008.
Prentice v. Weston, 111 N. Y. 460:
472.
Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.
Co., 211 U. S. 210: 480, 483.
Prentiss v. Parks, 65 Me. 559: 1018,
1516.
Presbrey v. Old Colony etc. R. R. Co.,
103 Mass. 1: 1147, 1148, 1478,
1483. ,
Preseott v. Beyer, 34 Minn. 493 : 850,
1514, 1569, 1573.
V. Curtes, 42 Me. 04: 980.
V. Edwards, 117 Cal. 298: 182,
879.
V. Patterson, 44 Mich. 525: 1018,
1032, 1634.
Preseott Irrigation Co. v. Flathers,
20 Wash. 454 : 587, 920.
Preslin v. Sabine etc. R. R. Co., 70
Tex. 375: 1348.
President v. Trenton City Bridge Co.,
13 N. J. Eq. 46: 96.
President & Comrs. of Revenue v.
State, 45 Ala. 399 : 462.
President etc. v. Diffebach, 1 Yates
367: 897.
V. Mifflin, 1 Yeats, 430: 1359.
Preston v. Cedar Rapids, 95 la. 71:
619, 1118, 1306, 1353.
V. Dubuque & Pacific R. R. Co., 11
la. 15: 1480.
V. Liverpool etc. E. R. Co., 5 H.
L. Gas. 605: 833, 856.
Prezinger v. Fording, 114 Ind. 599:
1034, 1518.
V. Harness, 114 Ind. 491: 1034,
1516, 1518.
Price v. Engelldng, 58 111. App. 547 :
1558, 1561, 1673, 1675.
V. Knott, 8 Oreg. 438: 237, 1597.
Price V. Milwaukee & St. Paul Rv.
Co., 27 Wis. 98: 1245, 1277,
1312.
V. Oregon R. R. Co., 47 Ore. 350:
93.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 81:
714.
V. Plainfleld, 40 N. J. L. 608:
1491.
V. Poynton, 1 Bush (Ky.) 387:
19.
V. Southbury, 29 Conn. 490; 1367.
V. Stagray, 68 Mich. 17 : 400, 1017,
1032, 1099.
V. Stratton, 45 Ela. 535: 366, 877.
V. Thompson, 48 Mo. 361 : 1494.
V. Weehawken Ferry Co., 31 N. J.
Eq. 31: 830, 1347.
Prichard v. Bixby, 71 Wis. 422: 1100,
1101.
Pridgen v. Bannerman, 8 Jones L.
53: 1425.
Priebe v. Ames, 104 Minn. 419: 1707.
Priest V. Maxwell, 127 la. 744: 89.
Priewe v. Wisconsin State Land &
Imp. Co., 93 Wis. 534: 125, 141,
499.
Prime v. Yonkers, 116 App. Div. 609:
79.
V. Yonkers, 192 N. Y. 105: 79.
Prince v. Baintree, 64 Vt. 540: 1238.
V. Crocker, 116 Mass. 347: 276,
299.
V. Crocker, 166 Mass. 347: 784.
Princeton v. County Comrs., 17 Pick.
154: 1382.
V. Gieske, 93 Ind. 102: 235.
V. Terapleton, 71 111. 68: 1328.
Princeville v. Auten, 77 III. 325:
420, 1494, 1618.
Prior, In re, 55 Kan. 724 : 482.
Prior V. Buehler etc. Co., 170 Mo.
439: 11, 464.
v. Hardwick, 94 Ky. 408: 1625.
V. Swartz, 62 Conn. 132: 127, 129,
137, 494.
Pritchard v. Edison Elec. 111. Co.,
92 App. Div. 178: 454.
V. Edison Elec. 111. Co., 179 N. Y.
364: 454.
Private Road Case, 1 Ashmead 417:
1327.
Private Road etc., 112 Pa. St. 183:
1017, 1032, 1034.
Proctor V. Andover, 42 N. H. 348:
515.
v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 154 Mass.
251: 91.
Proetz V. St. Paul Water Co., 17
Minn. 163: 1353.
ccxxx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Proprietors of Kennebunk Toll
Bridge, Petitioners, 11 Me. 263:
1533, 1638.
Proprietors of Locks & Canals v.
Nashua etc. R. R. Co., 10 Cush.
385: 370, 371, 372, 379, 623,
939 963.
V. Lowell, 7 Gray 223: 783, 793.
V. Nashua & L. R. R. Co., 104 Mass.
1: 1475, 1478.
Proprietors of Mills v. Braintree Wa-
ter Supply Co., 149 Mass. 478:
138, 1603.
V. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 227:
472.
Propst V. Cass County, 51 Neb. 736
1546.
Prospect Park etc. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 8 Hun 30: 918.
Matter of, 13 Hun 345: 247, 1293.
Matter of, 16 Hun 261 : 1293.
Matter of, 24 Hun 199: 1380.
Application of, 67 N. Y. 371 : 896.
Matter of, 85 N. Y. 489 : 1397.
Prospect Park etc. R. R. Co. v. Wil-
liamson, 24 Hun 216: 1609.
v. Williamson, 91 N. Y. 552: 750,
798, 1609.
Prosser v. Davis, 18 la. 367: 423.
V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 152
U. S. 59: 118, 136.
V. Wappello, 18 la. 327: 423, 1123.
Protzman v. Indianapolis & Cinn. R.
R. Co., 9 Ind. 467: 246, 251, 307,
324, 1548.
Proviijence v. Droon, 20 Ind. 238:
1406.
Providence etc. R. R. Co., In re, 17
R. I. 324: 728, 730, 753, 755,
800.
Providence etc. R. R. Co. v. Norwich
& W. R. R. Co., 138 Mass. 277:
754, 756, 793, 798.
V. Worcester, 155 Mass. 35: 1147,
1148, 1212, 1230, 1231, 1263.
Providence etc. Stfeamboat Co. v. Fall
River, 183 Mass. 535: 740, 1253,
1319.
Provolt V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 57
Mo. 256: 858, 1631.
v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 69 Mo. 633 :
1535, 1536, 1538, 1540, 1541,
1578.
Provost V. Morgan's R. R. Co., 42
La. Ann. 809: 842.
V. New Chester Water Co., 162
Pa. St. 275: 336, 337.
Pruyn v. Graham, 1 Wend. 370:
1069.
Pry V. Mankedick, 172 Pa. St. 535:
880.
Pryor, In re, 55 Kan. 724: 481.
Pryzblowicz v. Missouri Riv. R. R.
Co., 3 McCrary 586: 858, 1627,
1631.
Public Alley, In re, 160 Pa. St. 89:
698.
Public Road, 5 Harr. 242: 1081.
Public Road, 4 N. J. L. 290: 1099,
1363.
Public Road, Matter of, 4 N. J. L.
31: 979.
Public Road, Matter of, 4 N. J. L.
396: 1091, 1092.
Public Roads, 5 Harr. 174: 1027.
Public Road Vacation, In re, 160
Pa. St. 104: 400.
Pueblo V. Shutt Investment Co., 28
Colo. 524: 1096.
V. Strait, 20 Colo. 13: 635, 660,
664, 671.
Pueblo etc. R. R. Co. v. Rudd, 5 Colo.
270: 1358, 1374.
Pugh, Matter of, 22 Misc. N. Y.
43: 1097.
Pugh V. Wheeler, 2 Dev. & B. (N.
C.) 50: 900.
Pulaski Ave., 33 Pa. Supr. Ct. 108:
938.
Pulling V. London, Chatham & Dover
Ry. Co., 33 Beav. 644: 823.
V. London, Chatham & Dover Ry.
Co., 3 DeG. J. & S. 661 : 823.
Pullman Co. v. Chicago, 224 111. 248:
1151, 1379.
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall.
166: 23, 66, 90, 100, 144, 168,
554, 558.
Purdy V. Erie R. R. Co., 162 N. Y.
42: 484.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 3 Misc.
50: 448, 1300, 1303.
V. Martin, 31 Mich. 455: 1033,
1420.
Purifoy v. Richmond & D. R. R.
Co., 108 N. C. 100: 726, 913,
1157, 1707, 1708.
Purinton v. Somerset, 174 Mass. 556:
606.
Purnell v. McLane, 98 Md. 589:
359.
Pursell V. Edison Portland Cement
Co., 65 N. J. L. 541 : 1382.
Purviance v. Drover, 20 Ind. 278:
1409.
Pusey V. Allegheny, 98 Pa. St. 522:
630, 631, 924, 1115, 1245, 1453.
V. Wright, 31 Pa. St. 387: 852.
Putnam v. Boston etc. R. R. Co.,
182 Mass. 351: 191, 319, 379,
384, 385, 390, 402, 647.
CASES CITED.
CCXXXl
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Putnam v. Douglas Co., 8 Ore. 328:
1187, 1192.
Putney Bros. Co. v. Milwaukee Lt.
H. & T. Co., 134 Wis. 379 : 284,
1455.
Puyallup V. Lacey, 43 Wash. 110:
710, 725, 895, 1397.
Pychlicke v. St. Louis, 98 Mo. 497:
155.
Pye V. Mankato, 36 Minn. 373 : 154.
Q.
Quackenbush v. Dist. of Columbia, &
Mackey 300: 1017, 1021, 1571.
Quayle v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 63
Mo. 465: 1102, 1514.
Queen v. Birmingham etc. Ey. Co.,
4 Eng. L. & Eq. 276: 1700.
V. Birmingham etc. Ey. Co., 6 Ey.
Cas. 628: 1700.
V. Bristol etc. E. E. Co., 2 Eng. E.
E. Cas. 99: 1413.
V. Brown, 2 L. E. Q. B. 630 : 1236.
V. Cambria Ey. Co., L. E. 6 0. B,
422: 651.
T. Cambrian Ey. Co., 40 L. J. Q.
B. 169: 414.
V. Commissioners of Woods & For-
ests, 15 A. & E. N. S. 761:
1700.
V. Clarke, 5 Can. Exch. 64: 1221,
1270.
V. Darlington Local Board of
Health, 35 L. J. Q. B. 45:
1524.
V. Eastern Counties Ey. Co., 2
A. & E. N. S. 347: 631, 640.
V. Eastern Counties Ey. Co., 42
E. C. L. E. 706: 631.
V. Harwood, 6 Can. Exch. 420:
1231.
V. Lancaster & Preston Junction
Ey. Co., 6 A. & E. N. S. 759:
1077.
V. Lancaster & Preston Junction
Ey. Co., 51 E. C. L. E. 757:
1077.
V. London etc. E. E. Co., 10 A. &
E. 2: 1258.
V. London etc. Ey. Co., 16 A. & E.
N. S. 864: 1533.
v. London & Greenwich Ey. Co.,
3 A. & E. N. S. 166: 823.
V. London etc. Ey. Co., 3 E. & B.
443: 1370.
V. London etc. Ey. Co., 77 E. C.
L. E. 443: 1370.
V. London etc. Ey. Co., 23 L. J.
Q. B. N. S. 185: 1135.
V. Longton Gas Co., 2 El. & El.
651: 338.
V. New York etc. Rv- Co., 71
E. C. L. E. 886: 1533.
Queen v. Poulter, 20 L. E. Q. B. D.
132- 1259
V. Eyiid, 16' I. C. L. R. 29: 652.
V. South Wales E. R. Co., 13 A.
& E. N. S. 988: 1343.
V. The Inns of Court Hotel Co.,
32 L. J. Q. B. 367: 1098.
V. Vaughn, 4 L. R. Q. B. 190:
1272.
V. Vaughan, 38 L. J. Q. B. 71:
1260.
V. Vestry of St. Luke's etc. L.
E. 6 Q. B. 572: 631.
V. Vestry of St. Luke's etc., 7
L. E. Q. B. 148: 631.
V. Wallasey Local Board of Health,
L. R. 4 Q. B. 351 : 631.
V. Wismer, 6 U. C. Q. B. 293:
QQ9
V. Yoi-k etc. Ry. Co., 16 A. & E.
N. S. 886: 1533.
Queen County Water Co. v. Monroe,
83 App. Div. 105: 829.
Quick V. Cotman, 124 la. 102 : 885.
V. Taylor, 113 Ind. 540: 806, 808.
v. White Water Township, 7 Ind.
570: 23.
Quieksall v. Philadelphia, 177 Pa.
St. 301: 366, 878.
Quigley v. Montgomery etc. Elec. Ry.
Co., 208 Pa. St. 238: 850.
V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 2 Mont.
Co. L. R. 109 : 641, 1524.
V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 4 Mont.
Co. L. Rep. 179: 330.
V. Penn. S. V. E. E. Co., 121 Pa.
St. 35: 330, 1327.
Quigley's Case, 3 P. & W. 139: 1187.
Quimby v. Consumers' Gas Trust Co.,
144 Fed. 362: 725.
V. Vermont Central E. E. Co., 23
Vt. 387: 809.
Quincy v. Jones, 76 111. 231: 210,
213, 229, 441.
Quincy & Palmyra E. E. Co. v. Tay-
lor, 43 Mo. 35: 1019.
Quincy etc. E. R. Co. v. Kellog, 54
Mo. 334: 964, 980.
V. Ridge, 57 Mo. 599: 1186.
Quindaro Tp. v. Squier, 51 Fed. 152:
865, 869.
Quinn v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 63
la. 510: 453.
V. Paterson, 27 N. J. L. 35: 1506.
V. Schnider, 118 Mo. App. 39:
1576.
Quinton v. Burton, 61 la. 471: 1487.
Quirk V. Seattle, 38 Wash. 25: 1219.
R.
Raab v. Roberts, 30 Ind. App. 6 :
1058.
Race Street, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 95: 1360,
1363,
CCXXXll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Race Street, In re, 24 Fa. Co. Ct.
433: 1276.
Race Street, Condemnation, 9 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 615: 1276.
Radcliff's Executors v. Brooklyn, 4
N. Y. 195: 209, 211, 212, 213,
215, 229, 245, 1452.
Radke v. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
41 Minn. 350: 848.
Radnor Road, 5 Binn. 612: 1081.
Radnor Tp. Elec. Lt. Co.'s Petition,
208 Pa. St. 460: 682.
Radnor Tp. Elec. Lt. Co. v. Brown,
208 Pa. St. 461: 682, 1619.
Rafferty v. Central Traction Co., 147
Pa. St. 579: 177, 241, 269, 279,
642, 1586, 1590, 1592.
Ragan v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., Ill Mo. 456: 1127, 1186,
1226, 1548.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 144
Mo. 623: 1226, 1320, 1546.
Ragsdale v. Southern Ry. Co., 60
S. C. .381: 1573.
Rahn Tp. v. Tamaqua & L. St. R. R.
Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 29: 683,
719.
V. Tamaqua & L. St. R. R. Co.,
167 Pa. St. 84: 305.
Railroad Comrs., In re, 83 Me. 273:
769.
Railroad Comrs. v. Pensacola & A.
R. R. Co., 24 Fla. 417: 480.
Railroad Co. v. Ailing, 99 U. S. 463 :
901.
V. Benson, 36 N. J. L. 357: 1138.
V. Benson, 36 N. J. L. 557: 1139.
V. Bohn, 34 Ohio St. 114: 988.
V. Boyer, 13 Pa. St. 497: 957,
961, 963.
v. Bucher, 7 Watts 33: 954.
V. Bunnell, 81 Pa. St. 414: 1139.
V. Burnett's Exrs., 11 Lea 525:
1325.
v. Burson, 11 P. F. Smith 379:
1349.
V. Calderwood, 15 La. An. 481 :
1183.
V. Carr, 38 Ohio St. 448: 89.
V. Cobb, 35 Ohio St. 94: 1323,
1325.
V. County Comrs., 79 Me. 386:
490.
V. Crow, 108 Tenn. 17: 834, 1479.
V. Donovan, 104 Tenn. 465: 1479.
V. Duggan, 109 111. 537: 475.
V. Duncan, 111 Pa. St. 352: 269.
V. Ferguson, 105 Tenn. 552: 96,
113 133
V. Foreman, 24 W. Va. 662: 1123,
1180, 1463, 1464.
Railroad Co. v. French, 100 Tenn.
209: 1474.
V. Gardner, 45 Ohio St. 309: 621,
1124, 1125, 1244, 1294, 1303.
V. Gesner, 20 Pa. St. 240: 1319,
1379.
V. Gilson, 8 Watts 243: 1187, 1207,
1313.
V. Halstead, 7 W. Va. 301: 1172.
V. Hambleton, 40 Ohio St. 496:
255, 1549, 1553.
v. Hester, 40 Pa. St. 53: 1139.
■V. Hiester, 4 Wright 53: 1140.
V. Higdon, 111 Tenn. 121: 92,
1651, 1653.
V. Keith, 53 Ga. 178: 1139.
V. Lawrence, 38 Ohio St. 41: 1581.
V. Longworth, 30 Ohio St. 108:
1236.
V. Louisville, 8 Bush 415: 354.
V. Montgomery Co. Pass. R. R. Co.,
14 Pa. Co. Ct. 88: 171.
V. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247: 1139.
V. Renwick, 49 la. 664: 131.
V. Renwick, 102 U. S. 180: 108,
131.
V. Richmond, 96 U. S. 521 : 487.
V. Robbins, 35 Ohio St. 531 : 1547.
V. Rose, 24 P. F. S. 362: 1140.
V. Roseville, 76 Ohio St. 108: 882,
890.
V. Schurmier, 7 Wall. 272: 105.
V. Shutte, 103 U. S. 118: 594.
V. Smith, 113 Ind. 233: 1616.
V. State, 9 Bax. 522: 703.
V. Swinney, 97 Ind. 586: 1323.
V. Telegraph Co., 101 Tenn. 62:
774, 775, 1284, 1286.
V. Tyree, 7 W. Va. 693: 1180.
V. Waterbury, 55 Conn. 19: 487.
V. Williams, 35 Ohio St. 168: 243,
247.
V. Woodruff, 49 Ark. 381 : 1329.
V. Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 366: 1315.
V. Railway, 30 Ohio St. 604: 765,
1278.
Rainey v. Herbert, 55 Fed. 443:
183.
V. Hinds County, 78 Miss. 308:
630, 631.
V. Red River etc. Ry. Co., 99 Tex.
276: 450, 453, 655, 1013.
Raissier v. Grimmer, 130 Ind. 219:
1512.
Rait V. Furrow, 74 Kan. 101: 68.
Rakowsky v. Duluth, 44 Minn. 188:
211, 236.
Raleigh v. Peace, 110 N. C. 32: .12,
464.
OASES CITED.
ecxxxiii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-T42 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1T19.]
Raleigh etc. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 2
Bev. & B. Law (N. C.) 451: 8,
23, 806, 923, 927, 1164.
V. Glendon etc. Co., 112 N. C.
661: 759, 1609.
V. Jones, 1 Ired. L. 25: 1425.
V. Sturgeon, 120 N. C. 225: 808,
1478.
V. Wicker, 74 N. C. 220: 152, 1187.
Ralpho Tp. Road, 1 Monaghan (Pa.
Supm. Ct.) 427: 1388. '
Ralston v. Weston, 46 W. Va. 544:
1492.
Ramey v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
235 111. 502: 90, 1663.
Ramsden v. Manchester etc. Ry. Co.,
1 Bxch. 723: 1635.
Ramsey v. People, 142 111. 380: 479.
Ramsey County v. Stees, 27 Minn.
14: 1425.
V. Stees, 28 Minn. 326: 814.
Ranck v. Cedar Rapids, 134 la. 563 :
1139, 1229, 1231, 1232, 1236,
1270, 1276, 1329.
Rand v. Boston, 164 Mass. 354: 454.
V. Ft. Scott etc. R. R. Co., 50 Kan.
114: 948, 949, 1563.
V. Newton, 6 Allen, 38: 1120.
V. Townshend, 26 Vt. 670: 937.
963.
Randall v. Christiansen, 76 la. 169:
336.
V. Jacksonville St. R. R. Co., 19
Fla. 409: 268, 1586, 1590.
V. Roselstad, 105 Wis. 410: 882.
V. Texas Central Ry. Co., 63 Tex.
586: 830, 942.
Randecker v. Commissioners, 61 111.
App. 426: 1418.
Randle v. Pacific R. R. Co., 65 Mo.
325: 249, 253, 309, 448, 1119,
1120, 1295, 1303.
Rand Lumber Co. v. Burlington, 122
la. 203: 455, 1004.
Randolf v. Bnomfield, 77 la. 50 : 453,
1650, 1654.
v. Comrs. of Highways, 8 111. App.
128: 988.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co.,
186 Pa. St. 541: 81.
V. Union, 63 N. J. L. 155: 1187,
1206.
Rangely v. Midland R. R. Co., 37
L. J. Ch. 313: 695.
Ranken v. East & West India Docks
etc. Co., 12 Beav. 298: 949, 14G0,
1570.
V. St. Louis & B. Suburban Ry. Co.,
98 Fed. 479: 282.
Rankin v. Great Western R. R. Co.,
40 U. C. C. P. 463: 860, 1627,
1631.
Rankin v. Harrisonburg, 104 Va.
524: 79, 95, 1345.
V. Sievern etc. R. R. Co., 58 S. U.
532: 1635.
Rannow v. Hazard, 61 N. Y. Supr.
211: 1150, 1305, 1665.
Ransom v. Citizens' R. R. Co., 104
Mo. 375: 277, 308, 327, 732.
v. Sault Ste. Marie, 143 Mich. 661 :
226, 1650, 1656.
Raphael v. Thomas Valley R. R. Co.,
36 L. J. Ch. 209: 851.
Rapid Transit R. R. Comrs., Matter
of, 128 App. Div. 103: 276, 1158.
Rapid Transit R. R. Co. v. Simp-
son, 45 Kan. 714: 1203.
Rapp v. Stratton, 41 Wash. 263:
1492.
Raritan v. Port Reading R. R. Co.,
49 N. ,L Eq. 11: 778, 780, 1643.
Raritan Canal Co., 24 N. J. Eq.
455: 745.
Raritan Water Power Co. v. Veghte,
21 N. J. Eq. 463: 859.
Raasier v. Grimmer, 130 Ind. 219:
1510.
Ratcliif V. Wichita Union Stock
Yards Co., 74 Kan. 1 : 482.
Rathbun v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
20 R. I. 61 : 1484.
Rathke v. Gardner, 134 Mass. 14:
153.
Rauenstein v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 120 N. Y. 661 : 320.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 136
N. Y. 528: 181, 255, 319.
Raulet V. Concord R. R. Co., 62 N.
H. 561: 1259, 1262, 1272, 1273,
1276, 1277, 1342.
Ravatte v. Race, 152 111. 672: 1309.
Ravenswood v. Flemings, 22 W. Va.
52: 104, 129, 137.
Rawlings v. Biggs, 85 Ky. 251 : 1409.
Rawston v. Taylor, 11 Exch. 307:
161.
Ray V. Atchison & Nebraska R. R.
Co., 4 Neb. 439: 1535, 1536,
1570.
V. Fletcher, 12 Cush. 200: 866.
V. New York Bay Extension R. R
Co., 34 App. Div. 3: 247, 743
Raymond v. Clay County, 68 la. 130
1404.
V. Commonwealth, 192 Mass. 486
1157, 1164, 1707.
V. County Comrs., 63 Maine 110
1095.
V. County Comrs., 63 Maine 112
977.
V. Fish, 51 Conn. 80: 485.
V. Griffin, 23 N. H. 340: 1381.
CCXXXIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Read v. Cambridge, 126 Mass. 427:
948.
V. Camden, 53 N. J. L. 322: 224,
226, 914, 1666.
V. Camden, 54 N. J. L. 347: 224,
226, 914, 1666.
V. Victoria Station & R. R. Co.,
32 L. J. Ex. 167: 1098.
Reading v. Althouse, 93 Pa. St. 400:
652.
. V. Davis, 153 Pa. St. 360: 1495.
V. Keppleman, 61 Pa. St. 223: 211.
Reading Co. v. Seip, 30 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 330: 1479.
Reading & P. R. R. Co. v. Balthaser,
119 Pa. St. 472: 1217.
V. Balthaser, 126 Pa. St. 1: 1324.
Readington v. Dilley, 24 N. J. L.
209: 1097, 1311, 1317, 1421.
Ready v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 98
Mo. App. 467 : 155.
Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154
U. S. 362: 483.
V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S.
420: 483.
V. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U. S.
413: 483.
V. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U. S.
418: 483.
Reardon v. San Francisco, 66 Cal.
492: 629, 659, 671.
Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court,
151 Cal. 263.
Reckner v. Warner, 22 Ohio St. 275:
927, 1640, 1707, 1708.
Reddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444: 536,
588.
Reddin v. Metropolitan Board of
Works, 31 L. J. Ch. 660: 823.
Redman v. Boulevard Co., 189 Pa.
St. 437: 1588.
V. Philadelphia etc. Ry. Co., 33 N.
J. Eq. 165: 1159, 1160, 1465,
1570.
Redmond v. Chacey, 7 N. D. 231 : 579.
Red River Bridge Co. v. Clarksville,
1 Sneed. 176: 781, 788, 1533,
1608.
Red River etc. Ry. Co. v. Hughes, 36
Tex. Civ. App. 472: 1183, 1201,
1340.
V. Sture, 32 Minn. 95: 746, 956,
1369.
Reed v. Acton, 117 Mass. 384: 1366.
V. Aeton, 120 Mass. 130: 1371,
1373.
V. Birmingham, 92 Ala. 339: 1491.
V. Board of Park Comrs., 100
Minn. 167: 808, 811, 1494.
V. Brenneman, 72 Ind. 288 : 1387.
Reed v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
25 Fed. 886: 931, 1225, 1391.
V. Hanover Branch R. R. Co., 105
Mass. 303: 941, 963, 1221, 1227,
1319, 1320.
v. Leeds, 19 Conn. 182: 1486.
V. Louisville Bridge Co., 8 Bush.
69: 1060.
V. Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co., 126 111.
48: 893, 894, 896, 991, 1176,
1227 1231
V. Peek, 163 Mo. 333: 237.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 210 Pa.
St. 211: 1120, 1129, 1379.
V. State, 108 N. Y. 407: 144, 1651,
1655.
Reelford Lake Levee Dist. v. Dawson,
97 Tenn. 151: 584.
Rees V. Addams, 16 S. & R. 40: 1565.
V. Chicago, 38 111. 322: 1519, 1520.
Reeves v. Backus-Brooks Co., 83
Minn. 339: 127, 129, 132, 1606.
v. Wood Co., 8 Ohio St. 333: 438,
570, 580.
Regan v. Boston Gas Lt. Co., 137
Mass. 37: 190, 366.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 60
Conn. 124: 475.
V. Rochester, 45 N. Y. 129 : 865.
Regents Canal Co. v. Ware, 23 Beav.
575: 1506.
V. Ware, 26 L. J. Ch. 566: 851.
Regina v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 23
U. C. Q. B. 208: 131.
V. Comrs., 2 Jur. N. S. 861: 952.
V. Metropolitan Board of Works,
3 B. & S. 710: 161.
V. Metropolitan Board of Works,
4 L. R. Q. B. 358: 645, 652.
V. Perth, 14 L. R. Q. B. 156: 212.
V. Stone, L. R. 1 Q. B. 529: 1260.
V. Train, 9 Cox C. C. 180: 297.
V. Wilts etc. Canal Co., 8 Dowling
623: 1533.
Reiber v. Butler etc. R. R. Co., 201
Pa. St. 49: 1229, 1236, 1242,
Reichenbach v. Wash. Short Line R.
R. Co., 10 Wash. 357: 837, 842.
Reichert v. St. Louis R. R. Co., 51
Ark. 491: 242, 246, 1486, 1629,
1631.
Reichert Milling Co. v. Freeburg, 217
111. 384: 1492.
Reid V. Atlanta, 73 Ga. 523: 143.
V. Norfolk Citv R. R. Co., 94 Va.
117: 273.
V. Ohio Miss. R. R. Co., 126 111. 48:
706.
V. Wall Tp., 34 N. J. L. 275: 1530.
Reiff V. Conner, 10 Ark. 241: 1393.
CASES CITED.
ccxxxv
[The reftirences are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Reilly v. Ft. Dodge, 118 Iowa 633:
211, 602, 617.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 43 N. Y.
App. Div. 80: 1210.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 33 N Y.
Supp. 391: 1.301.
V. Racine, 51 Wis. 526: 348.
Reining v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
128 N. Y. 157: 180, 181, 182,
223, 255, 259, 324, 325.
Reis V. New York, 113 App. Div. 464:
190, 367, 384, 388, 399.
V. New York, 188 N. Y. 58: 190,
367, 384, 388, 399.
Reisert v. New York, 69 App. Div.
302: 163, 1338.
V. New York, 101 App. Div. 93:
1338, 1554.
v. New York, 174 N. Y. 196: 163,
1338.
Reisner v. Strong, 24 Kan. 410: 1047,
1537.
V. Union Depot & R. R. Co., 27
Kan. 382: 1203, 1210, 1322.
Reitenbaugh v. Chester Valley R. R.
Co., 21 Pa. St. 100: 894, 897,
991, 1005, 1017, 1359.
Remey v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co., 116
Iowa 133: 1505.
V. Municipality No. 2, 12 La. Ann.
500: 1097.
Renard v. Grande, 29 Ind. App. 579 :
1192.
Rennich v. Board of County Comrs.,
45 Kan. 442: 1429.
Rennsalaer & Saratoga R. R. Co.,
Matter of, 4 Paige 553,: 1318.
Reno Smelting Works v. Stevenson,
20 Nev. 269: 70.
Rensselaer v. Leopold, 106 Ind. 29:
178, 210, 369, 378, 388, 396, 401,
402, 404, 743.
Rensselaer & S. R. R. Co. v. Davis,
43 N. Y. 137 : 524, 525, 526, 1056,
1061, 1063, 1064, 1066.
V. Davis, 55 N. Y. 145 : 1437.
Renthorp v. Bourg, 4 Martin 0. S.
(La.) 97: 23.
Rentz v. Detroit, 48 Mich. 544: 1369,
1429.
Renwick v. D. & N. W. Ry. Co., 49
Iowa 664: 127, 1257.
V. D. & N. W. Ry. Co., 102 U.
S. 180: 127.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 59
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 591: 1584.
Reny v. Municipality No. 2, 15 La.
Ann. 657: 1496.
Reock V. Newark, 33 N. J. L. 129:
1550.
Respublica v. Sparhawk, 1 Dall. 357 :
18.
Republican Valley R. R. Co. v. Ar-
nold, 13 Neb. 485: 1119, 1]2<I,
1128.
V. Fellers, 16 Neb. 169: 646, 848,
]i51, 1550.
V. Fink, 18 Neb. 82: 1525, 1526,
1634.
- V. Hayes, 13 Neb. 489: 1124, 1136.
V. Linn, 15 Neb. 234: 1119.
Rerick v. Kern, 14 S. & R. 267 : 858.
Reserve Tp. Road, 2 Grant's Cas. 204 :
1371.
Reserve Tp. Road, 80 Pa. St. 165:
778.
Ressegien v. Sioux City, 94 Iowa 543 :
603.
Restesky v. Delmar Ave. etc. R. R.
Co., 106 Mo. App. 382: 63U.
Rettinger v. Passaic, 45 N. J. L. 146 :
1520.
Reubel, Matter of, 52 Misc. 604 : 936,
1561.
Reuben v. Ontario etc. R. R. Co., 5
Montreal Supr. Ct. 211: 1325.
Reupert v. C. etc. R. R. Co., 43 Iowa
490: 1369.
Reusch V. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 57
. Iowa 687 : 527.
Revell V. People, 177 111. 468: 109,
115, 130.
Revere v. Boston, 14 Gray 218: 1717.
Revere Water Cd. v. Winthrop, 192
Mass. 455: 408, 409.
Rex V. Pease, 4 B. & A. 30: 451.
Rexford v. Knight, 15 Barb. 627 : 808,
1195.
V. Knight, 11 N. Y. 308: 1164,
1500, 1707, 1708.
Reyenthaler v. PhilAdelphia, 160 Pa.
St. 195: 1341.
Reynolds, Ex parte, 52 Ark. 330:
1466.
Reynolds v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry.
Co., 106 111. 152: 1113.
V. Barre, 63 Vt. 541: 1385.
V. Dunkirk & State Line R. R. Co.,
17 Barb. 613: 831.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 110
Mo. 484: 1186.
V. Louisiana etc. R. R. Co., 59 Ark.
171: 1567, 1669.
V. Presidio etc. R. R. Co., 1 Cal.
App. 229: 314, 315, 639, 042,
1588.
V. Reynolds, 15 Conn. 83: 510,
519, 1390.
V. Shreveport, 13 La. Ann. 426:
211, 213, 238.
V. Shults, 106 Ind. 291 : 1406.
ecxxxvi
CASES CITED,
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Reynolds v. Spears, 1 Stew. 34 : 708.
Keynoldsville etc. R. R. Co. v. Buffa-
lo etc. R. R. Co., 134 Pa. St. 541 :
771.
Rhea v. Newport etc. R. R. Co., 50
Fed. 16: 96.
Rhelmer v. Stillwater Ry. & Trans-
fer Co., 29 Minn. 147 : 1378.
Rhine v. McKinney, 53 Tex. 354: 923,
927, 928, 1572.
Rhinebeck etc. R. R. Co., Matter of,
8 Hun 34: 1391, 1566, 1678.
Rhinebeck etc. R. R. Co., Matter of,
67 N. Y. 242 : 1678.
Rhinehart v. Redfield, 93 App. Div.
410: 197.
Rhoades v. Toledo, 6 Ohio C. C. 9:
916, 1220.
Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v.
Hayden, 20 R. I. 544: 1255.
Rhode Island Suburban Ry. Co., In
re, 22 R. I. 455: 498, 499, 525,
593, 594, 720.
Rhode Island Suburban Ry. Co., In
re, 22 R. I. 457: 498, 594, 508,
, 525, 720.
Rhodes v. Airedale Drainage Comrs.,
L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 380: 652, 1529.
V. Airedale Drainage Comrs., L.
R. 1 C. P. Div. 402: 652.
V. Brightwood, 145 Ind. 21: 877,
887, 891.
V. Cissel, 82 Ark. 367: 109.
V. Cleveland, 10 Ohio 159: 214, 233.
V. Clivesdale Dr. Comrs., 45 L. J.
Com. Pleas 337 : 952.
V. Halvorson, 120 Wis. 99: 865.
Rialto Irr. Dist. v. Brandon, 103
Cal. 384: 723, 1068.
Ricard Boiler & Engine Co. v. Toledo,
6 Ohio C. C. {N. S.) 501: 358.
Rice v. Alley, 1 Sneed 51: 516.
V. Danville, Lancaster etc. Turnpike
Co., 7 Dana 81: 1182, 1423.
V. Chicago, 57 111. App. 558: 1468,
1558, 1561, 1673, 1675.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 30 III.
App. 481: 306, 777.
V. Evansville, 108 Ind. 7: 142.
V. Flint, 67 Mich. 401: 153, 194,
1489.
V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 130 N.
C. 375: 75, 79, 156.
V. Parkman, 16 Mass. 326: 458.
V. Rindge, 53 N. H. 530: 513.
V. Ruddiman. 10 Mich. 125: 104,
109, 110, 128.
V. Waterman, 5 Ohio C. C. 334:
1030. .
V. Wellman, 5 Ohio C. C. 334: 1058,
1307, 1431, 1515.
Rice Exr. v. Barre Turnpike Co., 4
Pick. 130: 1558.
Rich V. Chicago, 59 111. 286: 922,
923 999.
V. Gow, 19 111. App. 81: 1624.
V. Minneapolis, 37 Minn. 423 : 1489,
1490, 1491.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 16
Daly 518: 1614.
Richards v. Des Moines Valley R. R.
Co., 18 Iowa 259: 1535, 1578.
V. Dougherty, 133 Ala. 569: 455.
V. Ferguson Implement Co., 125
Mo. App. 428: 533.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 77
Conn. 501: 127, 129, 135.
V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 56 W. Va.
592: 89, 93, 151, 1639.
V. Wolf, 82 Iowa 358: 513.
Richardson v. Centerville, 137 Iowa
353: 1176, 1251, 1313, 1392,
1443.
v. Curtis, 2 Cush. 341: 1115.
V. Davis, 91 Md. 390: 351, 372.
V. Eureka, 96 Cal. 443 : 90.
V. Levee Comrs., 58 Miss. 539: 440.
V. Levee Comrs., 68 Miss. 539:
1340.
V. Levee Comrs., 77 Miss. 518:
57, 91.
V. Lone Star Salt Co., 20 Tex. Civ.
App. 486: 351, 372, 1492.
v. Munson, 23 Conn. 94: 458.
V. Sioux City, 136 Iowa 436: 236,
1119, 1120, 1306, 1307, 1308.
V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 25
Vt. 465: 256, 441.
V. Webster City, 111 Iowa 427:
236, 603, 618, 1123, 1125, 1306.
Riche V. Bar Harbor Water Co. (Me.)
28 Alb. L. J. 498: 501.
V. Bar Harbor Water Co., 75 Maine
91: 536, 1026, 1163.
Richert Milling Co. v. Freeburg, 217
111. 384: 891.
Richi V. Chattanooga Brewing Co..
105 Tenn. 651: 317, 1582, 1590^
Richland School Tp. v. Overmeyer,
164 Ind. 382: 672, 673, 677, 678,
815, 1068, 1070.
Richman v. Board of Supervisors, 70
Iowa 627: 972, 1414, 1419.
V. Board of Supervisors, 77 Iowa
10: 513, 734.
Richmond v. Gallego Mills Co., 102
Va. 165: 872.
V. James River & Kanawha Com-
pany, 9 Leigh, 313: 1199.
V. James Riv. & Kanawha Co., 12
Leigh 278: 779.
V. Muire, 2 Rob. (Va.) 458: 1085.
CASES CITED.
CCXXXVll
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Richmond v. Richmond Nat. Oas. Co.,
108 Ind. 82: 481.
V. Smith, 148 Ind. 294: 347, 1595.
V. Smith, 101 Va. 161: 356.
V. Test, 18 Ind. App. 482: 82.
Richmond etc. Elec. Ry. Co. v. Sea-
board Air Line Ry. Co., 103 Va.
399: 1240, 1379.
Richmond etc. R. R. Co. v. Chamb-
lin, 100 Va. 401: 1229, 1272,
1273.
V. Durham, & N. R. R. Co., 104 N.
C. 658: 759, 857.
V. Estill Co., 105 Ky. 808: 321.
>. Humphreys, 90 Va. 425: 1152,
1348, 1427.
V. Johnson, 103 Va. 456: 750.
V. Knopf, 86 Va. 981: 1425.
V. Louisa R. R. Co., 13 How. 71:
415.
%. Thomas, 19 Ky. L. R. 1488:
1545, 1548.
V. Wicker, 13 Gratt. 375: 818.
Richmond etc. Turnpike Co. v. Madi-
son Co., 114 Ky. 351: 1263.
Richmond & L. Tunrpike Road Co. v.
Rogers, 1 Duvall 135: 1261.
Richmond JIanufaeturing Co. v. At-
lantic DeLaine Co., 10 R. I. 100 :
81.
Richmond Traction Co. v. Murphy,
98 Va. 104: 273, 296, 622, 1303.
Rickert v. Philadelphia etc. Ry. Co.,
15 Pa. Dist. Ct. 32: 939.
Rickett's Case, 2 Eng. & Irish App.
193: 628.
Rickett V. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 5
B. & S. 149: 645.
V. Metropolitan Ry. Co., L. R. 2
H. L. 175: 645.
Ricks V. Hall, 4 Porter 178: 1395.
Riddell v. Animas Canon Toll Road
Co., 5 Colo. 230: 911.
Riddle v. Del. Co. Comrs., 3 Pa. Co.
Ct. 598: 96.
Riddle's Exrs. v. Delaware County,
156 Pa. St. 643: 95, 457, 1337.
Ridenour v. SaflBn, 1 Handy 464:
Rider v. Stryker, 2 Hun 115: 1108.
V. Stryker, 63 N. Y. 136: 1164.
Ridge Ave., In re, 99 Pa. St. 409:
612.
Ridge Ave. Pass. R. R. Co. v. Phil-
adelphia, 181 Pa. St. 592: 352.
V. Philadelphia, 10 Phil. 37: 352.
Ridge Street, In re, 29 Pa. St. 391:
211, 1245, 1453.
Ridge Turnpike Co. v. Stoever, 6 W.
& S. 378: 1493, 1636.
Ridgeway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 248:
109.
V. Osceola (la.) 117 N. W. 974:
375, 377, 389, 391, 406.
Ridgway L. & H. Co. v. Pennsylvania
R. R. Co., 18 Phila. 601: 776.
Ridley v. Seaboard etc. R. R. Co.,
118 N. C. 990: 92, 1649, 1653,
1603.
v. Seaboard etc. R. R. Co., 124 N.
C. 34: 94.
Rieck V. Omaha, 73 Neb. 000: 947,
1563.
Riedman v. Mt. Morris Eleo. Light
Co., 56 App. Div. 23: 1615.
Rifenburg v. Muskegon, 83 Mich. 279 :
1027.
Riggs V. St. Francois County Ry. Co.,
120 Mo. App. 335: 285.
V. Winteroek, 100 Md. 439: 1362.
Righter v. Jersey City Water Sup-
ply Co., 73N. J. L. 298: 144.
V. Philadelphia, 161 Pa. St. 73:
846, 848, 1356.
Rigney v Chicago, 102 111. 64: 383,
645, 659, 663, 671.
V. Tacoma Light & W. Co., 9 Wash.
576: 70, 73, 74.
Riker v. New York, 3 Daly 174: 1343.
Riley v. Buchman, 116 Ky. 025: 890.
V. Charleston Union Station Co.,
67 S. C. 84: 815, 1041, 1004,
1066, 1067.
V. Charleston Union Station Co.,
71 S. C. 457: 527, 815, 1041,
1055, 1063, 1064, 1060, 1007,
1624.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 32 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 579: .308, 1583.
Rimback v. Essex Co. Bank, 62 N. J.
L. 494: 1404.
Rinard v. Burlington & W. R. R. Co.,
66 Iowa 440: 330.
Rindge v. Sargent, 64 N. H. 294:
147.
Rinehart v. Cowell, 44 N. J. L. 300:
1416.
Rines v. Portland, 93 Maine 227 :
1403.
Ring v. Mississippi Bridge Co., 57
Mo. 496: 1546.
Ringle v. Board of Chosen Free-
holders, 56 N. J. L. 661: 1406.
Rio Grande etc. R. R. Co. v. Ortiz,
75 Tex. 602: 1540, 1541, 1542,
1543, 1544, 1540.
Rio Grande R. R. Co. v. Brownsville,
45 Tex. 88: 322, 726.
Ripley v. Great Northern Ry. Co., L.
R. 10 Ch. App. 435: 628.
CCXXXVlll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Rippe V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 20
Minn. 187: 1407.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 22 Minn.
44: 1466.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 23 Minn.
18: 125, 127, 129, 1135, 1407.
Rische v. Texas Trans. Co., 27 Tex.
Civ. App. 33: 291, 640.
Rise V. Flint, 67 Mich. 401 : 456.
Rising Sun & Hartford Turnpike v.
Hamilton, 50 Ind. 580: 980.
Ritchie v. Kansas etc. R. R. Co., 55
Kan. 38: 840, 841, 844, 864,
1629.
V. People, 155 111. 98: 53, 477, 479.
Rittenhouse v. Creasey, 2 Luzerne
Leg. Rep. (Pa.) 241: 538.
Riverhead etc. R. R. Co., Matter of,
36 N. Y. App. Div. 514: 727.
Riverside v. MacLain,, 210 111. 308:
420, 784, 877, 879, 889, 892, 1494,
1018.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 74 N. J.
L. 476: 865, 1630.
Riverside Cotton Mills v. Lanier, 102
Va. 148: 146.
Riverside Drive, In re, 83 Huu 50:
1101.
Riverside Park, Matter of, 59 App.
Div. 603: 687, 1319, 1565.
Riverside Park, 95 App. Div. 552 :
733.
Riverside Park, Matter of, 167 N. Y.
627: 687, 1319, 1565.
Riverside Park Extension, Matter of,
27 Misc. 373: 1227.
Riverton Ferry Co. v. McKeesport
etc. Bridge Co., 179 Pa. St. 460:
1261, 1266.
V. McKeesport & D. Bridge Co., 1
Pa. Supr. Ct. 587: 413, 1340.
Road Case, 1 Brown 210: 1084.
Road Case, 6 Phila. 143: 971.
Road Case, 2 S. & R. 277: 1366, 1370.
Road Case, 2 S. & R. 419: 1413:
Road Case, 4 S. & R. 106: 171, 1421.
Road, Case of, 9 S. & R. 35 : 982.
Road Case, 4 W. & S. 39 : 816: 1362.
-Road Case, 4 Yates 514: 516, 982.
Road Comrs. v. Fickinger, 51 Pa. St.
48: 1419.
V. Morgan, 47 Pa. St. 276: 1083.
Road District v. Beebe, 231 111. 147 :
865.
Road etc., In re, 166 Pa. St. 132:
1058.
Road from App.'s Tavern, 17 S. &
R. 388: 1101.
Road from Mrs. Cully's, 13 S. & R.
25: 1103.
Road in Collins, 36 Pa. St. 85: 1383. '
Road in Upper Darby, 2 Pa. Co. Ct.
366: 513.
Road Leading etc., 1 Brown 210:
1100, 1101.
Road Notices, 4 Harr. Del. 324 : 1020.
Roads, 2 T. B. Mon. 91: 1030.
Road to Ewing-s Mill, 32 Pa. St.
282* 1103
Road to York Water Co., 24 Pa. St.
397: 733.
Roake v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 41
N. J. Eq. 35: 340.
Roanoke v. Boiling, 101 Va. 182;
468.
Roanoke City v. Berkowitz, 80 Va.
616: 8, 673, 675, 809, 813, 1087,
1344.
Roanoke Gas Co. v. Roanoke, 88 Va.
810: 238, 252.
Roanoke Investm^int Co. v. Kansas
City etc. R. R. Co., 108 Mo.
50: 840, 841, 1503, 1504.
Roaring Creek Road, 11 Pa. St. 356:
713.
Roath V. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 532: 161,
165.
V. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 533: 161.
Robb V. LaGrange, 158 111. 21: 83,
1605.
V. LaGrange, 57 III. App. 380: 84,
453, 1613.
V. Maysville & Mt. Sterling Turn-
pike Road Co., 3 Met. (Ky.)
117: 1230.
Robbins v. Barman, 1 Pick. 122:
1493.
V. Bridgewater, 6 N. H. 524: 1411,
1516, 1526, 1528.
V. Guflfy, 20 Phila. 400: 439.
V. Lexington, 8 Cush. 292: 1411.
V. Milwaukee & H. R. R. Co., 6
Wis. 636: 1135,1137, 1317.
V. Omaha etc. R. R. Co., 27 Neb.
73: 1408.
V. Railroad Co., 6 Wis. 636: 1165,
1166.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 22 Minn.
286: 1330.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 24 Minn.
191: 1392.
V. Scranton, 217 Pa. St. 577: 372,
382, 391, 394, 647.
V. Willmon, 71 Minn. 403: 154.
Robert v. Sadler, 37 Hun 377 : 1489.
V. Sadler, 104 N. Y. 229: 1489,
1490, 1491, 1594.
Roberts v. Boston, 149 Mass. 346:
1127, 1138, 1146.
V. Boston & Lowell R. E. Co., 115
Mass. 57: 1428.
OASES CITED,
ccxxxix
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Roberts v. Brown Co. Comrs., 21 Kan.
247: 1185.
V. Chicago, 26 III. 249: 210, 230.
V. Claremont Ey. & Lt. Co., 73 N.
H. 121: 1569.
V. Comrs. of Brown Co., 21 Kan.
247: 1214.
V. Easton, 19 Ohio St. 78: 973,
1586.
V. Highway Comrs., 25 Mich. 23:
973, 974, 1513, 1516.
V. Huntington R. R. Co., 56 Misc.
62- 273.
V. Mathews, 137 Ala. 523: 366, 877,
1596.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 12 Misc.
345: 941.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 128
N. Y. 455: 1121, 1124.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 155
N. Y. 31: 1334, 1355.
V. Northern Pae. R. R. Co., 158
V. S. 1: 937, 1560.
V. Reed, 16 East 215: 1716.
V. Rust, 104 Wis. 619: 95, 1607.
V. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co., 73
Neb. 8: lOGl, 1478, 1479, 1520.
v. Smith, 115 Mich. 5: 13.
V. Stark, 47 N. H. 223: 1029.
V. Williams, 13 Ark. 355: 1095,
1413.
V. Williams, 15 Ark. 43: 512, 515,
517, 706, 966, 1368.
V. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 77
Wis. 589: 682.
Robertson v. Daviess Gravel Road
Co., 116 Ky. 913: 154.
V. Hartenbower, 120 Iowa 410;
1411, 1412, 1673, 1701.
Robey v. State, 76 Neb. 450: 533.
Robins v. Milwaulcee & Horricon R.
R. Co., 6 Wis. 636: 1180.
Robinson v. Brown, 182 Mass. 266:
191, 370.
V. Great Northern R. R. Co., 48
Minn. 445: 211, 226.
V. Logan, 31 Ohio St. 466: 1382.
V. Matherick, 5 Neb. 252: 1032,
1518.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 73
App. Div. 626: 1122, 1144.
V. New York El. R. E. Co., 175
N. Y. 219: 1122, 1144.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 27
Barb. 512: 86, 87, 166, 167, 401.
V. Norwood, 215 Pa. St. 375: 1523.
V. Norwood, 27 Pa. Supr. Ct. 481:
1523, 1663.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 161 Pa.
St. 561: 816, 1061, 1067, 1628.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 174 Pa.
St. 199: 995.
Robinson v. Ripley, 111 Ind. 112:
698, 974, 1028.
v. Robinson, 1 Duvall 162: 1358,
1366.
V. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., 129 Cal.
8: 864, 1625, 1714.
V. Swope, 12 Bush. 21: 494, 495,
519
V. West Penn. Ry. Co., 72 Pa. St.
316: 1500.
V. White, 42 Maine 209 : 109.
V. Winch, 66 Vt. 110: 513, 1020,
1360, 1364, 1511, 1512.
Robson V. Richey, 159 Ind. 660: 1374,
1393.
Roby V. New York Central etc. R. R.
Co., 65 Hun 532: 1475.
V. New York Central etc. R. R. Co.,
142 N. Y. 176: 1476, 1477, 1503,
1504.
V. South Park Comrs., 215 111. 200:
1397.
V. Yates, 70 Hun 35: 1475.
Rochester, In re, 136 N. Y. 83: 1534.
Rochester, In re, 137 N. Y. 243:
1020.
Rochester, Matter of, 97 App. Div.
642: 1437.
Rochester, Matter of, 102 App. Div.
99: 929, 1396, 1424.
Rochester, Matter of, 102 App. Liiv.
181: 938, 1011, 1174, 1556.
Rochester, Matter of, 40 Hun 588:
1119.
Rochester, Matter of, 181 N. Y. 322:
1437.
Rochester v. Sledge, 82 Ky. 344:
1365.
V. West, 29 App. Div. 125: 471.
V. West, 164 N. Y. 510: 471.
Rochester Electric R. R. Co., In re,
123 N. Y. 351: 297, 299, 300,
920, 1053.
Rochester Electric R. R. Co., Matter
of, 57 Hun 56: 683, 720, 912.
Rochester El. R. R. Co., 123 N. \.
351: 980.
Rochester etc. C. & I. Co. v. Berwind-
White Min. Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct.
104: 530.
Rochester etc. R. R. Co., 50 Hun
29: 1357.
Rochester etc Ry. Co., Matter of, 45
Hun 126: 994.
Rochester etc. R. R. Co., Matter of.
110 N. Y. 119 : 754, 799, 900, 906.
Rochester etc. R. R. Co. v. Beckwith,
10 How. Pr. 168: 1101, 1.385.
V. Budlong, 6 How. Pr. 467: 1097,
1124.
V. Budlong, 10 How. Pr. 289: 1124,
1125.
ccxl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Rochester etc. R. R. Co. v. Monroe
County Elec. Belt Line Co., 78
App. Div. 38: 910, 1620.
V. New York etc. Ry. Co., 44 Hun
206: 900.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 110
N. Y. 128: 900, 906, 908, 1019.
V. Rochester, 17 App. Div. N. Y.
257: 750, 1609.
V. Tolan, 116 App. Div. 676: 1085.
Rochester etc. Water Co. v. Roches-
ter, 84 App. Div. 71: 358, 360,
695.
V. Rochester, 176 N. Y. 36: 358,
360, 695.
Rochester R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 133
N. Y. 242: 977, 1074.
Rochester Water Comrs., Matter of,
66 N. Y. 413: 783, 799, 800, 959.
Rochester Water Works Co. v. Wood,
60 Barb. 137: 1386.
V. Wood, 41 How. Pr. 53: 1386.
Rochester White Lead Co. v. Roches-
ter, 3 N. Y. 463: 91.
Rochette v. Chicago, Mil. & St. Paul
Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 201 : 320, 351,
370, 384.
Rockafeller v. Northern Central Ry.
Co., 212 Pa. St. 485: 392, 394.
Rockford etc. R. R. Co. v. Coppinger,
66 HI. 510.
V. Keyt, 117 111. App. 32: 284,
1233.
V. McKinley, 64 111. 338 : 1095.
V. Shuniek, 65 111. 223: 849.
Rockford Gas etc. Co. v. Ernst, 68
III. App. 300: 350.
Rockingham Co. L. & P. Co. v. Hobbs,
72 N. H. 531: 495, 496, 498, 501,
508, 536, 537, 549, 591, 592, 6S2.
Rock Island etc. R. R. Co. v. Dimiek,
144 111. 628: 853, 8S4.
V. Gordon, 184 111. 456, 1229, 1236,
1314, 1379.
V. Johnson, 204 111. 488: 246, 327.
873.
V. Krapp, 74 111. App. 158: 87.
V. Leisy Brewing Co., 174 111. 547:
1222, 1426, 1480.
V. Lynch, 23 III. 645: 1083, 1318.
Rockland Water Co. v. Rockland, 83
Me. 267: 352.
V. Tillson, 69 Me. 255: 849. 860.
V. Tillson, 75 Me. 170: 1496.
Rockport V. Webster, 174 Mass. 385:
808, 1495.
Rockwell V. Bowers, 88 Iowa 88:
1046, 1510, 1512, 1576.
Rodemacher v. Milwaukee & St. Paul
R. R. Co., 41 Iowa 297: 1456, j
1459.
Rodgers v. Freemansburg, 2 Pa. Co.
Ct. 518: 991.
V. Parker, 9 Gray 445: 366, 392,
406.
V. Philadelphia, 181 Pa. St. 243:
1453.
Roe, Matter of, 59 Misc. 535 : 959.
Roe V. Howard Co. 75 Neb. 448: 155,
1456.
Roebling v. Trenton Pass. R. R. Co.,
58 N. J. L. 666: 272, 274.
Roeck V. Newark, 33 N. J. L. 129:
1525.
Roehrborn v. Schmidt, 16 Wis. 519:
1517, 1520.
Roelker v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
50 Ind. 127: 1582.
RofBngnac Street Widening, 4 Rob.
La. 357: 1386, 1669.
Rogers, Ek parte, 7 Cow. 526: 1101,
1531.
Rogers v. Coal River Boom Co., 39
W. Va. 272: 89, 1651, 1652.
V. Dock Co., 34 L. J. E(}. 105 : 952.
V. Freemansburg, 2 Pa. Co. Ct.
518: 1029.
V. Kennebec & Portland R. R. Co.,
35 Me. 319: 1639.
V. Omaha, 75 Neb. 318: 1527.
V. St. Charles, 3 Mo. App. 41:
1701.
V. Venis, 137 Ind. 221 : 786. 976.
Rogers Place, Matter of, 65 App. Div.
1: 611.
Rohn Tp. V. Tamaqua etc. R. R. Co.,
4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 29: 920.
Rohrer v. Harrisburg, 20 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 543: 155.
Roll V. Augusta, 34 Ga. 326: 234,
250.
Rollins V. Atlantic City R. R. Co.,
70 N. J. L. 664: 1135.
Roman Catholic Church v. Texas etc.
R. R. Co., 41 Fed. 564: 841, 842.
Romano v. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co., 87
Miss. 721: 1299, 1717.
Rome V. Omberg, 28 Ga. 46: 229,
1452.
V. Perkins, 30 Ga. 154: 1545.
V. Whitestown W. W. Co., 113 App.
Div. 547: 536, 909, 1060, 1061,
1066.
V. Whitestown W. W. Co.. 187 N.
Y. 542: 536, 909, 1060, 1061,
1066.
Rome etc. R. R. Co. v. Gleason, 42
N. Y. App. Div. 530: 1245.
V. Jennings, 85 Ga. 444: 1259.
V. Ontario etc. R. R. Co., 16 Hun
445: 772.
OASES CITED.
ccxli
[The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. U, pp. 743-1719.]
Eominger v. Simmons, 88 Ind. 453:
786, 1385, 1407.
Rondout etc. R. R. Co. v. Dego, 5
Lans. 298: 1097, 1359.
v. Field, 38 How. Pr. 187: 1385.
Rooker v. Perkins, 14 Wis. 79: 1345.
Rooney v. Sacramento Vallev E. R.
Co., 6 Cal. 638: 1557.
Roosa V. Henderson County, 59 III.
446: 1424.
V. St. Joseph & I. R. R. Co., 114
' Mo. 508: 926, 1511.
Roosevelt v. Godard, 52 Barb. 533:
15, 470.
V. New York EI. R. R. Co., 57 N.
Y. Supr. Ct. 438: 1121.
Roper V. New Britain, 70 Conn. 459:
1529.
Rosa V. Missouri, Kansas etc. Ry.
Co., 18 Kan. 124: 430, 431, 95G.
V. St. Joseph etc. R. R. Co., 114
Mo. 309: 1626.
Rose V. Farmington, 196 111. 226: 846.
1379.
V. Groves, 5 M. & G. 613: 128.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. 128
Mo. 135: 1098, 1360, 1370.
V. New York etc. E. R. Co., 108
App. Div. 206: 1379.
V. St. Charles, 49 Mo. 509: 91, 157,
234.
V. Taunton, 119 Mass. 99: 1143.
V. Washington Co., 42 Neb. 1 : 970.
Eosenberger v. Miller, 61 Mo. App.
422: 884, 890.
Eosenthal v. Taylor etc. R. R. Co., 79
Tex. 325: 1294, 1649, 1657, 1662.
Rosentiel v. Miller, 96 Mich. 99 : 996.
Ross V. Adams, 28 N. J. L. 160: 1534.
V. Board of Supervisors, 128 Iowa,
427: 690, 696, 1004, 1009, 1011,
1034, 1036, 1395, 1398.
V. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.
R. Co., 77 111. 127: 835, 851, 852,
861.
V. Cincinnati etc. Ry. Co., 5 Ohio
C. C. (N. S.) 565: 450.
V. Clinton, 46 Iowa 606 : 235.
V. Davis, 97 Ind. 79: 501, 566, 575,
1192.
V. Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co., 2
N. J. Eq. 422: 1537, 1570.
V. Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co., 20
N. J. L. 230: 952, 1025, 1369.
V. Faust, 54 Ind. 471: 103.
V. Georgia etc. R. R. Co., 33 S. C.
477: 1523.
V. Grand Trunk E. R. Co.. 10 Ont.
447: 864, 1713.
V. Long Branch, 73 N. J. L. 292:
421, 913, 1494.
Rosa V. Metropolitan R. R. Co., 57 N.
Y. Supr. 412: 1145, 1357.
V. Pennsylvania E. E. Co., 17 Phil.
339: 1505.
Ross Tp. Road, 4 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 67: 1105.
Eoss Township Road, 36 Pa. St. 87:
400, 985, 1100, 1384.
Rosser v. Randolph, 7 Porter 238 : 95,
1614.
Eossiter v. Russell, 18 N. H. 73:
1462.
Rossmiller v. State, 114 Wis. 169:
109, 115, 128, 140.
Rostraver Tp. Eoad, 34 Pa. Co. Ct.
176: 1100, 1101.
Rothan v. St. Louis etc. E. E. Co.,
113 Mo. 132: 927, 1160, 1463.
Rothschild v. Chicago, 227 HI. 205:
199.
Roughton v. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 948:
629.
Rounds V. Mumford, 2 R. I. 154: 212,
238.
Rourke v. Central Mass. Elec. Co.,
177 Mass. 46: 1122.
V. Central Mass. Elec. Co., 177
Mass. 48: 1122.
V. Kings County El. R. R. Co., 22
App. Div. 511: 1145.
Rousey v. Wood, 47 Mo. App. 471:
1511.
v. Wood, 57 Mo. App. 650: 706,
1514, 1516.
V. Wood, 63 Mo. App. 460: 1511,
1516.
Roushlange v. Chicago & A. E. R.
Co., 115 Ind. 106: 456, 837, 846,
847, 1476.
Eout V. Mountjoy, 3 B. Mon. 300:
51G, 519, 1017, 1027, 1359.
Eovvan v. Portland, 8 B. Mon. 232:
131, 305, 366, 880.
Rowe V. Addison, 34 N. H. 306: 235.
V. East Orange, 69 N. J. L. 600:
1029, 1085.
V. Granite Bridge Corp., 21 Pick.
344: 86, 112.
V.Rochester, 22 U. C. C. P. 319:
156.
V. Rochester, 29 U. C. Q. B. 590:
156, 233.
V. St. Paul etc. R. E. Co., 41 Minn.
384: 148, 157.
Rowland V. Miller, 139 N. Y. 93: 429.
Rowzee v. Pierce, 75 Miss. 846: 420,
1494.
Eoxedale v. Seip, 32 La. Ann. 435:
400, 401.
Eoyce v. Carpenter, 80 Vt. 37: 92,
1604.
ccxlii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Royston v. Royston, 21 Ga. 161: 943.
Rozell V. Anderson, 91 Ind. 591 : 142.
Rube V. Sullivan, 23 Neb. 779: 884.
Rubel V. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.,
199 111. 110: 1260.
Rubottom V. MeClure, 4 Blackf . 505 :
1163, 1165.
Ruch V. New Orleans, 43 La. Ann.
275: 433, 440.
Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Rv. Co., 163
Mo. 260: 272, 296, 622, 642.
Rudd V. Farmville etc. R. R. Co., 2
Va. Dec. 346: 1461.
Ruddick v. St. Louis etc. E. R. Co.,
116 Mo. 25: 855.
Ruddiman v. Taylor, 95 Mich. 547:
874, 878.
Rude V. St. Louis, 93 Mo. 408: 312,
648.
V. St. Marie, 121 Wis. 634: 583.
Rudel V. Los Angeles Co., 118 Cal.
281: 79.
Rudisill V. State, 40 Ind. 485: 1100.
Rudolph V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 6
Mont. Co. L. R. 114: 1071.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co.,
160 Pa. St. 430: 530, 818.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co.,
186 Pa. St. 541: 1211, 1313.
Ruduyai v. Harwinton, 79 Conn. 91 :
154.
Ruehl V. Voight, 28 Wis. 153: 1708.
Rugby Portland Cement Co. v. Lon-
don etc. Ry. Co., (1908) 1 K. B.
925: 12G9.
V. London etc. Ry. Co., (1908) 2
K. B. 006: 1269.
Rugg V. Commercial Union Tel. Co.,
66 Vt. 208: 343.
Ruggles V. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526:
480, 482.
V. Lesun, 24 Pick. 187 : 858.
Rugheimer, In re, 36 Fed. 369: 969,
1199, 1230.
Rugsdale v. Southern Ry. Co., 60 S.
C. 381: 1475.
Ruhland v. Supervisors, 55 Wis. 664 :
1099.
Rumsey v. New York etc. R. E. Co.,
63 Hun 200: 1651, 1658.
V. New York & N. E. R. R. Co.,
114 N. Y. 423: 122.
V. New York & N. E. R. R. Co.,
125 N. Y. 681: 122, 131, 133.
V. New York & N. E. R. R. Co.
130 N. Y. 88, 28 N. E. 763 :' 122.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 133
N. Y. 79: 102, 122, 123, 127, 128,
129, 131, 1338.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 136 N.
Y. 543: 122, 131, 1338.
Rundell \. Blakeslee, 47 Mich. 575:
1058, 1366.
Eundle v. Delaware &, Raritan Canal
Co., 14 How. 80 : 108.
Runner \. Keokuk, 11 Iowa 543:
1406.
Runshart v. Railroad Co., 54 Ga.
579: 1536.
Runyon v. Altan, 78 Minn. 31 : 1399,
1405.
Ruppert V. West Side Belt R..R. Co.,
25 Pa. Supr. Ct. 013: 441.
Eusch V. Milwaukee, L. & W. Ry. Co.,
54 Wis. 136; 1369.
Ruscomb Street, 30 Pa. Super. Ct.
476: 364, 392, 394, 403.
Ruscomb St., 33 Pa. Super. Ct. 148:
382, 392, 394, 403.
Rush V. McDermctt, 50 Cal. 471: 831.
Huston V. Grimwood, 30 Ind. 364:
1360.
Rushton V. Martin, 43 Ala. 555:
1094, 1367.
Rushville v. RushviUe Nat. Gas Co.,
132 Ind. 575: 408, 481.
Rusk V. Berlin, 173 111. 634: 874.
Russ V. Pennsylvania Tel. Co., 15 Pa.
Co. Ct. 226: 343, 1594.
Russell V. Burlington, 30 Iowa 262:
211, 235, 238.
V. Chicago etc. Elee. Ry. Co., 205
111. 155 : 305, 366, 874, 886, 888,
891, 1588.
V. Lincoln, 200 111. 511: 366, 873,
874, 879, 889, 1491.
V. New Bedford, 5 Gray 31 : 1707,
1708.
V. New York, 2 Denio, 461: 16, 17.
V. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 71 Ark.
451: 684, 1243, 1339.
V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 33 Minn.
210: 1230.
V. Turner, 62 Me. 496: 978, 995.
Russell Mills v. Co. Comrs., 16 Gray
347: 1526.
Rutherford's Case, 72 Pa. St. 82:
1005, 1013, 1014.
Rutherford v. Davis, 95 Ind. 245:
1510, 1512.
V. Holley, 105 N. Y. 632 : 235.
V. Hudson Riv. Traction Co., 73 N.
J. L. 227: 302.
Rutherford's Road, 10 S. & R. 120:
1359.
Rutland v. County Comrs., 20 Pick.
71: 1030.
V. Supervisors, 55 Wis. 664: 1096.
Rutland-Canadian R. R. Co. v. Cent.
Vt. Ry. Co., 72 Vt. 128: 760,
793, 794, 797, 798.
OASES CITEB.
ccxliii
7The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Rutland El. Lt. Co. v. Marble City
El. Lt. Co., 65 Vt. 377: 911.
Rutland K. R. Co. v. Chaffee. 71 Vt.
84: 953, 1477, 1631, 1633.
V. Chaffee, 72 Vt. 404: 953, 1477,
1631, 1633.
Rutledge v. Drainage Comrs., 16 111.
App. 655: 1506, 1602.
Ryan t. Boston, 118 Mass. 248: 605,
1309.
V. Brown, 18 Mich. 196: 470.
V. Hoffman, 26 Ohio St. 109 : 1531,
1683.
V. Mississippi Val. etc. R. E. Co.,
62 Miss. 162: 864.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co., 2
Mont. Co. L. R. 31: 641, 1524.
V. Preston, 59 App. Div. 97: 357.
V. Preston, 32 Misc. 92: 357.
V. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. Ill:
498, 500, 503, 508, 527, 591, 675,
739, 1056, 1060.
Rvan Tp. Road, 3 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 76: 1091, 1094, 1100, 1101.
Ryckman v. Gillis, 6 Lans. 79: 442.
Ryder v. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 89
Hun 29: 1301.
V. Horsting, 130 Ind. 104: 962,
1004, 1510, 1513.
Ryers, Matter of, 72 N. Y. 1: 564,
569, 570, 578, 584.
Ryerson v. Brown, 35 Mich. 333 : 502,
551.
Eyker v. McElroy, 28 Ind. 179: 516.
Sabetto v. New York Cent. etc. R. R.
Co., 127 App. Div. 832: 153.
Sabin v. Vermont Central R. R. Co.,
25 Vt. 363: 435, 436, 1455, 1450.
Sabine v. Johnson, 35 Wis. 185: 937,
960.
Sabine etc. R. R. Co. v. Brousard,
69 Tex. 617: 158, 159.
V. Brousard, 75 Tex. 597: 93.
V. Gulf etc. R. R. Co., 92 Tex. 1G2:
760, 768.
V. Johnson, 65 Tex. 389 : 152.
Sacks V. Minneapolis, 75 Minn. 30:
784.
Sacramento etc. R. R. Co, v. Harlan,
24 Cal. 334: 930, 1425.
Sacramento Val. E. R. Co. v. Mof-
fatt, 6 Cal. 74: 1316.
V. Moffatt, 7 Cal. 577 : 1557.
Sadd V. Maddon Ry. Co., 6 Exch.
143: 814.
Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311 : 404,
497, 499, 516, 517, 551, 552, 593,
674, 1163.
Sadlier v. New York, 104 App. Div.
82: 454.
Sadlier v. New York, 40 Misc. 78:
454.
V. New York, 185 N. Y. 408: 454.
Sadorus v. Black, 65 111. App. 72:
1488.
Sadsbury Tp. Roads, In re, 147 Pa.
St. 471: 992.
Sage V. Brooklyn, 89 N. Y. 189: 1158,
1164, 1168, 1171, 1526, 1530.
V. New York, 10 App. Div. 294:
129.
V. Ne\v York, 154 N. Y. 61: 122,
132.
Saginaw v. Campau, 102 Mich. 594:
1085.
Saginaw etc. R. R. Co. v. Bordner,
108 Mich. 236: 524, 1027, 1061.
Sahr V. Scholle, 89 Hun 42: 486.
St. Albans v. Seymour, 41 Vt. 579:
940.
St. Anthony etc. Co. v. King Bridge
Co., 23 Minn. 186: 1489.
St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co.
V. St. Paul Water Comrs., 168
U. S. 349: 106, 110, 114, 138,
1432.
St. Charles v. Rogers, 49 Mo. 530:
1412.
\. Stuart, 49 Mo. 132: 1412.
St. Clair v. San Francisco etc. Ry.
Co., 142 Cal. 647: 639.
St. Francis Levee Dist. v. Redditt, 79
Ark. 154: 928, 1570.
St. Francois Co. v. Marks, 14 Mo.
539: 1531.
V. Peers, 14 Mo. ,537: 1531.
St. Helena Water Co. v. Forbes, 62
Cal. 182: 69, 73, 536.
St. Johnsbury etc. R. R. Co. v. Wil-
lard, 61 Vt. 134: 1347.
St. Johnsville v. Smith, 61 App. Div.
.380: 1395.
V. Smith, 90 App. Div. 618: 1352.
v. Smith, 184 N. Y. 341: 1144,
1352, 1634.
St. Joseph V. Geiwetz, 148 Mo. 210:
923, 1034, 1186, 1387.
V. Hamilton, 43 Mo. 282: 1669,
1673.
V. Zimmerman, 142 Mo. 155: 710,
1158.
St. Joseph etc. R. R. Co. v. Baldwin,
7 Neb. 247: 956.
V. Callender, 13 Kan. 496: 1626,
1628, 1632.
V. Cudmore, 103 Mo. 634: 24, 920.
V. McCarty, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 626:
158.
V. Orr, 8 Kan. 419: 1145, 1203,
1224.
ccxliv
CASES CITED.
JThe references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
V.
V.
V,
Joseph etc. R. R. Co. v. Sham-
baugh, 106 Mo. 557: 926, 1010,
1047, 1318.
Joseph Hydraulic Co. v. Cincin-
nati etc. k R. Co., 109 Ind. 172:
1510, 1512, 1520, 1631.
Joseph Terminal R. R. Co. v. Han-
nibal etc. R. R. Co. 94 Mo. 535:
1045.
Julien \i. Morgan's La. & Tex. R.
R. Co., 35 La. An. 924: 1631.
Lawrence etc. R. R. Co., In re,
133 N. Y. 270: 971, 1469.
Lawrence etc. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 66 Hun 306: 1164, 1170,
1467.
Louis v. Annex Realty Co., 175
Mo. 63: 1719.
. Bell Tel. Co., 96 Mo. 623: 341.
Bissell, 46 Mo. 157: 852.
Brown, 155 Mo. 545: 498, 503,
710, 1085, 1271.
Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90
Mo. 135: 807, 1331.
Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 107
Mo. 92: 492.
. Cruikshank, 16 Mo. App. 495:
915.
Frank, 9 Mo. App. 579: 976,
1074.
Franks, 78 Mo. 41: 706, 913,
915.
Gait, 179 Mo. 8: 468, 473.
Gleason, 89 Mo. 67: 918.
Gleason, 15 Mo. App. 25: 918,
972 1035
Gurno, 12 Mo. 414: 211, 234.
Hill, 116 Mo. 527: 53, 54, 56,
67, 433.
Lang, 131 Mo. 412: 25, 1381.
Lanigan, 97 Mo. 175: 1425, 1426.
Lawton, 189 Mo. 474: 1380.
Meintz, 107 Mo. 611: 1442.
Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 114 Mo.
13: 130, 131, 322, 1629.
Nelson, 169 Mo. 461: 1399.
Roe, 184 Mo. 324: 926.
Speck, 67 Mo. 403: 13.
Stern, 3 Mo. App. 48: 484.
Stern, 3 Mo. Ap. 694: 14.
Stoddard, 15 Mo. App. 173:
699.
Terminal R. R. Ass., 211 Mo.
364: 180.
Thomas, 100 Mo. 223: 1422.
Weber, 140 Mo. 515: 1381.
Western Union Tel. Co., 148
U. S. 92: 463.
Western Union Tel. Co., 149
U. S. 465: 343, 463.
Wetzel, 110 Mo. 260: 1378.
St.
St.
Louis Belt etc. Ry. Co. v. Cartan
Real Est. Co., 204 Mo. 565:
1106, 1187, 1201, 1269.
. Mendonza, 193 Mo. 518: 1314.
Louis Brewing Ass. v. St. Louis,
168 Mo. 37: 1669, 1695.
Louis County, 58 Mo. 175: 1067.
Louis Co. Ct. V. Griswold, 58
Mo. 175: 498.
Louis etc. Elec. Ry. Co. v. Van
Hoorebeke, 191 111. 633: 846, 851,
1445.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Almeroth,
62 Mo. 343: 1385.
V. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167: 1118,
1127, 1128, 1203, 1309, 1314,
1316.
V. Anderson, 62 Ark. 360: 149,
151, 1716.
T. Aubuchon, 199 Mo. 352: 1118,
1210, 1430.
V. Barnsback, 234 111. 344: 1122,
1315, 1377.
V. Belleville, 122 111. 376: 886.
v. Belleville, 20 111. App. 580: 301.
V. Belleville City R. R. Co., 158
111. 390: 754, 799, 1047.
V. Biggs, 52 Ark. 240: 1654, 1655.
V. Bradley, 4 C. C. A. 528: 1129.
V. Bradley, 54 Fed. 630: 1127,
1132.
Brady, 83 Ark. 489: 846.
Brooksher, 86 Ark. 91: 87, 849,
1124, 1125, 1456.
Brown, 58 111. 61: 1209.
Brown, 34 111. App. 552: 92,
94, 1639.
Capps, 67 111. 607: 021.
Capps, 72 111. 188: 621.
Chapman, 38 Kan. 307: 1128,
1233.
Clark, 119 Mo. 357: 1461, 1463,
1465, 1466, 1471.
Clark, 121 Mo. 169: 1138, 1247,
1342, 1477, 1483.
Continental Brick Co., 198 Mo.
698: 1128, 1239, 1243, 1271,
1314.
Craigo, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 238:
87.
Crandall, 75 Ark. 89: 843, 850,
851, 853.
Davenport, 80 Ark. 244: 846.
Davis, 75 Ark. 283: 867.
Donovan, 149 Mo. 93: 1114,
1408, 1430.
Drennan, 26 111. App. 263: 1636.
Drummond R. & I. Co., 205 Mo.
167: 1389.
OASES CITED.
ccxlv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Dudgeon,
64 Ark. 108: 1517.
V. Eby, 152 Mo. 606: 1354.
V. Evans & Howard Fire Brick Co.,
85 Mo. 307: 1423, 1430, 1403.
V. Evans & Howard Fire Brick Co.,
15 Mo. App. 152: 1430, 1463.
V. Fayetteville, 75 Ark. 532: 677,
678, 749, 1288.
V. Foltz, 52 Fed. 627 : 086, 1631.
V. Fowler, 113 Mo. 458: 980, 982,
1031, 1225, 1322.
V. Fowler, 142 Mo. 670: 1149, H86,
1202, 1217, 1245.
V. Gill, 156 U. S. 649: 480, 483.
V. Gordon, 157 Mo. 71: 881, 883.
v. Grayson Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App.
611: 956.
V. Guswelle, 236 111. 214: 1140,
1314.
V. Haller, 82 111. 208: 621, 778,
780, 1138.
V. Hammers, 51 Kan. 127: 1312.
V. Hanks, 80 Ark. 417: 84G.
V. Hannibal Union Depot Co., 125
Mo. 82: 726, 754, 760, 797, 798.
V. Harris, 47 Ark. 340: 87, 848.
V. Henderson, 86 Tex. 307 ; 853.
V. Hoshall, 82 Ark. 387: 92, 1038,
1653.
V. Hurst. 14 111. App. 419: 154,
846, 847, 1455.
V. Hurst, 25 111. App. 98: 154,
847, 1455.
V. Jacobs, 44 La. Ann. 922: 1456.
V. Karnes, 101 111. 402: 1519.
V. Kirby, 104 111. 345: 1195, 1318.
V. Kirkwood, 159 Mo. 239: 303.
V. Knapp, Stout & Co., 160 Mo.
396: 995, 1186, 1202, 1230, 1247,
1271, 1277, 1311, 1471.
V. Lewriabt, 113 Mo. 660: 684,
921, 982, 1435.
V. Lindell Ry. Co., 190 Mo. 246:
328, 881.
V. Lux, 63 111. 523: 1398.
V. Lvman, 57 Ark. 512: ,90, 1120,
1131, 1649, 1653.
T. Martin, 29 Kan. 750: 1441,
1443.
V. McAuliff, 43 Kan. 185: 1310,
1314.
V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 114 Mo. 13:
132.
V. Mitchell, 47 111. 165: 1246, 1318.
V. Moldenhauer, 130 Mo. App. 243;
1461. 1471.
V. Mollett, 59 111. 235: 1267.
r. Morris, 35 Ark. 622: 90, 93,
95, 158. 847, 1199. 1200, 1456,
1648, 1653, 1715, 1716.
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Morse, 50
Kan. 99: 1400.
V. Neely, 63 Ark. 630: 306.
V. North, 31 Mo. App. 345: 1112,
1311, 1315.
V. Nyce, 61 Kan. 394: 1346, 1347,
1564.
V. Oliver, 17 Okla. 589: 1225, 1312,
1321, 1324, 1515.
V. Petty, 57 Ark. 359; 524, 534,
731, 816, 1068.
V. Petty, 63 Ark. 94: 1072.
V. Pfau, 212 Mo. 398: 1150, 1271,
1314.
V. P. 0. & G. R. R. Co., 42 Ark.
249: 909, 1281.
v. Postal Tel. Co., 173 El. 508:
895, 934, 994, 1176, 1247, 1285,
1286.
V. Quinn, 24 Kan. 370: 1399.
V. Ramsey, 53 Ark. 314: 104, lOfa,
107.
V. Richardson, 45 Mo. 466: 1186.
V. Royall, 75 Ark. 530: 1288.
V. Ruddell, 53 Ark. 32; 833.
V. Russell, 150 Mo. 453: 1408,
1430.
V. St. Louis Union Stock Yard Co.,
120 Mo. 541: 1120, 1123, 1186,
1217.
V. Saunders, 78 Ark. 589: 90.
V. Saunders, 84 Ark. Ill: 90.
V. Schneider, 30 Mo. App. 620:
135. 147, 157.
V. Sliaw, 99 Tox. 559: 450, 655,
661.
V. Smith, 42 Ark. 265: 1144.
V. Smith, 216 111. 339: 1318, 1332,
1339.
V. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 121 Fed.
276; 701, 773. 894, 931, 932,
1048. 1286, 1624.
V. Springfield etc. R. R. Co., 96
111. 274; 764.
V. State, 85 Ark. 561; 1643.
V. Stewart, 201 Mo. 491; 1216.
V. Sullivan, 7 Kan. App. 527;
94.
V. Teters, 68 111. 144: 1312, 1392,
1673, 1675.
V. Thomas. 34 Fed. 774; 673, 675.
V. Tropp, 64 Ark. 357 ; 859.
V. Trustees. 43 111. 303: 786.
V. Union Trust & S. Co., 209 111.
457: 1379.
V. Wabash Ry. Co., 152 Fed. 849:
762.
V. Wallrink, 47 Ark. 330; 847,
1319.
V. Wilder, 17 Kan. 239; 939, 1392,
1673.
ccxlvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1710.]
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Winkle-
man, 47 111. App. 276: 91.
V. Yarborough, 56 Ark. 612: 158,
1132, 1649, 1654.
V. Yount, 67 Kan. 396: 853, 1545.
St. Louis Gas Lt. Co. v. St. Louis
Gas F. & P. Co., 16 Mo. App.
52: 411.
St. Louis Merchant's Bridge Terminal
Ry. Ass. V. Schultz, 226 111. 409 :
151, 1654.
St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal*
Ry. Co. V. Schulz, 126 111. App.
552: 91.
St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. Wig-
gins Ferry Co., 112 111. 384:
857, 859.
St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Northwestern
R. R. Co., 2 Mo. App. 69: 719.
V. Northwestern St. Louis Ry. Co.,
69 Mo. 65: 412, 1608.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 173 111.
508: 773.
V. Southern R. R. Co., 138 Mo. 591 :
1695.
V. Thomas, 34 Fed. 774: 673.
St. Louis Transfer R. R. Co. v. St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co., 100 Mo.
419: 771.
V. St. Louis Merchants' B. & T.
R. R. Co., Ill Mo. 066: 765,
769.
St. Michael's P. E. Church v. Forty-
second St. etc. R. R. Co., 26
Misc. 601: 277.
St. Nicholas Terrace, In re, 76 Hun
209: 1253.
St. Nicholas Terrace, In re, 143 N.
Y. 621: 183, 878, 1253.
St. Paul V. Chicago etc. R. Co., 45
Minn. 387: 1492.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 63 Minn.
330: 197, 199.
V. Nickl, 42 Minn. 262: 679, 927,
928, 1009, 1057.
St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., In re, 34
Minn. 227: 498, 747, 1045, 1061,
1423.
St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., In re, 37
Minn. 164: 767, 769.
St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. v. Covell, 2
Dak. 483: 1097.
V. Duluth, 56 Minn. 494: 142.
V. Matthews, 16 Minn. 341: 1137,
1364.
V. Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 141: 749,
929, 1011.
V. Minneapolis, 44 Minn. 149: 881,
883.
V. Minneapolis, 45 Minn. 400 : 1492.
St. Paul etc. R. E. Co. v. Murphy,
19 Minn. 500: 1112, 1186, 1209,
1213, 1310, 1311.
V. St. Paul U. D. R. R. Co., 44
Minn. 325: 862.
St. Paul Union Depot Co. v. St.
Paul, 30 Minn. 359 : 750, 755.
St. Peter v. Denison, 58 N. Y. 416:
435, 436, 688, 1507.
St. Tammany Water Works v. New
Orleans Water Works, 120 U. S.
64: 410, 736.
St. Thomas Hospital v. Charing Cross
Ry. Co., 1 J. & H. 400 : 823.
St. Vincent V. Greenfield, 12 Ontario
297: 913.
St. Vincent Orphan Asylum v. Troy,
76 N. Y. 108: 1492.
Salazar v. Smart, 12 Mont. 395: 587,
1603.
Salem v. Eastern R. R. Co., 98 Mass.
431: 557.
V. Maynes, 123 Mass. 372: 468.
Salem etc. R. R. Co. v. County
Comrs., 9 Allen 563: 1201, 1265.
Salem & Hamburg Turnpike Co. v.
Lyme, 18 Conn. 451: 409, 411,
791.
Salem Mills Co. v. Lord, 42 Ore. 82:
73.
Salem R. R. Co. v. Alderman & Sons
Co., 78 S. C. 1: 533, 1062.
Salem Road, 7 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 105: 1031.
Salem Tp. Road, In re, 103 Pa. St.
250: 1371.
Salem Turnpike etc. Corporation v.
County of Essex, 100 Mass. 282:
923.
Salisbury v. Great Northern R. R.
Co., 17 Q. B. 840: 695, 1700.
V. Western N. C. R. R. Co., 91
N. C. 490: 168.
Salisbury Mills v. Forsaith, 57 N.
H. 124: 702.
Sallden v. Little Falls, 102 Minn.
358: 630, 632, 1306, 1307.
Sallicotte v. King Bridge Co., 122
Fed. 378: 89.
Salsbury v. Gaskin, 66 N. J. L. Ill:
700.
Salsbury v. Western N. C. R. R. Co.,
91 N. C. 490: 1664.
Salt Co. V. Brown, 7 W. Va. 191:
500, 502, 506, 531.
Salt Creek Val. Turnpike Co. v.
Parks, 50 Ohio St. 568: 1007.
Salter v. Metropolitan District Ry.
Co., 39 L. J. Eq. 567: 822.
Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake City W.
& E. P. Co., 24 Utah 249: 798,
799.
CASES CITED.
ccxlvii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 7^3-1719.]
Salt Lake City W. & E. P. Co. v.
Salt Lake City, 24 Utah 282:
1165, 1169, 1413, 1467.
V. Salt Lake City, 25 Utah 441:
798, 799.
Samish Kiver Boom Co. v. Union
Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586: 21,
543, 673, 677, 714, 901, 1060,
1062.
Sammons v. Gloversville, 67 App.
Div. 628: 83, 85, 1605, 1612,
1615.
V. Gloversville, 81 App. Div. 332:
83, 1605.
V. Gloversville, 175 N. Y. 346: 83,
85, 1605, 1612, 1615.
Samon v. Trenton, 47 N. J. L. 489
1033.
Sampf's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 33
172.
Sample v. Carroll, 132 Ind. 496
713.
Sampson v. Bradford, 6 Cush. 303
960.
Sams V. Port Royal etc. R. R. Co.,
15 S. C. 484: 858.
Samuels v. County of Dubuque, 13
la. 536: 458.
San Antonio v. Grandjean, 91 Tex.
430: 1.520.
V. MuUaly, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 596:
631.
V. San Antonio St. R. R. Co., 15
Tex. Civ. App. 1: 354.
V. Sullivan, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 658:
1642.
San Antonio etc. Ry. Co. v. Gurley,
37 Tex. Civ. App. 283: 152.
V. Gwvnn, 4 Tex. Ct. of App. p.
338: 152.
v. Hunnicutt, 18 Tex. Civ. Ann.
310: 1226, 1229, 1356.
V. Knoepfli, 82 Tex. 270: 1626.
V. Kiersey, 98 Tex. 590: 88.
V. Ruby, 80 Tex. 172: 936, 1144,
1226.
V. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 93 Tex.
313: 682, 686.
V. State, 79 Tex. 204: 488.
San Antonio Rapid Transit St. R.
R. Co. V. Li" burger, 88 Tex. 79:
272, 274, 0!\
San Bernardino & E. R. R. Co. v.
Haven, 94 Cal. 489: 1203, 1310.
Sanborn v. Belden, 51 Cal. 266: 1162,
1170, 1467.
V. Meredith, 58 N. H. 150: 1025.
V. Rice, 129 Mass. 387: 429.
V. Van Duyne, 90 Minn. 215: 197,
838, 1495, 1618.
Sand Creek Lateral Irr. Co. v. Davis,
17 Colo. 326: 587, 1058.
Sander v. State, 90 App. Div. 618:
259
V. State, 182 N. Y. 400 : 259.
Sanders, Ex parte, 4 Cow. 544: 1637.
V. McCracken, Hardin (Ky.) 260:
966.
Sanderson v. Haverstick, 8 Pa. St.
294: 1491.
V. Herman, 108 Wis. 662: 615,
616.
Sandford v. Martin, 31 la. 67: 725.
San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Neale,
78 Cal. 63: 1128, 1176, 1227,
1233, 1237, 1329.
V. Neale, 78 Cal. 80: 1460, 1469.
v. Neale, 88 Cal. 50: 1130, 1131,
1435.
San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego,
118 Cal. 556, 483.
Sandpoint v. Doyle, 14 Ida. 749:
226.
Sandy Lick Creek Road, 51 Pa. St.
94: 519.
Sanford v. Tucson, 8 Ariz. 247: 497,
672, 990, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1061,
1062, 1066, 1067.
V. Webster County, 5 Neb. (Unof.)
364: 1511, 1516.
San Francisco v. Burr, 108 Cal. 460:
362, 401.
■ V. Burr (Cal.) 36 Pac. 771: 877.
V. Collins, 98 Cal. 259: 1435, 1436.
V. Itsett, 80 Cal. 57: 1493.
V. Kieman, 98 Cal. 614: 696, 698.
V. Scott, 4 Cal. 114: 1162, 1435.
San Francisco & Alameda Water Co.
V. Alameda Water Co., 30 Cal.
639: 908.
San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. Cald-
well, 31 Cal. 367: 524, 1174,
1176, 1192.
V. Gould, 122 Cal. 601: 982.
V. Lewiston, 134 Cal. 412: 1325,
1434.
V. Mahoney, 29 Cal. 112: 1098,
1223 1423
V. Taylor, 86 Cal. 246: 1347.
San Francisco Savings Union v. G.
R. Petroleum & Min. Co., 144
Cal. 134: 114, 127, 1600.
Sangamon Co. v. Brown, 13 111. 207:
1113, 1407, 1673.
Sanger v. County Comrs., 25 Me. 291 :
1637.
V. Township Board, 118 Mich. 19:
1404.
Sanguinette v. Pock, 136 Cal. 468:
68, 145.
ccxlviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Sanitary District v. Alderman, 113
111. App. 23 : 144, 846, 1456.
V. Bernstein, 175 111. 215: 1700.
V. Chapin, 226 111. 499: 930, 1072,
1222.
V. Conroy, 109 111. App. 367: 144.
V. Cullerton, 147 111. 385: 1106,
1426.
V. Lee, 79 111. App. 159 : 829.
V. Loughran, 160 111. 362: 1222,
1262, 1329.
V. Martin, 227 111. 260: 851, 854.
V. McGuirl, 81 111. App. 392: 1271.
V. Pittsburg etc. Rv. Co., 216 111.
575: 777, 991, 1042, 1136, 1174,
1233, 1239, 1266.
V. Ray, 85 111. App. 115: 1458.
V. Ray, 199 111. 63: 1456, 1649,
1653.
San Jose v. Freyschlog, 56 Cal. 8:
1328.
V. Reed, 65 Cal. 241: 1136, 1137.
San Jose & A. R. R. Co. v. Mayne,
83 Cal. 566: 1149, 1223.
San Jose Ranch Co. v. Brooks, 74
Cal. 463: 351.
San Luis Land etc. Co. v. Kenil-
worth Canal Co., 3 Colo. App.
244: 587, 1466.
San Luis Obispo v. Brizzolara, 100
Cal. 434: 1150.
San Luis Obispo Co. v. Simas, 1 Cal.
App. 175: 917, 997, 1247, 1461.
San Mateo County v. Coburn, 130
Cal. 631: 7, 497, 499, 503, 512,
514, 674, 1203.
San Mateo Water Co. v. Sharpstein,
50 Cal. 284: 1162, 1171, 1461,
1467.
San Pedro etc. R. R. Co. v. Board
of Education, 32 Utah 305 : 1244.
Santa Ana v. Brunner, 132 Cal. 234:
678, 1046, 1063, 1070, 1228.
V. Gildmaeher, 133 Cal. 395: 1060,
1062, 1063, 1064.
V. Harlin, 99 Cal. 538: 514, 678,
1056, 1128, 1176, 1227, 1231,
1240.
Santa Barbara v. Gould, 143 Cal.
421: 783.
Santa Cruz v. Enright, 95 Cal. 105:
697, 1060, 1063.
Santry v. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 4
Mont. Co. L. R. 144: 647.
Sappington v. Little Rock etc. R.
R. Co., 37 Ark. 23: 855.
Saratoga & Schenectady R. R. Co.,
Matter of, 66 How. Pr. 43: 1461.
Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga G. E.
L. & P. Co., 191 N. y. 123: 481.'
Sargeant v. Ohio & Mississippi R.
R. Co., 1 Handy (Ohio) 52:
620.
Sargent v. Machias, 65 Me. 591:
938.
V. Merrimac, 196 Mass. 171: 1228,
1231, 1234, 1237.
V. Tacoma, 10 Wash. 212: 614, 616,
1718.
Sarle v. Lead, 10 S. D. 312: 659.
Sarvis v. Carter, 116 la. 707: 889.
Sater v. Burlington & Mount Pleas-
ant Plank Road Co., 1 la. 386:
1174.
Satterfield Admx. v. Crow, 8 B. Mon.
553 : 965
Satterly'v. Winne, 101 N. Y. 218:
981, 1365.
Sauer v. New York, 44 App. Div.
305: 1273.
V. New York, 90 App. Div. 36:
181, 211, 228.
V. New York, 40 Misc. 585: 228.
V. New York, 180 N. Y. 27: 181,
211 227 228
V. New York, 206 U. S. 536: 194,
228.
Saunders v. Bluefield W. W. & Imp.
Co., 58 Fed. 133: 72, 73, 74,
701, 1603.
V. Lowell, 131 Mass. 387: 1074.
V. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
71 Hun 153: 122, 131.
V. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
144 N. Y. 75: 115, 122, 127, 129,
131, 132, 133.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 16
Daly 261: 924.
V. Railroad Co., 101 Tenn. 206:
1165, 1629.
Sautter v. Utica City Nat. Bank, 45
Misc. 15: 373.
Savage v. Board of Corars., 10 111.
App. 204: 1411, 1419.
V. Salem, 23 Or. 381 : 355.
Savanna v. Loop, 47 111. App. 214:
629, 1306, 1308, 1309, 1336.
Savannah v. Hancock, 91 Mo. 54:
498, 512.
V. Hartridge, 37 Ga. 113: 1182.
V. Vernon Shell Road Co., 88 Ga.
342: 413, 779.
Savannah etc. Canal v. Bourquim, 51
Ga. 378: 1649, 1656.
V. Suburban etc. R. R. Co., 93 Ga.
240: 783.
Savannah etc. R. R. Co. v. Atkinson,
94 Ga. 780: 839, 841.
v. Buford, 106 Ala. 303: 151, 1149,
1716.
V. Davis, 25 Fla. 917: 1634.
CASES CITED.
ccxlix
[Tbe references arc to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Savannah etc. R. R. Co. v. Fort, 84
Ga. 300: 1581.
V. Gill, 118 Ga. 737: 351, 372, 865.
V. Parish, 117 Ga. 893: 169, 1638.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 112 Ga.
941: 773, 1068, 1285.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 113 Ga.
916: 773, 1285.
V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 115 Ga.
554: 503, 773, 1285, 1619.
V. Savannah, 45 Ga. 602: 268,
321.
V. Savannah, 96 Ga. 680: 1004,
1016, 1571.
V. Shiels, 33 Ga. 601: 250, 307,
1581.
V. Woodruff, 86 Ga. 94: 732, 1581,
1592.
Saver v. Philadelphia, 35 Pa. St.
231: 1570.
Savings Fund & Loan Assn. v.
Schmidt, 15 la. 213: 1510, 1576.
Sawyer v. Boston, 144 Mass. 470:
1120, 1138, 1320.
V. Commonwealth, 182 Mass. 245:
626, 922, 1273.
V. Commonwealth, 185 Mass. 356:
626, 1273.
V. Hamilton, 1 Murphy N. C. 253 ;
1005.
V. Keene, 47 N. H. 173: GOB.
V. Landers, 56 la. 422: 947, 949,
1563, 1564.
V. Met. Water Board, 178 Mass.
267: 733, 1271, 1273.
Saxton V. New York El. R. R. Co.,
12 App. Div. 263: 1562.
V. New York EI. R. R. Co., 60
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 421: 1305.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 139
N. Y. 320: 1196, 1296, 1300,
1301.
Sayre v. Newark, 58 N. J. Eq. 136:
85, 117, 139, 142.
V. Newark, 60 N. J. Eq. 361: 84,
85, 117, 138, 142, 1606.
V. State, 123 N. Y. 291 : 144.
Scace V. Wayne Co., 72 Neb. 162:
659, 1176, 1208, 1209.
Scallon V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 112
Anp. Div. 262: 866.
V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 185 N. Y.
359: 866.
Scammon v. Chicaijo, 40 111. 146:
1018, 1027, 1513.
Scanlon v. Ix)ndon etc. R. R. Co., 23
Grant Ch. 559: 1533.
Scarborough v. Commissioners, 41
Me. 604; 916, 992.
Scarritt v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., 127 Mo. 298:' 1027, 1031.
v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
148 Mo. 676: 1503.
Schaaf v. Cleveland etc. Ry. Co.,
66 Ohio St. 215: 285, 1589.
Schade v. Theel, 45 Kan. 628: 973,
974.
Schaeffer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 510:
464.
Schafer v. Brooklyn & L. I. R. R.
Co., 124 N. Y. 630: 268, 719.
Schaller v. Omaha, 23 Neb. 325:
630, 659, 660, 664, 1334.
Schattner v. Kansas City, 53 Mo.
162: 238 239.
Schatz V. Pf'eil, 56 Wis. 429: 513,
1520.
Scliaufele v. Doyle, 86 Cal. 107 : 237,
1597.
Scheer v. Long Island R. R. Co., 127
App. Div. 267: 864, 964, 1520.
Scheff V. Upper Conn. River & Lalce
Imp. Co., 57 N. H. 110: 981.
Seheh v. Detroit, 45 Mich. 626: 520.
Schenectady v. Furman, 61 Hun 171 :
168.
V. Furman, 145 N. Y. 482: 491.
Schenectady Ry. Co. v. Lyon, 41
Misc. 506: 894, 895.
V. Lyon, 44 Misc. 275: 1438.
V. Peck, 88 App. Div. 201: 683,
744.
Schepman v. Buhner, 32 Ind. App.
562: 1095.
Schermeely v. Stillwater & St. Paul
R. R. Co., 16 Minn. 506: 1407.
Schermerhorn v. Peck, 43 Kan. 667:
948, 1564.
Scheurich v. S. W. Mo. Lt. Co., 109
Mo. App. 406: 724.
Scheutter v. Lynch, 23 Utah 305:
882.
Schier v. Cane Belt Ry. Co., 45 Tex.
Civ. App. 295: 640,
Schliehauf v. Canada So. R. R. Co.,
28 Grant Ch. 236: 843.
Schlosser v. Comrs. of Highways, 235
111. 214: 1106, 1416.
Schmeckpepper v. Chicago etc. R. R.
Co., 116 Wis. 592: 92.
Schmidt v. Densmore, 42 Mo. 225:
672, 679, 688, 1634.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 11 Miscl.
18: 1302.
V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 38
Minn. 491: 1311.
V. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 2 App. Div.
481: 1124.
Schmied v. Keeney, 72 Ind. 309:
1406.
Schmitt V. San Francisco, 100 Cal.
302: 888.
Schmitz V. Brooklyn Union El. R.. R.
Co., Ill App. Div. 308: 180,
1334.
ccl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Schmitz V. Germantown, 31 111. App.
284: 886.
Schneider v. Brown, 142 Mich. 45:
231, 439.
V. Detroit, 72 Mich. 240: 211,
226, 227, 236.
V. Jacob, 86 Ky. 101 : 182, 877.
V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 119 Wis.
171: 864.
V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 29 Mo. App.
68: 151.
V. Rochester, 33 App. Div. 458:
707.
V. Rochester, 160 N. Y. 165: 707,
968, 1374, 1624.
V. Schneider, 36 Colo. 518: 920,
1058, 1442.
Schock V. Falls City, 31 Neb. 599:
1569.
Schoen v. Kansas City, 65 Mo. App.
134: 84, 1650, 1654.
Schofield V. Cooper, 126 la. 334:
154.
V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 12 Pa.
Co. Ct. 122: 530, 717.
Schoff V. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co.,
16 Ohio C. C. 252: 272.
V. Upper Conn. River etc. Co., 57
N. H. 110: 990.
Scholl V. Emerich, 36 Pa. Supr. Ct.
404: 1499.
V. German Coal Co. 118 111. 427:
8.
Scholle V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 60
App. Div. 368: 1562.
Schomacker v. Michaels, 117 App.
Div. 125: 1562.
V. Michaels, 189 N. Y. 61: 182,
1562.
Schonhardt v. Pa. R. R. Co., 216 Pa.
St. 224: 1272.
School District v. Copeland, 2 Gray
414: 1018.
V. Hart, 3 Wyo. 563: 1500.
V. Hodgin, 180 Mo. 70: 1047, 1049.
V. Oellien, 209 Mo. 464: 921, 976.
V. Searl, 38 Fed. 18: 1348.
Schopp V. St. Louis, 117 Mo. 131:
199, 346.
Schreiber, Matter of, 53 How. Pr.
359: 707.
Schreiber v. Chicago & Evanston R.
R. Co., 115 111. 340: 953.
Schriver v. Johnstown, 71 Hun 232:
83, 1605.
Schrodt v. St. Joseph, 109 Mo. App.
627: 1137.
Schroeder v. De Graff, 28 Minn. 299 :
1634.
V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co., 44 Mich.
387: 1047, 1098, 1419.
V. Joliet, 189 111. 48: 629, 1306,
1308.
Schroeder v. Klipp, 120 Wis. 245:
400.
V. Lancaster City, 15 Pa. Co. Ct.
466: 1399.
V. Onekama. 95 Mich. 25: 1512,
1516, 1517.
Schrope v. Pioneer Tp. Ill la. 113:
156.
Schuchardt v. New York, 59 Barb.
295: 1343.
V. New York, 53 N. Y. 202: 1459.
Schuett V. Stillwater, 80 Minn. 287:
159, 235.
Schulenberg & B. L. Co. v.' St. Louis
etc. R. R. Co., 129 Mo. 455 : 254,
311, 314, 1582, 1591.
Schuler v. Board of Supvrs., 12 S.
D. 460: 1123, 1313, 1317.
Schuller v. Northern Liberties etc.
R. R. Co., 3 Whart. 555: 1403.
Schulte V. North Pacific Transporta-
tion Co., 50 Cal. 592: 250.
Schumacher v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App.
297: 607.
v. Toberman, 56 Cal. 508: 735.
Schurmeier v. St. Paul & Pacific R.
R. Co., 8 Minn. 113: 1582.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 10 Minn.
82: 104, 197, 200, 247, 249, 253,
1580.
Schuster v. Lemond, 27 Minn. 253:
384, 400, 1402, 1403.
V. Sanitary District, 177 111. 626:
677, 815, 1061, 1066, 12.32.
Schuylkill Falls Road, 2 Binn. 250:
1086.
Schuylkill etc. Navigation Co. v.
Decker, 2 Watts 343: 1670, 1674.
Schuylkill Navigation Co. v. Farr,
4 W. & S. 362: 963, 1144, 1270,
1272, 1273, 1706.
V. Freedley, 6 Whart. 109: 1267.
V. Kittera, 2 Rawie 438: 1440.
V. Loose, 19 Pa. St. 15: 710.
V. McDonough, 33 Pa. St. 73 : 1456,
1639.
V. Pottsville & M. R. R. Co., 17
Phil. 648: 783.
V. Thoburn, 7 S. & R. 411: 948,
1187, 1227, 1272.
Schuylkill Riv. etc. R. R. Co.'s Peti-
tion, 17 Phila. 11: 918.
Schuvlkill River E. S. R. Co. v. Har-
ris, 124 Pa. St. 215: 1410.
v. Kersey, 133 Pa. St. 234: 1339.
V. Rees, '135 Pa. St. 629 : 1227.
v. Stocker, 128 Pa. St. 233: 1150,
1178.
Schwarzenbach v. Electric Water
Power Co., 101 App. Div. 345:
144, 1607.
V. Electric Water Power Co., 184
N. Y. 546: 144, 1607.
CASES CITED.
ccli
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Schwede v. Burnstown, 35 Minn. 468 :
1402.
V. Hemrich Bros. Brewing Co., 29
Wash. 21: 298, 300, 1582, 1590.
Schwerdtle v. Placer Co. 108 Cal.
589: 865, 1504.
Scott V. Bruckett, 89 Ind. 413: 1032.
V. Central Val. R. R. Co., 33 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 574: 1523.
v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58: 485.
V. Lasell, 71 la. 180: 930, 1401.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 60 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 233: 1229.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 2
Miscl. 150: 1152.
V. Nevada, 56 Mo. App. 189: 142,
1652, 1654, 1662.
V. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co., 21
Minn. 322: 806.
V. Toledo, 36 Fed. 385: 1005, 1220.
V. Wilson, 3 N. H. 321 : 104.
Scott Lumber Co. v. Wolford, 02 W.
Va. 555: 531, 591.
Scottish N. E. R. R. Co. v. Stewart,
3 Maeq. 382: 833, 856.
Scovel V. Detroit, 146 Mich. 93 : 357.
Scovell V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 117
La. 459: 873, 1546, 1715.
Scovil V. Geddings, 7 Ohio, pt. 2,
211: 213.
Scoville V. Cleveland, 1 Ohio St.
126: 14.
Seranton's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 97:
1606.
Scranton v. Barnes, 147 Pa. St. 461 :
914.
V. Del. & H. Canal Co., 12 Pa. Co.
Ct. 283: 1622.
V. Minneapolis, 58 Minn. 437: 879.
V. Thomas, 141 Pa. St. 1 : 880.
V. Wheeler, 57 Fed. 803: 99, 115,
116, 132.
V. Wheeler, 113 Mich. 565: 99.
V. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141: 99,
102.
Scranton etc. Traction Co. v. Del. &
H. Canal Co., 1 Pa. Supr. Ct.
409: 277, 766, 771.
V. Del. & H. Canal Co., 180 Pa. St.
636: 770.
Scranton Gas & W. Co. v. Coal & I.
Co., 145 Pa. St. 21 : 783, 802.
V. Northern Coal & Iron Co., 192
Pa. St. 80: 784, 802, 1044, 1609.
V. Scranton, 11 Pa. Dist. Ct. 671:
354.
V. Scranton City, 214 Pa. St. 586:
352.
Scraper v. Piper, 59 Ind. 158: 983,
1407.
Scrivner v. Paris, 26 Tex. Civ. App.
196: 453.
Scruggs V. Reese, 128 Ind. 399: 723.
Scrutchfield v. Choctaw etc. R. R.
Co., 18 Okla. 308: 191, 320, 380,
389.
Scudder v. Trenton Del. Falls. Co.,
1 N. J. Eq. 694: 495, 498, 547,
549, 552, 923.
Scuffletown Fence Co. v. McAllister,
12 Bush. (Ky.) 312: 589.
Scully V. Cincinnati, 9 Ohio C. C.
63: 1565.
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Cham-
berlin, 108 Va. 42: 1147.
V. Florida, 203 U. S. 261: 480,
483.
V. Olive, 142 N. C. 257: 1061, 1477,
1480, 1619.
V. Southern Invest. Co., 53 Fla.
832: 246, 1580.
Seaboard & R. R. Co. v. Ambrose, 122
Ga. 47: 1638.
Seabright v. Allgor, 69 N. J. L. 641 :
1630.
V. Central R. R. Co., 72 N. J. L.
8: 1511, 1519.
V. Central R. R. Co., 73 N. J. L.
625: 1511, 1519.
Seafield v. Bohne, 169 Mo. 537: 514,
1511.
Seale v. Lead, 10 S. D. 312: 631.
Seaman v. Smith, 24 111. 523: 103,
108.
V. Washington, 172 Pa. St. 467:
630, 636, 698, 894, 1308.
Searcy v. Clay Co., 176 Mo. 493:
1035, 1511.
Searing v. Saratoga Springs, 39 Hun
307: 142.
Searl v. School District, 133 U. S.
553: 1175, 134a, 1352.
V. School District No. 2, 124 U.
S. 197: 931.
Searle v. Lackawanna etc. R. R. Co.,
33 Pa. St. 57: 1268.
v. Lackawanna R. R. Co., 9 Casey
57: 1140.
V. Lead, 10 S. D. 312: 1601.
Sears v. Crocker, 184 Mass. 586:
276, 334.
V. Marshalltown St. Ry. Co., 65
la. 742: 620.
V. Street Comrs., 173 Mass. 350:
10, 463.
V. Tuolumne Co., 132 Cal. 167:
1493.
Seaside & B. B. El. R. R. Co. v. South
Reformed Dutch Church, 83 Hun
143: 193, 1303.
cclii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Seaside Realty & Imp. Co. v. Atlan-
tic City, 74 N. J. L. 178: 739.
Seasongood v. Cincinnati, 5 Ohio C.
C. 225: 603, CU.
Seattle, In re, 26 Wash. 602: 1564.
Seattle v. Board of Home Missions,
138 Fed. 307: 1307, 1308.
V. Columbia etc. R. R. Co., 6 Wash.
379: 118, 353.
V. Fidelity Trust Co., 22 Wash.
154: 709, 1370.
V. Hill, 23 Wash. 92: 876, 887.
V. Park, 42 Wash. 151: 1136.
V. Smith, 37 Wash. 119: 865.
V. Williams, 41 Wash. 366: 1110,
1379.
Seattle etc. R. R. Co. v. Bellingham
Bay etc. R. R. Co., 29 Wash.
491 : 759 1413.
V. Corbett, 22 Wash. 189: 1348.
V. Gilchrist, 4 Wash. 509: 1113,
1130, 1138, 1310, 1315.
V. Murphine, 4 Wash. 448: 1113,
1229, 1311, 1317.
V. Roeder, 30 Wash. 244: 1110,
1132, 1188, 1202, 1203, 1269,
1273.
V. Scheike, 3 Wash. 625: 1257.
V. State, 52 Fed. 594: 931.
V. State, 7 Wash. 150: 118, 746,
825.
Seattle Land & Imp. Co. v. Seattle,
37 Wash. 274: 1494, 1496, 1500.
Seattle Transfer Co. v. Seattle, 27
Wash. 520: 229, 640, 1357, 1601.
Seavey v. Seattle, 17 Wash. 361:
1674.
Secomb v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co.,
49 How. Pr. 75: 524, 673, 748,
1634.
V. Railroad Co., 23 Wall. 108 : 673,
1516, 1626.
Second St. etc. R. R. Co. v. Green &
Coats Sts. Pass. R. R. Co., 3
Phila. 430: 1621.
Second Street Extension, 23 Pa. St.
346: 819.
Second Street, Harrisburg, 66 Pa. St.
132: 1325.
Second & Third Sts. Pass. R. R. Co.
V. Green & Coats Sts. Pass. R.
R. Co., 3 Phila. 430: 764, 1283.
Secretary of the Treasury, In re, 45
Fed. 396: 738.
Sedalia v. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 17
Mo. App. 105: 1344, 1378.
Sedalia etc. Ry. Co. v. Abell, 18 Mo.
App. 632: 1242, 1318.
Sedgeley Ave., In re, 88 Pa. St. 509 :
432, 1682, 1705.
Sedgeley Ave., In re, 217 Pa. St. 313:
631.
Sedgwick v. Watford etc. R. R. Co.,
36 L. J. Ch. 379: 1537.
Seefeld v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St.
Paul Ry. Co., 67 Wis. 96: 1111
1138, 1150, 1321.
Seeger v. Mueller, 133 111. 86: 880.
Seeley v. Amsterdam, 54 App. Div. 9 :
1524.
Seely v. Sebastian, 4 Oregon 25 : 504,
564, 571, 581.
Seibert v. Linton, 5 W. Va. 57 : 734.
Seidel's Road, In re, 2 Woodward's
Decs. 275: 1381.
Seidensparger v. Spear, 17 Maine
123: 858.
Seidschlag v. Antioch, 207 111. 280:
876, 883, 885.
Seifert v. Brooks, 34 Wis. 443 : 1005,
1009, 1013, 1016.
V. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 136: 155,
233.
Seipel V. Baltimore etc. Extension
Co., 129 Pa. St. 425: 1713.
Seitz V. Lafayette Traction Co., 5 Pa.
Co. Ct. 469: 1589.
Selden v. Delaware & H. Canal Co.,
24 Barb. 362 : 144.
V. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.,
29 N. Y. 634: 858.
V. Jacksonville, 28 Fla. 558 : 53, 54,
57, 179, 181, 210, 222, 226.
Self v. Gowin, 80 Mo. App. 398:
1018.
Sellards v. Zomes, 5 Bush. (Ky.) 90:
19.
Selma etc. R. R. Co. v. Camp, 45 Ga.
180: 1207.
v. Gt.mmage, 63 Ga. 604: 1322,
1378.
V. Keith, 53 Ga. 178: 1146, 1182,
1231, 1454, 1476.
V. Redewine, 51 Ga. 470: 1309.
Semon v. Trenton, 47 N. J. L. 489:
1370.
Senaker v. Justices of Sullivan, 4
Sneed. 116: 1436, 1444.
Seneca Road Co. v. Auburn & Roch-
ester R. R. Co., 5 Hill 170: 408,
410, 1155, 1635.
Senior v. Metropolitan Rv. Co., 2 H.
& C. (Ech.) 258: 64*5.
Sennott v. St. Johnsbury etc. R. R.
Co., 59 Vt. 226: 1539, 1540.
Senor v. Board of Comrs., 13 Wash.
48: 739.
Sensenig v. Lancaster Co., 130 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 224: 1671.
Sentman v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 78
Md. 222: 159.
Sequin v. Ireland, 57 Tex. 183: 420,
1494, 1618.
OASES CITED.
ccliii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Serrell v. Probate Judge, 107 Mich.
234: 1100.
Sessions v. Crunkelton, 20 Ohio St.
349: 564, 580, 1018.
Setzler v. Pennsylvania S. V. R. K.
Co., 112 Pa. St. 56: 1150, 1187,
1251.
Seufferle v. Macfarland, 28 App. Gas.
D. C. 94: 453, 1242.
Seuter v. Pugh, 9 Gratt. 260: 401.
Seventeenth Street, Matter of, 1
Wend. 262: 1326.
Seventh Ave., Matter of, 59 App. Div.
175: 1561.
Severin v. Cole, 38 lovi-a 463: 947,
948, 961, 1564.
Sewell v. Chicago Terminal Trans.
R. R. Co., 177 111. 93: 1128.
Sewer St., In re, 20 Phil. 367: 698.
Sewickley Borough v. Jennings, 12
Pa. Co. Ct. 75: 698.
Sewickley Tp. Road, 26 Pa. Supr. Ct.
572: 1370.
Sexton V. North Bridgewater, 116
Mass. 200: 1119, 1120, 1130,
1216.
V. Union Stock Yards & T. Co., 200
111. 244: 1042, 1229, 1240, 1330,
1379.
Seymour v. Carter, 2 Met. 520 : 858,
1073.
V. Cummins, 119 Ind. 148: 142,
937, 941, 1652, 1659, 1663.
V. JefTersonville etc. R. R. Co., 126
Ind. 466: 750, 1609.
V. Salamanca, 137 N. Y. 364: 915,
1518.
V. State, 19 Wis. 240: 821.
Shaaber v. Reading, 133 Pa. St. 643 :
700.
Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 111. 491:
834.
Shackleford's Heirs v. CoflFey, 4 J.
J. Marsh. 40: 544, 1017, 1932,
1078, 1358.
Shaeffer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 510:
11.
Shafer v. Brodener, 19 Ind. 294 : 1407.
Shaffer v. Weech, 34 Kan. 505: 973.
Shafferstown Road, 3 Watts 475:
971.
Shaffner v. Fogleman, Busbee Law
280: 1406.
V. St. Louis, 31 Mo. 264: 1035.
Shake v. Frazer, 94 Ky. 143: 516,
519.
Shamberg v. N. J. Shore Line R. R.
Co., 72 N. J. L. 140: 746.
V. N. J. Shore Line R. R. Co., 73
N. J. L. 572 : 746.
Shamleffer v. Peerless Mill Co., 18
Kan. 24: 69, 70.
Shamokin Road, 6 Binn. 36: 1390.
Shand v. Henderson, 2 Dow 519:
1602.
Shane v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
71 Mo. 237: 152.
Shanline v. Wiltsie, 70 Kan. 177:
870, 1028.
Shanahan v. Waterbury, 63 Conn.
420: 1221, 1410, 1072, 1675.
Sliano V. Bridge Co., 189 Pa. St.
245: 635, 641, 656.
Sharett's Road, 8 Pa. St. 89: 703,
971.
Sharon R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 122 Pa.
St. 533: 753, 760, 793, 796, 798,
1609.
Sharp V. Cincinnati, 4 Ohio C. C.
(N. S.) 19: 159, 234.
V. Dunavan, 17 B. Mon. 223: 465.
Johnson, 4 Hill 92: 972, 1513,
1516.
Sharpe v. Hasey, 134 Wis. 618 : 820.
V. United States, 112 Fed. 893:
1146, 1207, 1209, 1313.
V. United States, 191 U. S. 341:
1146, 1207, 1209.
Sharpless v. West Chester, 1 Grant's
Cases 257: 1159.
v. West Chester, 2 Phila. 130: 1100.
Shasta Power Co. v. Walker, 149
Fed. 568: 508, 536, 537, 592.
Shattner v. Kansas, 53 Mo. 162: 211.
Shattuck v. Stoneham Branch R. R.
Co., 6 Allen 115: 1119, 1122,
1138, 1142, 1216, 1263
V. Waterville, 27 Vt. 600: 1376.
V. Wilton R. R. Co., 23 N. H. 269 :
1322.
Shaubert v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
21 Minn. 502: 320, 351, 367, 370,
384.
Shaufelter v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 483 :
1693, 1695, 1699.
Shaver v. Eldred, 114 N. Y. 236:
1523.
V. Starrett, 4 Ohio St. 494: 515,
924.
Shaw V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 159
Mass. 597: 370.
V. Charleston, 2 Gray 107: 1119,
1122.
v. Charlestown, 3 Allen 538: 1683.
V. Crocker, 42 Cal. 435: 231.
V. Mills, 9 Cush. 503: 1358.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 78 App.
Div. 290: 323, 1562.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 110
App. Div. 892: 1121.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 187
N. Y. 186: 1121.
V. Philadelphia, 169 Pa. St. 506:
952, 1277.
ccliv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Shaw V. Ward, 131 Wis. 646: 166.
V. Wells, 5 Gush. 537: 1522.
Shawnee Co. Comrs. v. Beckwith, 10
Kan. 603: 1318.
Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 111. 337:
181, 224, 631, 635, 1309.
Shea V. Ottumwa, 67 Iowa 39: 889.
V. Potrero etc. R. E. Co., 44 Cal.
414: 306.
Sheaff V. People, 87 111. 189: 513,
1519.
Shealy v. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 72
Wis. 471: 319.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 77 Wis.
653: 319, 1336.
Shearer v. Comrs., 13 Kan. 145: 1640,
1709.
Sheedy v. Union Press Brick Works,
25 Mo. App. 527: 1665.
Sheehy v. Kansas City Cable R. E.
Co., 94 Mo. 574: 616, 642.
Sheehan v. Board of Supervisors, 80
Minn. 355: 980, 993.
V. Fall River, 187 Mass. 356: 320,
321, 1260.
V. Flynn. 59 Minn. 436: 148, 157.
Sheer v. Erie E. E. Co., 64 N. J. Eq.
601: 851.
V. Erie E. E. Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 615:
851.
V. Erie R. E. Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 318:
851.
Shehan v. Fall River, 187 Mass. 356 :
191.
Shelbyville etc. Turnpike Co. v.
Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 21 Ky.
L. R. 548: 1385.
Sheldon v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 172
Mass. 180: 162, 627.
v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383: 1636.
V. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.,
29 Minn. 318: 1118, 1145, 1210.
V. Rockwell, 9 Wis. 166: 1607.
Shelfer v. London Electric Lighting
Co., L. E. (1895) 1 Ch. D. 287:
456, 1612.
Shell V. Poulson, 23 Wash. 535: 980.
Shelley v. St. Charles Co., 17 Fed.
909: 565, 583.
Shelton v. Derby, 27 Conn. 414 : 1004.
Shelton Co. v. Birmingham, 61 Conn.
518: 600.
V. Birmingham, 62 Conn. 456 : 600,
619, 1307.
Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co. v. Rob-
inson, 82 Va. 542: 1247, 1249.
Shenango & Allegheny E. E. Co. v.
Braham, 79 Pa. St. 447: 1187,
1228.
Shepard v. East Orange, 69 N. J. L.
133: 302.
Shepard v. East Orange, 70 N. J. L.
203: 302.
V. Manhattan Ey. Co., 48 App. Div.
452: 182, 1122, 1554, 1562.
V. Manhattan E. R. Co., 117 N. Y.
442: 940, 1553, 1584, 1591.
V. Manhattan E. E. Co., 131 N. Y.
215: 923.
v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 169 N. Y.
160: 182, 1122, 1554, 15G2.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 57 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 5: 1584, 1617.
V. Metropolitan El. E. E. Co., 82
Hun 527: 1663, 1664.
V. Suffolk etc. R. E. Co., 140 N. C.
391: 837, 838.
V. Third Municipality of New Or-
leans, 6 Rob. La. 349: 958.
Shepardson v. Milwaukee & Beloit
R. R. Co., 6 Wis. 605: 696, 1165,
1570.
Shepherd v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
130 U. S. 426: 321.
V. New Orleans, 6 Rob. La. 349:
137.
V. Turner, 129 Cal. 530: 706.
Shepp V. Reading Belt R. R. Co., 211
Pa. St. 425: 1311, 1483.
Sherer v. Jasper, 93 Ala. 530: 877,
1326.
Sherlock v. Bainbridge, 41 Ind. 35:
103.
V. Kansas City Belt R. R. Co., 142
Mo. 172: 180, 254, 311, 1582.
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 115
Ind. 22: 864, 870, 936, 1648,
1658, 1716.
Sherman v. Buick, 32 Cal. 241: 515,
518, 674.
V. Butcher, 72 N. J. L. 53: 348.
v. Fall River Iron Works Co., 5
Allen 213: 165.
V. Kane, 46 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 310:
589.
V. Milwaukee Lake Shore & West-
ern R. R. Co., 40 Wis. 045 : 247,
1636.
V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 30 Minn,
227: 1119, 1122, 1236.
V. Sherman, 18 R. I. 504: 128, 129,
136.
V. Tobey, 3 Allen 7 : 722.
Sherman Line Co. v. Glens Falls, 101
App. Div. 269: 881.
Sherry v. Gettysburg Battlefield Me-
morial Assn., 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 58 :
1399.
Sherwiu v. Wigglesworth, 129 Haas.
64: 1320.
Sherwood v. Lafayette, 109 Ind. 411:
947.
OASES CITED.
cclr
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Sherwood v. St. Paul & Chicago Ey.
Co., 21 Minn. 122: 1210, 1344,
1369, 1706.
V. St. Paul & Chicago Ky. Co., 21
Minn. 127: 1119, 1120, 1122,
1137, 1369.
Shettler v. Lynch, 23 Utah 305 : 870.
Shevalier v. Postal Tel. Co., 22 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 506: 936, 1500, 1635.
Shiel v. Walker, 114 Mo. App. 521:
785, 935.
Shields v. Highway Comrs., 158 111.
214: 700.
V. Justices of Green Co., 2 Coldw.
60: 1413.
V. McMahan, 101 Ind. 591: 976.
V. Norfolk etc. R. E. Co., 129 N.
C. 1: 807, 1270, 1481.
V. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319: 691.
V. Pittsburg, 201 Pa. St. 328: 930.
V. Titus, 46 Ohio St. 528: 183, 878,
1595.
Shimer v. Eastern Ry. Co., 205 Pa.
St. 648: 1130. 1188, 1308.
Shinkle v. Magill, 58 111. 422: 1033,
1381.
Shinzel v. Bell Tel. Co., 31 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 221 : 342, 343.
Shipley v. Baltimore etc. R. E. Co.,
34 Md. 336: 1179.
V. Continental R. R. Co., 13 Phil.
128: 1587, 1590.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 216
Pa. St. 512: 1257.
V. Western Md. Tidewater R. R.
Co., 99 Md. 115: 1506, 1507,
1602.
Shippin V. Paul, 31 N. J. Eq. 439:
863.
Shireley v. Cedar Rapids etc. R. R.
Co., 74 Iowa 169: 449, 1650,
1659.
Shirk V. Board of Comrs., 106 Ind.
573: 1496.
V. Chicago, 195 111. 298: 1491.
Shirlev v. Bishop, 67 Cal. 543: 128,
1606.
V. Southern Ry. Co., 121 Ky. 187 :
1268, 1407.
Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1: 114,
115, 118, 123, 128, 136.
V. Lankford, 174 Mo. 535: 710, 739,
1085, 1462.
V. Parker, 9 Ore. 500: 118.
V. Welch, 10 Sawyer 136: 118.
Shoals T. State, 2 Chand. Wis. 182:
458.
Shoemaker v. Cedar Rapids etc. R. R.
Co., 45 Minn. 366: 839, 1626.
V. United States, 147 U. S. 282:
499, 539, 738, 814, 1068, 1093,
1243, 1323, 1330, 1379.
Shoenberger v. Mulholland, 8 Pa. 134:
530, 1137.
Shohan v. Alabama Great Southern
Ry. Co., 115 Ala. 181: 151.
Sholl V. German Coal Co., 118 111.
427: 9, 505, 532, 672, 683.
V. Stump, 24 Pa. Supr. Ct. 48:
808.
Sholty V. Comrs. of Highways, 134
111. App. 541: 972, 1571.
V. Dale Township, 63 111. 209:
1069.
Sholtz V. Comrs. of Highways, 134
111. App. 541: 1513, 1568.
Shoolbred v. Charleston, 2 Bay 63:
1531.
Shoppert v. Martin, 137 Mo. 455:
1075, 1577.
Shores v. Southern Ry. Co., 72 S. C.
244: 88, 1639, 1651, 1668.
Shorter v. Smith, 9 Ga. 517: 413.
Shortle v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
130 Ind. 505: 1713.
Shortle v. Terre Haute & I. R. E.
Co., 131 Ind. 338: 833, 1713.
Short Route Transfer Ry. Co. v. Ful-
ton, 12 Ky. L. R. 232: 249, 253,
1303.
Shough, Ex parte, 16 N. J. L. 264:
1102.
Showalter v. Southern Kan. R. R. Co.,
49 Kan. 421: 198, 1502.
Shreck v. Coeur D'Alene, 12 Idaho
708: 453, 1613.
Shreveport v. Noel, 114 La. 187:
1378, 1386.
V. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 115 La.
885: 306.
V. Yousee, 114 La. 182: 1109, 1377.
Shreveport & A. R. R. Co. v. Hollings-
worth, 42 La. Ann. 729: 524,
1320.
Shreveport etc. R. R. Co. v. Hinds,
50 La. Ann. 781: 1202, 1228,
1499.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 51 La.
Ann. 814: 757.
Shreveport Traction Co. v. Kansas
City etc. Ry. Co., 119 La. 759:
683, 720.
Shroder v. Lancaster, 170 Pa. St.
136: 697, 698, 1524.
Shrunk v. Schuylkill Navigation Co.,
14 S. & R. 71: 104, 024.
Shue V. Highway Comrs., 41 Mich.
638: 1032.
Shull V. Brown, 25 Neb. 234: 973.
Shumate v. Heman, 181 U. S. 402:
11, 464.
Shurtleff v. Board of Co. Comrs., 63
Kan. 645 : 1404.
cclvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Shuster v. Central Dist. P. Tel. Co.,
34 Pa. Supr. Ct. 513: 1313, 154G.
Shute V. Barnes, 2 Allen 598: 1558,
1560.
V. Boston, 99 Mass. 236 : 1429.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 26 111.
436: 1162, 1570.-
V. Decker, 51 Ind. 241: 983.
Sidener v. Essex, 22 Ind. 201: 1192,
1362.
V. Morristown etc. Turnpike Co., 23
Ind. 623: 1506, 1602.
Sidwell V. Jett, 213 Mo. 601: 1428.
Siedler v. Seeley, 8 Colo. App. 499:
1075.
Sieferer v. St. Louis, 141 Mo. 586:
978, 1018.
Siegel V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
62 App. Div. 290: 257, 1299.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 173
N. Y. 644: 257, 1299.
Siegfried v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
16 Pa. Dist. Ct. 614: 1682.
Sievers v. San Francisco, 115 Cal.
648: 237.
Sigafoos V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 8: 1186, 1200, 1201.
V. Talbot, 25 Iowa 214: 1407.
Sillcocks V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 10
Miscl. 259 : 1296, 1299.
Silsby Mfg. Co. v. State, 104 N. Y.
562: 1456.
Silver v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 101
Mo. 79: 96.
Silver Creek Nav. & Imp. Co. v. Man-
gum, 64 Miss. 682: 91, 1311.
V. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co., 90 Miss.
345: 97.
Silver Spring etc. Co. v. Wanskuck
Co., 13 R. I. 611: 69, 70, 81,
1605.
Silvester v. St. Louis, 164 Mo. 601 :
1530, 1673.
Sim V. Rosholt, 16 N. D. 77 : 580.
Siman v. Rhodes, 24 Minn. 25: 947.
Simar v. Canaday, 53 N. Y. 298 : 943,
945.
Sime v. Spencer, 30 Ore. 340: 983,
985, 1516, 1571.
Simmons, Matter of, 58 Miss. 581:
626, 1096, 1221, 1229, 1231, 1238,
1273.
Simmons, Matter of. Misc. 607: 1145,
1270.
Simmons v. Camden, 26 Ark. 276:
210 213
V. Mu'mford, 2 R. I. 172: 1373.
V. Passaic, 42 N. J. L. 619: 1156.
V. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co., 18
Minn. 184: 1122, 1186.
V. Toledo, 5 Ohio C. C. 124: 272.
V. Toledo, 8 Ohio C. C. 535: 272,
302.
Simms v. Brooklyn, 33 N. Y. Supp.
859: 1561.
V. Memphis etc. R. R. Co., 12 Heisk
621: 1707, 1708.
Simon v. Northrop, 27 Ore. 488 : 357.
V. Rhodes, 24 Minn. 25: 1017.
Simons v. Mason City etc. R. R. Co.,
128 Iowa 139: 1129, 1147, 1260,
1404.
Simplot V. Chicago, M. & St. Paul
Ry. Co., 5 McCrary 158: 251.
v. Worcester, 5 McCrary, 158 : 931.
Simpson v. Berkowitz, 59 Misc. 160:
1670.
V. Kansas City, 111 Mo. 237: 673,
675, 1669, 1695.
V. Keokuk, 34 Iowa 568: 143.
V. Lancaster & Carlisle Ry. Co., 15
Sim. 580: 731.
V. Mikkelsen, 196 111. 575: 429,
875.
V. Oxford, 41 N. H. 228: 917.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 4
Mont. Co. L. Rep. 102: 308.
V. Seavy, 8 Maine 138: 103.
V. South Staffordshire Water
Works Co., 34 L. J. Eq. 380 ^
708.
Sims v. Ohio Riv. etc. Ry. Co., 56 S.
C. 30: 439.
Sinai v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 71
Miss. 547: 152.
Singer v. New York, 47 App. Div.
42: 432.
V. New York, 165 N. Y. 658: 432.
Singleton v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co.,
67 Kan. 284: 169.
V. Comrs., 2 Nott & McC. 526: 516.
Sings V. Joliet, 237 111. 300: 485,
486.
Siniekson v. Johnson, 17 N. J. L.
129: 21, 22, 91.
Sioux City etc. R. R. Co. v. Brown,
13 Neb. 317: 1323.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed.
770: 906, 907.
V. Weimer, 16 Neb. 272: 1129, 1340,
1426, 1451, 1453.
Sisson V. Board of Supervisors, 128
Iowa 442: 7, 494, 499, 501, 507,
569, 575, 672, 675, 739, 926, 1158,
1169.
V. Carithers, 35 Ind. App. 161:
995.
V. New Bedford, 137 Mass. 255:
604, 1366.
v. Stonington, 73 Conn. 348: 1525.
Sistersville Ferry Co. v. RusseH 52
W. Va. 356: 408, 411, 413, 982.
Sites V. Miller, 120 Ind. 19: 1017.
Sixteenth St. Opening, 4 Pa. Co. Ct.
124: 978.
OASES CITED.
cclvii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Sixth Ave. R. R. v. Gilbert Elevated
E. R. Co. 3 Abb. New Cas. 372:
260.
V. Gilbert Elevated Ry., 41 N. Y.
Sup. Ct. 489: 260.
V. Gilbert Elevated Ry., 43 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 292 : 2C0.
v. Kerr, 45 Barb. 138: 427, 756,
762.
,'. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330: 427, 756,
762.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 56
Hun 182: 1151, 1304.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 138
N. Y. 548: 1118, 1296, 1301,
1303.
Sixth St., Matter of, 11 Philadelphia
414: 683.
Sixty-Second St., 214 Pa. St. 137:
1306.
Sixty- Seventh St. Opening, Matter of,
60 How. Pr. 264: 1327.
Skagit Co. V. McLean, 20 Wash. 92:
501, 570, 581, 1393.
V. Stiles, 10 Wash. 388: 581.
Skaneateles W. W. Co. v. Skaneate-
les, 161 N. Y. 154: 408, 409.
V. Skaneateles, 184 U. S. 354: 409.
Skelly V. New York El. R. R. Co., 7
Miscl. 88: 1133, 1302.
Skillman v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
78 Iowa 404: 1505.
Skinner v. Chicago, 42 111. 52: 1093.
V. Hartford Bridge Co.j 29 Conn.
523: 212.
V. Lake View Ave. Co., 57 111. 151 :
971, 1028.
Slack V. Maysville & Lexington R. E.
Co., 13 B. Mon. 1: 23.
Slaght V. Northern Pao. Ry. Co., 39
Wash. 576: 431, 1626, 1629.
Slatten v. Des Moines Valley R. R.
Co., 29 Iowa 148: 251.
Slater v. Canada Cent. R. R. Co., 25
Grant Ch. 363: 1537.
Slattery v. Harley, 58 Neb. 575: 69.
V. St. Louis, 120 Mo. 183: 1309.
Slaughter v. Meridian St. & Ry. Co.
(Miss.) 48 So. 6: 273, 295.
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 66:
410.
Slayton v. Hulings, 7 Ind. 144: 1402.
Sleeper, In re, 62 N. J. Eq. 67 : 952,
1565.
Sleight V. Kingston, 11 Hun 594:
■142.
Sligh v. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich.
497: 1004.
Slingerland v. International C. Co.,
43 App. Div. 215: 99.
v. International C. Co., 169 N. Y.
60: 99.
Slingluff V. Wissahickon Turnpike
Co., 1 Phila. 379: 1467.
Slipper v. Totterham & Hampstead
Junction Ry. Co., 36 L. J. Eq.
841: 1260.
Sloan v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 63 Hun
300: 448, 1216, 1300, 1302, 1303.
Sloane v. People's Elec. R. R. Co.,
7 Ohio C. C. 84: 297, 302.
Slocum v. Neptune, 68 N. J. L. 595:
416, 739, 1101.
Slocumb V. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 57
Iowa 675: 75.
Sly, Matter of, 78 App. Div. 630:
1386.
Sly, Matter of, 177 N. Y. 465: 1386.
Smafield v. Smith, 153 Mich. 270:
79, 1606.
Small V. Binford, 41 Ind. App. 440:
400.
V. Georgia etc. R. R. Co., 87 Ga.
602: 524, 941.
V. Pennell, 31 Maine 267: 916,
1510.
Smart v. Aroostook Lumber Co., 103
Maine 37: 133, 1639.
V. Hart, 75 Wis. 471: 819.
V. Johnston, 17 R. I. 778: 1577.
V. Portsmouth &, Concord R. E.
Co., 20 N. H. 233: 1527, 1530,
1681.
Smeaton v. Austin, 82 Wis. 76: 1396,
1409.
V. Martin, 57 Wis. 364: 514, 675,
1165, 1166.
Smeberg v. Cunningham, 96 Mich.
379: 1629.
Smedley v. Erwin, 51 Pa. St. 445:
687, 703.
Smith, In re, 143 Cal. 368: 470.
Smith V. Adams, 6 Paige 435: 165.
V. Agawam Canal Co., 2 Allen 355 :
71.
V. Alexander, 24 Ind. 454: 1028.
V. Alexandria, 33 Gratt. 208; 237.
V. Applegate, 23 N. J. L. 352:
1385.
V. Atlanta, 75 Ga. 110: 141.
V. Atlanta, 92 Ga. 119: 438, 1182,
1545.
V. Atlantic & Gt. Western R. R.
Co., 25 Ohio St. 91: 570, 581,
584, 924.
V. Barre Water Co., 73 Vt. 310:
538, 595, 723.
cclviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Smith V. Beloit, 122 Wis. 396: 874,
878, 890.
V. Bivens, 56 Fed. 352 : 472.
V. Board of Comrs., 50 Ohio St.
628: 220, 616.
V. Boston, 7 Cush. 254: 364, 371,
379, 391.
V. Boston, 1 Gray 72 : 1366.
V. Boston etc. R. E. Co., 99 App.
Div. 94: 211.
V. Boston etc. K. R. Co., 181 N. Y.
132: 211.
V. Brooklyn, 18 App. Div. N. Y.
340: 77, 163.
V. Brooklyn, 32 App. Div. N. Y.
257: 77, 163.
V. Brooklyn, 160 N. Y. 357: 74,
77, 163.
V. Central District P. & Tel. Co., 2
Ohio C. C. 259: 337, 339, 1593.
V. Chicago, 107 III. App. 270: 876,
890, 892.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 67 111.
191 : 935, 966, 1035, 1626.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 105 111.
511: 1055, 1061, 1063, 1065,
1066, 1115.
V. Chiltenham, 35 Pa. Supr. Ct.
507: 211.
V. Cincinnati, 4 Ohio 515: 213.
V. City Council of Alexandria, 33
Gratt. 208: 212.
V. Claussen Park D. & L. Dist. 229
111. 155: 683, 704, 980, 124G,
1247, 1457.
V. Cochrane, 9 Wash. 85 : 738, 926,
927, 1005, 1013.
V. Commissioners, 150 111. 385:
1069, 1418.
V. Comrs. of Cumberland, 42 Maine
395: 1421.
V. Connelly's Heirs, 1 T. B. Mon.
58: 544, 1360.
V. Conway, 17 N. H. 586: 514, 781,
981, 1382.
V. Corporation of Washington, 20
How. 135: 212, 213.
V. Crete etc. R. R. Co., 29 Neb.
142: 1176, 1179, 1200, 1202.
V. Detroit, 120 Mich. 572 : 948.
V. Dublin etc. R. R. Co., 3 Irish
Ch. 225: 1566.
V. Dubuque Co., 1 Iowa 492 : 1409.
V. East End St. R. R. Co., 87 Tenn
626: 277, 313, 316.
V. Eau Claire, 78 Wis. 487: 212,
615, 618.
V. Ferris, 6 Hun 553: 939, 962.
V. Floyd Co., 85 Ga. 422 : 629, 635,
1306, 1337, 1550, 1552, 1648,
1656, 1660.
Smith V. Goldsboro, 121 N. C. 350:
173, 336, 346.
V. Goldsborough, 80 Md. 49: 971,
996.
V. Gorrell, 81 Iowa 218: 1505.
V. Gould, 59 Wis. 631: 76, 1523.
V. Gould, 61 Wis. 31: 76.
V. Goulding, 6 Cush. 154: 858, 860.
V. Hall, 103 Iowa 95: 806, 838.
V. Helraer, 7 Barb. 416: 1164.
V. Holloway, 124 Ind. 329: 837.
V. Inge, 80 Ala. 283: 1156, 1625.
V. Jackson & Battle Creek Traction
Co., 137 Mich. 20 : 282.
V. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23: 630,
1306, 1307, 1330.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 98
Mo. 20: 254, 260, 307, 323, 324,
325, 616, 642, 1549, 1650, 1657.
V. Los Angeles, 136 Cal. 156: 629.
V. Los Angeles & P. R. R. Co., 98
Cal. 210: 85.3.
V. Leavenworth, 15 Kan. 81 : 1497.
V. Lincoln, 170 Mass. 488: 868.
V. Macon, 129 Ga. 227 : 363.
V. McAdams, 3 Mich. 506: 922,
1164, 1166, 1497, 1707, 1708.
V. McDowell, 148 111. 51: 197, 199,
369, 395, 398, 406. 877.
V. Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 63: 235.
V. Mitchell, 21 Wash. 536: 385,
390, 405.
V. Montgomery, 2 Idaho 1187: 881.
V. Montgomery, 3 Idaho 472: 881.
V. Nashville etc. R. R. Co., 88
Tenn. 611: 936.
V. New Haven, 59 Conn. 203: 753,
1100, 1101.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 165
Mass. 569 : 1504.
V. Olmstead, 5 Blackf. 37: 1537.
V. Osage, 80 Iowa 84: 874.
V. Peterson, 123 Iowa 672: 1007.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 205 Pa.
St. 645: 1129.
V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co.,
141 Pa. St. 68: 1149.
V. Point Pleasant & Ohio R. R. Co.,
23 W. Va. 451: 1160, 1294, 1580.
V. Railroad Co., 98 Mo. 24: 311.
V. Railroad Co., 87 Tenn. 626 : 197,
200.
V. Rochester, 38 Hun 612: 78, 1603.
V. Rochester, 92 N. Y. 463: 74, 78,
98, 99, 105, 108, 109.
V. Rogers, Litt. Select Cas. (Ky.)
117: 1369.
V. Rome, 19 Ga. 89 : 1489, 1594.
V. St. Joseph, 122 Mo. 643: 630,
632, 1186, 1199, 1308.
CASES CITED.
cclix
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Smith V. St. Louis Public Schools,
30 Mo. 290: 131.
V. St. Paul, 65 Minn. 295: 1559.
V. St. Paul, 69 Minn. 276: 1529.
V. St. Paul, 72 Minn. 472: 874.
V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 39 Wash.
355: 384, 392, 449, 647, 054, 659,
661, 666, 671.
V. San Luis Obispo, 95 Cal. 463:
881.
V. Scearce, 34 Ind. 285: 1424.
V. School District No. 2, 40 Mich.
143: 1087.
V. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283: 84, 653,
866.
V. Sedalia, 182 Mo. 1: 84, 870,
1338, 1054.
V. Sherry, 50 Wis. 210: 466.
V. Simmons, 103 Pa. St. 32 : 336.
V. Smith, 120 App. Div. 278: 366,
404.
V. Smith, 96 Ind. 273: 1383.
T. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 146
Cal. 164: 250, 639.
V. State, 59 Ohio St. 278: 867, 809.
V. Street R. R. Co., 87 Tenn. 626:
270.
V. Taylor, 34 Tex. 589: 929.
V. Trenton Delaware Falls Co., 17
N. J. L. 5: 1077, 1100, 1102,
1369.
V. Union S. & T. Co., 17 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 444: 183, 366, 878.
V. Weldon, 73 Ind. 454: 983, 1574.
V. White Plains, 67 Hun 81: 211,
609, 610, 618, 1550.
Smith Canal & Ditch Co. v. Colo.
Ice & Storage Co., 34 Colo. 485:
808, 812, 1496.
Smith Jr. v. Chicago & Western In-
diana R. R. Co., 105 111. 511:
1045.
Smithko v. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co.,
5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 543: 715.
Smoot V. Schooler, 87 Ky. 157: 1078.
Smythe v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466: 483.
v. Brooklyn EI. R. R. Co., 121 App.
Div. 282: 323, 1355.
V. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 193 N.
Y. 335: 323, 1355.
Snee v. West Side Belt R. R. Co., 210
Pa. St. 480: 679, 709, 716.
Sneed v. Falls Co., 91 Tex. 168: 1086,
1518.
Snively v. Washington Tp. 218 Pa.
St. 249: 1487.
Snoddy v. Bolen (Mo.), 24 S. W.
142: 874.
V. Pettis Co., 45 Mo. 361: 974,
1369, 1390.
Snodgrass v. Chicago, 152 111. 600:
1128, 1202, 1313, 1426.
Snodley v. Asheville, 110 N. C. 84:
1402.
Snouffeur v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
105 Iowa 681: 1329.
Snow V. Boston & Maine R. R. Co.,
65 Me. 230: 1108, 1119, 1122.
V. Moses, 53 Me. 546 : 860.
V. Provincetown, 109 Mass. 123:
605, 615.
V. Sandgate, 66 Vt. 461; 513.
V. Whitehead, 27 L. R. Ch. Div.
588: 165.
Snowden v. Shelby Co., 118 Tenn.
725: 1323
V. Wilas, 19 Ind. 10: 1522.
Snydacker v. West Hammond, 225
111. 154: 828, 829.
Snyder v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
210 Pa. St. 500: 689, 819.
v. Chicago etc. R. E. Co., 112 Mo.
527: 948, 1627.
V. Cowan, 120 Mo. 389: 1463, 1465.
V. Cowan, 50 Mo. App. 430: 1534.
V. Ft. Madison St. E. R. Co., 105
Iowa 284: 272, 275, 1588.
V. Mt. Pulaski, 176 111. 397: 199.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 55 Pa.
St. 340: 248, 255, 308.
V. Plass, 28 N. Y. 465: 821.
V. Rockport, 6 Ind. 237: 210.
V. Trumpbour, 38 N. Y. 355: 821,
1021.
V. Warford, 11 Mo. 513: 520.
V. Western Union R. R. Co., 25
Wis. 60: 1123, 1310.
Snyder Avenue, Matter of, 14 Phil.
346: 432.
Sohier v. Mass. General Hospital, 3
Cush. 483 : 458.
S. 0. Houghton's Appeal, 42 Cal. 35 :
1397, 1398.
Soller V. Brown Tp. 67 Mich. 422:
1028, 1415.
Somerset Coal Canal Co. v. Harcourt,
24 Beav. 571: 1071.
Somerset etc. Road, 74 Pa. St. 61:
700.
Somerton Turnpike, 16 Pa. Supr. Ct.
400: 1264.
Somerville etc. R. R. Co. v. Doughtv,
22 N. J. L. 495: 1312, '1314,
1378, 1380.
Sommerville v. Waltham, 170 Mass.
160: 591.
V. Wimbush, 7 Gratt. 205 : 409.
Sonnek v. Minnesota Lake, 50 Minn.
558: 1360, 1364.
Sorenson v. Greeley, 10 Colo. 369:
303, 1667.
cclx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Soule V. Passaic, 47 N. J. Eq. 28;
155, 1606.
South V. East London Ey. Co., 42
L. J. 477: 635.
South Abington Road, 109 Pa. St.
118: 1005, 1013, 1032, 1376.
South Amboy v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 66 N. J. L. 623: 878, 879,
889.
Southampton Road, 21 Pa. St. 356:
778.
Southard v. Brooklyn, 1 App. Div.
N. Y. 175 : 144, 1651, 1655.
V. Eicker, 43 Me. 575: 1017, 1032,
1033.
South Bait. Harbor etc. Co. v. Smith,
85 Md. 537: 882.
South Beach R. R. Co., Matter of,
53 Hun 131: 720, 814, 1061.
South Beach E. E. Co., Matter of,
119 N. Y. 141: 720, 814, 1061.
South Berwick v. County Comrs., 98
Me. 108: 882.
South Bound R. R. Co. v. Burton, 63
S. C. 348: 1625.
V. Burton, 67 S. C. 515: 181, 201,
202, 243, 249, 255, 304, 1297,
1303, 1625.
South Brooklyn R. & T. Co., Matter
of, 50 Hun 405: 731.
South Buffalo Ey. Co. v. Kirkover,
86 App. Div. 55: 1195, 1200,
1202, 1243.
V. Kirkover, 176 N. Y. 301: 1195,
1200, 1202, 1243.
th Cai
4: 76
South Carolina etc. R. E. Co. v. Am.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 63 S. C. 199:
1624.
V. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 65 S.
C. 459: 733, 988, 1247, 1286,
1624.
South Carolina E. E. Co., Ex parte,
2 Eich. L. S. C. 434: 728.
South Carolina E. E. Co. v. Blake,
9 Rich. S. C. 228: 1042, 1045,
1061, 1066, 1074, 1075.
V. Columbia etc. E. E. Co., 13 Eich.
Eq. S. C. 339: 765.
V. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546: 242, 249,
250, 279, 323, 448, 1155, 1295,
1302.
South Chester Road, 80 Pa. St. 370:
700.
South Chicago City R. R. Co. v. Calu-
met etc. St. R. E. Co., 70 111.
App. 254: 737, 768, 1611.
South Chicago City E. E. Co. v. Chi-
cago, 196 HI. 490: 1509, 1510.
V. Dix, 109 HI. 237: 532, 1043,
1061, 1063.
South Covington etc. E. E. Co. v.
Berry, 93 Ky. 43: 476.
South Dak. Cent. Ey. Co. v. Chicago
etc. Ey. Co., 141 Fed. 578: 759,
931, 932.
Southeast etc. Ey. Co. v. Evansville
etc. E. R. Co., 169 Ind. 339: 329,
76.5, 766, 768, 1611.
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Fran-
cis, 109 Ala. 224: 342, 349.
V. Mobile, 162 Fed. 523: 359, 1619,
1622.
V. Nalley, 165 Fed. 263: 342.
V. Richmond, 103 Fed. 33: 343, 362.
Southern Boulevard, Matter of, 3 Abb.
Pr. N. S. 447 : 1083.
Southern Boulevard R. E. Co., In re,
58 Hun 497: 330, 1154.
Southern Boulevard E. E. Co., In re,
128 N. Y. 93: 330, 1154.
Southern Boulevard E. E. Co., In re,
141 N. Y. 532: 1397.
Southern Boulevard E. E. Co., In re,
143 N. Y. 253: 736, 1397.
Southern Boulevard E. E. Co., In re,
140 N. Y. 352: 736.
Southern Cal. Mt. Water Co. v. Cam-
eron, 141 Cal. 283: 1669.
Southern Cal. Rv. Co. v. Slanson, 138
Cal. 342: 1630.
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bull, 116
Ga. 776: 315, 351, 372, 1596.
Southern Cotton Press & Mfg. Co. v.
Galveston Wharf Co., 3 Tex. Civ.
App. p. 309: 747, 749, 1183.
Southern 111. & Mo. Bridge Co. v.
Stone, 174 Mo. 1: 7, 503, 675,
684, 686, 701.
V. Stone, 194 Mo. 175: 686, 1186.
Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. Indianapolis
etc. Ry. Co., 108 Ind. 360: 801,
900, 907, 919.
V. Brown, 30 Ind. App. 684: 1717.
Southern Kansas R. R. Co. v. Board
of Comrs., 52 Kan. 138: 1290.
V. Oklahoma City, 12 Okl. 82 : 360,
750, 1291.
V. State, 100 Tex. 437: 480.
Southern Minn. R. R. Co. v. Stod-
dard, 6 Minn. 150: 824.
Southern Mo. etc. Ry. Co. v. Wood-
ard, 193 Mo. 656: 1123.
Southern Pac. Co. v. Hyatt, 132 Cal.
240: 1479.
V. Pomoma, 144 Cal. 339: 8S3.
Southern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Dufour.
95 Cal. 615: 161.
V. Ferris, 93 Cal. 263: 881, 1619.
CASES CITED.
cclxi
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1T19.]
Southern Pac. E. R. Co. v. Hart, 3
Cal. App. 11: 1211, 1243.
V. Oakland, 58 Fed. .50: 1570, 1619.
V. Reed, 41 Cal. 256: 242, 246, 250,
307.
.V. San Francisco Savings Union,
146 Cal. 290: 1477.
V. Southern Cal. R. R. Co., Ill
Cal. 221, 754, 799.
V. Wilson, 49 Cal. 396: 1385.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta Ry. & P.
Co., Ill Ga. 679: 272, 328.
V. Atlantic Stove Works, 128 Ga.
207: 481, 483.
V. Birmingham etc. Ry. Co., 131
Ala. 663: 1159, 1410, 1568.
V. Cook, 106 Ga. 450: 151.
V. Cook, 117 Ga. 286: 151, 1649,
1G54.
V. Ferguson, 105 Tenn. 552: 97.
V. Gossett, 79 S. C. 372: 1477.
V. Gregg, 101 Va. 308: 1537, 1540,
1541.
V. Hardeman, 130 Ga. 222: 153.
V. Hays, 150 Ala. 212: 1568, 1574.
V. Hood, 126 Ala. 312: 1540, 1620.
V. Leard, 146 Ala. 349 : 92.
V. Piatt, 131 Ala. 312: 92, 1638.
V. Sehna etc. Ry. Co., 130 Ala. 660:
926, 1159, 1160, 1435, 1464, 1465.
V. Southern & Atlantic Tel Co., 46
Ga. 43: 1159.
V. Stantiford, 21 Ky. L. R. 1023:
830, 873, 882, 1628.
South etc. R. R. Co. v. Ala. Gt. So.
R. R. Co., 102 Ala. 236: 1619,
1620.
V. Highland Ave. etc. R. R. Co., 119
Ala. 105: 720, 757.
V. Highland Ave. R. R. Co., 117
Ala. 395: 845.
V. Virginia etc. Ry. Co., 104 Va.
323: 1042, 1619, 1624.
Southgate v. Covington, 15 B. Mon.
291 : 465.
South Haven v. Probate Judge, 140
Mich. 117: 725.
Southington v. Clark, 13 Conn. 370:
917, 992.
South London Ry. Co. v. United
Parishes (1905) A. C. 1: 1267.
v. United Parishes etc. (1903) 2
K. B. 728: 1267.
South Market St., In re, 67 Hun 594
1168.
South Market St., In re, 76 Hun 85
914, 1370.
South Market St., In re, 80 Hun 246
929, 1437.
South Omaha v. Omaha B. & T. Ry,
Co., 76 Neb. 718: 322.
South Park Comrs. v. Ayer, 237 lU.
211: 1109, 1115, 1263.
,r. Dunlevy, 91 111. 49: 1222, 1224,
1236, 1325.
V. Todd, 112 111. 379: 947.
V. Trustees of Schools, 107 111. 489:
1113, 1379.
Southport etc. R. R. Co. v. Piatt
Land, 133 N. C. 206: 22, 1187.
South St. Paul St., In re, 85 Hun
473: 1374.
South Seventh St., Matter of, 48
Barb. 12: 1083.
South Side El. R. R. Co. v. Nesvig,
214 111. 463: 1507.
South Side Pass. R. R. Co. v. Second
Ave. Pass. R. R. Co., 191 Pa.
St. 492 : 764.
Southside R. R. Co. v. Daniel, 20
Gratt. 344: 1459.
South Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Hall,
1 Sim. N. S. 373: 1611.
South Twelfth Street, 217 Pa. St.
362: 432.
South Wales R. R. Co. v. Richards,
6 Eng. R. R. Cas. 197 : 1413.
Southwark Water Co. v. District
Board, L. R. (1898) 2 Ch. 603:
352.
Southwestern Land Co. v. Hickory
Jackson Ditch Co., 18 Colo. 489:
995, 996, 1075, 1435, 1436, 1437.
Southwestern Mineral Ry. Co. v. Har-
vey, 8 Kan. App. 489: 1312.
Southwestern Mo. Lt. Co. v. Scheu-
rich, 174 Mo. 235: 551, 679, 724.
Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Paulk, 24
Ga. 356: 475.
v. Southern & Atlantic Tel. Co., 46
Ga. 43: 923, 1609.
Southwestern Telephone Co. v. Kan-
sas City Ry. Co., 109 La. 892:
724, 774, 1286.
Southwestern State Normal School,
26 Pa. Supr. Ct. 9!) : 709.
Southwestern State Normal School
Case, 213 Pa. St. 244: 183, 366,
779, 800, 878.
Southwest Penn. Pipe Lines v. Di-
rectors of the Poor, 1 Pa. Co. Ct.
460: 786.
Sower V. Philadelphia, 35 Pa. St. 231 :
915.
Sowers v. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co.,
162 Ind. 676: 1671, 1672.
Sowle V. Cisner, 56 Ind. 276: 996.
Spackman v. Great Western R. R.
Co., 1 Jur. N. S. 790: 822.
Spader v. New York Elevated R. R.
Co., 3 Abb. New Cases 467 : 260.
cclxii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Spalding v. Macomb etc. Ev. Co., 225
111. 585: 242, 246, 558,'639, 1580,
1588, 1591.
V. Omaha, 4 Neb. (Uuof.) 447:
1526, 1719.
Spangler's Appeal, 64 'Pa. St. 387:
1603.
Spangler v. Saa Francisco, 84 Cal.
12: 143.
Sparhawk v. Walpole, 20 N. H. 317:
1528.
Sparks v. Philadelphia etc. K. R. Co.,
212 Pa. St. 105: 716.
Sparks Mfg. Co. v. Newton, 57 N. J.
Eq. 367: 74, 151, 1263, 1554.
V. Newton, 60 N. J. Eq. 399: 73,
74, 1201, 1263, 1554.
Sparling v. Dwenger, 60 Ind. 72: 701.
Sparrow v. Oxford, Worcester & Wol-
verhampton Ry. Co., 2 DeG. Mc-
N. & G. 94: 438, 822.
Spaulding v. Arlington, 126 Mass.
492: 1459.
V. Groton, 68 N. H. 77: 1362, 1380,
1381.
V. Lowell, 23 Pick. 71 : 523.
V. Milwaukee etc. Ry. Co., 57 Wis.
304: 1403.
v. Nourse, 143 Mass. 490: 734.
V. Wesson (Cal.) 45 Pac. 807:
881.
Spealman v. Railroad Co., 71 Mo.
434: 475.
Spear v. Allison, 20 Pa. St. 200:
1499.
V. Drainage Comrs., 113 111. 632:
1122.
Spears v. New York, 87 N. Y. 359:
1566.
Spear's Road Case, 4 Binn. 174: 1360.
Specht V. Detroit, 20 Mich. 168 : 1022.
Speck V. Kenoyer, 164 Ind. 431: 503,
512, 514, 1056, 1058, 1192, 1208,
1209.
Speer v. Athens, 85 Ga. 49: 13.
V. Erie R. R. Co., 64 N. J. Eq.
601: 855, 1646, 1647.
V. Erie R. R. Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 615:
855, 1646.
V. Erie R. R. Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 318:
855, 1646.
Speese v. Schuylkill Riv. E. S. R. R.
Co., 8 Pa. Dist. Ct. 584: 1483.
V. Schuylkill Riv. E. S. R. R. Co.,
10 Pa. Dist. Ct. 515: 1477.
V. Schuykill Riv. E. S. R. R. Co.,
201 Pa. St. 568: 1485.
Spencer v. Andrew, 82 la. 14: 356.
V. Hartford, Providence, & T. R.
R. Co., 10 R. I. 14: 88, 1251,
1451, 1454. '
Spencer v. Merchant, 100 N. Y. 585:
735.
V. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345: 735.
V. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 120
Mo. 154: 180, 630, 635, 642,
1123, 1186.
V. Met. St. E. R. Co., 58 Mo. App.
513: 324, 642.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 62
Conn. 242: 428.
V. Peterson, 41 Ore. 257 : 878, 879,
889.
V. Point Pleasant & Ohio .E E. Co.,
23 W. Va. 406: 256, 1160, 1294,
1299, 1335, 1580.
V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 137
N. C. 107: 7, 529, 745.
Spencer Co. Ct. v. Commonwealth, 84
Ky. 36: 1531.
Spencer Creek Water Co. v. Vallejo,
48 Cal. 70: 930.
Sperb V. Metropolitan El. R. E. Co.,
61 Hun 539: 448, 1303, 1663,
1664.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 137
N. Y. 155: 448, 1296, 1303.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 137
N. Y. 596: 1196, 1296, 1300,
1301.
Sperry v. Flygare, 80 Minn. 325 : 12,
464.
Spetzer v. Runyan, 113 la. 619: 398.
Spierling v. Ohl, 232 111. 581: 838,
1497.
Spilman v. Roanoke Navigation Co.,
74 N. C. 675: 144, 1651, 1656.
Spires v. Los Angeles, 150 Cal. 64:
421, 1494.
Spitzer v. Runyan, 113 la. 619: 199,
395, 398, 406, 1411, 1412, 1.502.
Split Rock Cable R. R. Co., Matter
of, 58 Hun 351: 495.
Split Rock Cable R. R. Co., Matter
of, 128 N. Y. 408: 495, 507, 528,
535, 1044.
Spofford V. B. & B. R. R. Co., 66
Me. 26: 708, 976, 980, 1058,
1414, 1416.
V. Southern Boul. R. R. Co., 15
Daly 162: 1586, 1591.
Spohr V. Chicago, 206 111. 441: 1120,
1313.
V. Sehofleld, 66 Ind. 168: 1363.
Spokane v. Colby, 16 Wash. 610:
422.
Spokane etc. E. R. Co. v. Lieuallen,
2 Idaho, 1101: 1147, 1226.
V. Lieuallen, 3 Idaho 381: 1147,
1222.
V. Ziegler, 61 Fed. 392: 1206.
CASES CITED.
cclxiii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Spokane Interurban Ry. Co. v. Con-
nelly, 48 Wash. 515: 1031.
Spokane St. R. E. Co. v. Spokane, 5
Wash. 634: 354, 1620.
V. Spokane Falls, 6 Wash. 521:
299.
Sporato V. New York, 75 App. Div.
304: 1338, 1562.
V. New York, 178 N. Y. 583: 1338,
1562.
Spouenberg v. Gloversvilla, 96 App.
Div. 157: 1605, 1615.
Sprague v. Dorr, 185 Mass. 10: 86.
T. No. Pac. Ry. Co., 122 Wis. 509 :
1671, 1674.
V. Worcester, 13 Gray 193: 147,
234.
Spratt V. Helena Power Transmission
Co., 37 Mont. 60: 500, 536, 739,
748, 1071.
Spring V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 88
Hun 385: 449, 1613.
V. Lowell, 1 Mass. 422: 1091, 1094.
V. Park, 89 Md. 406: 469.
V. Russell, 7 Me. 273: 99, 103.
Springboro School Dist., 21 Pa. Co.
Ct. 23: 726.
Springbrook Road, 64 Pa. St. 451:
1107, 1387.
Spring City Gas Lt. Co. v. Penn. S.
V. R. R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 6:
672, 684, 783, 802, 1175.
Springer v. Chicago, 135 HI. 552:
629, 635, 1108, 1146, 1195, 1549,
1648, 1656, 1660.
v. Chicago, 37 HI. App. 206: 1145,
1336.
V. Russell, 7 Me. 273: 99, 103.
Springfield v. Conn. Riv. R. R. Co.,
4 Cush. 63: 242, 297, 756, 777,
793, 795, 796.
V. Dalbey, 139 111. 34: 1383.
V. Griffith, 21 HI. App. 93: 1307.
V. Griffith, 46 HI. App. 246: 629,
1306, 1307, 1337.
V. Robertson Ave. R. R. Co., 69
Mo. App. 544: 1618.
V. Schmook, 68 Mo. 394: 1146,
1147, 1186, 1215.
V. Sleeper, 115 Mass. 587: 1115.
V. Whitlock, 34 Mo. App. 642:
893, 991.
Springfield etc. Ry. Co. v. Calkins,
90 Mo. 538: 1119, 1129, 1213.
V. Hall, 67 HI. 99: 690.
V. Henry, 44 Ark. 360: 154, 1252.
V. Rhea, 44 Ark. 258: 1112, 1149,
1203, 1309, 1310, 1378.
V. Turner, 68 HI. 187: 1392.
Springfield Road, 73 Pa. St. 127:
1364.
Springfield Tp. Road, In re, 91 Pa.
St. 260: 778.
Springfield W. W. Co. v. Jenkins, 62
Mo. App. 74: 163.
Spring Garden Road, 43 Pa. St. 144 :
1419.
Spring Garden Street's Case, 4 Rawle
192: 1097.
Spring St. Opening, 112 Pa. St. 258:
. 1531.
Spring Valley Water Works, Matter
of, 17 Cal. 132: 1047.
Spring Valley Water Works v. Drink-
house, 92 Cal. 528: 1060, 1062,
1063, 1066, 1231.
V. Drinkhouse, 95 Cal. 220: 1425,
1463.
V. San Francisco, 22 Cal. 434
1047, 1135.
V. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286
481.
V. San Mateo W. W., 64 Cal. 123
1060, 1062.
V. Shottler, 110 U. S. 347: 481.
Springville v. Fullmer, 7 Utah 450:
683.
Sproule V. Ala. etc. Ry. Co., 78 Miss.
88: 1477.
Spurgeon v. Bartlett, 56 Mo. App.
349: 706.
Spurlock V. Dornan, 182 Mo. 242:
941, 1514, 1516.
Spurrier v. Wirtner, 48 la. 486 :
1406.
Spuyten Duyvil Parkway, Opening
of. Matter of, 67 How. Pr. 341 :
1075, 1076.
Squire, In re, 125 N. Y. 131: 1524.
Squire v. Somerville, 120 Mass. 579 :
1144.
Squires v. Neenah, 24 Wis. 588 :
1058.
Stacev V. Glen Ellyn Hotel Co., 223
ill. 546: 884.
V. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 15 App.
Div. 534: 1302.
V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 27
Vt. 39: 1674.
Stack, Matter of, 50 Hun 385: 610,
617.
V. East St. Louis, 85 111. 377 : 635,
656, 1553.
V. Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co.,
139 N. C. 366: 1716.
Stackpole v. Healy, 16 Mass. 33:
1489.
Stadler v. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 98:
615, 619.
Stafford v. Albany, 6 Johns. 1: 1681.
V. Albany, 7 Johns. 541: 1681.
cclxiv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Staflford V. Providence, 10 E. I. 567:
1221, 1329.
Stafford Springs St. Ry. Co. v. Mid-
dle Rlv. Mfg. Co., 80 Conn. 37:
896, 898.
Staggs V. Martinsville, 140 Ind. 476:
472.
Stahl V. Pennsylvania Co., 155 Pa.
St. 309: 818.
Stanton v. Met. Board of Works, 26
L. J. Ch. 300: 643, 1612.
Stalker v. Dunwick, 15 Ont. 342:
156.
Stamford v. Stamford H. R. Co., 56
Conn. 381: 322, 1622.
Stamford Water Co. v. Stanley, 39
Hun 424: 70, 74, 536, 933.
Stamnes v. Milwaukee etc. Ry. Co.,
131 Wis. 85: 829, 947.
Stamps V. Birmingham & Stone Val-
ley Ry. Co., 2 Pliillips 673:
731.
Standen v. New Rochelle Water Co.,
91 Hun 272: 71, 72, 74.
Standish v. Liverpool, 1 Drewry 1 :
1468.
V. Washburn, 21 Pick. 237: 1150.
Standley v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co.,
121 Mo. App. 537: 91.
Stanford v. San Francisco, 111 Cal.
198: 233.
v. Worn, 27 Cal. 171: 960, 1017,
1027.
Stange v. Dubuque, 62 la. 303 : 1298.
v. Hill & West Dubuque St. Ry.
Co., 54 la. 669: 268, 271.
Stanislaus Co. v. San Joaquin etc.
Irr. Co., 192 U. S. 201: 481.
Stanley v. Davenport, 54 la. 463:
197, 268, 271.
Stannard v. Aurora etc. R. R. Co.,
220 111. 469: 832, 1504.
Stannards Corners Rural Cem. Asso.
V. Brandes, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1015:
542, 976, 995.
Stanton v. Chicago, 154 111. 23: 912,
914.
v. Metropolitan Bd. of Works, 26
L. J. Ch. 300: 161.
Stanwood v. Maiden, 157 Mass. 17:
370, 371, 377, 379, 380, 392, 393,
402, 660, 666.
Staple V. Spring, 10 Mass. 72: 1069.
Star & Crescent Milling Co. v. San-
itary District, 120 111. App. 555 :
635, 1716.
Stark V. Sioux City & Pacific R. R.
Co., 43 la. 501: 816.
V. Mansfield, 178 Mass. 76: 1254.
V. McGown, 1 Nott & McCord (S.
C.) 387: 22.
Starling v. Grand Junction R. R.
Co., 30 U. C. C. P. 247: 1540.
Starnes v. Molson, 1 Montreal L. Q.
B. 425: 131.
Starr v. Camden etc. R. R. Co., 24
N. J. L. 592: 247, 318, 1635.
V. London, 7 L. R. Eq. Cas. 236:
1115.
V. People, 17 Colo. 458: 876, 881,
883, 884, 885.
V. Rochester, 6 Wend. 564: 820.
Starry v. Treat, 102 la. 449: 1024.
Starr Burying Ground Asso. v. North
Lane Cem. Asso., 77 Conn. 83:
542, 785, 792.
State V. Adams, 54 N. J. L. 506:
1418.
V. Adkins, 42 Kan. 203: 884.
V. Aiken, 42 S. C. 222 : 478.
V. Allen, 58 N. J. L. 315: 817.
V. Anchard, 22 Mont. 14: 1018.
V. Anderson, 39 la. 274: 1018.
V. Anderson, 130 Wis. 227: 1414,
1415.
V. Anthoine, 40 Me. 435: 787.
V. Armwel, 8 Kan. 288: 1507.
V. Ashtabula Co. Comrs., 7 Ohio
C. C. (N. S.) 469: 488.
V. Ashtabula Co. Comrs., 8 Ohio
C. C. (N. S.) 169: 488.
V. Atkinson 27 N. J. L. 420:
1081, 1381.
V. Atlantic Coast Air Line, 48 Fla.
114: 481.
V. Atlantic Coast Air Line, 48 Fla.
146: 481.
V. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co., 141 N.
C. 736: 309.
V. Ayres, 15 N. J. L. 479: 1091,
1092.
V. Bailey, 6 Wis. 291: 1098.
V. Bangor, 98 Me. 114: 781, 789.
V. Barlow, 61 la. 572: 970.
V. Barnes, 13 N. J. L. 268: 1091.
V. Barton, 36 Minn. 145 : 384, 400,
1402.
V. Bayonne, 35 N. J. L. 332:
917.
V. Bayonne, 35 N. J. L. 476:
1086, 1091, 1093.
V. Bayonne, 54 N. J. L. 293: 236,
972.
V. Bayonne, 59 N. J. L. 101: 342,
1666.
V. Beackmo, 8 Blaekf. 246: 1172.
V. Beardsley, 108 la. 396: 486.
CASES CITED.
cclxv
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
State V. Beeman, 35 Me. 242: 1010.
V. Bennett, 25 N. J. L. 329: 1366.
V. Berditta, 73 Ind. 185: 199.
V. Bergen, 21 N. J. L. 342: 1099.
v. Bergen, 33 N. J. L. 39: 914.
V. Bergen, 33 N. J. L. 72: 707,
914.
V. Bergen, 34 N. J. L. 438 : 734.
V. Bergen, 35 N. J. L. 332: 918.
T. Bergen Neck R. E. Co., 53 N. J.
L. 108: 693.
V. Bergers, 21 N. J. L. 342: 993.
V. Berry, 12 la. 58: 969, 1032,
1510, 1512.
V. Birmingham, 74 la. 407: 881,
884, 885, 886.
V. Bishop, 39 N. J. L. 226: 513,
678.
V. Black Riv. Phosphate Co., 32
Fla. 82: 115, 127.
V. Blalve, 35 N. J. L. 208: 14,
577.
V. Blake, 36 N. J. L. 442: 14, 565,
566, 568, 577, 1441.
V. Blauvelt, 33 N. J. L. 36: 1368.
V. Blauvelt, 34 N. J. L. 261 : 1421.
V. Board of Chosen Freeholders,
51 N. J. L. 454: 918.
V. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 52
N. J. L. 398: 919.
V. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 56
N. J. L. 416: 297, 304.
V. Board of Park Comrs., 33 Minn.
524: 1673, 1683.
V. Board of Park Comrs., 100
Minn. 150: 363.
V. Board of Public Works, 42
Ohio St. 607: 829.
V. Board of Suprs., 102 Minn. 442:
567, 570, 576.
V. Board of Supervisors, 66 Wis.
199: 75.
V. Bo^ardus, 63 Kan. 259: 1018,
1513.
V. Boone County, 78 Neb. 271:
746.
V. Boston, 11 N. H. 407: 1502.
V. Bradley, 31 Mo. 308: 865.
v. Brown, 27 N. J. L. 13: 837.
V. Brown, 53 N. J. L. 181: 1383.
V. BrugiTerman, 31 Minn. 493: 734.
V. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 99
la. 565: 1646.
V. Burlington & Mt. PI. Plank Road
Co., 1 la. 386: 1204.
V. Burgeson, 108 Wis. 174: 1363.
V. Burnell, 104 Wis. 246: 765,
1638.
V. Burnett, 14 N. J. L. 385: 1102,
1381.
V. Cake, 24 N. J. L. 516: 1363.
State V. Calais, 48 Me. 456: 1373.
V. Camden, 53 N. J. L. 322: 487.
V. Canterbury, 28 N. li. 195: 104,
781, 788, 1511.
V. Canterbury, 40 N. H. 307: 1381.
V. Cape May, 58 N. J. L. 565 : 299,
1666.
V. Capital City Dairy Co., 62 Ohio
St. 350: 479.
V. Carragan, 36 N. J. L. 52: 431.
V. Centralia etc. Ry. & P. Co., 42
Wash. 632: 536, 537, 594, 921,
1064, 1071.
V. Chapman, 69 N. J. L. 464: 477,
479.
V. Charleston Lt. & W. Co., 68 S.
C. 540: 133.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 80 la.
586: 1010.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 86 la.
304: 1485.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 36 Minn.
402: 472, 1173.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 29 Neb.
412: 1642.
V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 17
Ohio St. 103: 1390, 1673, 1684.
V. Cincinnati Gas Lt. & C. Co., 18
Ohio St. 262: 411, 1623.
V. City Council, 40 Minn. 483:
1673, 1701.
V. City Council, 12 Rich. S. C.
702: 13.
V. Clark, 1 N. J. L. 226: 1363.
V. Clark, 38 N. J. L. 102: 1416.
V. Clark, 25 N. J. L. 54 : 700.
V. Clyde, 130 Wis. 159: 1069:
1381.
V. Colfax County, 51 Neb. 28:
1515.
V. Collins, 6 Ohio 126: 514.
V. CoUis, 20 App. Div. 341: 687,
1227.
v. Commissioners, 23 N. J. L. 510:
525.
V. Comrs., 30 Ohio St. 58: 831.
V. Commissioners, 54 Ohio St. 333 :
739.
V. Connover, 7 N. J. L. 203: 1374.
V. Convery, 53 N. J. L. 588: 1020.
v. Cooper, 23 N. J. L. 381 : 1366.
V. County Comrs., 23 Fla. 632:
701.
V. Cowles, 64 Ohio St. 162: 738.
V. Cozzens, 42 La. Ann. 1069:
476.
V. Crane, 36 N. J. L. 394: 1083,
1085.
V. Crosby, 92 Minn. 176: 739.
V. Cruser, 14 N. J. L. 401: 1389
cclxvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
State V. Curtis, 86 Wis. 140: 916,
1367, 1516, 1517.
V. Dalton, 22 R.I. 77: 479.
V. Davis, 13 N. J. L. 10: 1091,
1092.
V. Dawson, 3 Hill (S. C.) 101: 22,
1153.
V. Dayton Traction Co., 64 Ohio
St. 272: 281, 291.
V. Bearing, 173 Mo. 492: 771.
V. Delesdernier, 11 Me. 473: 1081,
1083.
V. Demarest, 32 N. J. L. 528:
462.
V. Des Moines City Ey. Co., 135
la. 694: 1623.
V. Dickson, 3 Mo. App. 464: 1463.
V. Digby, 5 Blackf. 543: 1207.
V. District Court, 42 Minn. 247
1289.
V. District Court, 44 Minn. 244
1413.
V. District Court, 50 Minn. 14
1383.
V. District Court, 52 Minn. 283
954, 966.
V. District Court, 77 Minn. 248
787.
V. District Court, 83 Minn. 464
1419, 1421.
V. District Court, 87 Minn. 146
7, 21, 674.
V. District Court, 87 Minn. 268
1085, 1438.
V. District Court, 14 Mont. 476
520, 521.
V. District Court, 28 Mont. 528
439.
V. District Court, 34 Mont. 535
715.
V. Dobard, 45 La. Apn. 1412
479.
V. Dover, 10 N". H. 394: 1390.
V. Driggs, 45 N. J. L. 91 : 578.
V. Dubuque etc. E. R. Co., 88 la.
508: 876.
V. Dunlap, 49 Wasli. 385: 322.
V. Dupaquier, 46 La. Ann. 577:
479.
V. East Fifth St. E. R. Co., 140
Mo. 539: 297, 1623.
V. Easton & Amboy R. E. Co., 36
N. J. L. 181: 941, 962, 966.
V. Eau Claire, 40 Wis. 533: 523,
536, 593.
V. Edwards, 86 Me. 102: 551.
V. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. Eq. 432:
878.
V. Elizabeth, 32 N. J. L. 357: 914,
1023, 1084.
V. Elizabeth, 54 N. J. L. 462: 185,
396.
State V. Elizabeth, 55 N. J. L. 337:
185, 397.
V. Elkinton, 30 N. J. L. 335: 1637.
V. Elk Island Boom Co., 41 W.
Va. 796: 115.
V. Ellis, 113 La. 555: 1061.
V. Emmons, 24 N. J. L. 45: 1364.
V. Engleman, 106 Mo. 628: 673,
678, 1057, 1399.
V. English, 22 N. J. L. 291 : 1359.
V. English, 22 N. J. L. 713: 1359.
V. Essex Public Road Board, 37
N. J. L. 273: 1358.
V. Evans, 2 Scam. 208: 1194.
V. Everett, 23 N. J. L. 378: 1365,
1419, 1420.
V. Tackier, 91 Wis. 418: 594.
V. Fillmore Co., 32 Neb. 870: 155,
1606.
V. Findley, 67 Wis. 86: 1100.
V. Fire Creek C. & C. Co., 33 W.
Va. 188: 479.
V. Fisher, 117 N. C. 733: 887, 888,
890.
V. Fischer, 26 N. J. L. 129: 954,
1369.
V. Fisk, 15 N. D. 219 : 580.
V. Fond du Lac, 42 Wis. 287 : 1005,
1010, 1011, 1013, 1016.
V. Ford, 6 Wis. 291: 1638.
V. Fort, 180 Mo. 97 : 1676.
V. Franklin Falls Co., 49 N. H.
240: 22.
V. French, 24 N. J. L. 736: 1381.
V. French, 71 Ohio St. 186: 486.
V. Frorhlick, 115 Wis. 32: 739.
V. Garch, 9 Wash. 226: 1444.
V. Garretson, 23 N. J. L. 388 : 1369.
V. Geneva, 107 Wis. 1: 514, 1403.
V. Gill, 84 Mo. 248: 1410.
V. Gilmanton, 9 N. H. 461: 104,
109.
V. Glen, 7 Jones L. 321: 15, 108,
486.
V. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179: 477,
479.
V. Graeme, 130 Mo. App. 138:
350.
V. Graflfam, 74 Wis. 643: 970,
1638.
V. Grand Island etc. R. E. Co., 31
Neb. 209: 1531.
V. Graves, 19 Md. 351 : 1673, 1685.
V. Graves, 120 Wis. 607: 1370.
V. Green, 15 N. J. L. 88: 1364.
V. Green, 18 N. J. L. 179: 1022,
1416.
V. Griftner, 61 Ohio St. 201 : 1500.
V. Guilbert, 56 Ohio St. 575: 460.
V. Haines, 58 Minn. 96: 1409.
V. Hall, 8 Pick. 440: 1017.
V. Hall, 17 N. J. L. 374: 1102.
CASES CITED.
cclxvii
[The references are to the pages : Vol.
State V. Hamilton, 109 Tenn. 276:
191, 366.
V. Hamilton, 47 Ohio St. 52: 409,
413.
V. Hampton, 2 N. H. 22 : 779.
V. Hanna, 97 Ind. 469: 1431.
V. Harland, 74 Wis. 11: 1517.
V. Hart, 17 N. J. L. 185: 1091,
1092, 1364.
V. Hemsley, 59 N. J. L. 149 : 1086.
V. Hendriekson, 80 Minn. 352
1363, 1515.
V. Heppenheimer, 54 N. J. L. 268
1010, 1160.
V. Hernsley, 59 N. J. L. 149
707.
V. Hoboken, 35 N. J. L. 205 : 297.
V. Hoetz, 67 Wis. 84: 1093.
V. Hogue, 71 Wis. 384: 687, 1013,
1014, 1091, 1165, 1167, 1511.
V. Holman, 40 Minn. 369: 384,
400, 1402.
V. Hopping, 18 N. J. L. 423: 1363.
V. Horn, 34 Kan. 556: 1095, 1515.
V. Hudson Co., 55 N. J. L. 88:
1187.
V. Hudson County Ave. Comrs.,
37 N. J. L. 12: 432.
V. Hudson County Board, 55 N. J.
L. 88: 807, 1199, 1312.
V. Hudson River R. R. & T. Co.
(N. J.) 25 Atl. Rep. 853: 1027.
V. Hudson Tunnel R. R. Co., 38 N.
J. L. 17: 1040, 1048.
V. Hudson Tunnel R. R. Co., 38 N.
J. L. 548: 726, 1040, 1048.
V. Hug, 44 Mo. 116: 1392, 1673,
1701, 1702.
V. Hulick, 3 N. J. L. 70: 1363.
V. Hulick, 33 N. J. L. 307: 942,
1363, 1381.
V. Humes, 34 Wash. 347: 1325,
1326.
V. Hutchinson, 10 N. J. L. 242:
1091.
V. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 116
U. S. 347: 480.
V. Indiana etc. R. R. Co., 133 Ind.
69: 488.
V. Indianapolis Un. Ry. Co., 160
Ind. 45: 488.
V. Iowa Cent. R. R. Co., 91 la.
275: 1017.
V. Isanti Co. Comrs., 98 Minn. 89:
144, 1414.
V. Jacksonville etc. R. R. Co., 20
Fla. 616: 1163, 1467.
V. Jacksonville St. R. R. Co., 29
Fla. 590: 268, 298, 299.
I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. T43-1Y19.]
State V. Jacksonville Terminal Co.,
41 Fla. 377: 426, 428, 761.
V. Janesville St. R. R. Co., 87
Wis. 72: 330.
V. Jersey City, 24 N. J. L. 662
1014.
V. Jersey City, 25 N. J. L. 309
707, 914, 1029, 1080, 1358.
V. Jersey City, 29 N. J. L. 441
921, 1071.
V. Jersey City, 34 N. J. L. 31
485.
V. Jersey City, 54 N. J. L. 49
698, 707, 708, 734.
V. Jersey City, 55 N. J. L. 117
141.
V. Jersey City, 56 N. J. L. 216
980.
V. Jersey City, 57 N. J. L. 293
272, 1666.
V. Jersey City, 58 N. J. L. 262
783
V. Johnson, 114 N. C. 846: 468.
V. Jones, 139 N. C. 613: 923, 1005,
1008, 1082.
V. Joyce, 121 N. C. 610: 1511.
V. Judges, 69 Ohio St. 372: 1409,
1422.
V. Justice, 24 N. J. L. 413: 514,
1033, 1105.
V. Kansas City, 89 Mo. 34: 1186,
1418.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 54
Ark. 608: 780, 1718.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 32
Fed. 722: 488.
V. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 71 Kan.
508: 359.
V. Kinne, 41 N. H. 238: 1434.
V. Kinney, 39 la. 226: 1510, 1514.
V. Klein, 140 Mo. 502: 1471.
V. Laclede Gas & L. Co., 102 Mo.
472: 481,482.
V. Langer, 29 Wis. 68: 1029.
V. Larabee, 59 N. J. L. 259: 707,
1387.
V. Larrabee, 58 N. J. L. 314: 1418.
V. Latrobe, 81 Md. 222: 303.
V. Laverack, 34 N. J. L. 201 : 346,
419, 422.
v. Lawrence, 5 N. J. L. 850: 1091.
v. Leaver, 62 Wis. 387: 348.
V. Leighton, 83 Me. 419: 96.
V. Leslie, 30 Min. 533: 1366.
V. Lewis, 22 N. J. L. 564: 1033,
1511, 1516.
V. Lindell R. R. Co., 151 Mo. 162:
299.
V. Lindig, 96 Minn. 419: 1361,
1362.
cclxviil
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol
State V. Lippinoott, 25 N. J. L. 434:
1363.
V. Lloyd, 133 Wis. 468: 865.
V. Logue, 73 Wis. 598: 1517, 1018.
V. Long Branch Comrs., 54 N. J.
L. 484: 916, 1666.
V. Longfellow, 169 Mo. 109: 104,
105, 114, 115.
V. Longstreet, 38 N. J. L. 312:
1431.
V. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307: 479.
V. Lord, 26 N. J. L. 140: 1358,
1421.
V. Lubke, 85 Mo. 307: 1465.
V. Lubke, 15 Mo. App. 152: 1465.
V. Luce, 9 Houst. 396: 451.
V. Lyle, 100 N. C. 497: 22, 495,
496, 923, 1164.
V. Maealester College, 87 Minn.
165: 11, 464.
V. Madison, 59 Me. 538: 1505.
V. Madison St. Ry. Co., 72 Wis.
612: 1623.
v. Maine, 27 Conn. 641: 422, .522.
V. Mallard, 143 N. C. 666: 1462,
1634.
V. Martin, 51 Kan. 462: 716.
V. Mason City etc. E. R. Co., 85
la. 516: 1645.
V. McDonald, 28 Minn. 445: 974,
1374.
V. McGowan, 138 Mo. 187 : 594.
V. McHatton, 15 Mont. 159: 1463,
1465.
V. Mclver, 88 N. C. 686: 1164,
1165, 1167.
V. McNay, 90 Wis. 104: 565, 567,
568, 582.
V. Meiley, 22 Ohio St. 534: 1534.
V. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119: 1160,
1167.
V. Miller, 23 N. J. L. 383: 1106,
1187, 1379.
V. Mills, 29 Wis. 322: 1391, 1392,
1674.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 116
Wis. 142: 306.
V. Mines, 38 W. Va. 125: 594.
V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 88
la. 689:' 1517.
V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 39
Minn. 219: 487, 1642, 1643, 1644
V. Mo. etc. Telephone Co., 189 Mo,
83: 481.
V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 98 Minn. 429
490, 1288.
V. Mo. Pac. Ey. Co., 75 Neb. 4
951.
V. Mobile, 5 Porter (Ala.) 279
346, 1488, 1594.
V. Molly, 18 Iowa 525: 1381, 1514.
I, pp. 1-742; Vol. 11, pp. 743-1719.]
State V. Monongahela Riv. R. R. Co.,
37 W. Va. 108. 1643.
V. Monroe, 40 Wash. 545: 358.
V. Montclair R. R. Co., 35 N. J. L.
328: 787.
V. Morse, 51 N. H. 98: 969.
V. Muncie Pulp Co., 119 Tenn. 47:
104.
V. Murphy, 130 Mo. 10: 346, 476.
V. Murphy (Mo.) 34 S. W. 51:
346.
V. National Docks etc. R. R. Co., 54
N. J. L. 180: 1088.
V. National Docks etc. R. R. Co.,
57 N. J. L. 183: 1063.
V. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. 88: 476.
V. Nelson, 57 Wis. 147: 974, 1087.
V. Neptune City, 57 N. J. L. 302:
300.
V. Neville, 110 Mo. 345: 928, 1638.
V. Newark, 25 N. J. L. 411: 1014.
V. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185: 734,
735.
V. Newark, 28 N. J. L. 491: 700.
V. Newark, 28 N. J. L. 529 : 782.
V. Newark, 35 N. J. L. 168: 14.
V. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 62: 683,
724, 1068.
V. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 102: 304,
014, 1666.
V. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 309 : 300.
V. New Brunswick, 58 N. J. L. 225 :
514, 917.
V. New Boston, 11 N. H. 407: 423.
V. New Haven etc. R. R. Co., 43
Conn. 351: 476.
V. New Haven etc. Co., 45 Conn.
331; 728.
V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 98 Minn.
429: 1289, 1644.
V. Northrup, 18 N. J. L. 271: 979,
981.
V. Noyes, 47 Maine 189: 407, 409,
487.
V. O'Connor, 78 Wis. 282 : 980, 983,
1021, 1381.
V. Officer, 4 Ore. 180: 1034, 1516.
V. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind. 21: 164,
470.
V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 38 W. Va.
242: 1643.
V. Oliver, 24 N. J. L. 129: 992,
1368.
V. Olynipia L. & P. Co., 46 Wash.
511: 536, 537, 594.
V. Orange, 32 N. J. L. 49: 941,
972, 1017, 1032.
V. Orange, 54 N. J. L. Ill: 514,
675, 738, 1057, 1666.
V. Oshkosh, 84 Wis. 548: 1005,
1021, 1395, 1397.
OASES CITED.
cdxix
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
State V. Oshkosh etc. R. R. Co., 100
Wis. 538: 1412, 1423.
V. Otis, 53 Minn. 318: 1164, 1167.
V. Otoe Co., 6 Neb. 129: 969, 1017,
1018, 1021, 1031, 1032, 1033.
V. Paine Lumber Co., 84 Wis. 205:
887.
V. Park Comrs., 33 Minn. 524:
1531.
V. Passaic, 36 N. J. L. 382: 695,
734, 1017, 1396.
V. Passaic, 37 N. J. L. 65: 734.
V. Pendergrass, 106 N. C. 664: 469.
V. Pennsylvania Co., 133 Ind. 700
488.
V. Perth Amboy, 52 N. J. L. 132
927, 1154, 1155, 1156.
V. Perth Amboy, 57 N. J. L. 482
1086.
V. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. St. 101
1523, 1525.
V. Phipps, 4 Ind. 515: 779.
V. Pierson, 37 N. J. L. 363: 1381.
V. Pilsbury, 82 Minn. 359 : 463.
V. Pitman, 88 Iowa 252: 976.
V. Plainfield, 41 N. J. L. 138 : 893,
894, 1021, 1023, 1035.
V. Polk Co. Comrs., 87 Minn. 325:
494, 567, 576, 710, 979, 1395.
V. Potts, 4 N. J. L. 347: 1156.
V. Pownal, 10 Maine 24: 916.
V. Price, 21 Md. 448: 513.
V. Prine, 25 Iowa 231: 1033, 1516.
V. Proprietors of Morris Aqueduct
Co., 58 N. J. L. 303: 912.
V. Prosser, 2 Wash. 530: 118, 136.
V. Prosser, 4 Wash. 816: 118.
V. Putnam Co., 23 Fla. 632: 171.
V. Railway Co., 40 Ohio St. 504:
528, 529, 534.
V. Railroad Comrs., 56 Conn. 308:
524, 714, 1638.
v. Ramseyer, 73 N. H. 31: 479.
V. Rapp, 39 Minn. 65: 675, 683,
684, 927, 930, 982, 1637.
V. Reckless, 38 N. J. L. 393: 1105.
V. Red Lodge, 30 Mont. 338: 342,
362, 685.
V. Red Lodge, 33 Mont. 345: 342,
362.
V. Redmond, 134 Wis. 89: 470.
V. Reed, 38 N. H. 59 : 823, 1004.
V. Richereek, 167 Ind. 217: 479.
V. Richmond, 26 N. H. 232: 1511.
V. Rivers, 5 Ired. L. 297 : 1499.
V. Rixie, 50 Wash. 676 : 865.
V. Robb, 100 Maine 180: 474.
V. Robert P. Lewis Co., 72 Minn.
87: 11, 464.
V. Robert P. Lewis Co., 82 Minn.
390: 11, 464.
State V. Runyan, 24 N. J. L. 256:
1366.
V. Rutherford, 55 N. J. L. 540: 236.
V. Ryan, 127 Wis. 599: 514, 1515,
1638.
V. Rve, 35 N. H. 368: 1376, 1381,
1511.
V. St. Louis, 62 Mo. 244: 1186.
v. St. Louis, 67 Mo. 113: 1031,
1032.
V. St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551: 534.
V. St. Louis, 161 Mo. 371: 199.
V. St. Louis, 1 Mo. App. 503: 1031,
1086, 1358.
V. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 78 Minn.
331: 309, 361, 467.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 35 Minn.
131: 487, 714, 1642, 1644.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 38 Minn.
246: 487, 1642, 1644.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 62 Minn.
450: 874.
V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 98 Minn.
380: 490, 1288, 1289, 1642, 1644.
V. Salem Water Co., 5 Ohio C. C.
58: 679, 683, 689.
V. Sargent, 45 Conn. 358: 129, 136,
470.
V. Sayer, 41 N. J. L. 158: 608.
V. Schanck, 9 N. J. L. 107 : 1365.
V. Schilb, 47 Iowa 611: 1361.
V. School District, 79 Mo. App.
103: 893, 921, 1532.
V. Scott, 22 Neb. 628: 686.
V. Scott, 9 N. J. L. 17: 1095, 1358.
V. Scott County Road Co., 207 Mo.
54: 460.
V. Scougal, 3 S. D. 55 : 479.
V. Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co., 48
Fla. 150: 481.
V. Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co., 139
N. C. 366: 1655.
V. Several Parcels of Land, 79 Neb.
638: 1164, 1167.
V. Seymour, 35 N. J. L. 47: 432,
434, 1155, 1156.
V. Shardlow, 43 Minn. 524: 1289.
V. Sheboygan, 111 Wis. 23: 343,
358, 362, 682.
V. Shelton, 154 Mo. 670: 1412,
1424.
V. Shivers, 58 N. J. L. 124: 300.
V. Shreeve, 15 N. J. L. 57 : 1420.
V. Shreve, 4 N. J. L. 297: 979,
1022, 1102.
V. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co., 43
Iowa 501: 1472.
V. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co., 40
Neb. 682: 483.
V. Simons, 145 Ala. 95: 434.
V. Smiley, 65 Kan. 240: 594.
cclxx
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
State V. Smith, 58 Minn. 35: 476.
V. Smith, 100 N. C. 550: 970, 1509,
1511.
V. Smith, 21 N. J. L. 91: 1363.
V. Snedecker, 30 N. J. L. 80: 363,
400.
V. Snook, 53 Ohio St. 521 : 809.
V. Snow, 3 E. I. 64: 485.
V. South Amboy, 57 N. J. L. 252:
878, 887.
V. Spencer, 53 Kan. 655: 687, 927.
V. Sewart, 74 Wis. 620: 565, 567,
568, 570, 582, 675.
V. Stiles, 13 N. J. L. 172: 1382.
V. Stockhouse, 14 S. C. 417: 520,
721.
V. Stoke, 80 Iowa 68 : 1469.
V. Stoner, 39 Ind. App. 104: 199,
356.
V. Summerville, 104 La. 74: 1159,
1568.
V. Sunapee Dam Co., 70 N". H. 458 :
117, 138.
V. Superior, 81 Wis. 649: 1167,
1168.
V. Superior, 108 Wis. 16: 615, 1356,
1637.
V. Superior Court (Wash.) 99 Pac.
3: 538.
V. Superior Court, 26 Wash. 278:
53, 56, 1161, 1581, 1586, 1591,
1612, 1615.
V. Superior Court, 28 Wash. 317
739.
V. Superior Court, 29 Wash. 1
512, 1057.
V. Superior Court, 30 Wash. 219
181, 1412.
V. Superior Ct., 31 Wash. 32: 1412
V. Superior Court, 31 Wash. 445
746, 1034, 1036.
V. Superior Ct., 33 Wash. 542
563, 1072.
V. Superior Ct., 35 Wash. 303 : 725
V. Superior Court, 36 Wash. 381
709, 746.
V. Superior Court, 40 Wash. 389
759, 760.
V. Superior Court, 41 Wash. 450
1429.
V. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 521
513, 1027, 1072.
V. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 660
508, 537, 591, 594.
V. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 675
528, 533, 1046.
V. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 684
1416, 1429.
V. Superior Ct., 43 Wash. 34: 1413
V. Superior Ct., 43 Wash. 91: 1407
State V. Superior Court, 44 Wash,
108: 912, 917, 1073, 1208.
V. Superior Court, 44 Wash. 476
721, 739, 895, 1058, 1062.
V. Superior Court, 44 Wash. 554
1412.
V. Superior Court, 45 Wash. 270
760.
V. Superior Court, 45 Wash. 316
1073.
V. Superior Court, 45 Wash. 316
754, 799, 1073.
V. Superior Court, 45 Wash. 321
980.
V. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 35
1412.
V. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 303
1412.
V. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 500
73, 908.
V. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 516
533, 1060, 1062, 1064, 1068.
V. Superior Court, 47 Wash. 11
512, 1511, 1516.
V. Superior Court, 47 Wash. 166
787, 792, 796, 798, 894, 897.
V. Superior Court, 47 Wash. 310
976, 989.
V. Superior Court, 47 Wash. 397
501, 544, 1051, 1071.
V. Superior Court, 48 Wash. 277
54, 502, 897, 988, 1051, 1073.
V. Superior Court, 49 Wash. 390
1073.
V. Superior Court, 49 Wash. 392
1068.
V. Superior Court, 50 Wash. 13
537, 591, 1043.
V. Supervisors, 66 Wis. 199: 1532
V. Supervisoi-s, 68 Wis. 502: 976
V. Taff, 37 Conn. 392: 1372.
V. Tarrelly, 36 Mo. App. 282: 700.
V. Taylor, 54 S. C. 294: 868.
V. Taylor, 107 Tenn. 455 : 197, 384,
390, 404, 1596.
V. Taylor, 36 Wash. 607: 408, 40P.
V. Ten Eyck, 18 N. J. L. 373: 1416.
V. Tenny, 58 S. C. 215: 697.
V. Theriault, 70 Vt. 617: 471.
V. Thompson, 46 Minn. 302: 1380.
V. Toledo, 48 Ohio St. 112: 536.
V. Toledo Ry. & T. Co., 1 Ohio C.
C. (N. S.) 513: 533.
V. Tower, 84 Maine 444: 411.
V. Towers, 71 Conn. 657: 338.
V. Trask, 6 Vt. 355 : 872.
V. Travis Co., 85 Tex. 435: 872,
892, 1496.
V. Trenton, 35 N. J. L. 485 : 1092.
V. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 79: 301,
317.
CASES CITED.
cclxxi
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-712; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
State V. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 198:
697, 700, 1511.
V. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 499: 893,
894, 1004, 1011, 1011, 1013, 1014.
V. Trenton, 53 N. J. L. 178: 1017,
1024.
V. Trenton, 54 N. J. L. 92: 304,
914, 1666.
V. Trenton Pass. R. R. Co., 58 N.
J. L. 666: 313, 316.
V. Troth, 34 N. J. L. 377: 700, 817,
818 819
V, Troth, 36 N. J. L. 422: 817.
V. Twiford, 136 N. C. 603: 113.
V. Union, 33 N. J. L. 350: 734,
735.
V. Union, 37 N. J. L. 268 : 1083.
T. Union Terminal R. R. Co., 72
Ohio St. 455: 716.
V. Vanbuskirlc, 21 N. J. L. 86:
1099, 1381.
V. Vandevere, 25 N. J. L. 233:
1419.
V. VanGeison, 15 N. J. L. 339: 707,
1095, 1102, 1358.
V. Varnum, 81 Wis. 593: 1018,
1637.
V. Vineland, 56 N. J. L. 474: 349,
1487, 1666.
V. Wabash etc. R. R. Co., 83 Mo.
144: 488.
V. Wabash R. R. Co., 206 Mo. 251:
1642.
V. Waite, 2 Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 49:
1410.
T. Waite, 70 Ohio St. 149: 1410.
V. Waldron, 17 N. J. L. 369 : 1706.
V. Wallman, 110 Wis. 312: 1396,
1412.
V. Walters, 69 Mo. 463 : 865.
v. Warner, 51 Mo. App. 174: 865.
V. Waterman, 79 la. 360: 865, 870,
1020, 1031.
V. Weare, 38 N. H. 314: 1100, 1101,
1511, 1518.
V. Weimer, 64 la. 243 : 1032.
V. Welch, 66 N. H. 178: 109, 115.
V. Wellman, 83 Me. 282: 1637.
V. Wells, 142 N. C. 590: 1460,
1462.
V. Wertzel, 62 Wis. 184: 1368,
1520.
V. West Hoboken, 37 N. J. L. 77 :
992, 1154.
V. West Hoboken, 54 N. J. L. 508 :
698.
V. Wheeler, 97 Wis. 96: 1403.
V. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co., 18
How. 421 : 98.
V. White, 151 Ind. 364: 1529.
State V. White River Power Co., 30
Wash. 648: 505, 508, 537, 538,
591
V. Williams, 125 Ala. 115: 1428.
V. Willingborough Road, 1 N. J. h.
128: 1088.
V. Wilson, 17 Wis. 687 : 1087, 1532.
V. Wilton R. R. Co., 19 N. H. 521:
712.
V. Wis. Cent. Ry. Co., 123 Wis.
551: 1483, 1645, 1646.
V. Witherspoon, 75 N. C. 222:
1511.
V. Withrow, (Mo.) 24 S. W. 638:
1566.
V. Woodmanse, 1 N. D. 246: 478.
V. Woodruff, 36 N. J. L. 204: 1364,
1368, 1416.
V. Woodward, 9 N. J. L. 21 : 1417.
V. Wright, 54 N. J. L. 130: 119,
1021, 1082.
V. Youger, 29 N. J. L. 384: 1358.
State Bank v. State, 1 Blackf. 267:
417.
State Board v. People, 229 111. 430:
731.
State Historical Assn. v. Lincoln, 14
Neb. 336: 420.
Staten Island M. R. R. Co. v. Staten
Island Elec. R. R. Co., 34 N. Y.
App. Div. 181: 764.
Staten Island Rapid Transit R. R.
Co., Matter of., 38 Hun 381:
1047.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Co.,
Matter of, 41 Hun 392: 1106.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Co.,
Matter of, 47 Hun 396: 1096,
1379.
Staten Island Rapid Transit Co.,
Matter of, 103 N. Y. 251: 815.
State Line Telephone Co. v. Ellison,
121 App. Div. 499: 322.
State Lunatic Asylum v. Worcester
Co., 1 Met. 437: 1135.
State Park Comrs. v. Henry, 38
Minn. 266: 675, 1227, 1324,
1669, 1673.
State St., In re, 8 Pa. St. 485: 1381.
State Water Supply Commission v.
Curtis, 125 App. Div. 117: 710,
1008.
V. Curtis, 192 N. Y. 319: 710, 1008.
Staton V. Atl. Coast Line R. R. Co.,
147 N. C. 428: 180, 255, 304,
1581, 1583, 1717.
V. Norfolk, R. R. Co., Ill N. C.
278: 23, 146, 155, 156, 1449,
1455.
ccLxxii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Stauffer v. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co.,
33 Ind. App. 356: 807, 1270,
1481, 1517, 1519.
V. East Stroudsburg, 215 Pa. St.
143: 1129, 1226, 1713, 1714.
Staunchfeld v. Newton, 142 Mass.
110: 143.
Stearns v. Barre, 73 Vt. 281: 7, 21,
502, 677, 814, 815, 1055, 1061,
1067.
V. Deerfield, 51 N. H. 372: 1382.
Stearns' County v. St. Cloud etc. K.
R. Co., 36 Minn. 425: 1622.
Steam's Exrs. v. Richmond, 88 Va.
992: 194, 196, 229, 441, 442,
1453, 1488.
Stebbins v. Evanston, 136 111. 37:
1255.
Steele's Petition, 44 N. H. 220 : 1087.
Steel V. Portland, 23 Or. 176: 872,
878.
V. Tanana Mines Ry. Co., 2
Alaska, 451 : 1568.
Steele v. County Comrs., 83 Ala. 304:
9, 21, 520, 1421.
V. Empson, 142 Ind. 397: 1086,
1383.
V. Midland R. R. Co., L. R. 1 Ch.
App. 275: 822.
V. Sanchez, 72 la. 65 : 106.
V. Western Inland Lock Nav. Co., 2
Johns. 283: 1310, 1456.
Steelton Borough v. East Harris-
burgh Pass. R. R. Co., 11 Pa. Co.
Ct. 161: 297, 299, 1622.
Steers v. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 51 : 122,
127.
Steets V. isew York EI. R. R. Co., 79
Hun 288: 1152.
Stehr V. Mason City etc. Ry. Co.,
77 Neb. 641: 378, 391, 664, 1297,
1303.
Steigerwald v. Manhattan Ry. Co.,
50 App. Div. 487: 1122, 1144.
Steinaur v. Tell City, 146 Ind. 490:
884, 888.
Stein V. Ashby, 24 Ala. 521 : 73.
V. Ashby, 30 Ala. 363, 73.
V. Bienville Water Supply Co., 34
Fed. 145: 414, 416.
V. Burden, 24 Ala. 130: 73, 77.
V. Burden, 29 Ala. 127: 73.
V. La Fayette, 6 Ind. App. 414:
937, 1648, 1656.
V. Mobile, 24 Ala. 591 : 10, 462.
Steinert v. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 12 Miscl. 370. 1304.
Steinhart v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.
575: 1159, 1160, 1461, 1467.
Steinmeyer v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App.
256: 234.
Stenson v. Mt. Vernon, 104 App. Div.
17: 609, 610, 616, 617.
Stephen v. Commissioners, 36 Kan.
664: 1028.
Stephens v. Marshall, 3 Chand. Wis.
222: 695.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 61
App. Div. 612: 323, 836.
V. New lork etc. R. R. Co., 175 N.
Y. 72: 323, 327, 836.
Stephenson v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 68
Mo. App. 642: 180.
Stephenville v. Brown, 29 Tex. Civ.
App. 384: 453.
Stephensville v. Overby, 3 Tex. Civ.
App. 173: 982.
Sterling's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 35:
172, 176, 337, 1594.
Sterling v. Pawnee Ditcn Co., 42
Colo. 421 : 1603.
Sterling I. & Z. Co. v. Sparks Mfg.
Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 824: 82, 824,
1604.
Sternberger v. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 2 Miscl. 113: 1150.
Sterrett v. Delmar Ave. Ry. Co., 108
Mo. App. 650: 1695.
Sterrett Township Road, In re, 114
Pa. St. 627: 981, 1011, 1364.
Sterrett Tp. Road, 123 Pa. St. 231:
700.
Sterritt v. Bangor, 60 Me. 313: 1326.
v. Bangor, 73 Me. 357 : 1326.
V. Chicago & Evanston R. R. Co.,
75 111. 74: 639, 1581.
T. Faxon, 19 Pick. 147: 649.
V. Young, 14 Wyo. 146: 1005,
1016, 1040, 1570, 1572.
Stettegast v. Houston, 38 Tex. Civ.
App. 623: 328.
Steubenville etc. Ry. Co. v. Cleveland
etc. Ry. Co., 2 Ohio N. P. (N.
S.) 45: 759.
V. Patrick, 7 Ohio St. 170: 1422,
1464.
Steubing v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
138 N. Y. 658: 1301.
Stevens v. Board of Supvrs., 41 la.
341: 976.
V. Cedar Rapids, 128 la. 227 : 602.
V. County Comrs., 97 Me. 121:
1417, 1418.
V. Danbury, 53 Conn. 9: 1673,
1688.
V. Duck River Navigation Co., 1
Sneed 237: 1078, 1670, 1671,
1685.
V. Erie R. R. Co., 21 N. J. Eq. 259 :
788, 160/.
Stevens v. Goffstown, 21 N. H. 454:
1389.
OASES CITED.
cclxxiii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Stevens v. King, 76 Me. 197: 1524.
V. Manchester, 63 N. H. 390: 818.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 130 N.
Y. 95: 1305.
V. New lork El. R. R. Co. 57 N.
Y. Supr. Ct. 416: 1305.
V. Patterson etc. R. R. Co., 34 N.
J. L. 532: 117, 121, 128, 131.
V. Proprietors of the Middlesex
Canal, 12 Mass. 466: 1522.
V. St. Louis Merchants Bridge T.
Ry. Co., 152 Mo. 212: 425: 1483.
V. Stevens, 11 Met. 251: 857.
V. Worcester, 196 Mass. 45: 74,
1637.
Stevenson v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.
(Mo.) 31 S. W. 793: 314, 316,
1294.
V. New York, 3 N. Y. Supr. 133:
695.
Stevens Point Boom Co. v. Reilly, 44
Wis. 295: 99, 680.
V. Reilly, 46 Wis. 237 : 99.
Stewart's Appeal, 56 Pa. St. 413:
687.
Stewart v. Baltimore, 7 Md. 500:
431, 917, 927.
V. Board of Police, 25 Miss. 479:
929, 1000.
V. Chicago General Street R. R.
Co., 166 111. 61: 1586.
V. Chicago General St. R. R. Co.,
58 111. App. 446: 1586.
V. Clinton, 79 Mo. 603 : 234.
V. Conley, 122 Ala. 179: 890.
V. Council Bluffs, 84 la. 61: 603,
618, 1306, 1308, 1339.
V. County, 2 Pa. St. 340: 1325,
1704.
V. Great Northern R. R. Co., 65
Minn. 515: 535, 675, 776.
V. Hartman, 46 Ind. 331: 516, 517.
V. Ohio Riv. R. B. Co., 38 W. Va.
438: 201, 248, 249, 256, 640, 642,
1294, 1299, 1550, 1552, 1649,
1657.
V. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183: 1005.
V. Raymond R. R. Co., 7 S. & M.
568: 947, 1535, 1570.
V. Rutland, 58 Vt. 12: 142, 1251,
1457.
V. Supervisors of Polk County, 30
la. 9: 462.
T. Wallis, 30 Barb. 344: 707, 1102,
1517, 1638.
Stewart Wire Co. v. Lehigh C. & N.
Co., 203 Pa. St. 474: 1603, 1615,
1616.
Stickford v. St. Louis, 75 Mo. ao9:
607, 617.
v. St. Louis, 7 Mo. App. 217:
607, 617, 631.
Stillman v. Northern Pac. etc. R. R.
Co., 34 Minn. 420: 1314.
v. Pendleton, 26 R. I. 585: 155.
1651, 1655, 1656.
Stillwater v. Lowry, 83 Minn. 275:
298.
Stillwater Board of Education v. Al-
dridge, 13 Okla. 205: 1005, 1016
Stillwater etc. St. Ry. Co., Matter of,
72 App. Div. 294: 291, 773.
Stillwater etc. St. Ry. Co., Matter
of, 171 N. Y. 589: 291, 772.
Stillwater etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston
etc. R. R. Co., 67 App. Div. 367 :
1423.
V. Slade, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 587:
897
V. Stillwater, 66 Minn. 176: 1719.
Stillwater Water Co. v. Farmer, 89
Minn 58: 162.
V. Stillwater, 50 Minn. 498: 352.
Stillwell V. Kenedy, 36 Misc. 359:
1562.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 39 Mo.
App. 221: 840, 852, 853, 1646.
Stiltz V. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515:
466.
Stimmel v. Brown, 1 Houst. 219 :
440.
Stinson v. Brookline, 197 Mass. 568:
91.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 27 Minn.
284: 1139, 1235.
V. Dunbarton, 46 N. H. 385: 1388.
Stinson Mill Co. v. Board of Harbor
Line Comrs., (Wash.) 29 Pac.
938: 118.
Stith V. Louisville etc. E. E. Co., 109
Ky. 168: 152.
Stockdale v. Rio Grande Western R.
R. Co., 28 Utah 201: 57, 318,
449, 533, 640, 654, 661, 1580,
1590, 1612.
Stock V. Boston, 149 Mass. 410: 142.
V. Jefferson Township, 114 Mich.
357: 78, 1603.
Stocker v. Nemaha County, 72 Neb.
255: 1446, 1450, 1456.
V. Nemaha Co., 4 Neb. (Unof.)
230: 1606.
Stockett V. Nicholson, Walker, Miss.
75: 706, 1517.
Stockley \. Robbstown Bridge Co., 5
Watts 546: 1489.
Stockport etc. Ry. Co., In re, 33 L.
J. Q. B. 251: 1315.
Stockton V. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
32 Fed. 9: 96.
V. Chicago, 136 111. 434: 1426.
V. North Jersey St. R. R. Co., (N.
J. Ch.) 34 Atl. 688: 300.
cclxxiv
CASES CITED.
IThe references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Stockton etc. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 9
H. L. 246: 1067.
V. Galgiani, 49 Cal. 139: 1275,
1386.
V. Stockton, 41 Cal. 147 : 497.
Stockton & Linden Gravel Co. v.
Stodden & Copperopolis R. E.
Co., 53 Cal. 11: 1292.
Stoddard v. Saratoga Springs, 127
N. Y. 261: 141.
Stodghill V. Chicago etc. E.. R. Co.,
43 la. 26: 846, 847, 1454, 1476.^
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 53 la.
341: 1551, 1648, 1654.
Stofflet V. Estes, 104 Mich. 208: 96,
97, 133.
Stokes V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 47
App. Div. 58: 1562.
V. Parker, 53 N. J. L. 183: 939.
Stolze V. Manitowoc Terminal Co.,
100 Wis. 208: 1128, 1138, 1245,
1441.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 104
Wis. 47: 1441, 1464, 1536, 1578.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 113
Wis. 44: 1435, 1442, 1462, 1464,
1536, 1578.
Stone V. Augusta, 46 Me. 127: 87,
195, 236, 456, 1454, 1548.
V. Boston, 2 Met. 220: 1017, 1420,
V. Cambridge, 6 Cush. 270: 1361.
V. Commercial Ry. Co., 9 Sim. 621 :
823
V. Fairbury etc. R. R. Co., 68 111.
394: 639, 654.
V. Farmers L. & T. Co., 116 U. S.
307: 480, 482.
V. Heath, 135 Mass. 561: 1317.
V. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 116 U.
S. 347: 482.
V. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814: 469,
736.
v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 75 Kan. 600:
1248, 1249, 1457, 1485, 1519,
1646, 1647.
V. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co., 116
U. S. 352: 480.
V. New York, 25 Wend. 157 : 1277.
1411.
V. So. 111. & Mo. Bridge Co., 206
U. S. 267: 684.
V. State, 138 N. Y. 124: 89, 144.
Stoneham v. London etc. Ry. Co., 7
L. R. Q. B. 1: 957.
Stoner v. Rice, 121 Ind. 51 : 109.
Stonington v. States, 31 Conn. 213:
678.
Stopf V. Wolt, 177 111. 620: 1561.
Storch V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
131 N. Y. 514: 1301.
Storck V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
131 N. Y. 514: 1196, 1296.
Store V. San Jose etc. Ry. Co., 150
CaL 277: 314.
Storer v. Hobbs, 52 Me. 144: 1634.
Stork V. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. St.
101: 1251, 1639.
Storm V. Manehaug Co., 13 Allen,
10: 554, 557, 559.
Storm Lake v. Iowa Falls & Sioux
City Ry. Co., 62 la. 218: 952.
Storms v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 77
App. Div. 94: 1562.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 178 N. Y.
493: 1562.
Storrs V. Pensacola & A. R. R. Co.,
29 Fla. 617: 480.
Story V. New York Elevated R. E.
Co., 3 Abb. New Cases 478: 260.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y.
122: 67, 178, 183, 186, 187, 197,
199, 202, 249, 254, 260.
V. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y.
149: 428.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y.
161: 337.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 90 N.
Y. 177: 333.
T. Ullmaii, 88 Md. 244: 888.
Story St., In re, 11 Phila. 456: 1327.
Stoudinger v. Newark, 28 N. J. Eq.
187: 335.
V. Newark, 28 N. J. Eq. 446: 335.
Stough V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 71
la. 641: 1549.
Stoughton V. Paul, 173 Mass. 148:
1071.
Stout V. Freeholders, 25 N. J. L. 202:
678.
V. Hopping, 17 N. J. L. 471: 1638.
Stowe V. Newborn, 127 Ga. 421 : 679,
704.
Stowell V. Board of Public Works,
184 Mass. 416: 1511, 1523.
V. Flagg, 11 Mass. 364: 544, 1522.
V. Johnson, 7 Utah 215: 70.
V. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 523: 615,
619, 1123, 1307.
Stowers v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 68
Miss. 559: 338, 1593.
Stoy V. Indiana Hydraulic Power Co.,
166 Ind. 316: 536.
Strachen v. Brown, 39 Mich. 168:
1004, 1010, 1013, 1420.
Strack v. Miller, 134 Mich. 311: 1624.
Strader v. Cincinnati, 1 Handy 446:
197, 369, 385, 388, 404, 405,
1497.
Strafford's Petition, X4 N. H. 30;
1069,
OASES CITED.
cclxxv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Strang v. Braddoek, 172 Pa. St. 600 :
1402.
V. New York Rubber Co., 1 Sween-
ey 78: 1260.
Slrahan v. Attala County, 91 Miss.
529 • 1057.
V. Malvern, 77 la. 454: 1071.
Strahlem v. Shelby Co. Comrs., 1
Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 249: 1569,
1571.
Strattan v. Co. Court, 65 Mo. 644:
1638.
V. Gt. Western & Brentford Ry.
Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 50: 1536, 1578,
1632.
Stratton's Petition, 21 N. H. 44: 917.
Stratton v. Elliott, 83 Ind. 425 : 422.
V. Omaha etc. R. R. Co., 37 Neb.
477: 856, 1633.
Strauss v. AUentown, 215 Pa. St. 96:
79.
Streets. Leete, 79 Conn. 352: 887.
V. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co., 43
La. An. 116: 1316, 1546, 1547.
Street Ry. Co. of Grand Rapids v.
West Side St. Ry. Co., 48 Mich.
433: 307, 415, 791.
Stretch v. Cassopolis, 125 Mich. 167:
349.
Streyer v. Georgia etc. R. R. Co., 90
Ga. 56: 639, 1112, 1147, 1294,
1301, 1337.
Stribley v. Cincinnati, 9 Ohio C. C.
122: 1225.
Strickford v. Boston etc. R. R. Co.,
73 N. H. 81 : 296, 622.
Strickland v. Penn. R. R. Co., 154
Pa. St. 348: 460, 953.
Strickler v. Colorado Springs, 16 Col.
61: 428.
V. Midland R. R. Co., 125 Ind.
412: 246, 1631.
Stricklev v. Chesapeake & 0. R. R.
Co.,' 93 Ky. 323: 252, 310, 1545,
1648, 1657.
V. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co.,
200 U. S. 527: 504, 563, 595,
596, 599.
Striker v. Kelley, 2 Denio, 323: 12.
V. Kelley, 7 Hill 9 : 12.
Stritesky v. Cedar Rapids, 98 la.
373: 324.
Strobel v. Ephrota, 178 Pa. St. 50:
169.
V. Kerr Salt Co., 164 N. Y. 303:
69, 71.
Strocker v. St. Joseph, 117 Mo, App.
350; 1300, 1307,
Strohecker v. Ala. R. R. Co., 42 Ga.
509: 1568.
Strong V. Beloit & Madison R. R. Co.,
16 Wis. 635, 1083.
V. Brooklyn, 12 Hun 453 : 1629.
V. Brooklyn, 68 N. Y. 1: 424, 808,
1500, 1628.
V. Clem, 12 Ind. 37 : 943.
V. Co. Comrs., 31 Me. 578: 1414.
V. Makeever, 102 Ind. 578: 1362.
V. N. W. El. R. R. Co., 64 111. App.
533: 1585.
Stroub V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 59
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 505: 1584.
Stroudsburg Borough v. Stroudsburg
Pass. R. R. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct.
124: 25, 300, 306.
V. Wilkes-Barre etc. R. R. Co., 12
Pa. Co. Ct. 395: 306.
Strousky v. Hickman, 116 la. 651:
820, 1510.
Strout V. Millbridge Co., 45 Me. 76:
1525.
Strunk v. Pritchell, 27 Ind. App.
582: 889.
Struthers v. Dunkirk etc. Ry. Co., 87
Pa. St. 282: 255.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 5 Misel.
239: 1296, 1302.
V. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 174 Pa. St.
288: 1201.
Stuart V. Baltimore, 7 Md. 500 : 434.
V. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183: 1007.
Stubbings v. Evanston, 136 111. 37:
1255.
Stuber's Road, 28 Pa. St. 199: 519.
Studebaker v. New Castle Gas Co., 7
Pa. Supr. Ct. 641: 1634.
Studler v. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 98:
1272.
Stufflebeam v. Montgomery, 3 Ida.
20: 351.
Stump's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 33: 176.
Stumpe V. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co.,
61 Mo. App. 357: 1484.
Stumer v. County Court, 42 W. Va.
724: 420.
Sturs V. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 51: 129.
Sturtevant v. Milwaukee etc. R. R.
Co., 11 Wis. 63: 1536, 1578.
V. Plymouth Co., 12 Met. 7: 849.
Stuttgart V. John, 85 Ark. Ill: 877,
1493.
Stuyvesant v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 4
App. Div. 159: 1144.
Suburban Lt. & Power Co. v. Board
of Aldermen, 153 Mass. 200:
345,
cclxxvi
OASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Suburban R. E. Co., v. Met. W. S. El.
R. R. Co., 193 111. 217 : 759, 792,
1071.
Suburban Rapid Transit Co., Matter
of, 16 Abb. N. C. 152: 991, 1071.
Suburban Rapid Transit Co., Matter
of, 38 Hun 553: 991, 1071, 1075.
Suburban Rapid Transit Co. v. New
York, 128 N. Y. 510: 773, 909.
Sudberry v. Graves, 83 Ark. 344: 735,
1018, 1513.
Sudd V. Maiden R. E. Co., 6 Exeh.
143: 1064.
Suffield V. Hatheway, 44 Conn. 521:
1487.
V. Northampton Co., 53 Conn. 367 :
487.
Suffolk V. Parker, 79 Va. 660: 453.
Suffolk Co. Telephone Co. v. Gam-
mon, 113 App. Div. 764: 986.
Suffolk etc. Ry. Co. v. West End
Land & Imp. Co., 137 N. C. 330:
1149, 1187, 1232.
Sugarloaf Tp. Road, 6 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 469: 1105.
Sugar Refining Co. v. Jersey City, 26
N. J. Eq. 247: 117, 133.
Suisun City v. De Feritas, 142 Cal.
350:
Suits V. Murdock, 63 Ind. 73: 1365,
1514.
Sullens V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 74
la. 659: 150, 1639, 1650, 1653,
1716.
Sullivan v. Board of Suprs., 58 Miss.
790: 781, 782, 1346.
V. Browning, 67 N. J. Eq. 391 : 149.
V. Fall River, 144 Mass. 579: 605.
V. Johnson, 30 Wash. 72: 1607.
V. Kline, 33 Ore. 260: 515, 1008.
V. La Fayette Co., 61 Miss. 271:
1236, 1385.
V. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 29 Tex.
Civ. App. 429: 1145, 1146, 1228,
1229 1313.
V. North Hudson Co. R. R. Co., 51
N. J. L. 518: 266, 1199, 1201,
1215, 1243.
V. Phillips, 110 Ind. 320: 233, 1606.
V. Robbins, 109 la. 235: 1510.
1-. Tichenor, 179 111. 97: 890.
V. Webster, 16 R. *[. 33: 212, 224.
V. Wilson, 101 Ky. 427: 955.
V. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co., 85 Miss.
649: 1040, 1041, 1638.
Sullivan Timber Co. v. Mobile, 124
Fed. 644: 128, 129.
Sultan W. & P. Co. v. Weyerhauser
Timber Co., 31 Wash. 558: 1207,
1208, 1210.
Summerfield v. Chicago, 197 111. 270 :
357, 586.
Summerville v. Pressley, 33 S. C. 56:
15, 472.
V. Wimbish, 7 Gratt. 205: 1085.
Summit Ave., Matter of, 84 App.
Div. 455: 611.
Summit St., Matter of, 3 How. Pr.
26: 1102.
Sumner v. County Comrs., 37 Maine
112: 979, 1030, 1420.
Summy v. Mulford, 5 Blackf. 202:
1524.
Sunbury etc. R. R. Co. v. Hummell,
27 Pa. St. 99, 1315.
Sunderland v. Martin, 113 Ind. 411:
1578.
Sunderland Bridge Case, 122 Mass.
459: 1382.
Sunier v. Miller, 105 Ind. 393 : 1028,
1510.
Supervisors v. Buffalo, 63 Hun 565:
1325, 1526.
v. Sea View R. R. Co., 23 Hun 180:
322.
V. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305: 594.
V. Stout, 9 V^ Va. 703: 25.
Surgi V. Snetehman, 11 La. Ann.
387: 12.
Surocco V. Geary, 3 Cal. 69: 16.
Susanna Root's Case, 77 Pa. St. 276 :
1187, 1206.
Susquehanna Canal Co. v. Wright, 9
W. & S. 9: 108.
Susquehanna Depot v. Simmons, 112
Pa. St. 384: 336.
Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Malone,
73 Md. 268: 451, 455.
v. Spangler, 86 Md. 562: 455.
Sussex and Morris Road, 13 N. J. L.
157: 973, 1031, 1032, 1033.
Sussman v. San Luis Obispo, 126 Cal.
536: 881, 883.
Sutherland v. Holmes, 78 Mo. 399:
933, 981, 982, 1019, 1086, 1407.
Sutliff V. Johnson, 17 Neb. 575 : 960.
Sutro V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co.,
137 N. Y. 592: 1196, 1296, 1300,
1302.
Sutter County v. Tisdale, 136 Cal.
474: 977, 993, 1058.
Sutton V. Catavpba Power Co., 76 S.
C. 320: 86.
V. Clark, 6 Taunton 28 : 206.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 13 Pa. Dist. Ct.
474: 731.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 211 Pa. St. 554:
731.
V. Pa. E. R. Co., 214 Pa. St. 274:
1129, 1244.
CASES CITED.
cclxxvii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Sutton Harbor Improvement Co. v.
Hitchens, 1 DeG. McN. & G. 161 :
1611.
V. Hitchens, 21 L. J. Ch. N. S. 73:
1611.
Sutton's Heirs v. Louisville, 5 Dana
28: 13, 1182, 1183.
Suver V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 123
111. 293: 980, 1246, 1249, 1369.
Svanson v. Omaha, 38 Neb. 550 : 630.
Svennes v. West Salem, 114 Wis.
650: 915, 1514, 1570, 1571.
Swain v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 188
Mass. 405 : 1304.
Swan V. Davidson County Comrs., 18
Minn. 482: 524.
V. Middlesex Co., 101 Mass. 173:
1122, 1127.
V. Williams, 2 Mich. 427 : 673, 675,
1004, 1013, 1014.
Swann v. Washington Southern Ry.
Co., 108 Va. 282: 744, 1343.
Swanson v. Hallock, 95 Minn. 161:
1186.
V, Miss. & Rum River Boom Co., 42
Minn. 532: 133.
Swanson Street, In re, 163 Pa. St.
323: 399, 400, 974.
Swart V. Saratoga Springs, 25 App.
Div. 622: 84.
V. Saratoga Springs, 164 N. Y.
609: 84.
Swayze v. New Jersey Midland R. R.
Co., 36 N. J. L. 295: 1187, 1377.
Sweaney v. United States, 62 Wis.
390: 937.
Sweatman v. Bathrick, 17 S. D. 138:
882.
Swedish Evangelist Church v. Jack-
son, 229 111. 506: 887, 1493.
Sweek v. Jorgensen, 33 Ore. 270:
1033, 1511.
Sweenev v. Chicago Telephone Co.,
212 111. 475: 930, 1427.
V. Mont. Cent. Ry. Co., 19 Mont.
163: 847.
V. Mont. Cent. Ry. Co., 25 Mont.
543: 847.
V. Shakespeare, 42 La. Ann. 614:
105, 1496.
Sweet V. Boston, 186 Mass. 79: 928,
1003, 1707, 1708, 1709.
V. Buffalo etc. Ry. Co., 13 Hun
643: 1.500.
V. Buffalo etc. Ry. Co., 79 N. Y.
293: 806, 1500.
V. Conley, 20 R. I. 381: 236.
V. Rechel, 37 Fed. 323: 485.
V. Rechel, 159 U. S. 380: 586, 807,
1157, 1165, 1167.
V. Syracuse, 128 N. Y. 680: 739.
Swenson v. Hallock, 95 Minn. 161 :
1218.
V. Lexington, 69 Mo. 157: 253,
307, 1137.
Swett V. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439: 147.
Swift V. Broyles, 115 Ga. 885: 455.
V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 66 N.
J. Eq. 34: 199, 317.
V. Newport News, 105 Va. 108:
631, 633, 1123, 1307, 1524, 1549,
1550, 1552.
Swift & Given's Appeal, 111 Pa. St.
516: 817.
Swikehard v. Michels, 8 Misc. 568:
738.
Swindon Water Works Co. v. Wilts
& Berks Canal Navigation Co.,
L. R. 7 E. & L App. Cas. 697:
74, 77.
Swinhart v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co.,
207 Mo. 423: 315, 1587.
Swope V. Seattle, 35 Wash. 69: 631,
1601, 1612.
V. Seattle, 36 Wash. 113: 1001,
1612.
Symonds v. Cincinnati, 14 Ohio 147:
1175, 1192.
Symons v. San Francisco, 115 Cal.
555: 383, 392, 678, 1668.
Snyder v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 112
Mo. 527: 1161.
Syracuse v. Benedict, 86 Hun 343:
726, 1437.
V. Stacey, 45 App. Div. 249: 744,
1196, 1229. 1263, 1338.
v. Stacey, 86 Hun 441: 698, 994.
V. Stacey, 169 N. Y. 231: 744, 1196,
1229, 1263, 1338.
V. Weyrick, 37 Ind. App. 50: 1568.
Syracuse etc. R. R. Co., Matter of,
4 Hun 311: 1443, 1670.
Syracuse Solar Salt Co. v. Rome etc.
R. R. Co., 67 Hun 153: 243, 247,
1580, 1591, 1651, 1658.
Syracuse Water Co. v. Syracuse, 116
N. Y. 167 : 408, 409.
Taber v. Boston, 190 Mass. 101 : 948,
949, 1563.
V. New Bedford, 135 Mass. 162:
1510.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 28 R.
L 269: 308, 1177, 1180, 1293,
1300.
Tabor v. New York El. R. R. Co., 8
Miscl. 17: 1305.
Tabor Street, 25 Pa. Supr. Ct. 355:
1713.
Tacoma v. State, 4 Wash. 64: 673,
679, 681.
cclxxviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Tacoma v. Wm. Birmingham Co., 50
Wash. 683: 1428.
Taeger v. Rieppe, 90 la. 484: 1577.
Taft V. Commomvealth, 158 Mass.
526: 865, 1132, 1334.
Taggart v. Newport St. E. R. Co., 16
R. I. 326: 279.
V. Newport St. R. R. Co., 16 R. I.
668: 272, 273.
Taintor v. Cambridge, 192 Mass. 522 :
733.
V. Cambridge, 197 Mass. 412: 1366.
V. Morristown, 19 N. J. Eq. 46:
104, 349, 1266, 1487, 1491, 1594.
V. Morristown, 33 N. J. L. 57:
1491.
Tait V. Hall, 71 Cal. 149: 1568.
V. Matthews, 33 Tex. 112: 524,
1163, 1170, 1183, 1635.
Tait's Executor v. Central Lunatic
Asylum, 84 Va. 271: 9, 675, 747.
748, 1158, 1173, 1177.
Talbot V. Hudson, 16 Gray, 417 : 496,
498, 501, 504, 555, 557, 586, 675,
1164, 1166.
V. Richmond etc. R. R. Co., 31
Gratt. 685: 331.
Talcott Bros. v. Des Moines, 134 la.
113: 230, 443.
Taliaferro v. Roach (Ky.) 12 S. W.
1039: 1368.
Talladega Co. Comrs. v. Thompson,
15 Ala. 134: 1017, 1032, 1033,
1412.
Tallahassee Falls Mfg. Co. v. Jones,
128 Ala. 424: 965.
Tallman v. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 121 N. Y. 119: 1298, 1553,
1554, 1651, 1658.
Tallon V. Hoboken, 59 N. J. L. 383:
892.
V. Hoboken, 60 N. J. L. 212- 297,
298, 778.
Tamaqua etc. E. R. Co. v. Inter-Coun-
ty St. R. R. Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Ct.
20: 1621.
Tamaqua & L. St. R. R. Co. v. Inter-
County St. R. E. Co., 167 Pa. St.
91: 300, 910.
Tamasco City v. Brinkmeyer, 12 Ind.
349: 1576.
Tamon v. Kellogg, 49 Mo. 118: 1555.
Tampa Water Works Co. v. Cline, 37
Fla. 586: 69, 161, 165.
Tanner v. Treasury T. M. & R. Co.,
35 Colo. 593 : 498, 499, 564, 593,
674.
Tanninan v. City & Suburban Tel.
Ass., 1 Ohio'N. P. (N. S.) 81:
339, 1593.
Tappan's Petition, 24 N. H. 43:
1376.
Taraldron v. Lime Springs, 92 la.
187* 889
Tarkio v. Clark, 186 Mo. 285: 917,
1032, 1086, 1424.
Tarrytown v. Cobb, 14 Abb. (N. C.)
493: 1412.
Tate V. Greensborough, 114 N. C.
392: 348, 1057, 1488.
V. M. K. & T. R. E. Co., 64 Mo.
149: 246, 248, 253, 324, 1119.
V. Ohio & Miss. E. E. Co., 7 Ind.
479: 178, 251, 307.
V. Eailway Co., 64 Mo. 149: 1545.
V. Sacramento, 50 Cal. 242: 1572.
Taussig V. St. Louis Val. Transfer
Ry. Co., 133 Fed. 220: 715.
Taylor v. Armstrong, 24 Ark. 102:
1486.
V. Austin, 32 Minn. 247: 143.
V. Baltimore, 45 Md. 576 : 807, 809,
1331.
V. B. & 0. R. E. Co., 38 W. Va. 39:
93, 94.
V. Bay City St. R. R. Co., 80 Mich.
77: 622, 691, 1586, 1592.
V. Bay City St. R. R. Co., 101 Mich.
140: 277, 324, 329, 1133, 1323.
V. Black, 3 Bibb 78 : 1427.
v. Burnap, 39 Mich. 739: 1033.
V. Cedar Rapids & St. Paul R. E.
Co., 25 la. 371 : 840.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 63 Wis.
327: 1631.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 81 Wis.
82: 1444.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 83 Wis.
636: 247, 356, 424.
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 83 Wis.
645: 1442.
V. Clemson, 11 Clark & Finnelly
610: 897, 1029.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 88 111. 526
383, 1402.
V. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 759
130, 140.
V. County Comrs., 105 Mass. 225
1082.
V. County Comrs., 18 Pick. 309
965.
V. Erie City Pass. Ey. Co., 212 Pa.
St. 487: 1588.
V. Fla. East Coast E. E. Co., 54
Fla. 635: 843, 851.
V. Hopper, 62 N. Y. 649: 366.
V. Marcy, 25 111. 518: 1460, 1634.
V. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 50
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 311: 1298, 1548,
1552.
V. Metropolitan El. E. R. Co., 55
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 555 : 1298, 1303.
CASES CITED.
cclxxix
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.1
Taylor v. Nashville & Chattanooga E.
E. Co., 6 Cold. 646: 19.
V. New York etc. E. R. Co., 38 N.
J. L. 28: 1480.
V. Norfolk etc. Ey. Co., 162 Fed.
452: 747.
V. Norfolk etc. Ey. Co., 162 Fed.
462: 744.
V. Pettijohn, 24 111. 312: 733.
V. Philippi, 35 W. Va. 554: 878,
887 890
V. Plymouth, 8 Met. 462; 17.
V. Porter. 4 Hill 140: 495, 496,
516. 517.
V. Portsmouth etc. E. E. Co., 91
Me. 193: 272, 281, 333.
V. Eailroad Co.. 38 N. J. L. 28:
807.
V. St. Louis, 14 Mo. 20: 211, 229,
234, 235.
V. St. Paul, 25 Minn. 129: 607, 617,
1524.
V. San Antonio etc. Ey. Co., 36
Tex. Civ. App. 658: 158.
V. Seaboard Air Line E. E. Co.,
145 N. C. 400: 450.
V. Strayer, 167 Ind. 23: 695.
V. Todd, 48 Mo. App. 550: 706,
1025, 1513, 1516, 1517, 1576.
V. Turley, 33 Md. 500: 1256.
V. Waverly, 94 la. 661 : 465.
Taylor Ave. Opening, 146 Pa. St.
638: 1017.
Teachout v. Des Moines Broad Gauge
St. R. E. Co., 75 La. 722: 415.
Tearney v. Smith, 86 111. 391: 233,
1455.
Teaslev v. Stanton, 136 Ala. 641:
368.
Tedens v. Sanitary District, 149 111.
87: 814, 1061, 1063, 1005, 1066,
1107, 1121, 1227.
Teele v. Boston, 165 Mass. 88: 1232.
Teese, Ex parte, 4 Pa. St. 69: 1370.
Tegeler v. Kansas City, 95 Mo. App.
162: 231, 439, 1300, 1307, 1549,
1552, 1658.
Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57:
1223.
Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Forke,
2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. 318: 952,
1123, 1267.
Temple v. Hamilton County, 134 la.
706: 1056, 1058.
Templeton v. Milwaukee L. H. & T.
Co., 134 Wis. 377: 284.
Templin v. Iowa City, 14 la. 59:
235
Ten Bro'eck v. Sherrill, 71 N. Y. 276:
689.
Tenbrooke v. Jahke. 77 Pa. St. 392:
936, 1561.
Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen,
89 App. Div. 526: 14, 490.
v. Moeschen, 90 App. Div. 603 : 14,
490.
v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325: 14, 15,
467, 490.
v. Moeschen, 203 U. S. 583 : 14, 15.
Ten Eyck v. Delaware & Raritan
Canal Co., 18 N. J. L. 200: 70,
86.
Tennessee Cent. R. R. Co. v. Camp-
bell, 109 Tenn. 640: 1042, 1413,
1423, 1424.
V. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 655: 714,
912, 1042, 1413, 1423, 1424.
Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. Co. v.
Birmingham So. Ry. Co., 128
Ala. 526: 697, 1072.
Tennessee etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams,
3 Head 596: 726.
V. Taylor, 102 Ala. 224: 1502.
Terminal R. E. Co., Matter of, 16
App. Div. N. Y. 515: 1086, 1390.
Terminal Ey. Co. v. Gebereux, 55
Misc. 1: 1085.
Terpening v. Smith, 46 Barb. 208:
1018, 1634.
Terre Haute v. Blake, 9 Ind. App.
403: 1680.
V. Evansville etc. R. R. Co., 149
Ind. 174: 733, 926.
V. Turner, 36 Ind. 522: 210.
Terre Haute etc. R. R. Co. v. Bissell,
108 Ind. 113: 246, 248.
V. Crawford, 100 Ind. 550: 1390.
V. Flora, 29 Ind. App. 442: 1192.
V. Harris, 126 Ind. 7 : 1547.
V. Indianapolis etc. Traction Co.,
167 Ind. 193: 1400.
V. McCoy, 113 Ind. 498: 143.
V. McKinley, 33 Ind. 274: 87,
461.
V. Scott, 74 Ind. 29: 1710.
V. Zehner, 166 Ind. 149: 91, 1486.
Terrell v. Paducah, 122 Ky. 331:
104.
Terrell Co. v. York, 127 Ga. 166:
1545.
Terrill v. Bloomfield (Ky.) 21 S. W.
1041: 431.
V. Rankin, 2 Bush. 453: 19.
Terry v. Hartford, 39 Conn. 286:
1219.
v. McClung, 104 Va. 599 : 695, 722.
v. New York Central & Hudson
River R. R. Co., 67 How. Pr.
439: 1501.
V. Richmond, 94 Va. 537: 260,
275, 304, 1667.
V. Waterbury, 35 Conn. 526: 1044,
1069.
cclxxx
CASES CITED.
[Tlie references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Teter v. W. Va. Cent. etc. E. R. Co.,
35 W. Va., 433: 51, 1154, 1156.
Tetherington v. St. Louis etc. K. R.
Co., 226 111. 129: 151.
V. St. Louis etc. R. E. Co., 128
111. App. 139: 152, 1630.
Texarkana v. Leach, 66 Ark. 40 : 363,
372, 383, 399, 405, 646, 1596.
V. Talbot, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 202:
631, 1353.
Texarkana etc. Ry. Co. v. Spencer,
28 Tex. Civ. App. 251: 152.
Texas Central R. R. Co. v. Bowman,
97 Tex. 417: 746.
V. Brown, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 610:
152, 1655.
V. Clifton, 2 Tex. App. Civil Cases
p. 433: 152, 1455, 1552.
Texas etc. R. R. Co. v. Cella, 42
Ark. 528: 1314, 1316, 1329, 1378.
V. Dunn (Tex.) 17 S. W. 822:
155
V. Du'rrett, 57 Tex. 48: 830, 1310.
V. Eddy, 42 Ark. 527: 1149, 1378.
V. Edringtou, 100 Tex. 496: 450,
655, 661, 1716.
V. Goldberg, 68 Tex. 685: 640.
V. Hays, 3 Tex. Civ. App. p. 79, §
57: 1348.
V. Jarrell, 60 Tex. 267: 858, 1627,
1631.
V. Kirby, 44 Ark. 103: 1119, 1122,
1127.
V. Long, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Caa. p.
281: 1552.
v. Maddox, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 297:
152.
v. Marshall, 136 U. S. 393: 833,
841, 852.
v. Matthews, 60 Tex. 215: 1183,
1267.
v. O'Mahoney, 24 Tex. Civ. App.
631: 144.
v. Orange etc. Ry. Co., 29 Tex.
Civ. App. 38: 1467.
V. Rosedale Ry. Co., 64 Tex. 80:
268, 1586.
V. Scott, 77 Fed. 726: 843.
V. Snyder, 18 S. W. 559: 152.
V. So. Development Co., 52 La. An.
535: 1377.
V. Sutor, 56 Tex. 496: 859, 1347.
v. Sutor, 59 Tex. 29: 859.
V. Whitaker, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 571 :
158.
V. Wilson, 108 La. 1 : 1378, 1379.
Texas Midland R. R. Co. v. S. W.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 24 Tex. Civ.
App. 198: 690, 696, 1467.
Texas Pac. R. R. Co. v. Saunders
(Tex.) 18 S. W. 792: 1664.
Texas R. R. Co. v. Eddings, 30 Tex.
Civ. App. 170: 1297.
Texas Trunk R. R. Co. v. Elan, 1
Tex. Civ. App. 201: 92, 158.
Texas Western R. R. Co. v. Cave,
80 Tex. 137: 1226.
V. Wilson, 83 Tex. 153: 864, 869.
Textor v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
107 Md. 221: 1395, 1397, 1398.
Thames Conservators v. Victoria etc.
R. R. Co., 4 L. R. C. P. 59:
1353.
Tharp v. Witham, 65 la. 566: 1576.
Thatcher v. Crisman, 6 Colo. App.
49: 973.
V. Dartmouth Bridge Co., 18 Pick.
501: 6LJ, 1634.
Thaxter v. Turner, 17 R. I. 799 : 183.
877, 880.
Thayer v. Brooks, 17 Ohio 489: 161,
934.
V. Burger, 100 Ind. 262: 977, 1383,
1407.
V. Co. Comrs., 10 Cush. 151: 996.
V. New Bedford R. R. Co., 125
Mass. 253: 117, 131.
V. Rochester City etc. R. R. Co., 15
Abb. N. C. 52: 269, 1586.
Thebodereaux v. Maggioli, 4 La. An.
73: 1341.
Theilan v. Porter, 14 Lea 622 : 485.
Themanson v. Kearney, 35 Neb. 881:
236.
Theobold v. Louisville, N. 0. & T.
R. R. Co., 66 Miss. 279: 180,
188, 197, 201, 243, 247, 249, 253,
295.
Theresa Dr. Dist., In re, 90 Wis. 301 :
495, 565, 567, 568, 570, 582,
738
Thetford v. Kilburn, 36 Vt. 179 : 955,
1005.
Thibodaux v. Thibodaux, 46 La. An.
1528: 169.
Thicknesse v. Lancaster Canal Co., 4
M. & W. 471: 693, 1524.
Thien v. Voegtlande, 3 Wis. 461:
550.
Third Ave. R. R. Co., In re, 56 Hun
537: 302.
Third Ave. R. R. Co., In re, 121
N. Y. 536: 269, 302.
Third Ave. R. R. Co. v. New York
El. R. R. Co., 19 Abb. N. C. 261:
1581.
Third, Fourth & Fifth Avenues, In re,
49 Wash. 109: -828, 916, 993,
1509, 1511.
Thirteenth Street etc. R. R. Co. v.
Southern Pass. R. R. Co., 15 Pa.
Co. Ct. 145: 1621.
OASES OITEB,
cclxxxi
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Thirteenth Street Opening, In re,
147 Pa. St. 245: 1376.
Thirtv-fourth St., 81 Pa. St. 27:
1419.
Thirty-fourth St. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 37 Hun 442: 1040, 1080.
Thirty-fourth St. R. R. Co., Matter
of, 102 N. Y. 343: 1040, 1080.
Thirty-fourth St., Widening of, 10
Phila. 197: 721.
Thirty-second Street, Matter of, 19
Wend. 128: 1326.
Thom V. Ga. Mfg. & Public Service
Co., 128 Ga. 187: 594, 674, 731,
1070, 1623.
Thoman v. Covington, 23 Ky. L. R.
117: 154.
Thomas v. Ashland etc. Ry. Co., 122
Wis. 519: 128, 135.
V. Boyd, 108 Va. 584: 1642.
V. Ford, 63 Md. 346: 1486.
V. Grand View Beach R. R. Co.,
76 Hun 601: 1578.
V. Hunt, 134 Mo. 392: 1629.
V. Inter-County St. R. R. Co., 167
Pa. St. 120: 314, 315, 1587,
1590, 1665.
V. .Tunction City Irr. Co., 80 Tex.
550: 1652.
1. Milledgeville R. R. Co., 99 Ga.
714: 674.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 164 111.
6.S4: 896, 939, 1047.
V. South Side El. R. R. Co., 218
111. 571, 1049.
V. Wade, 48 Fla. 311: 96, 133.
Thomas Jefferson, The, 10 Wheat.
428: 103.
Thomason v. Seaboard Air Line R.
R. Co., 142 N. C. 300 : 449.
v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 142
N. C. 318: 1459, 1472.
Thompkins v. Augusta etc. R. R. Co.,
37 S. C. 382: 1460.
V. Hodgson, 2 Hun 146 : 356.
Thompson, In re, 85 Hun 438: 1379
Thompson, In re, 86 Hun 405: 724
726.
Thompson, In re, 89 Hun 32: 1561
Thompson, Matter of, 43 Hun 416
437.
Thompson, Matter of, 45 Hun 261
1379.
Thompson, Matter of, 57 Hun 419
684, 806, 810, C.3, 1331.
Thompson, Matter of, 121 N. Y. 277
1425.
Thompson, Matter of, 127 N. Y. 463
1139, 1147.
Thompson v. Androscoggin River Im-
provement Co., 54 N. H. 545:
62, 80, 436, 437.
V. Androscoggin Riv. Imp. Co., 58
N. H. 108: 100.
V. Berlin, 87 Minn. 7: 1020, 1023,
1033, 1518.
V. Board of Supervisors, 111 Cal.
553, 300.
V. Booneville, 61 Mo. 282: 237.
V. Canada Central R. R. Co., 3
Ontario, 136: 860.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 110 Mo.
147: 948, 949, 1027, 1261, 1511.
V. Citizens' Traction Co., 181 Pa.
St. 131: 1549, 1657.
V. Citizens' Traction Co. (Mo.) 31
S. W. 793: 1294.
V. Conway, 53 N. H. 622 : 1377.
V. Crabb, 6 J. J. Marsh. 222: 1091,
1094.
V. Deprez, 96 Ind. 67: 1132.
V. De Weese-Dye Ditch & Res. Co.,
25 Colo. 243: 1066, 1378.
V. Goldthwait, 132 Ind. 20: 1083.
V. Grand Gulf R. R. Co., 3 How.
(Miss.) 240: 1159, 1170.
V. Keokuk, 61 la. 187 : 1306, 1307.
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 110 Ky.
973: 1478.
v. Macon City, 106 Mo. App. 84:
324, 631.
V. Major, 58 N. H. 242: 1504.
V. Maloney, 199 111. 276: 366, 873,
874, 875, 877.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 16 Daly
64: 1664.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 130 N. Y.
360: 1554, 1584, 1664.
V. McElarney, 82 Pa. St. 174: 858.
V. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.,
27 Wis. 93: 1245, 1307.
V. Multnomah Co., 2 Ore. 34: 1017,
1032, 1034, 1081, 1358, 1411.
V. New York & Harlem R. R. Co.,
3 Sandf. Ch. 625: 413.
V. Ocean City R. R. Co., 60 N.
J. L. 74: 297, 778.
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 51 N.
J. L. 42: 314, 316, 1124.
V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 142
N. C. 318: 447.
V. Southern Cal. Motor Road Co.,
82 Cal. 497 : 836.
V. State, 20 Ala. 54: 821, 1069.
V. Treasurer of Wood Co., 11 Ohio
St. 678: 580.
V. Trowe, 82 Minn. 471: 982, 1186.
V. Trustees of Schools, 218 111. 540:
911.
cclxxxii
CASES CITEB.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Thompson-Houston Electric Co. v.
Newton, 42 Fed. 723: 409, 410.
V. Simon, 20 Ore. 60: 719.
Thomsen v. McCormick, 136 111. 135:
873, 874, 877.
Thomson v. Sebasticook & M. R. R.
Co., 81 Me. 40: 1232.
Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.
S. 490: 23.
Thorn v. Sweeney, 12 Nev. 251: 536,
1578.
Thorndike v. County Comrs., 117
Mass. 566: 1035.
Thornton v. North Providence, 6 R.
I. 433: 1369.
V. Roll, 118 111. 350: 1602.
V. Sheffield etc. R. R. Co., 84 Ala.
109: 842, 1535, 1579.
Thorp V. Rutland & Burlington R. R.
Co., 27 Vt. 140: 487.
V. Witham, 65 la. 566: 926, 927,
1431.
Thorpe v. Co. Comrs., 9 Gray, 57:
1382, 1415.
Thrall v. Gosnell, 28 Ind. App. 174:
973, 994, 1035.
Threat v. Middletown, 8 Conn. 243:
992.
Thunder Bay Booming Co. v. Speedi-
ly, 31 Mich. 336: 80.
Thurman v. Emerson, 4 Bibb 279 :
1370.
Thurston v. Alstead, 26 N. H. 259:
1083.
V. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220: 440.
V. Portland, 63 Me. 149: 1135.
V. St. Joseph, 51 Mo. 510: 67, 178,
183, 187, 233, 234.
Thurston County v. Walker, 27 Wash.
500: 882.
Tibbetts v. Knox & Lincoln R. R.
Co., 62 Me. 437: 435, 1455.
V. West & So. Towns St. R. R. Co.,
54 111. App. 180: 1586.
V. West & South Towns St. Ry. Co.,
153 111. 147: 302, 1587. ,
Tide Water Canal Co. v. Archer,
9 Gil. & J. (Md.) 479: 684, 1092,
1179, 1241, 1369, 1690.
Tide Water Co. v. Coster, 18 N. J.
Eq. 518: 577, 584, 586.
Tidewater Rv. Co. v. Cowan, 106 Va.
817: 1341, 1379.
V. Shartzer, 107 Va. 562: 629, 651,
654, 659, 660, 661, 668.
Tieck V. Board of Comrs., 11 Minn.
292: 1523.
Tiedt V. Carstensen, 61 la. 334: 1419.
Tietze v. International etc. Ry. Co., |
35 Tex. Civ. App. 136: 1657.
Tiffany v. United States Illuminat-
ing Co., 67 How. Pr. 73: 339,
1593.
V. United States Illuminating Co.,
51 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 280: 339. 345,
1593.
Tiffany St., Matter of, 84 App. Div.
525: 611.
Tifft V. Buffalo, 82 N. Y. 204 : 1499,
1500.
Tift V. Dougherty Co., 74 Ga. 340:
1625.
Tileston v. Brookline, 134 Mass.
438: 1712.
Tillamook Water Co. v. Tillamook
City, 150 Fed. 117: 409, 410.
Tilley v. Mitchell & L. Co., 121 Wis.
1: 191, 372, 373, .374, 382, 384,
389, 391, 396, 397, 398, 406,
651.
Tillman v. Kireher, 64 Ind. 104: 574.
V. People, 12 Mich. 401: 886.
Tilzie V. Hage, 8 Wash. 187: 873,
874.
Tingley v. Providence, 8 R. I. 493:
1120, 1124, 1125.
V. Providence, 9 R. I. 388: 1029.
Tingle v. Tingle, 12 Bush 160: 1365.
Tinieum Fishing Co. v. Carter, 61
Pa. St. 21: 139.
V. Carter, 90 Pa. St. 85: 139.
Tinker v. Rockford (111.) 28 N. E.
573 ■ 629 635.
V. Rockford! 137 111. 123: 629, 635,
1356, 1451, 1452, 1453.
V. Rockford, 36 111. App. 460: 840,
847, 1451.
Tinkham v. Arnold, 3 Me. 120: 866.
Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. R. R. Co.,
26 N. J. L. 148 : 95.
V. Monroe Probate Judge, 82 Mich.
562: 993.
Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U.
S. 6: 1114.
Tioga St., In re, 213 Pa. St. 345:
1029.
Tipton V. Miller, 3 Yerg. 423: 1079,
1358.
Tisbury v. Vineyard Haven Water
Co., 193 Mass. 196: 1266.
Tise V. Whitaker-Harvey Co., 144 N.
C. 507: 351, 372, 1596.
V. Whitaker-Harvey Co., 146 N. C.
374* 883
Tisso V. Great So. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
39 La. An. 996: 350.
Titus V. Boston, 149 Mass. 164: 810,
1450, 1491, 1496.
V. Boston, 161 Mass. 209: 453.
Titusville Elec. Lt. & P. Co. v. Titus-
ville, 196 Pa. St. 3: 408.
CASES CITED.
cclxxxiii
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Titusville etc. R. R. Co. v. Warren
etc. R. R. Co., 12 Phila. 642:
906.
Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448: 429.
Tobie V. Brown Co. Comrs., 20 Kan.
14: 1185.
Todd V. Austin, 34 Conn. 78: 2, 6,
20. 504, 548.
V. Kankakee & Illinois River R. R.
Co., 78 111. 530: 1206.
V. Macfarland, 20 App. Cas. D. C.
176: 1394.
V. Rome, 2 Me. 55: 1372.
V. York, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 763: 84.
V. York Co., 72 Neb. 207: 149, 157.
Todernier v. Aspinwall, 43 111. 401 :
943, 1363, 1368.
Toledo V. Converse, 21 Ohio C. C.
239: 876, 884, 887, 890.
V. Sanwald, 13 Ohio C. C. 496:
1526.
Toledo Consol. St. R. R. Co. v. Toledo
Elec. St. R. R. Co., 6 Ohio C. C.
362: 427, 756, 762, 764, 985,
1282, 1283.
V. Toledo Electric St. R. R. Co.,
50 Ohio St. 603: 427, 756, 762,
764, 986, 1283.
Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Campau, 83
Mich. 33: 1098, 1359.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 155 111.
9: 1601. 1607.
V. Cosand, 6 Ind. App. 222 : 855.
V. Daniels, 16 Ohio St. 390: 731.
V. Darst, 61 111. 231: 869, 1426.
V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co., 62 Mich.
564: 770, 893, 894, 991, 985,
1281.
V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co., 63 Mich.
645: 770.
V. Dunlap, 47 Mich. 456 : 685, 896,
1347, 1434.
V. East Saginaw etc. R. R. Co., 72
Mich. 206: 494, 533, 976, 990.
V. Fostoria, 7 Ohio C. C. 293: 1291.
V. Green, 67 111. 199 : 1480.
V. Jacksonville, 67 111. 37: 476.
V. Loop, 139 Ind. 542: 1507.
V. Morgan, 72 111. 155: 937.
V. Munson, 57 Mich. 42: 706, 984,
1343.
V. Pence, 68 111. 524: 25.
V. Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 6 Ohio C.
C 521 : 1422.
Toledo etc. Ry. & t. Co. v. Hayes, 70
Ohio St. 425: 1315.
Toledo etc. Traction Co. v. Indiana
etc. Interurban Ry. Co., (Ind.)
86 N. E. 54: 900, 907.
Toluca etc. Ry. Co. v. Haws, 194 111.
92: 934, 1246, 1247, 1249, 1457.
Tomlin v. Dubuque, B. & M. R. R.
Co., 32 la. 106: 104, 117, 130,
131.
Tomlinson v. Wallace, 16 Wis. 224:
1517.
Tompkins v. Augusta etc. R. R. Co.,
21 S. C. 420: 831, 1631.
v. Augusta etc. R. R. Co., 33 S. C.
216: 1626
V. Augusta etc. R. R. Co., 37 S. C.
382: 1626.
V. Hodgson, 2 Hun 146: 337.
Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U. S. 389:
II, 464.
Toney v. Johnson, 26 Ind. 382 : 1522.
Tonica etc. R. R. Co. v. Cooper, 22
III. 224: 1217.
V. Unsicker, 22 111. 221 : 1309, 1316.
Tonnes v. Augusta, 52 S. C. 396 : 94.
Toole V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 27
Pa. Supr. Ct. 577: 155, 157.
Toops V. State, 92 Ind. 13: 1518.
Toote V. Clifton, 22 Ohio St. 247:
145.
Topeka v. Cower, 48 Kan. 345: 864,
868.
V. Martineau, 42 Kan. 387: 604,
619, 1109, 1124, 1307, 1339.
V. Sells, 48 Kan. 520: 236, 604,
617, 1525.
Topliff V. Chicago, 196 111. 215: 357.
Toppan's Petition, 24 N. H. 43 : 1022.
Torge V. Salamanca, 86 App. Div.
211: 610.
V. Salamanca, 176 N. Y. 324: 610.
Toronto Belt Line R. R. Co., In re,
26 Ont. 413: 947, 948, 949, 1564.
Torrey v. Scranton, 133 Pa. St. 173:
155, 233.
Torrington v. Messenger, 74 Conn.
321* 159 710
v. Nash, 17' Conn. 197: 916, 992.
Tosper v. Saline Co. Comrs., 27 Kan.
391: 1185.
Totel V. Bonnefoy, 123 111. 653 : 145.
Towamencin Road, 10 Pa. St. 195 :
1069.
Towanda Bridge Co., In re, 91 Pa.
St. 216: 687, 781, 788.
Tower v. Boston, 10 Cush. 235 : 624,
1522.
V. Pittstick, 55 111. 115: 1514.
Towle V. Eastern Railroad, 17 N. H.
519* 319.
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 18 N. H. 547:
691.
Town V. Blackberry, 29 111. 137:
1519.
V. Foulkner, 56 N. H. 255: 1551.
V. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 50 Neb.
768: 148, 149, 157.
eclxxxiv
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Town V. Stoddard, 30 N. H. 23 : 1082,
1095.
Townes v. City Council, 46 S. C. 15:
144.
V. Klamath County, 33 Ore. 225:
515, 676, 982, 1008, 1029, 10G8.
Townsend, Matter of, 39 N. Y. 171:
500.
V. Blewett, 5 How. (Miss.) 503:
413.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 91 111.
545; 976, 1510.
V. Epstein, 93 Md. 537: 180, 181,
190, 197, 199, 373, 1596.
V. Hoyle, 20 Conn. 1: 514.
V. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 101 Fed.
757: 1570.
V. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
56 Misc 253: 1457, 1473.
V. Norfolk Ry. & Lt. Co., 105 Va.
22: 453, 454.
V. State, 147 Ind. 624: 164.
Township Board v. Haekman, 48 Mo.
243: 502, 538, 1075.
Tracewell v. Wood Co., 58 W. Va.
283' 156
Traeey v. Corse, 58 N. Y. 143 : 1008.
V. Bittle, 213 Mo. 302: 542, 872.
V. Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co.,
78 Ky. 309: 1423.
V. Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co., 80
Ky. 259: 1004, 1010, 1013, 1014,
1045, 1056, 1061, 1062, 1063,
1066, 1067, 1074.
V. Troy etc. R. R. Co., 54 Hun 550 :
273, 1586, 1614.
Trade Dollar Consol. Min. Co. v.
Fraser, 148 Fed. 585: 1603.
Trahern v. San Joaquin Co., 59 Cal.
320: 24.
Trainer v. Lawrence, 36 111. App. 90:
1078, 1420.
Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.
S. 635: 212, 658.
Transylvania University v. Lexing-
ton, 3 B. Mon. 25: 178, 369, 388.
Traphagen v. Jersey City, 29 N. J.
Eq. 206: 335, 1616.
Trant v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 1
Monaghan (Pa. Supm. Ct.) 394:
1342.
Travers v. Merrick County, 14 Neb.
327: 550.
Traverse City etc. R. R. Co. v. Sey-
mour, 81 Mich. 378: 1418.
Travis County v. Trogden, 88 Tex.
302: 1160, 1183, 1570.
Treacy v. Elizabethtown etc. R. R.
Co., 80 Ky. 266: 696, 697, 698.
V. Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co., 85
Ky. 270: 696, 697.
Treadway v. Railroad Co., 43 la.
527: 475.
Treat v. Bates, 27 Mich. 390: 91.
V. Lord, 42 Me. 552: 97.
V. Middletown, 8 Conn. 243: 916.
Trelford v. Coney Island etc. R. R.
Co., 5 App. Div. 464: 1587.
V. Coney Island etc. R. R. Co., 6
App. Div. 204: 1587.
Tremain v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 163 :
435, 1455.
Tjenton v. McQuade, 52 N. J. Eq.
669: 238.
Trenton Horse R. R. Co. v. Trenton,
53 N. J. L. 132: 476.
Trenton St. Ry. Co. v. Penn. R. R.
Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 276 : 297.
V. United N. J. R. R. & C. Co., 60
N. J. Eq. 500: 329, 771.
Trenton Water Power Co. v. Cham-
bers, 9 N. J. Eq. 471: 859, 1631.
V. Chambers, 13 N. J. Eq. 199:
1446.
v. Raff, 36 N. J. L. 335: 67, 90, 95,
1155.
Trepenning v. Smith, 46 Barb. 208:
1513.
Trester v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 23
Neb. 242 : 686.
V. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 33 Neb.
171: 685, 971, 976, 978, 1017,
1409.
V. Sheboygan, 87 Wis, 496: 828.
Trevitt v. Prison Ass., 98 Va. 332:
84.
Trickey v. Sehlader, 52 111. 78 : 1520.
Triest v. New York, 126 App. Div.
934: 611.
V. New York, 55 Misc. 459: 236.
V. New York, 193 N. Y. 525: 611.
Trimmer v. Pennsylvania etc. R. R.
Co., 55 ]N. J. L. 46: 1227, 1238.
Trine v. Pueblo, 21 Colo. 102: 886.
Trinity Ave., Matter of, 81 App. Div.
215: 611, 1327.
Trinity Ave., Matter of, 116 App.
Div. 252: 936, 1561.
Trinity Church v. Higgins, 4 Robt.
1: 915.
Trinity College v. Hartford, 32 Conn.
452: 1185, 1190.
Trinity etc. R. R. Co. v. Meadows, 73
Tex. 32: 168, 653, 664, 665, 666,
670.
Tripp V. County Comrs., 2 Allen
556: 1078, 1105.
V. Overocker, 7 Colo. 72: 53, 1550.
Troe V. Larson, 84 la. 649: 95, 137.
1607.
Trogden v. Winona etc. R. R. Co., 22
Minn. 198: 948, 1261.
OASES CITEB.
cclxxxv
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.J
Trombley v. Humphrey, 23 Mich.
471: 588.
Trook V. B. & P. E. R. Co., 3 Mc-
Arthur, D. C. 392: 309.
Trosper v. Comrs. of Saline Co., 27
Kan. 391: 121G.
Trotier v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
180 111. 471: 897, 931.
Troutman v. Barnes, 4 Met. (Ky. )
337: 519, 1078.
Trowbridge v. Brookline, 144 Mass.
139: 164, 623.
V. Detroit, 99 Mich. 443: 698.
Troy V. Cheshire R. R. Co., 23 N. H.
83: 322, 1551, 1649, 1658, 1060.
V. Coleman, 58 Ala. 570: 154, 233,
1649, 1654.
Troy etc. R. R. Co. v. Cleveland, 6
How. Pr. 238: 963, 1079.
V. Lee, 13 Barb. 169: 1195, 1378.
V. Northern Turnpike Co., 16 Barb.
100: 437, 1119, 1292, 1375.
V. Potter, 41 Vt. 265: 1477, 1481.
Truax v. Sterling, 74 Mich. 160:
1027, 1058, 1358, 1513, 1515.
Trudeau v. Sheldon, 62 Vt. 198: 912.
True V. Freeman, 64 Me. 573: 992,
1510.
Truesdale v. Peoria Grape Sugar Co.,
101 III. 561: 318, 532, 1581.
Trustees v. Atlanta, 93 Ga. 408:
744, 789, 824, 986.
V. Hoboken, 33 N. J. L. 13: 872,
874, 876, 892, 1494.
V. Johnson, 2 Ind. 219: 1638.
V. Leary, 89 Hun 219: 1558.
V. Metropolitan District R. R. Co.,
19 L. T. N. S. 692: 1417.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 77
Wis. 158: 247, 248, 325, 330,
622.
V. Walsh, 57 III. 363: 1572.
Trustees Common School Dist. v.
Nashville etc. R. R. Co., 22 Ky.
L. R. 243: 1716.
Trustees etc.. Matter of, 1 Barb. 34:
1533.
Trustees etc. v. Auburn & Rochester
R. R. Co., 3 Hill 567: 244, 318,
1635.
V. Clark, 137 N. Y. 95: 1425.
Trustees of Belfast Academy v. Sal-
mond, 11 Me. 109: 747.
Trustees of College Point v. Dennett,
5 N. Y. Supreme Court, 217:
1237.
Trustees of Columbia College v.
Lynch, 70 N. Y. 440: 429.
V. Thatcher, 87 N. Y. 311: 429.
Trustees of P. E. Church v. Anamosa,
76 la. 538: 237.
Trustees of Schools v. Schroll, 120
111. 509: 109, 114.
Trustees of Southampton v. Jeasup,
162 N. Y. 122: 133.
Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuokahoe etc.
R. R. Co., 11 Leigh. (Va.) 42:
407, 410, 416, 1155, 1165.
Tucker's Petition, 27 N. H. 405:
1416.
Tucker v. Campbell, 36 Me. 346 : 954.
v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 66 Mo.
App. 141: 152.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 91 Wis.
576: 1714
V. Eden, 68 Vt. 168: 970.
V. Eldred, 6 R. I. 404: 1489.
V. Erie etc. R. R. Co., 27 Pa. St.
281: 971, 1446.
V. Mass. Central R. R. Co., 116
Mass. 124: 1423.
V, Parker, 50 Mich. 5: 1412.
V. Rankin, 15 Barb. 471: 1102.
V. Russell, 14 Pick. 279: 356.
V. Tower, 9 Pick. 109: 1493.
Tudor V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 164
111. 73: 1320.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., (111.)
27 N. E. 915: 825.
Tufts V. Charlestown, 2 Gray 271:
1267, 1327.
V. Charlestown, 4 Gray, 537: 1185,
1327.
V. Charlestown, 117 MasH. 401 :
1135.
Tulley V. Northfield, 6 111. App. 356 :
1372.
Tunbridge v. Tarbell, 19 Vt. 453:
1073.
Tuohey v. Great Southern etc. R. R.
Co., 10 Irish. C. L. 98: 1550.
Turlev V. Oldham, 68 Ind. 114: 1406.
Turlow V. Ross, 144 Mo. 234: 927,
1100.
Turner's Appeal, 2 Walker's Pa.
Supm. Ct. 229: 1073.
Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb. 54: 10,
465, 466.
V. Dartmouth, 13 Allen 291: 234.
V. Detroit, 104 Mich. 320: 464.
V. Holleran, 11 Minn. 253: 1423.
V. Nye, 154 Mass. 579: 494, 549,
554, 559, 560.
V. Rising Sun etc. Turnpike Co., 71
Ind. 547: 422.
V. Robbins, 133 Mass. 207: 1254.
V. Sheffield & Rotherham R. R. Co.,
10 M. & N. 425: 656, 657.
V. Stanton, 42 Mich. 506: 860,
13S3, 1354.
V. State, 67 App. Div. 393: 1228,
1233.
cclxxxvi
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-742 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Turner v. Whitehouse, 68 Me. 221:
996.
V. Williams, 10 Wend. 140: 1259,
1556.
Turney v. So. Pac. Co. 44 Ore. 280:
301.
Turnpike Co. v. American etc. News
Co., 43 N. J. L. 381: 534, 782,
980.
V. Davidson County, 3 Tenn. Ch.
396: 15, 491.
V. Davidson Co., 106 Tenn. 258:
412, 414, 1608.
V. News Co., 43 N. J. L. 381: 340,
986.
V. State, 3 Wall. 210 : 410.
Turnpike R. E. Co. v. Penn. R. E.
Co., 6 Mont. Co. L. R. 121: 782.
Turnpike Road, Matter of, 18 Phil.
444: 1396.
Turnpike Road by Chad's Ford, 5
Binney, 481; 1100, 1101, 1103.
Turnpike Road Co. v. Brosi, 22 Pa.
St. 29: 952, 961.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 6 Mont. Co. L.
R. 105: 782.
Turnquist v. Cass County, 11 N. D.
514: 580.
Turpen v. Turlock Irr. Dist. 141 Cal.
1: 144, 1251, 1456.
Turrell v. Norman, 19 Barb. 262:
1635.
Tuthill, Matter of, 36 App. Div. 49 :
508, 570.
Tuthill, Matter of, 163 N. Y. 133: 22,
495, 496, 508, 564, 570, 579, 595,
598.
Tutt v. Port Royal & Augusta Ry.
.Co., 16 S. C. 365: 831.
v. Port RoyaJ & A. R. R. Co., 28
S. C. 388: 941, 1707, 1708.
Tuttle V. Brush Electric Illuminat-
ing Co., 50 N. Y. Super. Ct.
464: 344.
V. Justice, 89 Tenn. 157: 1154,
1158.
V. Knox Co., 89 Tenn. 157: 698,
738.
V. Moore, 3 Ind. Ter. 712: 504, 590.
Tutwiler C. & I. Co. v. Nichols, 146
Ala. 364: 69.
Twelfth St. Market Co. v. Philadel-
phia etc. R. R. Co., 142 Pa. St.
580: 539, 787, 789, 1397, 1399.
Twenty-eighth St., In re, 15 Phil.
350: 700.
Twenty-eighth Street Opening, Mat-
ter of, 11 Phila. 436: 1359.
Twenty-eighth St. Sewer, In re, 158
Pa. St. 464: 1383.
Twenty-fifth Street Opening, Matter
pf, 18 Phil, 461; 1466.
Twenty-fifth Street Opening, Matter
of, 18 Phil. 488: 1253, 1255.
Twenty-fifth St. Opening, 79 Mich.
584: 1378.
Twenty-ninth St., Matter of, 1 Hill
189; 190, 367, 1326.
Twenty-second Street, In re, 102 Pa.
St. 108: 736, 737, 785.
Twenty-second Street, In re, 15 Phil.
409: 736, 737, 785, 789.
Twenty-second Street Extension in
* Columbia, 23 Pa. St. 346: 817.
Twenty-sixth St. Matter of, 12 Wend.
203: 1084.
Twin Lakes H. G. M. S. v. Colorado
M. R. R. Co., 16 Colo. 1: 1225.
Twin Village Water Co. v. Damaris-
cotta Gas Lt. Co., 98 Me. 325:
359
Twombly v. Madbury, 27 N. H. 433 :
1400.
T. W. & W. Ry. Co. V. Morrison, 71
111. 616: 153, 156.
Tyler v. Beacher, 44 Vt. 648: 495,
499, 551, 675.
V. Bowen, 1 Pitts. Pa. 225: 1026.
V. Columbus, 6 Ohio C. C. 224: 916.
V. Hudson, 147 Mass. 609: 810.
V. Revere, 183 Mass. 98: 157.
V. St. Louis, 56 Mo. 60: 1220.
V. State, 83 Ind. 563: 1004, 1006.
V. Tehama County, 109 Cal. 618:
653.
V. Texas etc. R. R. Co., 73 Tex. 95 :
1717.
Tyron v. Baltimore County, 28 Md.
510: 89.
Tyrone v. Burns, 102 Minn. 318:
1034, 1036.
Tyrone Tp. School District's Appeal,
1 Monaghan (Pa. Supm. Ct.)
20: 591, 786.
Tyrus v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
114 Tenn. 579: 155, 156, 1649,
1655.
Tyson v. Milwaukee, 50 Wis. 78: 615,
618, 619, 1307, 1308, 1325, 1718.
v. Rogers, 33 Ga. 473: 19, 672,
744.
V. Washington County, 78 Neb.
211; 739.
U.
Uhl V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 47 W.
Va. 59: 845, 1485.
V. Ohio River R. R. Co., 51 W. Va.
106: 838, 1481.
V. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 56 W. Va.
494: 89, 93, 151, 1639.
Uhland Club v. Schupback, 168 Mass,
430; 1556.
Uhler v. Cowen, 192 Pa. St. 443 1
1255,
CASES CITED.
cclxxxvii
tThe references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
UWer V. Cowen, 199 Pa. St. 316:
1255.
Uhrig V. St. Louis, 44 Mo. 458 : 927.
Ulbricht v. Eufaula Water Co., 86
Ala. 587: 72, 73, 1603.
Uline V. New York Cent. E. R. Co.,
101 N. Y. 98: 319, 1298, 1552,
1650, 1656.
Ullman v. Baltimore, 72 Md. 587:
1004.
Ulmer v. Line Rock R. R. Co., 98 Me.
579: 494, 498, 499, 501, 507,
533, 1049, 1071.
Ulster & Delaware R. R. Co. v. Gross,
31 Hun 83: 1434, 1437.
Umatilla Irr. Co. v. Barnhart, 22
Ore. 389: 587.
Unangst's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 128:
860.
Uncanoonnuck Road Co. v. Orr, 67
N. H. 541: 849, 858.
Underhill v. Saratoga & Washington
R. R. Co., 20 Barb. 455: 8d9.
Underwood v. Bailey, 56 N. H. 187:
1358.
V. Bailey, 59 N. H. 480: 513.
V. North Wayne Scythe Co., 38
Me. 75: 1345.
V. North Wayne Scythe Co., 41 Me.
291: 1522.
V. Worcester, 177 Mass. 173: 211,
324, 606.
Uniacke v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 67
Wis. 108: 1225, 1321.
Union Barb Wire Co. v. Chicago etc.
R. R. Co., 79 la. 614: 322.
Union Bridge Co. v. United States,
204 U. S. 364: 488.
Union Canal Co. v. Keiser, 19 Pa. St.
134: 1419, 1711.
V. Landis, 9 Watts 228: 104, 108.
V. LaSalle, 136 111. 119: 1496.
V. O'Brien, 4 Rawle, 358: 991.
V. Woodside, 11 Pa. St. 176: 928.
Union Co. v. Peckham, 16 R. I. 64:
878.
Union Depot etc. Co. v. Brunswick,
31 Minn. 297: 125, 127, 128, 129,
131, 1231, 1235, 1329.
Union Depot Co. v. Frederick, 117
Mo. 138: 928, 964, 1029, 1115,
1511, 1512.
Union Depot R. R. Co. v. Southern R.
R. Co., 105 Mo. 562: 426, 761,
764, 1283.
Union El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 112
N. Y. 61: 1005, 1011, 1048.
Union El. R. R. Co., Matter of, 113
N. Y. 275: 672, 677, 679, 684,
709, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1066.
Union Elec. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Apple-
quest, JP4 111. App. 517; 338,
1593,
Union Elevator Co. v. K. C. Subur-
ban R. R. Co., 135 Mo. 353:
1123, 1211.
Union etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 53
Barb. 457: 1315.
Union Ferry Co., Matter of, 98 N.
Y. 139: 687, 814, 824, 1068.
Union Institution for Savings v.
Boston, 129 Mass. 82: 948, 949.
Union Mut Life Ins. Co. v. Slee, 123
111. 57: .928.
Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Benson, 19
Colo. 285: 639, 647, 1294, 1295,
1335.
v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 1 McCrary
452: 765.
v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 1 Mc-
Crary 452: 1102.
V. Burlington & Missouri Riv. R.
R. Co., 19 Neb. 386: 1079.
V. Colo. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 30
Colo. 133: 534, 713, 773, 799,
1285.
V. Dyche, 31 Kan. 120: 87, 1476.
V. Foley, 19 Colo. 280: 639, 647,
1294, 1295, 1335.
V. Hall, 91 U. S. 343: 727.
V. Harris, 76 Kan. 255: 431.
V. Kindred, 43 Kan. 134: 750,
1078, 1479, 1513, 1571, 1609.
V. Leavenworth etc. Ry. Co., 29
Fed. 728: 765, 1005, 1046.
V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co., 128
Fed. 230: 761.
Union Passenger Ry. Co. v. Continen-
tal Ry. Co., 11 Phil. 321: 416,
427, 755, 762, 764.
Union Railroad Transfer & Stock
Yard Co. v. More, 80 Ind. 458:
1245.
Union R. R. Co. v. Cambridge, 11
Allen 287 : 492.
' v. Canton R. R. Co., 105 Md. 12 r
717.
V. Phila. etc. R. R. Co., 188 Pa. St.
115: 771.
V. Chicasaw Cooperage Co., 116
Tenn. 594: 422, 1495.
v. Hunton, 114 Tenn. 609: 1138,
1151, 1260.
V. Raine, 114 Tenn. 569: 1244,
12,50, 1314, 1332, 1446.
V. Standard Wheel Co.. 149 Fed.
698: 1391, 1674, 1680.
Union R. R. T. & S. Y. Co. v. Moore,
80 Ind. 458: 1118, 1331.
Union Springs v. Jones, 58 Ala. 654:
233, 1251.
Union Steamboat Co., 39 Fed. 723:
1272, 1613.
Union St. R. R. Co. v. Hazelton etc.
K. R, Co,, 134 Pa, St. 423: 1631.
cclxxxviii
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: toI. I, pp. 1-742; vol. II, pp. 743-1719]
Union Street Vacation, In re, 140
Pa. St. 525: 400, 402.
Union Terminal E. E. Co. v. Board of
E. E. Comrs. 54 Kan. 352: 1106.
V. Peet Bros. Mfg. Co., 58 Kan.
197: 1211, 1241.
Union Township Eoad, 10 Pa. Co. Ct.
433: 399, 400.
Union Traction Co. v. Basey, 164
Ind. 249: 1430.
V. Pfeil, 39 Ind. App. 51: 1192,
1445.
Union Trust Co. v. Atchison etc. Ey.
Co., 8 N. M. 327: 775.
Union Tp. Eoad, 29 Pa. Siipr. Ct.
573: 970, 1101, 1381.
Union Tp. Private Eoad, 14 Pa. Co.
Ct. 436: 1018.
United Eailroad & Canal Co. v. Wel-
don, 47 N. J. L. 59:
V. Jersey City, 71 N. J. L. 80: 358.
United N. J. E. E. & C. Co. v. Lewis,
68 N. J. Eq. 437: 1549.
V. MeCuIley, 68 N. J. Eq. 442:
1549.
V. Standard Oil Co., 33 N. J. Eq.
1£3: 777.
V. Standard Oil Co., 35 N. J. Eq.
123: 1609.
United States v. Alexander, 148 U.
S. 186: 164.
v. Ames, 1 W. & M. 76: 702, 746.
V. Baltimore etc. E. E. Co., 27 App.
Cas D. C. 105: 677, 814.
V. Bloclc 121, 3 Biss. 208: 931.
V. Central Pac. E. E. Co., 118 U.
S. 235: 594.
V. Certain Lands, 112 Fed. 622:
430.
V. Certain Lands, 140 Fed. 463:
183.
V. Certain Lands, 145 Fed. 654:
677.
V. Certain Land, 165 Fed. 783:
780, 933.
V. Chicago, 7 How. 185: 746.
V. Choctaw etc. E. E. Co., 3 Oltla.
404: 957.
V. Cooper, 9 Mackey, D. C. 104:
8, 539, 738, 1673.
V. Cooper, 21 Supm. Ct. D. C. 491 :
1442.
V. Cooper, 21 Supm. Ct. D. C. 605 :
1673.
V. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520: 19.
V. Dumplin Island, 1 Barb. 24:
959, 1358.
V. Engeman, 45 Fed. 546: 933.
V. Engeman, 46 Fed. 176: 926.
V. Engeman, 46 Fed. 898: 1325,
1444.
United States t. Freemen, 113 Fed.
370: 1147.
V. Fox, 94 U. S. 315 : 672.
V. Gettysburg Electric E. E. Co.,
67 Fed. 869: 541.
V. Gettysburg Electric E. R. Co.,
160 U. S. 688: 499, 541, 543,
814.
V. Harris, 1 Sumner 21: 198, 687,
1502.
V. Honolulu Plantation Co., 122
Fed. 581: 1228, 1230, 1231.
V. Illinois Cent. E. E. Co., 2 Biss.
174: 420, 1494, 1618.
V. 111. Central E. E. Co., 154 U. S.
225: 873, 892, 1618.
V. Jones, 109 U. S. 513: 21, 927,
932, 1005, 1010.
V. Land in Monterey County, 47
Cal. 515: 1348.
V. Lynch, 188 U. S. 445: 92, 100,
144, 743, 1547.
V. Merriam, 161 Fed. 303: 1637.
V. Monongahela Bridge Co., 160
Fed. 712: 491.
V. Nahant, 136 Fed. 273: 1340.
V. Nahant, 153 Fed. 520: 462,
1175, 1340, 1346.
V. Oregon Ey. & Nav. Co., 9 Saw-
yer 61: 931, 991.
V. Parkersburg Branch E. E. Co.,
143 Fed. 224: 488.
V. Eailroad Bridge Co., 6 McLean
517: 745.
V. Eauers, 70 Fed. 748: 673, 680.
V. Eeid, 56 Mo. 565: 897, 1384.
V. Eio Grande Dam & Irr. Co., 174
U. S. 690: 69, 169.
V. Eoss, 92 U. S. 281 : 19.
V. Sargent, 162 Fed. 81: 1321.
V. Seufert Bros. Co., 78 Fed. 520:
1237.
V. Seufert Bros. Co., 87 Fed. 35:
1379.
V. Smith, 110 Fed. 338: ]347.
V. Suprs. of Summit, 1 Pinney,
566: 1086, 1515.
V. Taffee, 78 Fed. 524: 1237.
V. Taffee, 86 Fed. 830: 1243.
v. Tennant, 93 Fed. 613: 933, 1386.
V. Tract of Land, 70 Fed. 940 : 542.
V. Union Bridge Co., 143 Fed. 377 :
488.
V. Union Pac. Ey. Co. 160 U. S. 1 :
, 775.
United States Freehold L. & E. Co.
V. Gallegos, 89 Fed. 769: 1603.
United States Gypsnm Co. v. Oir
cuit Judge, 150 Mich. 668: 1395.
United States' Petition, 67 How. Pr
121: 543.
CASES CITED.
cclxxxix
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
United States, Petition, 96 N. Y.
227: 543.
United States Pipe Line Co. v. Dela-
ware etc. R. R. Co., 62 N. J. L.
254: 838.
United Traction Co. v. Ferguson Con-
struction Co., 117 App. Div. 305:
1569.
University of Minnesota v. St. Paul
& Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 36
Minn. 447: 747.
Updegrafl" v. Palmer, 107 Ind. 181:
934, 971, 1028, 1384.
Updegrave v. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co.,
132 Pa. St. 540: 846.
V. Schuylkill Val. R. R. Co., 3 Pa.
Co. Ct. 74: 1073.
Updike V. Wright, 81 111. 49: 722.
Upham V. Marsh, 128 Mass. 546:
1491.
V. Worcester, 113 Mass. 97: 1185.
Upper Appomattox Co. v. Hardings,
11 Gratt. 1: 965.
Upper Cons R. R. Co. v. Parsons, 66
N. H. 181: 1408.
Upper Derby Tp. Road, 15 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 652: 1363, 1407.
Upper Fairfield Tp. Road, 11 Pa. Co.
Ct. 396: 1017.
Upper Hanover Road, 2 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 179: 1105.
Upper Hanover Road, 44 Pa. St. 277:
1026.
Upper Ten-Mile R. R. Co. v. Braden,
172 Pa. St. 460: 1493.
Uppington v. New York, 165 N. Y.
222: 443.
Uptagraff v. Smith, 106 la. 385:
1492.
Upton V. South Branch Reading R. R.
Co., 8 Cush. 600: 1146, 1185.
Uren v. Walsh, 57 Wis. 98: 1570,
1574.
Utah V. Daniels, 6 Utah 288: 24,
465.
Utica etc. R. R. Co. Matter of, 56
Barb. 456: 1119, 1124, 1126,
1196.
Utica, In re, (Hun) 26 N. Y. Supp.
564: 786.
Utley V. Wilmington etc. R. R. Co.,
119 N. C. 720: 1713.
Utter V. Richmond, 112 N. Y. 610:
948, 949, 1563.
Uwchlan Tp. Road, 30 Pa. St. 156:
696.
V.
Vacation of Certain Streets, Matter
of, 17 Phil. 660 : 400.
Vail V. Fall Creek Turnpike Co., 32
Ind. 198: 1410.
T. Mix, 74 111. 127 : 866.
Vail V. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 21
N. J. L. 189: 969, 1360.
Vaile V. Independence, 116 Mo. 333
634, 1353.
Vale Mills v. Nashua, 63 N. H. 42
83, 84.
Valentine v. Boston, 20 Pick. 201
930, 1425.
V. Boston, 22 Pick. 75: 1326.
Valley City Salt Co. v. Brown, 7 W.
Va. 191: 495, 563.
Valley Ry. Co. v. Bohm, Admr., 29
Ohio St. 633: 965.
v. Franz, 43 Ohio St. 623: 1552,
1651, 1652, 1715, 1716.
Valparaiso v. Adams, 123 Ind. 250:
602, 616.
V. Chicago etc. E. R. Co., 123 Ind.
467: 750.
V. Hazen, 153 Ind. 337: 82, 1605.
v. Keyes, 30 Ind. App. 447 : 141.
V. Parker, 148 Ind. 379: 1384.
v. Spaeth, 166 Ind. 14: 154, 210,
233, 234.
Valparaiso City Water Co. v. Dick-
over, 17 ind. App. 233: 137,
1650.
Van Allen v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
144 N. Y. 174: 1663.
Van Auken v. Commissioners, 27
Mich. 414: 1033.
Van Benthan v. Board of Comrs., 49
Kan. 30: 1316.
Vanblaricum v. State, 7 Blackf . 209 :
1192, 1245.
Van Bokelen v. Brooklyn City Ry.
Co., 5 Blatch. 379: 268.
Van Brunt v. Flatbush, 59 Hun 192 :
172, 176, 333, 336.
V. Flatbush, 128 N. Y. 50: 172,
176, 336.
Van Buren v. Fishkill W. W. Co., 50
Hun 448: 74, 1272.
Van Buskirk v. Harrod, 48 Mich.
258: 1032.
Vance v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534: 505.
Van Cleve v. Passaic Val. Sewerage
Comrs., 71 N. J. L. 183: 739.
Vandalia Coal Co. v. Indianapolis etc.
Ry. Co., 168 Ind. 144: 977, 1046.
Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 349: 14.
Vanderbilt Ave., Matter of, 95 App.
Div. 533: 364, 403.
Vanderbright v. Delaware R. R. Co.,
2 Houst. Del. 287: 1343.
Vanderburgh v. Minneapolis, 93
Minn. 81: 399, 406, 1595.
V. Minneapolis, 98 Minn. 329: 373,
382, 383, 388, 391, 399, 406.
Vanderhurst v. Tholcke, 113 Cal.
147: 348.
ccxo
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Vanderlip v. Grand Rapids, 73 Mich.
522: 67, 231, 1569, 1574, 1576,
1602.
Vandermulen v. Vandermulen, 108
N. Y. 195: 1259.
Vandersllce v. Philadelphia, 7 Out.
102: 1140.
V. Philadelphia, 103 Pa. St. 102:
143.
Vanderstolph v. Highway Conir., 50
Mich. 330: 1414.
Van de Vere v. Kansas City, 107 Mo.
83: 657, 659, 664, 665, 666, 669,
670.
Vanduser v. Comstock, 3 Mass. 184:
976, 1073.
Van Egmond v. Seaforth, 6 Ont.
599: 69, 81, 83, 1605.
Van Emburgh v. Paterson etc. Trac-
tion Co., 70 N. J. L. 668: 690,
696, 697, 1395, 1397.
Van Hoozier v. Hannibal etc. R. R.
Co., 70 Mo. 145: 1650, 1652.
Vanhorn v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co.,
18 U. C. Q. B. 356: 158.
Van Home v. Newark Pass. R. R.
Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 332: 201, 268,
297, 314, 315, 332, 1586, 1587,
1589.
Van Home's Lessee v. Dorranee, 2
Dall. 304: 590.
Van Husan v. Heames, 91 Mich. 519:
874.
Van Husen v. Omaha Bridge etc. Co.,
. 118 la. 366: 1226.
Van Orsdol v. B. C. R. & N. R. R. Co.,
56 la. 470: 1551.
Van Rennselaer v. Albany, 2 How.
Pr. N. S. 42: 1606.
V. Albany, 15 Abb. N. C. 457 : 1606.
Van Riper v. Essex Road Board, 38
N. J. L. 23: 608, 1246, 1453.
Van Schoick v. Delaware & Hudson
Canal Co., 20 N. J. L. 249 : 1446,
1451.
Van Siclen v. Jamaica Elec. Lt. Co.,
45 App. Div. 1: 350.
V. Jamaica Elec. Lt. Co., 168 N. Y
650: 350.
Van Steenburgh v. Bigelow, 3 Wend.
43: 1103, 1516.
Vantilburgh v. Shann, 24 N. J. L.
740: 1004, 1013.
Van Valkenburgh v. Milwaukee, 43
Wis. 574: 1685, 1896.
Van Veghten v. Hudson Riv. Power
Transmission Co., 103 App. Div.
133: 1653.
Van Vorst, Heirs of. Ex parte, 2 N. '
J. Eq. 292: 1534.
Van Wagner v. Central N. E. & W. R.
R. Co., 80 Hun 278: 1459.
Van Wanning v. Deeter, 78 Neb. 284:
867, 1569.
Vanwickle v. Camden & Ambry R. R.
Co., 14 N. J. L. 162: 1097, 1377.
Van Witsen v. Gutman, 79 Md. 405:
368, 373, 382, 389, 395, 398, 494,
498, 673, 877.
Van Wycklen v. Brooklyn, 118 N. Y.
424: 77.
Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137: 522
Varner v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534:
495, 499, 502, 505, 516, 517, 551.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 55 la.
677: 851, 855, 1539.
Vartie v. Underwood, 18 Barb. 561:
946.
Varwig v. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co.,
6 Ohio C. C. 439: 308, 327, 732.
Vasselborough, Inhabitants of, 19 Me.
338: 514, 1100, 1417.
Vaugh V. Wetherell, 116 Mass. 138:
948.
Vaughn v. Lewis, 89 Va. 187: 879.
Vauneman v. Young, 3 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 662: 1048.
Vausandt v. Weir, 109 Ala. 224:
883.
Vawter v. Gilliland, 55 Ind. 278:
1368.
Veamans v. County Comrs., 16 Gray
36: 1367.
Veazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me. 479 : 1495.
Veazie v. Mayo, 45 Me. 560: 487,
780.
Vedder v. Marion County, 22 Ore.
264: 982, 1025.
T. Marion County, 28 Ore. 77: 993,
1057.
V. Marion Co., (Ore.) 36 Pac. 535:
1374.
Velte V. United States, 76 Wis. 278 :
92, 1319.
Venable v. Wabash Western R. R.
Co., 112 Mo. 103: 943, 945.
Venard v. Cross, 8 Kan. 248: 549.
779, 1033.
Venice v. Madison Co. Ferry Co., 216
111. 345: 888, 891.
Venner v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 236
111. 349: 361.
Ventura Co. v. Thompson, 51 Cal.
577: 1206.
Verdier v. Port Royal R. R. Co., 15
S. C. 477: 858.
Verdugo Cafion Water Co. v. Ver-
dugo, 152 Cal. 655: 162.
Verga v. Miller, 45 N. J. Eq. 93,
1577.
OASES CITED.
CCXCl
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Veimilyn v. Chicago, Milwuakee &
St. Paul Ry. Co., 66 la. 606: 861,
1481.
Vermont v. Miller, 161 111. 210: 874.
Vermont Central R. R. Co. v. Bax-
ter, 22 Vt. 365: 688.
Vermont etc. R. R. Co. v. Co. Comrs.,
10 Cush. 12: 1643.
Vernon Irr. Co. v. Los Angeles, 106
Cal 237 • 76
Vernon Park", 163 Pa. St. 70: 734,
1397.
Vernon Shell Road Co. v. Savannah,
95 Ga. 387: 1149.
Verona v. Allegheny Valley R. R. Co.,
152 Pa. St. 368: 869.
V. Railroad Co., 187 Pa. St. 358:
698.
Verona's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 83:
1570, 1579.
Versailles Tp. Road, 4 Brews. Pa. 57 :
1058, 1367.
Vice V. Eden, 113 Ky. 255: 519, 521,
1058, 1059.
Viek V. Rochester, 46 Hun 607: 1612.
Vickers v. Durham, 132 N. C. 880:
1614.
Vieksburg v. Herman, 72 Miss. 211:
630, 659, 664, 670, 1306, 1307.
V. Marshall, 59 Miss. 563: 1491.
V. Vieksburg W. W. Co., 202 U. S.
453: 412, 416.
V. Vieksburg Water Co., 206 XJ. S.
496: 481, 482.
Vieksburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Barrett,
67 Miss. 579: 835.
V. Calderwood, 15 La. An. 481 :
1206.
T. Dillard, 35 La. An. 1045: 1183,
1310.
Viebahn v. Crow Wing Co., 96 Minn.
276: 133.
Viele V. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 20
N. Y. 184: 1116.
Viers et al.. Petitioners, Tappan
Ohio 56: 1707, 1709.
Vigeant v. Marlborough, 175 Mass.
459: 606.
Vilas V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 15
Wis. 233: 1579.
V. Milwaukee etc. Ev. Co., 17
Wis. 497: 1544.
Vilhac V. Stockton etc. R. R. Co., 53
Cal. 208: 1162, 1170, 1472.
Viliski V. Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 304 :
1489, 1490, 1491.
Vincennes v. Richards, 23 Ind. 381:
234.
Vinegar Bend L. Co. v. Oak Grove
etc. R. R. Co., 89 Miss. 84 : 1040,
1041, 1624.
Vinegar Bend L. Co. v. Oak Grove
etc. R. R. Co., 89 Missi. 117:
1040, 1041, 1624.
Virginia-Carolina Ry. Co. v. Booker,
99 Va. 633: 936, 965, 1561.
Virginia etc. R. R. Co. v. Elliott, 5
Nev. 358: 923, 927, 1228, 1231,
1378.
V. Henry, 8 Nev. 165: 1174, 1177,
1379.
V. Lovejoy, 8 Nev. 100: 731, 1329.
V. Lynch, 13 Nev. 92: 255.
Visscher v. Hudson River R. R. Co.,
15 Barb. 37: 1393.
Voegtly V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 2
Grant's Cas. 243: 1255.
Vogle V. Bridges, 15 Ky. L. R. 6:
1365.
V. Bridges (Ky.) 22 S. W. 82:
1095, 1364.
Vogt V. Bexor Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App.
272: 1005, 1018, 1032, 1158,
1513.
V. Grinnell, 123 la. 332: 84, 1650,
1654, 1661.
V. Grinnell, 133 la. 363: 84, 1650,
1654.
Voight V. Detroit, 123 Mich. 547:
463.
Volmer v. Schuylkill Riv. E. S. R.
R. Co., 18 iPhil. 248: 717.
Vorhes v. Ackley, 127 la. 658: 891.
Voris V. Pittsburg PI. Glass Co., 163
Ind. 599: 11.
Vorrath v. Hoboken, 49 N. J. L. 285 :
608.
Vose V. Newport St. R. R. Co., 17
R. L 134: 621.
Vossen v. Dantel, 116 Mo. 379: 881.
Vought V. Columbus etc. R. R. Co.,
58 Ohio St. 123: 424, 808, 1503.
Vreeland v. Bayonne, 54 N. J. L. 488 :
1086.
Vyner v. Hoglake R. R. Co., 17 W.
R. 92: 851.
Vyse V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 126
la. 90: 92, 169.
W.
Wabash v. Alber, 88 Ind. 428: 602.
V. Defiance, 52 Ohio St. 262: 238.
Wabash & Erie Canal v. Spears, 16'
Ind. 441: 91.
Wabash etc. R. R. Co. v. Illinois,
118 U. S. 557: 480, 482.
V. McDougall, 118 111. 229: 937,
1246.
V. McDougall, 126 III. Ill: 1195,
1201, 1243, 1246, 1249.
V. Sanders, 47 111. App. 436: 152,
1639.
ccxcn
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Wabash R. R. Co. v. Cincinnati etc.
R. R. Co., 29 Ind. App. 546:
1399.
V. Coon Run D. & L. Dist., 194 111.
310: 924.
V. Ft. Wayne etc. Traction Co.,
161 Ind. 295: 1619.
Wabaunsee Co. Comrs. v. Muhlen-
baeker, 18 Kan. 129: 973, 974.
Waddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 90 : 495,
519, 520, 534, 563.
Waddell v. New York, 8 Barb. 95:
211, 213, 238.
WaddyV. Johnson, 5 Ired. L. 333:
1277.
Wade V. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 147
N. C. 219: 339, 1119, 1122, 1123,
1546.
V. Hennessey, 55 Vt. 207 : 829, 947,
962, 1564.
Wadham v. Northeastern Ry. Co.,
14 L. R. Q. B. 747: 645.
V. Northeastern R. R. Co., L. R. 16
Q. B. D. 227: 1232.
Wadhams v. Lackawanna etc. R. R.
Co., 42 Pa. St. 303: 1467.
Wadleigh v. Oilman, 12 Me. 403:
468.
Wadsworth v. Smith, 11 Me. 278:
103.
V. Tillotson, 15 Conn. 365: 70.
V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 18 Colo.
600: 475.
Waffle V. New York Central R. R.
Co., 58 Barb. 413: 101.
V. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 53
N. Y. 11: 161, 1472.
Wager v. Troy Union R. R. Co., 25
N. Y. 526: 247, 315, 1630.
Waggeman v. North Peoria, 155 111.
545: 879, 1195, 1216.
V. North Peoria, 160 111. 277: 881.
V. North Peoria, 41 111. App. 132:
881, 884, 885.
Waggoner v. Wabash R. R. Co., 185
111. 154: 842, 843, 855, 1627.
Wagner v. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co.,
22 Ohio St. 5e.3 : 1506.
V. Gage County, 3 Neb. 237: 1179.
V. Long Island R. R. Co., 2 Hun
633: 157.
V. Milwaukee County, 112 Wis.
601: 738.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 79 Hun
445: 1296.
T. Railway Co., 38 Ohio St. 32:
1461, 1569.
Wainwright v. Ramsden, 5 M. & W.
602: 1260.
Waite V. Drainage District, 226 111.
207: 1019. '
Waite V. Port Reading R. R. Co.,
48 N. J.'Eq. 346: 1462.
Wakefield v. Boston & Maine R. R.
Co., 63 Me. 385: 1107.
V. Newell, 12 R. I. 75: 234.
Wakeman v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 35 N. J. Eq. 496 : 844.
Walbridge v. Cabot, 67 Vt. 114: 1009,
1018, 1360.
V. Russell Co., 74 Kan. 341 : 1328.
Waldmuller v. Brooklyn El. R. R.
Co., 40 App. Div. N. Y. 242:
1585.
Waldron v. Haverhill, 143 Mass. 582 :
454.
Waldrop v. Greenwood etc. R. R. Co.,
28 S. C. 157: 158.
Walker v. Board of Public Works,
16 Ohio 540: 74, 97, 104.
V. Boston, 8 Cush, 279: 1128.
V. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 3
Cush. 1: 1087.
V. Caywood, 31 N. Y. 51: 422.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 57 Mo.
275: 1626.
V. City Council, 1 Bailey Ch. (S.
C.) 443: 1640.
V. Corn, 3 A. K. Marshall 167:
1004, 1017.
V. Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 6
Harr. 594: 1700.
V. Ga. Pac. R. R. Co., 1 Miss.
Dec. 1: 748, 1071.
V. Lickens, 24 Mo. 298: 1636.
V. London & Blackwall Rv. Co.,
3 A. & E. N. S. 744: 823.
V. Mad River etc. R. R. Co., 8
Ohio, 38: 824, 1576.
V. Manchester, 58 N. H. 438: 1326.
V. Old Colony & Newport R. R.
Co., 103 Mass. 10: 61, 158, 1310.
V. Oxford Woolen Mfg. Co., 10
Met. 203: 937.
V. Sedalia, 74 Mo. App. 70: 630,
1308, 1549.
V. Shasta Power Co., 160 Fed.
856: 499, 536, 594.
v. So. Chester R. R. Co., 174 Pa.
St. 291: 1201.
V. United States, 106 U. S. 413:
19.
V. Ware, H. & B. Ry. Co., 35 L. J.
Eq. 94: 1537, 1540, 1541.
V. Winkler, 60 N. J. L. 105: 973,
1420.
Wallace v. Alvord, 39 Ga. 609: 19.
V. Ann Arbor etc. Ry. Co., 121
Mich. 588: 855.
CASES CITED.
CCXClll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Wallace v. (Columbia etc. R. R. Co.,
34 S. C. 62: 93.
V. Columbia etc. R. R. Co., 37 S.
C. 335: 92.
V. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 16 U.
C. Q. B. 551: 158.
V. Jefferson Gas Co., 147 Pa. St.
205: 1331.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 47
Mo. App. 491: 180, 224, 1549,
1649, 1656, 1660.
V. Karlenowefski, 19 Barb. 118:
1156.
V. New Castle Northern R. Co.,
138 Pa. St. 168: 1466.
V. Richmond, 94 Va. 204: 485,
673.
V. Shellton, 14 La. Ann. 503: 12.
Wallach v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
Ill App. Div. 273: 257.
Waller v. Martin, 17 B. Mon. 181:
1159, 1160, 1636.
V. McConnell, 19 Wis. 417 : 976.
Walley v. Platte & D. Ditch Co., 15
Colo. 579: 356, 643.
Wallman v. R. Connor Co., 115 Wis.
617: 5^3, 516.
Wall Street, Matter of, 17 Barb. 617:
1705.
Walnut St. Bridge, In re, 191 Pa..
St. 153: 635.
Walnut St. Opening, 7 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 502: 1029.
Walpole V. Mass. Chemical Co., 192
Mass. 66: 1003, 1619.
Walrath v. Redfleld, 18 N. Y. 457:
1323.
Walsh V. Board of Education, 73 N.
J. L. 643: 1119, 1130, 1676, 1684.
V. Brooklyn Union El. R. R. Co.,
69 App. Div. 380: 1584.
V. Milwaukee, 95 Wis. 16: 212,
224.
V. Scranton, 23 Pa. Super. Ct.
276: 373, 382, 394, 647.
V. Wallace, 26 Nev. 299: 70.
Walston V. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578:
14.
Waltemeyer v. Wisconsin etc. Ry.
Co., 71 la. 026: 1135.
Walter v. County Comrs., 35 Md.
385: 234.
Walters v. Houck, 7 la. 72: 1091,
1094, 1377.
V. St. Louis, 132 Mo. 1: 227.
Walther v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
215 111. 456: 655, 1613.
V. Warner, 25 Mo. 277: 434, 1166,
1169, 1171.
Waltmeyer v. Wisconsin, la. & Neb.
Ry. Co., 64 la. 688: 1405.
Walton V. Norman, 102 Ky. 114:
1407.
Wamesit Power Co. v. Allen, 120
Mass. 352: 706, 1514, 1634.
Ward V. Albemarle etc. R. R. Co.,
112 N. C. 168: 1454.
V. Folly, 5 N. J. L. 482: 865.
V. Marietta etc. Co., 6 Ohio St. 15:
1493.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 82
Hun 545: 849, 856.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 152
N. Y. 39: 1354.
V. Minnesota & Northwestern R.
R. Co., 119 111. 287: 898, 1047,
1048.
V. Newton, 181 Mass. 432: 1414,
1415, 1418.
V. Peck, 49 N. J. L. 42: 438,
1156.
V. State, 12 Lea 469: 1506.
V. Triple State Nat. Gas & Oil Co.,
115 Ky. 723: 337, 837, 838.
Warden v. Madisonville etc. R. R.
Co., 31 Ky. L. R. 234: 990,
1047, 1049, 1059, 1060, 1066.
V. Philadelphia, 167 Pa. St. 523:
1236, 1270.
Ware v. County Comrs., 38 Me. 492:
1017.
V. Regents Canal Co., 3 DeG. &
J. 212: 653.
Warfel v. Cochran, 34 Pa. St. 381:
89, 1603.
Waring v. Cherew & Darlington R.
R. Co., 16 S. C. 416: 1707, 1708.
V. Little Rock, 02 Ark. 408: 864.
Warlick v. Lowman, 101 N. C. 548:
1406.
V. Lowman, 103 N. C. 122, 516,
522, 976, 1076.
V. Lowman, 104 N. C. 403: 516,
522.
V. Lowman, 111 N. C. 532: 1070.
Warne v. Baker, 24 111. 351: 973,
1400.
V. Baker, 35 111. 382: 973, 975,
1513, 1516.
Warner v. Doran, 30 la. 521: 1710.
V. Ford L. & M. Co., 123 Ky. 103
99, 1262.
V. Franklin County, 131 Mass. 348
992.
V. Gloversville, 81 App. Div. 291
83.
V. Gunnison, 2 Colo. App. 430
681, 1056, 1112.
V. Hennepin Co., 9 Minn. 139: 703,
1156, 1638.
V. Maxwell, 124 Ga. 518: 90, 1604.
CCXCIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Warner v. Eailroad Co., 39 Ohio St.
70: 835, 836, 864, 1569, 1573.
Warrell, Appeal of, 130 Pa. St. 600 :
1561.
Warren v. Brown, 31 Neb. 8: 882,
886, 1514.
V. Bunnell, 11 Vt. 600: 431.
V. First Division of the St. Paul
6 Pacific K. R. Co., 18 Minn.
384: 824, 930, 1159, 1424.
V. First Division St. Paul & Pacific
E. R. Co., 21 Minn. 424: 1225,
1227, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1326.
V. Gloversville, 81 App. Div. 291:
1605.
V. Grand Haven, 30 Mich. 24 : 335.
V. Henry, 31 la. 31: 603, 616.
V. Parkhurst, 105 App. Div. 239:
1605.
V. Parkhurst, 186 N. Y. 45: 1605.
V. Spencer Water Co., 143 Mass.
9: 912, 1634.
V. Spencer Water Co., 143 Mess.
155: 1127, 1131.
V. Wisconsin Valley R. R. Co., 6
Biss. 425: 931.
Warren Academy of Sciences, 29 Pa.
Co. Ct. 30: 709.
Warren County v. Rand, 88 Miss.
395: 1306, 1308.
Warren etc. R. R. Co. v. Garrison,
74 Ark. 136: 1631.
Warrior Run Road, 3 Binn 3: 1359.
Warwick Institute for Savings v.
Providence, 12 R. I. 144: 947,
1023.
Washburn v. Milwaukee etc. R. R.
Co., 59 Wis. 364: 1110, 1111,
1120, 1123, 1138, 1180, 1216,
1408, 1439.
V. Milwaukee & Lake Winnebago
R. R. Co., 59 Wis. 379: 1402.
Washburn & M. Mfg. Co. v. Wor-
cester, 153 Mass. 494: 84, 1337.
Washington v. Barnes, 2 N. Y. Supm.
Ct. 637: 1670.
v. Fisher, 43 N. J. L. 377: 700,
1368.
V. Gibbs, 44 N. J. L. 169: 1366.
Washington Ave., 69 Pa. St. 352:
10.
Washington & Bait. Turnpil<e Road
V. Baltimore & O. R. E. Co., 10
G. & J. 392: 409.
Washington Bridge Co. v. State, 18
Conn. 53: 491.
Washington Cemetery Co. v. Pros-
pect Park & C. I. R. E. Co.,
7 Hun 655: 247, 1580.
V. Prospect Park etc. E. R. Co.,
68 N. Y. 591: 304, 808, 1580.
Washington Co. Water Co. v. Gar-
ver, 91 Md. 398: 165.
Washington etc. R. R. Co., In re,
115 N. Y. 442: 719.
Washington etc. Ry. Co. v. Alexan-
dria, 98 Va. 344: 361, 491.
V. Coeur D'Alene E. & N. Co.,
60 Fed. 981 : 728, 905.
V. Coeur D'Alene Ey. & Nav. Co.,
3 Ida. 263: 1107.
V. Switzer, 26 Gratt. 661: 1097,
1384.
Washington Ice Co. v. Chicago, 147
111. 327: 1195, 1215, 1248.
V. Lay, 103 Ind. 48: 974, 1028,
1069.
V. White, 166 111. 375: 1215.
Washington Park, 1 Sandf. 283:
1383.
Washington Park Comrs., Matter of,
56 N. Y. 144: 1670.
Washington Park Comrs., Matter of,
2 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 637: 1670.
Washington St., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 288:
1386.
Washington St., In re, 19 E. I. 156:
1107, 1387.
Waterbury's Appeal, 57 Conn. 84:
1395.
Waterbury v. Darien, 8 Conn. 161 :
992.
V. Darien, 19 Conn. 252: 1387.
V. Dry Dock etc. E. R. Co., 54
Barb. 388: 909.
V. Piatt Bros. & Co., 75 Conn. 387 :
453, 708, 724, 813, 1606.
V. Piatt Bros. & Co., 75 Conn. 435:
1163.
V. Piatt Bros. & Co., 76 Conn. 435:
453, 674, 725, 1158, 1253, 1606.
Waterbury River Turnpike Co. v.
Litchfield, 26 Conn. 209: 423.
Water Comrs., Matter of, 55 App.
Div. 77: 1263.
Water Comrs., Matter of, 71 App.
Div. 544: 1266.
Water Comrs., Matter of, 3 Edwards
Ch. 290: 117, 133.
Water Comrs., Matter of, 3 Edwards
Ch. 552: 732, 879, 1267, 1330.
Water Comrs., Matter of, 4 Edw. Ch.
545: 1253.
Water Comrs., Matter of, 176 N. Y.
239: 1266.
Water Comrs. v. Lawrence, 3 Edw.
Ch. 552: 731, 810, 813, 893.
Water Comrs. of Amsterdam, Matter
of, 96 N. Y. 351: 809, 813.
Waterford v. County Comrs., 59 Me.
450: 1069.
CASES CITED.
CCXCV
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. 11, pp. 743-1719.]
Waterford Elee. Lt. H. & P. Co. v.
Reed, 47 Misc. 406: 1263, 1338.
Waterhouse t. County Comrs. etc.,
44 Me. 368: 1079.
Waterloo Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Shana-
han, 128 N. Y. 345: 495.
Waterman v. Buck, 58 Vt. 519:
84, 1605.
V. Connecticut etc. R. R. Co., 30
Vt. 610: 158, 461.
Waters v. Bay View, 61 Wis. 642:
148, 234.
V. Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co.,
115 N. C. 648: 158.
v. Philadelphia, 208 Pa. St. 189:
882, 884, 885.
Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. New Iberia,
47 La. An. 863: 469.
Watertown v. County Comrs., 176
Mass. 22: 1416.
V. Cowen, 4 Paige 510: 872.
v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315; 14, 469.
Waterville, Petitioner, 31 Me. 506:
1415.
Water Works v. Sharpstein, 50 Cal.
284: 57.
Water Works Co. v. Burkhart, 41
Ind. 364: 21, 503, 675, 743, 806,
808, 1496.
Watkin v. W. Phila. Pass. R. R. Co.,
11 Pa. Co. Ct. 648: 1587.
V. W. Phila. Pass. R. R. Co., 1 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 463: 297, 314, 316
1590.
Watkins v. Dorris, 24 Wash. 636:
98.
v. la. Cent. Ry. Co., 123 la. 390:
837, 838, 1500.
V. Pickering, 92 Ind. 332: 978.
v. Wabash R. R. Co., 137 la. 441 :
1139, 1204.
V. Walker County, 18 Tex. 585:
1155, 1546, 1547.
V. Welch Grape Juice Co., 96 App.
Div. 114: 881.
Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98
Tex. 578 : 69, 72.
Watkinson v. McCoy, 23 Wash. 372:
92.
Watson V. Acquaekanouck Water Co.,
36 N. J. L. 195: 708, 814, 823.
V. Carver, 27 App. Cas. D. C. 535:
886.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 46 Minn.
321: 871, 873, 1626.
V. Crowsore, 93 Ind. 220: 980,
1119, 1121.
V. Fairmont etc. Ry. Co., 49 W.
Va. 528: 1587, 1612.
V. Grand Rapids & I. R. R. Co.,
91 Mich. 198: 947, 1564.
Watson V. Kingston, 43 Hun 367:
235
V. Kingston, 114 N. Y. 88: 235.
V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 17 Abb.
N. C. 289: 924.
V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 57 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 364: 1584, 1664.
V. Milwaukee & Madison Ry. Co.,
57 Wis. 332: 954, 1115, 1138,
1145, 1146, 1236, 1241, 1404.
V. New Milford, 72 Conn. 561: 83.
V. New Milford Water Co., 71
Conn. 442: 73.
V. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 47
N. Y. 157: 949, 951, 961.
V. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 1
Sheldon 159: 949.
V. Pittsburgh & Connellsville R.
R. Co., 37 Pa. St. 469: 624.
V. Robertson Ave. R. R. Co., 69
Mo. App. 548: 311, 1587.
V. Sewickley, 91 Pa. St. 330: 941,
1030.
V. South Kingston, 5 R. I. 562:
513.
V. Trustee, 21 Ohio St. 667: 438,
1155.
V. VanMeter, 43 la. 76: 1459.
Watson Exr. v. Trustees etc., 21 Ohio
St. 667: 1154, 1572.
Watterson v. Allegheny etc. R. R.
Co., 74 Pa. St. 208: 850, 852,
853.
Watts V. Derry, 22 N. H. 498: 1118.
V. Norfolk & W. R. R. Co., 39 W.
Va. 196: 846, 1263, 1455, 1662.
Watuppa Reservoir Co. v. Fall River,
134 Mass. 267: 74, 78, 961.
v. Fall River, 147 Mass. 548: 109,
119, 138.
V. Fall River, 154 Mass. 305 : 138.
Wavikegan v. Weale, 118 111. App.
460: 156.
Wautauga Water Co. v. Scott, 111
Tenn. 321: 706, 724, 738, 744,
1154.
Waverly v. Waverly Water Co., 127
App. Div. 440 : 898.
Waverly Water Works, Matter of,
16 Hun 57: 1670.
Waverly Water Works, Matter of,
85 N. Y. 478: 1670, 1685.
Waycross v. Houk, 113 Ga. 963: 83,
1604.
Waycross Air Line R. R. Co. v.
Southern Pine Co., Ill Ga. 233:
862, 1568.
Wayland v. County Commissioners,
4 Gray 500: 536.
Wayne v. Caldwell, 1 S. D. 483: 707,
1360, 1511.
CCXCVl
CASES CITED.
[Tlie references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Wayne v. County Comrs. 37 Me. 558:
1421.
Wayne Ave., Opening of, 124 Pa. St.
135: 879, 1327.
Wayne County Sav. Bank v. Stock-
well, 84 Mich. 586: 865, 867.
Waynesborough School District, 1
Pa. Co. Ct. 422 : 1670.
Wayne Tp. Road, 34 Pa. Co. Ct. 576 :
1095.
Wayzata v. Great Northern R. R.
Co., 46 Minn. 505: 876, 1578.
V. Great Northern R. R. Co., 50
Minn. 438: 308, 314, 322, 1492,
1643.
V. Gt. Northern R. R. Co., 67 Minn.
385: 305.
Wead V. St. Johnsbury etc. R. R. Co.,
64 Vt. 52: 319, 620, 622.
Weage v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 227
111. 421: 197, 395, 401.
Weatherby Water Co's Petition, 21
Pa. Co. Ct. 330: 1682.
Weathersfield v. Humphry, 20 Conn.
218: 788.
Weaver v. Gregg, 6 Ohio St. 547:
943, 945.
V. Miss. & Rum Riv. B. Co., 28
Minn. 534: 67, 90, 94, 100.
V. Miss. etc. Boom Co. 30 Minn.
477: 90.
Weaver's Road, 45 Pa. St. 405: 1417.
Webb v. Co. Comrs., 77 Me. 180:
1371.
V. Demopolis, 95 Ala. 116: 104,
114, 1491.
V. Fuel Co., 16 Wkly. L. B. 121:
176.
V. Manchester etc. R. R. Co., 4
Mylne & Craig 116: 815, 1061,
1572.
V. New York, 64 How. Pr. 10:
459.
V. Rocky Hill, 21 Conn. 468: 401.
Webber v. Pere Marquette Boom Co.,
62 Mich. 626: 104, 114, 115.
Weber v. Berlin, 8 Ont. 302: 84.
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 2 Met. 147:
1314.
V. Harbor Comrs., 18 Wall. 57:
136.
V. Iowa City, 119 la. 633: 1492.
V. Ryers, 82 Mich. 177: 1412.
V. Santa Clara County, 59 Cal.
265: 24.
V. Stagray, 75 Mich. 32: 1182,
1512, 1516, 1634.
V. Toledo, 3 Ohio C. C. (N. S.)
319: 882, 940, 1561.
Webster v. Bridgewater, 63 N. H.
296: 996.
Webster v. Fargo, 9 N. D. 208: 11,
464.
V. Fargo, 181 U. S. 394: 11, 464.
V. Harris, 111 Tenn. 668: 113.
V. Holland, 58 Me. 168: 954, 963.
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 116
Mo. 114: 1146, 1229, 1232, 1235,
1320, 1546, 1547.
V. Lowell, 142 Mass. 324: 376, 391,
402, 1492.
V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 78 Ohio
St. 87: 1715.
V. Washington Co., 26 Minn. 220:
1083.
Weckler v. Chicago, 61 111. 142 : 992.
Weed V. Boston, 172 Mass. 28: 10,
463.
V. Goodwin, 36 Wash. 31: 739,
1177.
Weel<s V. Grace, 194 Mass. 296: 9.
V. Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 242 : 235.
V. N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co., 86 App.
Div. 257: 343, 1594.
Wegmann v. Jefferson, 61 Mo. 55:
237.
Wehn V. Commissioners of Gage Co..
5 Neb. 494: 58.
Wehrenberg v. Seiferd, 56 Misc. 356:
1562.
Weide v. St. Paul, 62 Minn. 67: 1324,
Weidenfeld v. Sugar Run R. R. Co..
48 Fed. 615: 528, 529, 534, 1574.
Weigold V. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co.,
208 Pa. St. 81: 1356.
Weiland v. Ashton, 18 S. D. 331:
1372, 1514.
Weimer v. Bumbury, 30 Mich. 201 :
1007.
Weir V. Borough of Plymouth, 148
Pa. St. 566: 155.
V. Claude, i6 Devall 575: 866.
V. Owensboro & N. R. R. Co. (Ky.)
21 S. W. 643: 324.
V. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co., 18
Minn. 155: 673, 683, 1010, 1186,
1206, 1400, 1466.
Weirston v. Waggoner, 5 J. J. Marsh.
41: 1077.
Weis V. Madison, 75 Ind. 241 : 233.
Weiss V. Oregon etc. Co., 13 Or. 496:
70.
V. South Bethlehem, 136 Pa. St.
294: 882, 885, 1319, 1324.
Welch V. Boston, 126 Mass. 442: 484,
948.
V. Hodge, 94 Mich. 493: 952, 966,
1017.
V. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.,
27 Wis. 108: 1208, 1210.
V. Piercey, 7 Ired. L. 365: 1636.
V. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364: 468.
CASES CITED.
ecxcvii
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Welch V. Tippery, 66 Neb. 604: 1354,
1577.
Weld V. Brooks, 152 Mass. 297 : 865.
Welde V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 28
App. Div. 379: 326.
Welland v. Buflalo etc. R. R. Co., 30
U. C. Q. B. 147: 1631.
Welles V. Cowles, 4 Conn. 182: 1558,
1683.
Wellington v. Boston & M. R. R. Co.
158 Mass. 185: 1135, 1207.
V. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 164
Mass. 380: 1207.
Wellington et al. Petitioners, 16
Pick. 87: 784.
Wellington etc. R. R. Co. v. Cashie
etc. Co., 114 N. C. 690: 1047.
V. Cashie etc. Co., 116 N. C. 924:
1165, 1169, 1467, 1577.
Welliver v. Pa. Canal Co., 23 Pa.
Super. Ct. 79: 144.
Wellman v. Chicago & G. T. R. R.
Co., 83 Mich. 592: 481, 483.
Wells V. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.,
30 Conn. 316: 1459, 1640.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 19 Mo.
App. 127: 1187.
V. County Comrs. 79 Me. 522: 778.
V. Harris, 137 Mo. 512: 438.
V. Hic'cs, 27 111. 343: 1095.
V. McLaughlin, 17 Ohio 97 : 701.
V. New Haven etc. Co., 1 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 708: 1647, 1662.
V. New Haven etc. R. R. Co., 151
Mass. 46: 144, 1650, 1652, 1715.
V. Northern R. R. Co., 14 Ontario
594: 1485, 1646.
V. Rhodes, 114 Ind. 467: 996, 1028,
1046, 1407.
V. Somerset & Kennebec R. R. Co.,
47 Me. 345: 818.
Wells' Ave. Sewer, Matter of, 46
Hun 534: 1670.
Wellsburg etc. R. R. Co. v. Pan Han-
dle Traction Co., 56 W. Va. 18:
772.
Wells Co. Road, Matter of, 7 Ohio
St. 16: 975, 1100, 1406.
Welsh V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 19
Mo. App. 127: 1546.
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 57
N. y. Supr. Ct. 408: 1427.
V. New Castle etc. R. R. Co., 6 Pa.
Co. Ct. 56: 918.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 16
Daly 515: 1300, 1664.
V. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450: 1504.
V. Tippery, 66 Neb. 604: 859.
Welton V. Dickson, 38 Neb. 767 : 495,
496, 498, 499, 516, 675, 1154,
1572, 1574, 1576.
Wendel v. Board of Education (N.
.T. L.) 70 Atl. 152: 083.919,976.
V. Spokane County, 27 Wash. 121:
144, 167, 957.
Wendt V. Board of Suprs. 87 Minn.
403: 375, 386, 390.
Wenger v. Fisher, 55 W. Va. 13:
1569.
Wentworth v. Farmington, 48 N. H.
207: 696.
v. Farmington, 49 N. H. 119: 1088.
V. Farmington, 51 N. H. 128: 1095.
V. Milton, 46 N. H. 448: 981.
V. Portsmouth, 68 N. H. 392:
1320, 1324.
Werges v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 35
La. An. 641 : 243, 245, 248, 447,
448, 1303.
Werlev v. Huntington Waterworks
Co., 138 Ind. 148: 1376.
Werner v. Papf, 94 Minn. 118: 148,.
Wirth V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 7
Ohio C. C. 290: 1593.
V. Springfield, 78 Mo. 107: 237,
630.
V. Springfield, 22 Mo. App. 12:
634.
Werthman v. Mason City etc. R. R.
Co., 128 la. 135: 1129, 1147,
1260, 1404.
Westcott V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
152 Mass. 465: 1502, 1504.
Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co., 13
Allen 95: 649.
West V. Bancroft, 32 Vt. 371: 337,
355
V. McGurn, 43 Barb. 198: 1400.
V. Milwaukee etc. Ry. Co., 56 Wis.
318: 1138, 1225, 1227, 1321,
1323.
V. Octoraro Water Co., 159 Fed.
528: 934, 1616.
V. Parkdale, 7 Ont. 270: 319.
V. Parkdale, 8 Ont. 59: 319, 709,
710.
V. Parkdale, 15 Ont. 310: 236,
1307, 1309.
V. Parkdale, 12 U. C. App. 393:
236.
V. West & East R. R. Co., 61 Miss.
536: 1634.
West Arlington Imp. Co. v. Mount
Hope Retreat, 97 Md. 191: 81,
1604.
West Bellevue Bor. v. Huddleston, 1
Monaghan (Pa. Supm.) 129:
159.
West Boston Bridge Co. v. County
Comrs. of Middlesex, 10 Pick.
270: 782.
CCXCVlll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
West Branch & Susquehanna Canal
Co. V. Mulliner, 68 Pa. St. 357:
144.
Westbrook's Appeal, 57 Conn. 96:
487.
Westbrook v. Baldwin Co., 121 Ga.
442: 90, 95.
V. Muscatine etc. R. E. Co., 115
la. 106: 1209.
Westbrooke v. North, 1 Me. 179:
1683.
West Chester & W. Plank Road Co.
V. Chester County, 182 Pa. St. 40:
1149, 1261, 1264.
West Chicago Masonic Ass. v. Chi-
cago, 215 111. 278: 1271: 1340.
West Chicago Park Comrs. v. Boal,
232 111. 248: 1230, 1378.
V. McMullen, 134 111. 170: 732.
West Chicago St. R. R. Co. v. Chi-
cago, 172 111. 198: 1222, 1426.
V. People, 214 111. 9: 97, 102, 488,
1644.
V. People, 201 U. S. 506: 488.
West Covington v. Schultz, 16 Ky.
L. R. 831: 230.
West End Narrow Gauge R. R. Co.
V. Almeroth, 13 Mo. App. 91: 924,
1046, 1074.
Western Am. Co. v. St. Ann Co., 22
Wash. 158: 1395, UOJ.
Western Ave., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 233 : 938,
1098.
Western etc. R. R. Co. v. Richards,
137 Pa. St. 524: 858.
Western Md. E. R. Co. v. Patterson,
37 Md. 125 : 1624.
Western N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. v. Buf-
falo etc. R. R. Co., 193 Pa. St.
127: 771. .
Western Pacific R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 41
Cal. 489: 431.
v. Reed, 35 Cal. 621: 1097, 1379.
V. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Fed. 376:
128, 130.
V. Tevis, 41 Cal. 489: 956.
Western Paper Co. v. Pope, 155 Ind.
394: 81, 1604.
Western Penn. R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
99 Pa. St. 155: 726.
Western Penn. R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
152 Pa. St. 319: 1364, 1384.
Western Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v.
Hill, 56 Pa. St. 460: 1340.
v. Johnston, 59 Pa. St. 290: 1540,
1541, 1543.
Western R. R. of Ala. v. Ala. G. T.
R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272: 172, 175,
242, 246, 249, 250, 877, 1582.
Western R. R. Co. v. Dickson, 30
Wis. 389: 1040, 1080.
V. Owinga, 15 Md. 199: 1570, 1574.
Western Turf Ass. v. Greenburg, 204
U. S. 359: 468.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic
& Pacific Tel. Co., 7 Biss. 367:
412, 748, 832.
V. Am. Tel. Co., 9 Biss. 72: 412,
832
V. Am. Union Tel. Co., 65 Ga.
160: 412, 775, 791, 832.
V. B. & 0. Tel. Co. 19 Fed. 060:
412 832
V. B. & 0. Tel. Co., 23 Fed. 12: 412,
832
V. Builard, 67 Vt. 272: 343, 1357,
1489.
V. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 11
Fed. I: 832.
I'. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 3 Mc-
Crary 130: 412, 832.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 86 111.
246: 412.
V. Electric Lt. Co., 46 Mo. App.
120: 418.
V. Elec. Lt. & P. Co., 81 App. Div.
655: 418.
V. Elec. Lt. & P. Co., 178 N. Y.
325: 418.
V. Guernsey etc. Lt. Co., 46 Mo.
App. 120: 1621.
V. Los Angeles Elec. Co., 76 Fed.
178: 418.
V. Moyle, 51 Kan. 185: 438.
V. New York, 38 Fed. 552: 489.
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540:
679, 682, 688.
V. Rich, 19 Kan. 517: 425, 1473.
V. Shepard, 49 App. Div. 345:
182, 1562.
V. Shepard, 72 App. Div. 108: 321.
V. Shepard, 169 N. Y. 170: 182,
1562.
V. Smith, 64 Ohio St. 106: 349,
350.
v. Williams, 86 Va. 696 : 200, 332,
339, 710, 738, 1154, 1155, 1158.
West Fallowfield Road, 7 Pa. Co. Ct.
645: 1095.
Westfleld Cem. Assn. v. Danielson,
62 Conn. 319: 542, 896.
Westfleld Gas & M. Co. v. Menden-
hall, 142 Ind. 538: 481.
West Goshen Roads, 7 Pa. Co. Ct.
250: 993.
West Hefler v. Lebanon & A. St. R.
R. Co., 163 Pa. St. 54: 280,
324, 1587, 1588, 1591.
West Jersey etc. R. R. Co. v. Ocean
City R. R. Co., 61 N. J. L. 506:
1040.
v. Cape May etc. R. R. Co., 34 N.
J. Eq. 164: 268.
OASES CITED.
CCXCIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
West Jersey R. R. Co. v. Camden etc.
Ry. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 31: 295,
1611.
V. Camden, Gloucester & Woodbury
Ry. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 31: 282.
West Jersey Traction Co., In re, 59
N. J. Eq. 63: 771.
West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden
Horse R. R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq.
163: 289, 911.
West Manchester Road, 10 Pa. Co.
Ct. 429: 1069, 1387.
West Muncie Strawboard Co. v.
Slaelv, 164 Ind. 21: 81 .
West Newbury v. Chase, 5 Gray 421 :
1119, 1120, 1128.
Weston V. Ralston, 48 W. Va. 170:
1492.
West Orange v. Field, 37 N. J. Eq.
600: 155, 233, 1606.
Westphal v. New York, 75 App. Div.
252: 1554, 1607.
v. New York, 177 N. Y. 140: 163,
1554, 16u7.
West Pikeland Road, 63 Pa. St.
471: 512.
West Point v. Bland, 106 Va. 792:
883.
West Point W. & P. & L. I. Co. v.
State, 49 Neb. 218: 486.
Westport V. County Comrs., 9 Allen
204: 979, 982, 1422.
V. Mulholland, 159 Mo. 86: 467.
West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6
How. 507: 407, 525, 539, 781,
788, 790, 792.
V. Dix, 16 Vt. 446: 678, 781, 788.
West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 7 Allen
158: 109, 113.
West Seattle v. West Seattle L. & 1.
Co., 38 Wash. 359: 1492, 1623.
West Two Hundred and Fourteenth
St., Matter of, 109 App. Div.
575: 1493.
West Virginia etc. R. R. Co. v. Gib-
son, 94 Ky. 234: 1183, 1201,
1231.
West Virginia Short Line R. R. Co.
V. Belington etc. R. R. Co., 56 W.
Va. 360: 901, 908.
West Virginia Transportation Co. v.
Ohio River Pipe Line Co., 22 W.
Va. 600: 413, 832.
V. Volcanic Coal & Oil Co., 5 W.
Va. 382: 534, 896.
West Whiteland Road, 4 Pa. Co.
Ct. 511: 698.
Wetherill v. Penn. R. R. Co., 195 Pa.
St. 156: 394.
Wetherspoon v. State, Mar. & Yerg.
118: 1165.
Wetmore v. Story, 22 Barb. 414: 268,
297, 1586.
Weyer v. Chicago, Wis. & N. W. R.
R. Co., 68 Wis. 180: 1232, 1312.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 57
Wis. 329: 1400.
Weyl V. Sonoma Valley R. R. Co.,
69 Cal. 202: 246, 1629.
Weymouth v. Commissioners, 86 Me.
391: 976, 1004, 1098, 1099.
V. Port Townsend etc. R. R. Co., 6
Wash. 575: 778, 1623.
Whalen v. Bates, 19 R. I. 274: 1567.
V. Gordon, 95 Fed. 305: 996.
Whaley v. New York, 83 App. Div.
6: 1617.
Whalley v. Lancashire & Yorkshire
Ry. Co.. 13 L. R. Q. B. 131:
156.
V. Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry. Co
16 L. R. Q. B. 227: 156.
Wharton v. Stevens, 84 la. 107 : 149.
V. United States, 153 Fed. 876:
430.
Wharton St., 48 Pa. St. 487: 1390.
Whatcom County v. Yellowkanuni,
48 Wash. 90: 1396.
Wheat V. Van Line, 149 Mich. 314:
606, 619.
Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 528:
165.
Wheeler v. Aberdeen, 45 Wash. 63 :
468.
v. Bloomington, 105 111. App. 97:
630, 1306.
V. Clark, 58 N. Y. 267: 368, 380,
388.
V. Essex Public Road Board, 39
N. J. L. 29: 1344.
V. Fitchburg, 150 Mass. 350 : 1468,
1704.
V. Kirtland, 27 N. J. Eq. 534: 943,
945, 1565.
V. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co.,
12 Barb. 227: 'l251.
V. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377 : 109.
V. Young, 4 Wend. 647: 1106.
Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. v. Wheel-
ing & B. Bridge Co., 138 U. S.
287: 412, 782, 797, 800.
Wheeling Bridge Co. v. Wheeling &
B. Bridge Co., 34 W. Va. 153:
412, 782, 797, 799.
Wheeling Bridge & T. R. R. Co. v.
Camden Consol. Oil Co., 35 W.
Va. 205: 717, 913.
v. Wheeling S. & I. Co., 41 W. Va.
747: 1424.
Wheeling etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 1
Penny 360: 855.
cce
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Wheeling etc. E. R. Co. v. Laughlin,
15 Ohio C. C. 1 : 621.
V. Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 72 Ohio
St. 368: 1, 690, 696, 1042, 1061,
1066, 1624.
V. Triadelphia, 58 W. Va. 487 : 303,
360.
V. Warrell, 122 Pa. St. 613: 1460,
1626.
V. Wheeling S. & I. Co., 41 W. Va.
747: 1423.
Wheeloek v. Young, 4 Wend. 647:
813, 1155, 1164.
Wheelwright v. Boston, 188 Mass.
521: 512, 1154.
Whipple V. Fair Haven, 63 Vt. 221:
141, 1606, 1617.
Whistler v. Drain Comrs., 40 Mich.
591: 893, 894.
Whitacre v. St. Paul & Sioux City
R. R. Co., 24 Minn. 311: 1225,
1321.
Whitaker v. Phoenixville, 141 Pa.
St. 327: 1207.
V. State, 109 Ind. 600: 1514.
Whitcher v. Benton, 48 N. H. 157:
a41, 954, 1030.
V. Landaff, 48 N. H. 153 : 1070.
White's Case, 2 Overton 109: 678,
1421.
White V. Blanchard Bros. etc. Co.,
178 Mass. 363; 291, 301, 318,
334.
V. Boston & Providence R. R. Co.,
6 Cush. 420: 1150, 1344.
V. Bridge Co., 189 Pa. St. 500:
1210.
V. Charleston, 2 Hill S. C. 571:
17.
V. Charlotte etc. R. R. Co., 6
Rich. 47: 1192.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 122 Ind.
317: 326, 425, 1457, 1472.
V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 34
Ind. App. 287: 807, 1192, 1201,
1270, 1276, 1331.
V. Codd, 39 Wash. 14: 92.
V. Coleman, 6 Gratt. 138; 1081.
V. Co. Comrs., 2 Cush. 361: 1409.
V. Co. Comrs., 70 Me. 317: 969,
1414, 1415.
V. East Lake Land Co. 96 Ga.
415: 71, 72, 77.
V. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 4 Cush.
440: 1147.
V. Flannigan, 1 Md. 542: 183, 877,
1595.
V. Foxborough, 151 Mass. z6: 1317.
V. Godfrey, 97 Ma!3s. 472: 349.
V. Ivey, 34 Ga. 186: 19.
V. Landaff, 35 N. H. 128: 1376,
1511.
White V. Manhattan R. R. Co., 139
N. Y. 19: 302, 1354, 1355.
V. McKeesport, 101 Pa. St. 394:
1550.
V. Meadville, 177 Pa. St. 643: 416,
417.
V. Medford, 163 Mass. 164: 1252,
1340, 1639.
V. Memphis etc. R. R. Co., 64 Miss.
566: 840, 1086, 1516.
V. Metropolitan West Side El. R.
R. Co., 154 111. 620: 1207.
V. Nashville etc. R. R. Co. 7 Heisk.
518: 8, 1536, 1540, 1541, 1015.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 156
Mass. 181: 844.
V. Northwestern N. C. R. R. Co.,
113 N 0. 610: 180, 188, 190,
201, 203, 243, 247, 249, 255,
1548, 1549, 1552, 1649, 1657,
1662.
V. People, 94 111. 604: 12.
V. Smith, 37 Mich. 291: 874, 878,
886, 889.
V. South Shore R. R. Co., 6 Cush.
412: 783.
V. Tide Water Oil Co., 50 N. J. Eq.
1: 368: 377.
V. Wabash etc. Ry. Co., 64 la. 281 :
1464, 1470, 1534, 1626, 1628.
V. Whitney Mfg. Co.. 60 S. C. 254:
71.
V. Yazoo City, 27 Miss. 357: 335,
336.
White Bear v. Stewart, 40 Minn.
284: 884.
White Deer Creek Improvement Co.
V. Sassaman, 67 Pa. St. 415: 97
1123.
Whitefleld v. United States, 92 U. S.
165: 19.
Whiteford v. Probate Judge, 53 Mich.
130: 973, 1004, 1013. 1014,1016,
1420.
Whitehead v. Arkansas Central R. R.
Co., 28 Ark. 460: 24, 924, 1634.
V. Denver, 13 Colo. App. 134: 914,
1046.
V. Manor, 23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 314:
1307.
Whitehouse v. Androscoggin R. R.
Co., 52 Me. 208: 435, 1252.
V. Fellows, 100 E. C. L. R. 765:
1651, 1655.
Whiteley Road, 2 Monaghan (Pa.
Supreme Ct.) 194: 1361, 1364.
Whitely v. Miss. Water Power &
Boom Co., 38 Minn. 523: 1186,
1199.
V. Platte Co., 73 Mo. 30: 973, 974,
1025, 1032, 1033.
CASES CITED.
CCCl
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Whiteman v. W. & S. R. R. Co., 2
Harr. (Del.) 514:
Whiteman's Executrix v. Wilmington
& Susquehanna R. R. Co., 2
Harr. Del. 514: 674, 922, 926,
1192.
Whitemarsh Road, 3 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 474: 1105.
White Oak Ry. Co. v. Gordan, 61 W.
Va. 519: 1423.
White Plains, Matter of, 65 App.
Div. 417: 1670.
White Plains, Matter of, 124 App.
Div. 1: 858, 1145, 1347, 1348.
White River Ry. Co. v. Batesville &
W. Tel. Co. 81 Ark. 195: 900,
1634.
White River Turnpike Co. v. Ver-
mont Central R. R. Co., 21 Vt.
590: 407, 410, 782, 788.
White's Bank v. Nichols, 64 N. Y.
65: 368.
Whitesides v. Green, 13 Utah, 341:
867.
Whitestown, Matter of, 24 N. Y.
Misc. 150: 513.
White Water Valley Canal Co. v.
Ferris, 2 Ind. 331: 1707, 1708.
V. Henderson, 8 Blackf. 528: 1399.
V. Henderson, 3 Ind. 3: 1101, 1510,
1512, 1526, 1528.
White Water Valley R. R. Co., v.
McClure, 29 Ind. 536: 1203,
1310, 1311.
Whiting V. Commonwealth, 196
Mass. 468: 626, 1273.
V. New Haven, 45 Conn. 303: 948.
Whitingham v. Bowen, 22 Vt. 317:
515.
Whitlock V. Hankins, 105 Va. 242:
735.
Whitman v. Boston & Maine R. R.
Co., 3 Allen 133: 940, 1116, 1137,
1241, 1271.
V. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 7
Allen 313: 1128, 1130, 1145,
1185, 1319.
\. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 16 Gray,
530: 996.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 96 111.
292: 383, 1403.
V. Nantucket, 169 Mass. 147: 1157,
1707.
Whitmark v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co.,
149 N. Y. 393: 1143.
Whitmier & F. Co. v. BufiFalo, 118
Fed. 773: 471.
Whitmore v. Smith, 29 L. J. Ex. 402 :
1116.
V. Tarrvtown, 137 N. Y. 409 : 609,
617. "
Whitney v. Boston, 98 Mass. 312:
1130, 1185, 1210.
V. Commonwealth, 190 Mass. 531:
626.
V. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 178 Mass.
559: 75, 1603.
V. Gilman, 33 Me. 273: 976.
V. Lynn, 122 Mass. 338: 1699.
V. Milwaukee, 57 Wis. 630: 1557.
V. New York, 28 Barb. 233: 1583.
V. New York, 96 N. Y. 240: 424.
V. Toledo, 8 Ohio C. C. (N. S.)
577: 336, 1605.
V. Willamette Bridge R. R. Co.,
23 Or. 188: 160.
Whitsett V. Union Depot & R. R. Co.,
10 Colo. 243: 362, 371, 383,
392, .398.
Whittaker v. Deadwood, 12 S. D.
523: 882.
v. Gutheridge, 52 111. App. 460:
973, 996, 1403, 1576.
Whittier v. North Providence, 10
R. I. 266: 1532.
v. Portland & Kennebec R. R. Co.,
38 Me. 26: 319.
Whittingham v. Hopkins, 69 N. J.
L. 189: 1025, 1381.
V. Hopkins, 70 N. J. L. 322: 707,
1096, 1100, 1381.
Whittlesev v. Hartford, Providence
& Fishkill R. R. Co., 23 Conn.
421: 1519.
Whittredge v. Concord, 36 N. H. 530 :
1030.
Whitworth v. Berry, 69 Miss. 882:
879.
V. Puckett, 2 Gratt. 531 : 386, 970,
1459.
Whoriskey v. Old Colony R. R. Co.,
173 Mass. 432: 1157, 1707.
Whyte V. Kansas City, 22 Mo. App.
409: 1669, 1695.
v. St. Louis, 153 Mo. 80: 872, 884.
Wichita etc. R. R. Co. v. Fechheimer,
36 Kan. 45: 1545, 1548.
V. Fechheimer, 49 Kan. 643: 439,
1105, 1336, 1545, 1547.
V. Kuhn, 38 Kan. 104: 1124, 1203,
1245, 1251, 1322, 1391, 1444,
1673.
V. Kuhn, 38 Kan. 675: 1124, 1203.
V. Smith, 45 Kan. 264: 252, 311.
V. Thayer, 54 Kan. 259: 948.
Wickham v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co.,
.85 App. Div. 182: 155, 150,
1455.
Wickliflfe v. Lexington, 11 B. Mon.
163: 365.
Widder v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 20
U. C. Q. B. 638: la'l.
cccn
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Widder v. Buffalo etc. E. E. Co., 24
U. C. Q. B. 222: 131.
Widening Chestnut St. In re, 18
Phil. 511: 1243.
Widman Invest. Co. v. St. Joseph,
191 Mo. 459: 1306, 1308, 1378.
Wieland v. Ashton, 18 S. D. 331:
1511.
Wier V. St. Louis etc. E. E. Co., 40
Kan. 130: 1220.
Wiggin V. Exeter, 13 N. H. 304: 969,
979.
V. New York, 9 Paige 16: 1253.
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis
etc. E. E. Co., 107 111. 450: 302,
716.
Wight V. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371:
11. 464.
V. Packer, 114 Mass. 473: 1535,
1536.
Wilbert's Appeal, 137 Pa. St. 494:
738.
Wilbraham v. County Comrs., 11
Pick. 322: 1082.
Wilbur V. Ft. Dodge, 120 la. 555:
211, 233, 002.
V. Taunton, 123 Mass. 522: 605.
Wilbur Lumber Co. v. Milwaukee Lt.
H. & T. Co., 134 Wis. 352: 284,
1455, 1560, 1664.
Wilcox V. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 73
App. Div. 614: 832, 1630.
V. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 N. Y.
115: 832, 1630.
V. Meriden, 67 Conn. 120: 1339,
1388.
V. New Bedford, 140 Mass. 570:
1704.
V. Oaldand, 49 Cal. 29: 1098.
V. St. Paul etc. Ey. Co., 35 Minn.
439: 1136, 1211, 1672.
Wild V. Deig, 43 Ind. 455: 516, 517,
520, 1517, 1571.
Wilde V. New York etc. E. E. Co.,
168 N. Y. 597: 257.
Wilder Matter of, 90 App. Div. 262 :
97.
Wilder v. Aurora etc. Elec. T. Co.,
216 111. 493: 240, 284, 300, 1589.
V. Boston & A. R. E. Co., 161 Mass.
387: 919, 1053.
V. Hubbell, 43 Mich. 487: 1033,
1416, 1420.
V. Buffalo etc. R. E. Co., 24 U. C.
Q. B. 222: 1526.
V. Buffalo etc. E. E. Co., 24 U. C.
Q. B. 520: 1528.
Wiler V. Logan Nat. Gas & Fuel Co.,
6 Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 206: 740,
1700.
Wiler V. Logan Nat. Gas & Fuel Co.,
72 Ohio St. 628: 740.
Wiley V. Brimfield, 59 111. 300: 1505,
1517.
V. Elwood, 134 111. 281: 449, 655,
671, 1334.
Wilgus V. Board of Comrs., 54 Kan.
605: 872, 886, 887, 889.
Wilkerson v. Buchanan Co., 12 Mo.
328: 1681.
V. St. Louis Sectional Dock Co.,
102 Mo. 130: 867.
Wilkes-Barre v. Wyoming Historical
& G. Soc, 134 Pa. St. 616: 495.
Wilkes-Barre Paper Mfg. Co. v.
Wilkes-Barre, 5 Luzerne Leg.
Eeg. Eep. 333: 631, 632, 636,
1167.
Wilkey v. Philadelphia, 180 Pa. St.
146: 1310.
Wilkin V. First Div. of St. Paul etc.
E. E. Co., 16 Minn. 271: 673,
980, 1021.
V. St. Paul etc. E. E. Co., 22 Minn.
177: 1402.
V. St. Paul, 33 Minn. 181: 607,
617, 1597.
Wilkins v. Chicago etc. E. E. Co.,
110 Tenn. 442: 191, 1495.
v. Gaffney Citv etc. E. E. Co., 54
S. C. 199: 255, 1580.
V. Manchester, 74 N. H. 275: 1327.
Wilkinson v. Bixler, 88 Ind. 574:
1673.
V. District of Columbia, 22 App.
Cas. D. C. 289: 965.
V. Mayo, 3 Hen. & Mumf. 565:
1390.
Wilks V. Georgia Pac. E. E. Co., 79
Ala. 180: 814.
Willamet Falls Canal & Lock Co. v.
Kelly, 3 Ore. 99: 1206.
Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch,
125 U. S. 1: 96.
Willamette Iron Works v. Oregon
E. & N. Co., 26 Ore. 224: ISO,
182, 190, 201, 225, 1580, 1592.
Willard v. Boston, 149 Mass. 176:
1045.
V. Cambridge, 3 Allen, 574: 370,
379.
Willcheck v. Edwards, 42 Mich. 105:
1033, 1416, 1420.
WiDett V. Woodhaus, 1 111. App. 411:
1568.
Willetts V. Jeffries, 5 Kan. 470: 5.
Willets Mfg. Co. V. Mercer Co., 62
N. J. L. 95: 224.
Willey V. Effing, 16 N. H. 58 : 1683.
V. Hunter, 59 Vt. 479 : 92.
CASES CITED.
CCClll
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Willey V. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.,
96 N. C. 408: 428.
V. Norfolk So. R. E. Co., 98 N. C.
263: 157, 160.
V. People, 36 111. App. 609: 884,
886.
V. Southeastern Ry. Co., 1 MeN. &
G. 58: 1570.
William A. Fowler, Matter of, 53 N.
Y. 60: 675.
Willliam & Anthony Sts., Matter of,
19 Wend. 678: 943, 1257, 1368.
1378.
William H. Moudy Mfg. Co. v. Pa.
R. R. Co., 212 Pa. St. 156: 1189,
1201.
V. Pa. E. R. Co., 215 Pa. St. 110:
1189, 1201, 1229.
Williams v. Boston, 190 Mass. 541 :
4G8.
V. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 126 N.
Y. 96: 265, 296, 1298, 1553,
1651, 1658.
V. Camden v. Rockland Water Co.,
79 Me. 543: 1522, 1524.
V. Cammack, 27 Miss. 209: 13, 464,
586.
V, Carey, 73 Iowa 194: 199, 390,
395, 677, 679, 721, 1595.
v. Chicago etc. R. E. Co., 110 Tenn.
442: 422.
V. City Electric Street R. R. Co.,
41 Fed. Rep. 556: 240, 241, 271,
279, 1586, 1587.
V. Commonwealth, 168 Mass. 364:
1277.
V. County Comrs. of Lincoln Co.,
35 Me. 345: 695.
V. Courtenev, 77 Mo. 587: 943.
V. Detroit, 2 Mich. 561 : 13.
V. Etting AVoolen Co., 33 Conn.
353: 1624.
V. First Presbyterian Church, 1
Ohio St. 478: 1492.
V. Fulmer, 151 Pa. St. 405: 106,
108, 119, 128, 138.
V. Galveston etc. E. E. Co., 1 Tex.
App. Civil Cas. 131 : 640.
V. Giblin, 86 Wis. 147: 1517.
V. Hartford & New Haven E. R.
Co., 13 Conn. 110: 1423.
V. Hartford & New Haven R. R.
Co., 13 Conn. 397: 893, 894, 898,
911.
V. Holmes, 2 Wis. 129: 973, 1513,
1518.
V. Hudson, 130 Wis. 297 : 232, 439,
872, 1354.
V. Hutchinson etc. Ey. Co., 62 Kan.
412: 949, 962.
V. Jackman, 2 J. J. Marsh. 352:
1436.
Williams v. Judge of Eighteenth Ju-
dicial Dist., 45 La. Ann. 1295:
494, 498, 1415.
V. Kirby, 169 Mo. 622: 706, 976,
984, 1017.
V. Lake Drummond C. & W. Co.,
130 N. C. 746: 1454, 1653.
V. Lockoman, 46 Ohio St. 416:
1109.
V. Los Angeles Ey. Co., 150 Cal.
592: 179, 191, 308.
V. Macon & B. E. E. Co., 94 Ga.
709: 1113.
V. Mitchell, 49 Wis. 284: 1020,
1081.
V. Monroe, 125 Mo. 574: 1019.
V. Natural Bridge Plank Eoad, 21
Mo. 580: 422, 423.
V. Nelson, 23 Pick. 141: 554, 557,
559, 866, 1073.
V. New Orleans etc. E. E. Co., 60
Miss. 689: 1540, 1673.
V. New York, 105 N. Y. 419: 122,
127, 128.
V. New York Central E. E. Co.,
18 Barb. 222: 244.
V. New York Cent. E. E. Co., 16
N. Y. 97: 200, 243, 245, 279,
1580.
V. Parker, 188 U. S. 491: 1160,
1167.
V. Eailroad Co., 2 Mich. 259 : 1478.
V. Eead, 106 Va. 453: 1180.
V. Eiley, 79 Neb. 554: 1623.
V. Eoutt Co., 37 Colo. 55: 1025,
1033, 1510, 1513, 1517.
V. St. Louis, 120 Mo. 403: 1491.
V. School District, 33 Vt. 271: 502,
538.
V. Stevenson, 103 Ind. 243: 1032.
V. Stonington, 49 Conn. 229: 1105.
v. Taunton, 125 Mass. 34: 1263.
V. Taunton, 126 Mass. 287 : 1434.
V. Turner Tp., 15 S. D. 182: 1406.
V. Wingo, 177 U. S. 601: 411.
Williamsburg Boom Co. v. Smith, 84
Ky. 372: 102, 103, 116.
Williams et al.. Petitioners, 59 Me.
517: 955, 1004, 1013, 1014.
William's Executors v. Pittsburgh,
83 Pa. St. 71: 924, 1115.
Williamson v. Canal Co., 78 N. C.
156: 579, 1155.
V. Carlton, 51 Maine, 449: 1137.
V. Cass County, 84 111. 361: 1426.
V. East Amwell, 28 N. J. L. 270-
1377.
V. Houser, 169 Ind. 397: 734, 1383,
1397.
V. Missouri etc. Ey. Co., 115 Mo.
App. 72: 160.
CCCIV
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-742; Vol. II, pp. 74" :719.]
Williamson v. Read, 106 Va. 453:
1213, 1214, 1377.
Williamsport v. Williamsport Pass.
R. R. Co., 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 39 : 322,
1622.
Williamsport etc. R. R. Co. v. Phila-
delphia etc. R. R. Co., 8 Pa. Co.
Ct. 10: 753, 759, 793, 796. 900.
V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 141
Pa. St. 407: 904, 905, 912.
V. Supervisors, 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 588 :
750.
Williams St. In re, 191 Pa. St. 472:
1399.
Williamston etc. R. R. Co. v. Battle,
66 N. C. 540: 840, 851, 854.
Willing V. Baltimore R. R. Co., 5
Whart. 460: 1378.
Willis V. Erie T. & T. Co., 37 Minn.
347: 340, 341, 1593.
V. Erie City Pass. Ry. Co., 188 Pa.
St. 56: 305.
V. Erie Pass. Ry. Co., 188 Pa. St.
71: 303.
V. Kentucky & Ind. Bridge Co., 104
Ky. 186: 249, 448, 639, 654, 061.
V. Perry, 92 Iowa 297: 165.
V. Sproule, 13 Kan. 257 : 974, 1516,
1518.
V. Winona, 59 Minn. 27 : 224, 607.
Willits V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 80
Iowa 531: 158.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 88 Iowa
281: 158, 1650, 1655.
Willoughbv V. Shipman, 28 Mo. 50:
819.
Willow Creek Irr. Co. v. Micliaelson,
21 Utah 248: 161.
Willson V. Blackbird Creek Marsh
Co., 2 Pet. 245: 96, 133.
Willyard v. Hamilton, 7 Ohio (pt. 2)
111: 501, 522, 923, 1165, 1170.
Wilmarth v. Knight, 7 Gray 294:
1073, 1078.
Wilmes v. Minneapolis & Northwest-
ern Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 242: 1208.
Wilmington Ave., 213 Pa. St. 238:
993.
Wilmington Canal etc. R. R. Co. v.
Dominquez, 50 Cal. 505: 1060,
1062, 1367.
Wilmington etc. R. R. Co. v. Condon,
8 G. & J. 443: 1389, 1425.
v. Smith, 99 N. C. 131: 1187, 1215.
V. Stauflfer, 60 Pa. St. 374, 1315.
V. Walker, 15 Pa. Dist. Ct. 373:
1479.
Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton,
205 U. S. 60 : 468.
Wilmington Water Power Co. v.
Evans, 166 111. 548: 407, 857,
858, 1537.
Wilmot v. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co., 76
Miss. 374: 1477.
Wilshire, In re, 103 Fed. 620: 471.
Wilson V. Acree, 97 Tenn. 378: 878.
V. Alderman, 69 S. C. 176: 1569.
V. Atkin, 80 Mich. 247 : 1099.
V. Baltimore & P. R. R. Co., 5 Del.
Ch. 524: 23, 1004.
V. Beaver Borough, 13 Pa. Co. Ct.
75: 1309.
V. Beaver Val. R. R. Co., 33 Pa.
Co. Ct. 604: 1244, 1480.
V. Beaver Val. R. R. Co., 17 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 151 : 1480.
v. Bondurant, 142 111. 645: 1573.
V. Campbell, 76 Me. 94: 1524.
V. Carpenter, 17 Wis. 512: 1635.
V. Cochran, 4 Harr. 88: 1558.
V. Commissioners, 18 Kan. 575:
1399.
V. Des Moines etc. R. R. Co., 67
Iowa 509: 448, 1298, 1303, 1550.
V. Duncan, 74 Iowa 491: 336.
V. Equitable Gas Co., 152 Pa. St.
566: 1236.
V. European & North Am. Ry. Co.,
67 Me. 358 : 947, 949, 962," 1636.
V. Harvey, 3 Harr. 500: 1558.
V. Hathewav, 42 Iowa 173: 928,
1010.
V. Hull, 7 Utah 90: 882.
v. Lynn, 119 Mass. 174: 1514, 1634.
V. McClain, 131 Ind. 335: 1399.
V. Mineral Point, 39 Wis. 160:
1569, 1574.
V. Muskegon etc. R. R. Co., 132
Mich. 469: 1625.
V. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 261:
144.
V. New York, 1 Denio 595: 213,
234.
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 9
Miscl. 657: 190.
V. Northampton etc. Ry. Co., L. R.
9 Ch. 279: 852.
V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., 34
Pa. Supr. Ct. 575: 976, 989.
v. Port Hope, 2 Grant U. C. 370:
1570, 1574.
V. Rockford etc. R. R. Co., 59 111.
273: 1206, 1377.
V. Scranton, 141 Pa. St. 621 : 1409.
'v. Talley, 144 Ind. 74: 1409.
V. Township Board, 87 Mich. 240:
973, 1017, 1412.
V. Trenton, 53 N. J. L. 645: 1024.
T. Welch, 12 Ore. 353: 118, 127.
CASES CITED.
cccv
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Wilson V. Wlieeler, 125 Ind. 173:
1402.
V. Whitsell, 24 Ind. 306: 1370.
V. Woolman, 133 Mich. 350: 1615.
Wilson Bros. v. Trenton, 53 N. J.
L. 178: 897, 898.
Wilzinski v. Greenville, 85 Miss. 393 :
11, 464.
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Cki., 60
Miss. 595: 1475.
W^inchell v. Waukesha, 110 Wis. 101:
82, 83, 84, 85, 453, 1605, 1612.
Winchester v. Capron, 63 N. H. 605:
356, 1488.
V. Hinsdale, 12 Conn. 88: 1386.
v. Stevens Point, 58 Wis. 350 : 182,
224, 1135, 1137, 1309, 1552, 1651,
1656.
Winchester etc. Turnpike Co. v.
Evans, 110 Ky. 463: 1402.
Winchester & Potomac R. R. Co. v.
Washington, 1 Rob. Va. 67:
1343, 1370.
Winder, Ex parte, L. R. 6 Ch. Div.
696: 957.
Windfall Nat. Gas Co. v. Terwilh-
ger, 152 Ind. 364: 337.
Windham v. Cumberland Co. Comrs.,
26 Me. 406: 700, 1382.
V. Litchfield, 22 Conn. 226: 994.
Windham Inhabitants of. Petitioners,
32 Me. 452: 1096, 1370.
Windle v. Crescent Pipe Line Co., 186
Pa. St. 224: 832.
Windsor v. Del. & H. Canal Co., 92
Hun 127: 1718.
V. Field, 1 Conn. 279: 990, 1358,
1.383.
V. McVeirrh. 93 U. S. 274: 1008.
V. State, 103 Md. 611: 473.
Winebiddle v. Pennsylvania R. R.
Co., 2 Grant's Cases 32: 1098.
Wing v. Tottenham etc. Ry. Co., 37
L. J. Ch. 654: 1537.
Wingfield v. Crenshaw, 3 H. & M.
245: 1403.
Winkelman v. Chicago, 213 111. 3G0:
658, 1673, 1698.
V. Drainage District, 24 111. App.
242: 1195.
Winklemans v. Des Moines North-
western Ry. Co., 62 la. 11: 1119,
1139, 1150.
Winkler v. Winkler, 40 111. 179:
1624.
Winkley v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 14
Gray 443: 1524.
Winn V. Board of Park Comrs. (Ky.)
14 S. W. Rep. 421 : 539.
V. Rutland, 52 Vt. 481: 141.
Winnebago Furn. Mfg. Co. v. Wis-
consin M. R. Co., 81 Wis. 389:
976, 996, 1011.
Winner v. Grauer, 173 Pa. St. 43:
632, 1356. '
Winnetka v. Chicago etc. Elec. Ry.
Co., 204 111. 297: 272.
V. Chicago etc. Elec. Ry. Co., 107
HI. App. 117: 272.
V. Clifford, 201 111. 475: 351, 383,
391, 402, 1337.
Winnisimmet Co. v. Grueby, 111
Mass. 543: 1112, 1146.
Winona etc. R. R. Co. v. Chicago
etc. R. R. Co., 50 Minn. 300:
771.
V. Denman, 10 Minn. 267: 1175,
1186, 1225, 1317, 1318.
V. Waldron, 11 Minn. 515: 21,
1119, 1186, 1198, 1318.
V. Watertown, 4 S. D. 323: 9,
672, 673, 675, 684, 750, 752.
Winslow V. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
28 App. Cas. D. C. 126: 814,
1399.
V. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 188
U. S. 646: 1620.
V. Co. Comrs., 31 Me. 444: 1406,
1409.
V. Gifford, 6 Cush. 327: 434.
V. Winslow, 95 N. C. 24: 565, 567,
579.
Winston v. Waggoner, 5 J. J. Marsh.
41: 1367.
Winter v. City Council, 83 Ala. 589 :
629, 643.
V. N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co., 51 N. J.
Eq. 83: 340, 976, 986, 1053.
V. Payne, 33 Fla. 470: 366, 877.
V. Petersen, 24 N. J. L. 524 : 1490.
Winter Ave., 23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 353:
993.
Winterbottom v. Wright, 10 Mees.
& W. 115: 1256.
Wirth V. Jersey City, 56 N. J. L. 216:
985.
Wirth V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 7
Ohio C. C. 290: 343.
Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379:
76.
Wisconsin Central R. R. v. Cornell
University, 49 Wis. 102: 814,
929, 1061, 1424.
V. Cornell University, 52 Wis. 537 :
1060, 1064, 1067, 1074.
V. Kneale, 79 Wis. 89: 930, 10.59,
1060, 1064, 1066, 1068, 1075,
1434.
V. Wieezorck, 51 111. App. 498:
448, 1337.
CCCYl
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Wis. Eiv. Imp. Co. v. Lyons, 30 Wis.
01: 99.
V. Pier (Wis.) 118 N. W. 857:
500, 5.'36, 538, 592.
Wis. Telephone Co. v. Oshkosh, 62
Wis. 32: 6S2.
Wisconsin Water Co. v. Winans. 85
Wis. 26: 405, 499, 675, 083, 920,
1043.
Wiseman v. Beckwith, 90 Ind. 185:
943.
Wislimier v. State, 97 Ind. 100: 575.
Wisiier v. Barber County, 73 Kan.
324: 980.
Wistar v. Philadelphia, 8 Pa. St.
505: 14.
V. Philadelphia, 71 Pa. St. 44:
1400.
Witelier v. Holland W. W. Co., 66
Hun 010: 172, 175, 336, 536.
V. Holland W. W. Co., 142 N. Y
626: 330.
Witham v. Osbiirn, 4 Ore. 318: 495,
510, 517, 520.
Withers, Ex parte, 3 Brevard {S. C.)
83: 23, 1153.
Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84:
23, 100.
Witherspoon v. Meridan, 69 Miss.
288: 878.
Witman v. Reading, 191 Pa. St. 134:
1211.
V. Smeltzer, 16 Pa. Supr. 285:
366.
Witt V. St. Paul & No. Pac. 11. E.
Co., 35 Minn. 404: 1072.
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 38 Minn.
122: 247, 325, 1635.
Witter V. Damitz, 81 Wis. 385: 882.
Witterding v. Green, 4 Ida. 473 :
587
Wittkowsky's Land, In re, 143 N. C.
247: 1005.
Witty v. Board of Comrs., 76 Minn.
280: 109, 115, 576.
Witzinsky v. Louisville etc. R. R.
Co., 66 Miss. 595: 845.
Wixora V. Bixby, 127 Mich. 439:
924.
Wofferd v. McKinna, 23 Tex. 36 1
834.
Wolcott V. Pond, 19 Conn. 597: 917
V. Whitcomb, 40 Vt. 40: 515.
V. Woolen Manf. Co., 5 Pick. 292:
544.
Wolf V. Brass, 72 Tex. 133: 183,
878.
V. Coffey, 4 J. J. Marsh. 41 : 1667.
V. Covington & Lexington R. R.
Co., 15 B. Mon. 404: 322.
Wolfe V. Pearson, 114 N. C: 021:
211, 237.
V. Sullivan, 133 Ind. 331: S77.
Wolff V. Georgia Southern etc. R.
R. Co., 94 Ga. 5.55: 1113, 1293.
Wolford V. Fisher, 48 Ore. 479: 323,
533.
Wolfskin V. Los Angeles County, 86
Cal. 405: 881.
Womelsdorf Alley, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 207 :
1011.
Womersley v. Church, 17 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 190: 165.
Wood, flatter of, 111 App. Div. 781:
1029.
Wood v. Campbell, 14 B. Mon. 330;
1077, 1094, 1359, 1303, 1368.
V. Charing Cross Ry. Co., 33 Beav.
290: 1537.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 60 la.
456: 105, 131.
V. Comrs. of Bridges, 122 Mass
394: 930, 964.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 62 HI.
391: 1095, 1099.
V. Hamilton etc. R. R. Co., 25
Grant Ch. 135: 1249.
V. Hudson, 114 ilass. 513: 118.5.
V. Hurd, 34 N. J. L. 87: 881,
886.
V. Hustis, 17 Wis. 410: 1523.
V. Kelley, 30 Me. 47: 559, 866,
869.
V. Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co.,
68 Ga. 539: 785.
V. McGrith, 150 Pa. Ct. 451: 172,
175, 330.
V. Mears, 12 Ind. 515: 1487.
V. Michigan Air Line R. R. Co., 90
Mich. 212: 1714.
V. Michigan Air Line R. R. Co..
90 Mich. 3.34: 850.
V. Mobile, 107 Fed. 846: 813.
V. Moulton, 146 Cal. 317: 146.
V. Quinc}', 11 Cush. 487: 1428.
V. .S-attle, 23 Wash. 1: 408, 409.
V. P^rte Hospital, 164 Pa. St. 159:
1682.
V. Stourbridge Ey. Co., 16 Q. B.
N. S. 222: 645.
V. Truckee Turnpike Co., 24 Cal.
474: 1499.
V. Trustees, 164 Pa. St. 159: 1675.
V. Westborough, 140 Mass. 403:
1563.
V. Wilson, 12 Ind. 657: 1030.
Woodhridge v. Cambridge, 114 Mass.
483: 1710.
V. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274: 12, 13.
V. Eastland Co., 70 Tex. 680: 424.
CASES CITE 1 1.
CCCVll
[The references are to the pages ; Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol, II, pp. 743-1719.]
V. Nasliville, 108 Tenn. 353: 709,
Woodburn v. Sterling, 184 111. 208:
884, 890.
Woodbury v. Beverlv. 153 Mass. 245:
e05, 618, 019, 008.
v. Marbleliead Water Co., 145
Mass. 509: 912.
V. Parshley, 7 N. H. 237: 857.
Woodcliff L. 1. Co. V. N. J. Shore
Line R. R. Co.. 72 N. J. L, 137:
74G, 980, 995.
Woodcock V. Wabash Ey. Co., 135
la. 559: 1443.
Woodfolk V. Nashville & Chattanooga
E. R. Co., 2 Swan 422: 1180,
1182, 1228.
Woodhouse v. Burlington, 47 Vt.
300: 14.
Woodman v. County Comrs., 24 Me.
151: 1443.
Woodmere Cemetery v. Roulo, 104
Mich. 595: 78.5.
Woodring v. Forks Township, 28 Pa.
St. 355: 1488.
Woodruff T. Catlin, 54 Conn. 277:
487.
V. Douglass Co., 17 Ore. 314: 707,
976, 983.
V. Fisher, 17 Barb. 224: 579, 580.
V. Glendale, 23 Minn. 537: 15B9.
V. Glendale. 26 Minn. 78 : 14G6.
V. Mining Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 753:
92.
V. Neal, 28 Conn. 165: 357, 1489,
1629.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 59
Conn. 63: 487.
V. North Bloonificld Gravel Min.
Co., 18 Fed. 753: 7-15.
V. Taylor,- 20 Vt. 05: 1008.
Woodruff Place v. Raschig, 147 Ind.
517: 877.
Woods V. Greensboro N.at. Gas. Co.,
204 Pa. St. GOO: 679, 709, 726,
1509, 1572.
V. Nashua Mfg. Co., 4 N. H. 527:
1523.
Woodstock V. Gallup, 28 Vt. 587:
540, 1G38.
Woodward v. Central ^^'t. Rv. Co.,
180 J lass. SnO: 404.
V. Kilhnurn :\lf-. Co. 1 AI^j, V. S.
C. 158: 99.
V. Scelv, 11 111. 157: 8.^8.
V. Webb. 65 Pa. l-^t. 254: (i-24.
Woodward Iron Co. v. Cahaniss, 87
Ala. 328: 926.
Vj'oodworth v. Spirit Mound, 10 S.
D. 504: 99G.
\'\'ool V. Edonton, 115 N. C. 10: 127
Woolard v. f'lvnif-r, {'lenn. Ch
App.) 35 S.'W. 1086: 886.
918. 100.5, 1013, 1014, 1165, 1523,
1635.
Woolcott Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Upham,
5 Pick. 292: 1522.
Woolever v. Stewart, 30 Ohio St.
146: 486.
Woollacott V. Chicago, 187 111. 504:
884, 880.
Woolscv's Application, 95 N. Y. 135:
1389.
Woolsey v. Board of Suprvs., 32 la.
130: 10:;2, 1033, 1093.
v. New York El. R. R. Co.. 134 N.
Y. 323: 1261, 1554, 1555, 1584.
v. Tompkins, 23 Wend. 324: 1101,
1363.
Worcester v. Great Falls Manf. Co..
41 Me. 159: 1345.
V. KeHh, 5 Allen 17: 970.
V. Lakeside Mfg. Co., 174 Mass.
299: 1024.
T. Norwich &. Worcester R. R. Co.,
109 :Mass. 103: 688, 091.
V. \^'cstern R. R. Co., 4 Met. 564:
1474.
Worcester Gas Light Co. v. County
Comrs., 138 Mass. 289: 84, 85,
1712.
Worcester & Nashua R. R. Co. v.
Railroad Comrs., 118 Mass. 561:
753, 1609.
Workman v. Jfifflin, 30 Pa. St. 362:
954, 962, 12.15.
V. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 129 Cal. 536:
307, 308, 732.
World's Columbian Exposition v.
Brennan, 51 111. App. 128: 369,
1595.
Wormlev v. Dist. of Columbia, 181 U.
S. 402: 11, 404.
V. Mason City etc. Ry. Co., 120
la. 684: 1443.
V. 'Wormley. 207 111. 411 : S72.
Wormscr v. Brown, 72 Hun 93: 180.
185, 370, 495.
Worsham v. G. H. & W. R. R. Co., 3
Te>;. Civ. App. 496: 1183, 1207,
Worth V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 7
Ohio C. C. 290: 343.
Worthington v. Bicknell, 1 Bland
186: 819, 1570.
v. Coward, 114 N. V. 289: 1409.
Wooster v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 39
Me. 240: 702, 933, 1524.
v. Sugar River Valley R. R. Co.,
57 Wis. 311: 947, 'll23, 1565.
CCCVlll
CASES CITED.
[The references are to the pages : Vol. I, pp. 1-743 ; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Wovessey v. Board of Supervisors, 32
la. 130: 1019.
Wragg V. Penn Tp. 94 111. 11: 1703.
Wray v. Knoxville etc. R. R. Co., 113
Tenn. 544: 1123, 1149, 1177,
1180, 1201, 1206, 1229.
Wrenthara v. Corey, 159 Mass. 93:
1402.
Wright V. Austin, 143 Cal. 236 : 1486,
1487.
V. Baker, 94 Ky. 343: 928, 1080.
V. Butler, 64 Mo. 165: 1136.
V. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 76: 422.
V. Chicago, 46 111. 44: 12.
V. Comrs. of Highways, 145 111.
48: 1099.
V. Doniphan, 169 Mo. 601: 1491.
V. Georgetown, 4 Cranch 534:
1550.
V. Highway Comrs., 150 111. 138:
1411.
V. Milwaukee El. R. & L. Co., 95
Wis. 29: 1506.
V. New York EI. R. R. Co., 78
Hun 450: 1299.
V. Rowley, 44 Mich. 557: 1033,
1416, 1420.
V. Stowe, 4 Jones L. 516: 1345.
V. Syracuse etc. R. R. Co., 92 Hun
32: 315, 1580, 1589.
V. Syracuse etc. R. R. Co., 49 Hun
445: 88, 144.
V. Syracuse etc. R. R. Co., 124 N.
Y. 668: 88, 144.
V. Wells, 29 Ind. 354: 1020, 1031,
1033.
T. Wilmington, 92 jST. C. 156: 142,
234.
V. Wilson, 95 Ind. 408: 979, 1017,
1373.
V. Wisconsin Central R. R. Co., 29
Wis. 341: 1408, 1410.
V. Woodcock, 86 Me. 113: 1495.
Wright & Cromford Co., In re, 1 A.
& E. N. S. 98: 1370.
Wright & Cromford Co., In re, 41 E.
C. L. R. 454: 1370.
Wrightsel v. Fee, 76 Ohio St. 529:
87.
Wrightsville & T. R. R. Co. v.
Holmes, 85 Ga. 668: 941, 1151,
1242, 1357.
Wroe V. Harris, 2 Wash. 126: 1078.
Wulzen V. Board of Supervisors, 101
Cal. 15: 674, 678, 913, 1010,
1411, 1666.
Wurts V. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606:
565, 567, 578, 596, 923, 927,
1005.
Wutchuma Water Co. v. Pogue, 151
Cal. 105: 72.
Wyandotte and Central Sts., In re,
117 Mo. 446: 1186, 1199, 1308.
Wyandotte Elec. Lt. Co. v. Wyan-
dotte, 124 Mich. 43: 362.
Wyandotte etc. Ry. Co. v. Waldo, 70
Mo. 629: 1186. 1208, 1213.
Wyant v. Central Telephone Co., 123
Mich. 51: 350.
Wyatt V. Thomas, 29 Mo. 23: 1511.
Wylie V. Elwood, 134 III. 281: 1665.
Wyman v. Lexington & West Cam-
bridge R. R. Co., 13 Met. 316:
1084, 1120, 1148.
V. New York, 11 Wend. 486: 1326.
Wynn v. Beardsley, 126 N. C. 116:
970, 1005.
Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378:
53, 61, 485.
Wyoming Coal & Trans. Co. v. Price,
81 Pa. St. 156: 809, 1500.
Wysor v. Lake Erie etc. R. R. Co..
143 Ind. 6: 1475.
X.
Xavier Realty Co. v. La. Ry. Nav.
Co., 114 La. 484: 748.
Xavier Realty Co. v. La. Ry. Nav.
Co., 115 La. 343: 748, 1071.
Y.
Yager v. Fairmount, 43 W. Va. 259 :
234.
Yakima Co. v. Fuller, 3 Wash. Ter.
393: 957.
Yakima Water etc. Co. v. Hathaway,
18 Wash. 377: 1558, 1559.
Yankton County v. Klemisch, 11 S.
D. 170: 1511.
Yanish v. St. Paul, 50 Minn. 518:
211, 224.
Yates V. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497:
123, 128, 129, 136, 470.
Yaw V. State, 127 N. Y. 190: 1707,
1708, 1712.
Yates V. Van De Bogert, 56 N. Y.
526: 837, 838.
V. Warrenton, 84 Va. 337 : 1492.
T. West Grafton, 33 W. Va. 507:
400, 406, 1513, 1569.
V. West Grafton, 34 W. Va. 783:
246, 248, 1581.
Yazoo etc. Levee Board v. Daney, 65
Miss. 335: 1159.
Yazoo etc. R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 78
Miss. 57: 843, 852.
v. Clarke, 120 La. 1044: 966.
V. Davis, 73 Miss. 678: 151.
V. Harrington, 85 Miss. 366: 487.
T. Jennings, 90 Miss. 93: 1313.
V. Lefoldt, 87 Miss. 317: 630, 634.
Yeaser v. Carpenter, 8 Leigh 454:.
'1511.
CASES CITED.
CCCIX
[The references are to the pages : Vol.
Yeatman v. Crandall, 11 La. Ann.
220: 12.
Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Wood Co.,
81 Wis. 554: 1479.
Yellowstone Park E. R. Co. v.
Bridger Coal Co., 34 Mont. 545 :
1045, 1040, 1123, 1140, 1150,
1176, 1213, 1232, 1378.
Yeomans v. County Comrs., 16 Gray
30: 1390.
T. Kiddle, 84 Iowa 147: 13, lOOG.
Y. Wellington, 4 U. C. App. 301:
631.
Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line
Comrs., 146 U. S. 640: 118, 136,
1432.
Yolo County v. Barney, 79 Cal. 375 :
1491.
Yonkers v. New York Cent. etc. R. R.
Co., 165 N. Y. 142: 491, 1287.
Yonkers, In re, 117 N. Y. 504: 333,
335, 1137.
York V. Cedar Rapids, 130 Iowa 453:
019.
York Borough v. Welsh, 117 Pa. St.
174* 951 1540
York Co. V. Fewell, 21 S. C. 106:
1406.
York Tel. Co. v. Kersey, 5 Pa. Dist.
~ Ct. 366: 343.
Yost V. Conroy, 92 Ind. 464: 1119,
1120, 1123, 1125, 1132.
V. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 125 Pa. St.
152: 840.
Ycst's Report, 17 Pa. St. 424: 083,
1160, 1165, 1167.
^'oughiogheny Bridge Co. v. Pitts-
burg etc. R. R. Co., 201 Pa. St.
457: 782.
Youghiogheny Riv. Coal Co. v. Rob-
ertson, 12 Pa. Co. Cfc. 1: 1577,
1024.
Young T. Buckingham, 5 Ohio 485:
522, 1100, 1101.
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 28 Wis.
171: 1643.
V. Comrs. 134 111. 569: 154, 1006.
V. Commonwealth, 101 Va. 853:
479.
V. Extension Ditch Co., 13 Idaho
174: 144.
V. Harrison, 6 Ga. 130: 498, 1103,
1166, 1535, 1570, 1615.
V. Harrison, 17 Ga. 30: 1182, 1192,
1194, 1236.
T. Harrison, 21 Ga. 584: 1119,
1120.
V. Kansas City, 27 Mo. App. 101:
91.
I, pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1719.]
Young V. Laconia, 59 N. H. 534 : 995.
V. McKenzie, 3 Ga. 31: 22, 24, 522,
706, 746.
V. Oskaloosa, 88 Iowa 681: 875.
V. Rothrock, 121 Iowa 588: 351,
372.
V. Sellers, 106 Ind. 101: 1510.
V. Stoddard, 27 App. Div. N. Y.
162: 1557, 1559.
V. York Haven Elec. T. Co.. 15 Pa.
Dist. Ct. 843: 346, 423, 1593.
YoungstoAvn v. Moore, 30 Ohio St.
133: 218.
Younkin v. Milwaukee L. H. & T.
Co., 112 Wis. 15: 273, 284, 1587,
1590, 1592.
V. Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., 120
Wis. 477: 273, 284, 1590.
Youree v. Vicksburg etc. R. R. Co.,
110 La. 791: 1500, 1507.
Ystalyfera Iron Co. v. Neath R. R.
Co., 17 L. R. Eq. 142: 095.
Zabel V. Harshman, 08 Mich. 273:
780, 1609.
Zabriskie v. Jersey City etc. R. R.
Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 314: 1582.
Zack V. Penn. R. R. Co., 25 Pa. St.
394: 1010.
Zanesville v. Fannan, 53 Oliio St.
605: 1526.
v. Zanesville Tel. & Tel. Co., 64
Ohio St. 67: 322.
Zearfoss v. Lansdale, 1 Mont. Co. L.
R. R. 157: 616.
Zearing v. Raber, 74 111. 409 : 365.
Zehren v. Milwaukee Elec. Rv. & Lt.
Co., 99 Wis. 83: 172, 281, 283,
324, 325, 1587.
Ziebold v. Foster, 118 Mo. 349: 979,
980, 982, 1033.
Zigler v. Menges, 121 Ind. 99: 504,
565, 567, 569, 575.
Zimmerman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
71 S. C. 528: 836.
V. Canfield, 42 Ohio St. 463: 927,
1005, 1008, 1009, 1101.
v. Kansas City N. W. R. R. Co.,
144 Fed. 622: 1540, 1541, 1544.
V. Kearney County, 33 Neb. 020:
1162.
V. Snowden, 88 Mo. 218: 973, 974,
1004, 1018, 1510.
V. Union Canal Co., 1 W. & S. 340 :
139, 937, 1227.
cccx
CASES CITED.
fTlie references are to the pages : Vol. I
La Salle, 117 111. 411
Zinc Co.
1496.
Zinser v. Board of Supervisors, 137
Iowa 660 : 979.
Zireh v. Southern Ey. Co., 102 Va.
17: 533.
Zoeller v. Kellogg, 4 Mo. App. 1C3:
13.
pp. 1-743; Vol. II, pp. 743-1710.]
Zoltowski V. Judge, 112 Mich. 349:
1384.
Zumbro v. Parnin, 141 Ind. 430: 904.
Zweig V. Horicon Mfg Co., 17 Wis.
362: 1537.
EMINENT DOMAIN.
CHAPTEK I.
THE POWER DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.
§ 1. The power defined. Eminent domain is the right
or power of a sovereign State to appropriate private property
to particular uses, for the purpose of promoting the general
welfare.-^ It embraces all cases Avhere, by authority of the State
and for the public good, the property of the individual is taken,
without his consent, for the purpose of being devoted to some
particular use, either by the State itself or by a corporation.
iDefinition adopted in Gano v.
Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 114 la.
713, 721, 87 N. W. 714, 89 Am. St.
Rep. 393, 55 L.R.A. 263. The phrase
emineiit domain has received a great
variety of definitions. "It is de-
fined to be that dominium eminens,
or superior right, which of necessity
resides in the sovereign power, in
all governments, to apply private
property to public use in those great
public emergencies which can rea-
sonably be met in no other way.'' 1
Eedfield on Railroads, p. 228. "The
right of every government to appro-
priate, otherwise than by taxation
and its police authority (which are
distinct powers), private property
for public use." Dillon on Munici-
pal Corporations, § 584 (453). "It
is the rightful authority, which ex-
ists in every sovereignty, to control
and regulate those rights of a pub-
lic nature which pertain to its citi-
Em. D.— 1.
zens in common, and to appropriate
and control individual property for
the public benefit, as the public safe-
ty, necessity, convenience, or welfare
may demand." Cooley, Const. Lims.
p. 624. "The power of the sovereign
to condemn private property for pub-
lic use." Mills on Em. Dom. § 1.
"The power of eminent domain is
the right of the state, as sovereign,
to take private property for public
use upon making just compensa-
tion." People V. Adirondack R. R.
Co., 160 N. Y. 225, 237. "The right
of eminent domain is the right to
take private property for a, public
use." Wheeling etc. R. R. Co. v.
Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 72 Ohio St.
368, 74 N. E. 209, 106 Am. St. Rep.
622. To same effect, Jacobs v. Clear-
view Water Supply Co., 220 Pa. St.
388, 69 Atl. 870. "The right which
belongs to the society, or to the sov-
ereign, of disposing, in case of ne-
3 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 1
public or private, or by a private citizen.^ This definition
relates to the power of eminent domain as it exists unrestricted
in the sovereign state. Apart from constitutional considera-
tions, it is not essential, in order to constitute an act of eminent
domain, that the use for vfhich the property is taken should be
of a public nature, that is, a use in which the public participates,
directly or indirectly, as in case of highways, railroads, public
service plants and the like. It is sufficient that the use of the
particular property for the purpose proposed, is necessary to
enable individual proprietors to utilize and develop the natural
resources of their land, as by reclaiming wet -or arid tracts,
improving a water power or vcorking a mine. In such cases
the public welfare is promoted by the increased prosperity which
necessarily results from developing the natural resources of the
country. Such exercises of the power of eminent domain have
been upheld by many courts, including the Supreme Court of the
United States^ and, we think, must be regarded as legitimate
exercises of the power, in the absence of constitutional restric-
tions which limit the taking to public uses. Doubtless the
definitions which restrict eminent domain to a taking for public
use have been inspired by these constitutional provisions which
prevail in the United States and impose this limitation on the
exercise of the power. Some courts hold that the words public
use in the constitution are equivalent to public welfare and are
broad enough to include the cases referred to in which property
is taken for private use when necessary to promote the public
welfare.* But other courts hold that the words public use are
to be taken more strictly and as precluding a taking for private
use in any case, even though such taking may promote the public
welfare and though the public good in question could not rea-
oessity, and for the public safety, of Austin, 34 Conn. 78; Forney v. Fre-
all the wealth contained in the State, mont etc. R. R. Co., 23 Neb. 465, 36
is called the eminent domain." Vat- N. W. 806 ; Grofl t. Turnpilce Co.,
tel, b. 1, c. 20, § 244. The last 128 Pa. St. 621, 18 Atl. 431; Cher-
definition is adopted by the court in okee Nation v. So. Kans. R. R. Co.,
Pollard's Lessee v. Hogan, 3 How. 33 Fed. 900.
223. And see Geizy v. C. & W. R. R. 2Adopted by the court in Consmn-
Co., 4 Ohio St. 308; Orr v. Quim- ers' Gas Trust Co. v. Harless, 131
by, 54 N. H. 590, 611; Lake Merced Ind. 446, 29 N. E. 1062, 15 L.R.A.
Water Co. v. Cowles, 31 Cal. 215; 505.
The Boston and Roxbury Mill Co. sPost, §§ 275-308.
V. Newman, 12 Pick. 467; Todd v. iPost, 257.
§ 2 THE POWEE DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED. 3
sonably be attained in any other way.® In view of the different
constructions thus put upon the words public use and in view
of the widely held opinion that such words were intended as a
restriction upon the power, it seems objectionable to define emi-
nent domain as the power to take private property for public use.
If the eminent domain provision of the constitution was elimi-
nated altogether, doubtless a broader scope would be given to the
power than is now permitted with the constitutional provision in
force. Just what this broader scope includes cannot be laid down
in advance and will vary with the customs and opinions of the
people and the economic conditions which surround them. But
in a general way it includes any purpose which is calculated to
promote the public welfare and which cannot reasonably and
practically be attained without an exercise of the power. Hence,
in its broad and unrestricted sense eminent domain is the power
to take private property for the purpose of promoting the public
welfare.®
§ 2. Definitions considered. From the definitions cited
in the foregoing section, it will be seen that some writers and
jurists have given to the phrase eminent domain a more extended
signification than the one above laid down. Thus Judge Oooley
defines it as "the rightful authority, which exists in every sov-
ereignty, to control and regulate those rights of a public nature
which pertain to its citizens in common, and to appropriate and
control individual property for the public benefit, as the public
safety, necessity, convenience, or welfare may demand."^ No
court has ever referred either the control and regulation of rights
of a public nature or of individual property to the power of
eminent domain, and Judge Cooley himself treats of these mat-
ters, not under the head of eminent domain, but under the head
of the police power. This enlarged definition finds sanction
in the works of many theoretical writers and in the dicta of
various judicial opinions, but, however, well sanctioned, it is
certainly objectionable; first, because it does not correspond to
the practical application of the term, and, second, because it
invests the term with a certain vagueness and elasticity, that
BPost, 258. 'Cooley, Const. Lims. 524; and
6The purpof?es for which private see Dyer v. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co.,
property may be taken under the 2 Porter (Ala.) 296, 27 Am. Dec.
power of eminent domain are con- 655; Hartwell Matter, 2 Nisi Prius
sidered at length in Chapter 7. Rep. (Mich.) 97.
4 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 2
preclude the formation of any definite conception. All exercises
of sovereign power over private property, which have been judi-
cially determined to fall under the right of eminent domain, have
been cases in which there has been an appropriation of such
property to particular uses.
The rights and powers which the State has in, or over, public
property may be classified under a few heads, as follows :
First. The State may possess property in its individual or
organic capacity which it holds for sale or profit, and in which
the people distributively have no right whatsoever. In respect
to property of this sort, the State stands in the same relation as
any citizen to the property he possesses, and may use, enjoy,
control and dispose of it in the same manner.
Second. The State possesses property of a public nature, such
as forts, arsenals, public buildings and the like, which is em-
ployed for defense, or the transaction of the public business and
affairs. In this class of property, also, individual citizens have
no rights, and are only entitled to use it as they have dealings
with the government, and then only subject to such regulations
as the government may see fit to establish. The State can dis-
pose of this property at pleasure, subject to such limitations as
attached to its rights in the property at the time of its acquisi-
tion.
Third. The State possesses property which it holds as trus-
tee for the public, such as navigable waters, highways, and the
like. This class of property is exclusively for the public use,
and the State, as the only representative of the public, may be
said to be invested with the title thereto. The State may con-
trol and regulate the use of such property as the public welfare
may demand, but cannot rightfully deprive any part of the
public of the privilege of such use.
All property under the control of the State will be found to
fall into one of these classes, and all acts of the State in respect
to these classes of property may be referred, either to the right
of proprietorship, the right of police regulation, or the general
power of a State to do all such acts as are necessary for the
public safety or conducive to the public good; none of such
acts can properly be referred to the power of eminent domain.
If we turn now to the power of the State over private prop-
erty, we shall see that all legitimate acts of power may be clas-
sified as follows:
§ 2 THE POWEE DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED. 5
First. The State may regulate the making of contracts
between citizens in respect to property and prescribe generally
as to their validity and effect, and may make such enactments
as to the acquisition and disposition of property as the public
welfare requires. Instances of this right are seen in the statute
of frauds, statute of wills, recording acts, conveyancing acts,
and the like.
Second. The State may deprive an individual of his prop-
erty and vest it in another in order to compel the former to
fulfill a moral or legal obligation which he owes the latter.
Upon this right are founded the laws for the attachment and sale
of property on civil process, the bastardy laws, laws making
the support of wife and children compulsory, and so forth.*
Third. The State may deprive an individual of his prop-
erty, as a punishment for the violation of law. All laws
imposing fines and forfeitures are examples of this power.
Fourth. The State may regulate the use of property in such
manner as the public health, safety, convenience and welfare
may require. The establishment of fire limits and building
regulations in cities, and the prohibiting of certain noxious
trades and manufactures within certain localities, are familiar
illustrations of this power. It is known as the Police Power,
or the Eight of Police Eegulation.
Fifth. The State may exact of the individual a contribu-
tion of a portion of his property based upon some rule of apipor-
tionment, or the possession of some privilege or franchise, or
the exercise of some trade or calling, in order to provide a fund
for defraying the necessary expenses of the government. This
is known as the Eight of Taxation.
Sixth. The State may deprive a person of his property, or
of some right or interest therein, for the purpose of appropri-
8 "Beside the right of the State fulfill some moral obligation rest-
to take private property for pub- ing upon such individual which
lie use under the right of eminent he refuses to fulfill. Thus the
domain, the right of taxation and State may take the private prop-
the right to assess fines and for- erty of an individual to fulfill his
feitures for crimes, the State may contract, to pay his debts, or to
also take the private property of make compensation for injuries to
one individual, and transfer it to person, reputation or property,
another vy^henever in equity and which he has caused; or to support
good conscience the former has his wife or children when he refuses
no right to withhold it from the to do so." Willetts v. Jeffries, 5
latter, or to enable the State to Kan. 470, 475. (Bastardy Case.)
EMINEITT DOMAIN. § 3
I
ating the same, or making it subservient, to particular uses.
Thus private property is taken and held by the State, or vested
in public corporations, for the public use, as in the case of high-
ways, canals, parks, public buildings and the like; or private
corporations, or individuals, are authorized to institute proceed-
ings for the purpose of compelling a transfer of property to
themselves, to be devoted to some particular use, either of a
public nature, such as railroads, turnpikes, etc., or of a private
nature, such as private ways, mills and the like.
The acts which are described and included under this last
division are universally spoken of as pertaining to the eminent
domain. All other exercises of power over private property
and every species of right in, and control and regulation over,
property of a public nature, may properly be referred, as we
have shown, to some other of the sovereign powers of the State.
Therefore eminent domain is properly limited in its application
to the appropriation by a sovereign State of private property to
particular uses, as the public welfare demands. This definition
strips the term of all ambiguity and uncertainty, without robbing
it of any significance or application which it properly embraces,
or has acquired by common usage.
§ 3. Nature of the power. There has existed, and still
exists, among jurists a difference of opinion as to the nature
of the power of eminent domain. Some maintain that it is
a kind of reserved right, or supereminent estate or interest in
all property, vested in the sovereign power. Thus the Supreme
Court of Connecticut says : "The right to take private property
for public use, or of eminent domain, is a reserved right attached
to every man's land, and paramount to his right of ownership.
He holds his land subject to that right, and cannot complain of
injustice when it is lawfully exercised." And again : "The true
theory and principle of the matter is, that the legislature resume
dominion over the property, and, having resumed it, instead of
using it by their agents, to effect the intended public good, and
to avoid entanglement in the common business of life, they revest
it in other individuals or corporations, to be used by them, in
such manner as to effect, directly or indirectly, or incidentally
as the case may be, the public good intended." * This view is
oTodd T. Austin, 34 Conn. 78. See R. Co., 3 Paige, 45; Jacobs v. Clear-
also Harding v. Goodlett, 3 Yerg. view Water Supply Co., 220 Pa. St.
(Tenn.) 41, 24 Am. Dee. 546; Beek- 388, 69 Atl. 870.
man v. Saratoga and Schnectady E.
§ 3
THE POWEE DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.
favored by the etymology of the name, and was doubtless the
view entertained by those who brought the name into use. But
the name is of comparatively recent origin,^" and was applied
to a power already existing and recognized, and we must look
to the power, and not to the name, to determine its true signifi-
cance. The implication which the name imports was perceived
by writers contemporary with its introduction, who protested
against the implication of its etymology, but accepted it as a
convenient name for a power which was well defined.^'
The correct view is that the power of eminent domain is not
a reversed, but an inherent right,^^ a right which pertains to
sovereignty as a necessary, constant and inextinguishable attri-
bute. ^^
loThe name appears to have been
brought into use by Grotius and oth-
er continental writers in the early
part of the seventeenth century.
iiThus Puflfendorf, writing in the
seventeenth century, says : "The
eminent domain (dominium emi-
nens) is what some are afraid of,
more upon account of the name than
the thing. The sovereign power, say
they, was erected for the common se-
curity, and that alone will give a
Prince » sufficient right and title
to make use of the goods and for-
tunes of his subjects whenever ne-
cessity requires; because he must
be supposed to have a right to every-
thing without which the public good
cannot be obtained. And the emi-
nent domain is too arrogant and am-
bitious a word and which ill princes
may sometimes abuse to the damage
and ruin of their subjects. But, as
it is trifling to dispute about words,
so I think there can be no absurdity
or danger in giving a particular
name to a particular branch of the
sovereign power as it exerts itself
in a certain way upon certain
things." Puff. b. 8, c. 5, § 7, Eng.
Translation 1703.
i2The power of eminent domain
is an inherent attribute of sovereign-
ty. San Mateo County v. Coburn,
130 Cal. 631, 63 Pae. 78; Chestates
Pyrites Co. v. Cavenders Creek Gold
Min. Co., 119 Ga. 354, 46 S. E. 422,
100 Am. St. Rep. 174; Jones v. No.
Ga. Elee. Co., 125 Ga. 618, 54 S. E.
85, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 122; Hollister v.
State, 9 Ida. 8, 71 Pac. 541 ; Potlatch
Lumber Co. v. Peterson, 12 Ida. 769,
88 Pac. 426, 118 Am. St. Eep. 233;
111. Steel Trust Co. v. St. Louis etc.
Ry. Co., 208 111. 419, 70 N. E. 357;
Lafayette etc. Ry. Co. v. Butner,
162 Ind. 460, 70 N. E. 529; Sisson
v. Board of Supervisors, 128 la. 442,
104 N. W. 454, 70 L.R.A. 440; Board
of Park Comrs. v. DuPont, 110 Ky.
743, 62 S. W. 891 ; State v. District
Court, 87 Minn. 146, 91 N. W. 300;
Southern III. & Mo. Bridge Co. v.
Stone, 174 Mo. 1, 73 S. W. 453, 63
L.R.A. 301; People v. Fisher, 190
N. Y. 468, 83 N. E. 482 ; Spencer v.
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 137 N. C.
107, 49 S. E. 96; Covington & Cin.
Bridge Co. v. Magruder, 63 Ohio St.
455, 59 N. E. 216; Lazarus v. Morris,
212 Pa. St. 128, 61 Atl. 815; Stearns
V. Barre, 73 Vt. 281, 50 Atl. 108G,
87 Am. St. Rep. 721, 58 L.R.A. 240;
Painter v. St. Clair, 98 Va. 85, 34
S. E. 989.
I3"lt is a necessary attribute of
8
EMINENT DOMAIH,
§4
§ 4. Eminent domain distinguished from taxation.
Besides the power of eminent domain, the State is clothed, by
virtue of its sovereignty, with other powers over private prop-
erty, with which it is closely allied and sometimes confounded.
sovereignty in the State rather than
any reserved right in the grant of
property to the citizen." Noll v.
Dubuque, B. & M. R. E. Co., 32 la.
66; Hartwell Matter, 2 Nisi Prius
Eep. (Mich.) 97; 2 Redfield on E.
E., p. 229. "But, practically, it is
immaterial whether the right be sup-
posed to have been impliedly re-
served because it ought not to be
granted, or because it is a portion
of the national sovereignty which is
inalienable by the government, or
whether the right is created by the
public necessity, which at the time
calls for its exercise, — its existence
in every State is indispensable and
incontestible." Ealeigh & Gaston
E. E. Co. V. Davis, 2 Bev. & B. Law
(N. C.) 451. "Whether this prin-
ciple be denominated the right of
transcendental propriety, or of emi-
nent domain, or as is more properly
by Grotius, the force of superemi-
nent dominion, it means nothing
more or less than an inherent polit-
ical right, founded on a common ne-
cessity and interest, of appropriating
the property of individual members
of the community to the great ne-
cessities of the whole community.
This principle or right does not rest,
as supposed by some, upon the no-
tion that the State had an original
and absolute ownership of the whole
property possessed by the individual
members of it, antecedent to their
possession of it, and that their pos-
session and enjoyment of it being
subsequently derived from a grant
by the sovereign, it is held subject
to a tacit agreement or implied res-
ervation that it may be resumed,
and all individual rights to it ex-
tinguished by a rightful exertion of
sovereign power. Such a doctrine is
bringing the principles of the social
system hack to the slavish theory
of Hobbes, which however plausible
it may be in regard to lands once
held in absolute ownership by the
sovereignty, and directly granted by
it to individuals, it is inconsistent
with the fact that the security of
pre-existing rights to their own
property is the great motive and
object of individuals for associating
into governments. Besides, it will
not apply at all to personal proper-
ty, which in many cases is entirely
the creation of its individual own-
ers; and yet the principle of appro-
priating private property to public
use, is full as extensive in regard
to personal as to real property."
Bloodgood V. M. & H. E. R. Co., 18
Wend. 9, 57. "The exercise of the
right of eminent domain by a sov-
ereign cannot be the creation of
grant or compact. It inheres in the
existence of an independent govern-
ment, and comes into being eo in-
stanti with its establishment, and
continues as long as the government
endures. The United States did not
derive the right to exercise it in Lou-
isiana from France, or in Florida from
Spain, or in California from Mexi-
co, or in Alaska from Eussia; the
right was coeval with its proprie-
torship as sovereign." United States
V. Cooper, 9 Mackey, D. C. 104, 117.
See also Seholl v. German Coal Co..
118 111. 427; Matter of Firman
Street, 17 Wend. 649, 659; Heyvvard
V. Mayor etc. of New York, 7 N. Y.
314; White v. Nashville etc. E. R.
Co., 7 Heisk. 518; Eoanoke City v.
§ 4 THE POWER DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED. 9
These are the power of taxation and the power of police regula-
tion. A tax is a contribution exacted by the government from
all the individuals of the State, or from those of a particular
class or locality, for the purpose of defraying the public ex-
penses.-'* The contribution may be of money or of property.'^
But when property is exacted instead of money, it is not because
the State needs the particular property, but because that form
of exaction, owing to the scarcity of money, will be more
promptly and certainly complied with. Taxation is also based
upon some rule of apportionment, as when made upon persons
according to number, or upon property according to value or
quantity or benefits. In all these respects a tax differs from an
exercise of the power of eminent domain. "Taxation exacts
money, or services, from individuals, as and for their respective
shares of contribution to any public burthen. Private property
taken for public use by right of eminent domain, is taken not
as the owner's share of contribution to a public burthen, but
as so much beyond his share. Special compensation is therefore
to be made^in the latter case, because the government is a debtor
for the property so taken; but not in the former, because the
payment of taxes is a duty and creates no obligation to repay,
otherwise than in the proper application of the tax. Taxation
operates upon a community or upon a class of persons in a com-
munity and by some rule of apportionment. The exercise of
the right of eminent domain operates upon an individual and
Berkowitz, 80 Va. 616; Baltimore & The right cannot be bargained
Ohio E. K. Co. V. Pittsburg etc. E,. away or extinguished. Puff. b. 8, c.
R. Co., 17 W. Va. 812, 841; Steele 5, § 7; New York, H. & N. E. E. Co.
V. County Comrs., 83 Ala. 304; Mo- v. Boston, H. & E. E. E. Co., 36
ran v. Ex)ss, 79 Cal. 159, 21 Pac. Conn. 196 ; Sholl v. German Coal Co.,
Eep. 547 ; People v. B. & 0. E. E. 118 111. 427 ; Tait's Executor v. Ceu-
Co., 117 N. Y. 150, 22 N. E. 1026; tral Lunatic Asylum, 84 Va. 271, 4
Winona & St. P. E. E. Co. v. City S. E. 297; post, § 406.
of Watertown, 4 S. D. 323, 56 N. i4"Taxes are defined as being the
W. 1077 ; Jones v. Walker, 2 Paine enforced proportional contribution of
C. C. 688; Cherokee Nation v. So. persons and property, levied by the
Kans. R. E. Co., 33 Fed. 900; Kan- authority of the State for the sup-
sas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo. port of the government, and for all
458, 464; Bridal Veil Lumbering Co. public needs." Cooley on Taxation,
V. Johnson, 30 Ore. 205, 46 Pac. 790, p. 1. See also Burroughs on Taxa-
60 Am. St. Eep. 818, 34 L.E.A. 368; tion, chap. I.; Hilliard, id., Intro-
People V. Adirondack R. E. Co., 160 duction.
N. Y. 225. 237; Weeks v. Grace, 194 iBSee Dowell's Hist. Taxation in
Mass. 298, 80 N. E. 220. - England.
10 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 5
without reference to the amount, or value exacted from any other
individual, or class of individuals." ^®
§ 5. Distinguished from special assessments or better-
ments. There is a peculiar species of taxation, known as
special assessments or betterments, which is often confounded
with the power of eminent domain. The system prevails in all
the States, of assessing a part, or the whole, of the cost of local
improvements upon the property specially benefited. These
local improvements are usually made to accommodate a partic-
ular locality, generally at the instance of property owners in that
locality, who urge the improvement for the express purpose of
enhancing the value of their property. It seems but just that
those whose property is thus enhanced, and who thus receive
peculiar benefits from the improvement, should contribute spe-
cially to defray its cost.^'^ Special benefits being thus the foun-
dation, or principle, upon which the special contribution is
based, it should not exceed the benefits conferred.^* But this
is a question of policy and not of power and, in the absence of
some special constitutional provision on the subject, it is held
that the legislative power may fix the district to be taxed for
the local improvement, which may consist of the abutting
property only, and may assess a part or the whole of the cost
loPeople V. Mayor etc. of Brook- ifLockwood v. St. Louis, 24 Mo.
lyn, 4 N. Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266, 20, 22.
1851. Approved in 'Kiimm.ettv.'Phil- isLouiaville v. Bitzer, 115 Ky.
adelphia, 65 Pa. St. 146, 1870. See 369, 73 S. W. 1115; Weed v. Boston,
also C. W. etc. R. R. C!o. v. Corns, of 172 Mass. 28, 51 N. E. 204, 42 L.R.A.
Clinton County, 1 Ohio St. 77, 101, 642; Sears v. Street Comrs., 173
102; Washington Ave., 69 Pa. St. Mass. 350, 53 N. E. 138; Dexter v.
352; Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283, Boston, 176 Mass. 247, 57 N. E. 379,
303; Griffin v. Dogan, 48 Miss. 11; 79 L.R.A. 306; London v. ColToy, 178
Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb. 54; City Mass. 489, 60 N. E. 124; Edwards r.
of Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74; Gib- Bruorton, 184 Mass. 529, 69 N. E.
bona v. Mobile etc. R. R. Co., 36 328; Hutchinson v. Storrie, 92 Tex.
Ala. 410; Stein v. Mayor etc. of 685, 51 S. W. 848, 45 L.R.A. 280;
Mobile, 24 Ala. 591 ; Harward v. St. Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269.
Clair etc. Drainage Co., 51 111. 130; And see Adams v. Shelbyville, 154
Richman v. Board of Supervisors, 77 Ind. 467, 57 N. E. 114, 77 Am. St.
la. 513, 42 N. W. 422; Alfalfa Ir- Rep. 484, 49 L.R.A. 797; King v.
rigation Dist. v. Collins, 46 Neb. Portland, 38 Ore. 402, 63 Pac. 2, 55
411, 64 N. W. 1086; County of Mo- L.R.A. 812; Martin v. District of
bile V. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 703; Columbia, 205 U. S. 135, 27 S. C.
Board of Commissioners v. Reeves, 440.
148 Ind. 467. And see post §§ 5 and
242.
§ 6 THE POWER DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED. 11
of the improvement upon such district, without regard to bene-
fits.^® But the courts will intervene to prevent an abuse of this
power, as when the special tax or assessment amounts to a con-
fiscation or spoliation of property, because there is no benefit
or presumption of benefit to support it.^" A special assessment
is thus seen to be a contribution levied upon a particular class
of individuals, and apportioned among them according to the
quantity or value of property possessed by each in the locality
of the improvement, or in proportion to benefits received. Here
is every element of a tax and not one element of the exercise of
eminent domain. Under the latter power it is always sought
to appropriate specific property, without regard to any ratio or
apportionment. A special assessment is a contribution of
money the same as a general tax. The compensation received
in benefits does not differ in principle from the compensation
received, or supposed to be received, for general taxes, and is
often a myth in fact in the one case as in the other. All this
seems so evident that the wonder is that any court should have
come to a contrary conclusion. The only State in which the
doctrine has been unequivocally announced that special assess-
ments fall under the power of eminent domain, is Illinois, and
I'Montgomery v. Moore, 140 Ala. 645; Wormley v. District of Colum-
638, 37 So. 291; Voris v. Pittsburg bia, 181 U. S. 402, 21 S. C. 609;
Plate Glass C!o., 163 Ind. 599, 70 Shumate v. Heman, 181 U. S. 402, 21
N. E. 249; Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, S. C. 645; ShaeflFer v. Werling, 188
124 Mich. 433, 83 N. W. 108 ; Good- U. S. 516, 23 S. C. 449 ; Hibben v.
rich V. Detroit, 123 Mich. 559, 82 Smith, 191 U. S. 310, 24 S. C. 88;
N. W. 255; Wilzinski v. Greenville, Cleveland etc. Ry. Co. v. Porter, 210
85 Miss. 393, 37 So. 807 ; Prior v. U. S. 177, 28 S. C. 647 ; Cleveland etc.
Buehler etc. Co., 170 Mo. 439, 71 S. Ry. Co. v. Porter, 210 U. S. 177.
W. 205 ; McMillan v. Butte, 30 Mont. See State v. Robert P. Lewis Co., 72
220, 76 Pac. 203; People v. Pitt, 169 Minn. 87, 75 N. W. 108, 42 L.R.A.
N. Y. 521, 62 N. E. 662, 58 L.R.A. 639; State v. Robert P. Lewis Co.,
372; Webster v. Fargo, 9 N. D. 208, 82 Minn. 390, 402, 85 N. W. 207, 86
82 N. W. 732, .56 L.R.A. 156; Har- N. W. 611, 53 L.R.A. 421; State v.
risburg v. McPherson, 200 Pa. St. Macalester College, 87 Minn. 165,
343, 49 Atl. 988 ; French v. Barber 91 N. W. 484.
Asphalt Pav. Co., 181 U. S. 324, aoQoffman v. St. Francis Dr. Dis-
21 S. C. 625; Wight V. Davidson, 181 trict, 83 Ark. 54, 103 S. W. 179;
U. S. 371, 21 S. C. 610; Tonawanda Barfield v. Gleason, 111 Ky. 491, 63
V. Lyon, 181 U. S. 389, 21 S. C. 609; S. W. 964; Wight v. Davidson, 181
Webster v. Fargo, 181 U. S. 394, 21 U. S. 371, 385, 21 S. C. 616; Cass
S. C. 645; Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U. S. 396,
181 U. S. 396, 21 S. C. 644; Detroit 21 S. C. 644.
V. Parker, 181 U. S. 399, 21 S. C.
12
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ !"'
in that State the courts seem to have been driven to that con-
clusion in order to sustain such assessments at all, owing to the
peculiar provisions as to taxation in the constitution of that
State then in force.^^ Since this difficulty was removed by the
adoption of the present constitution, the Supreme Court of that
State has concluded that a special assessment is a tax and not an
exercise of the power of eminent domain.^^ Other courts have
exhibited some vacillation on this subject.** But we believe
2iThe provision requiring Tiniform-
ity. Chicago v. Lamed, 34 111. 203;
Canal Trustees v. Chicago, 12 111.
406; Chicago v. Colby, 20 111. 614;
McBride v. Chicago, 22 111. 576;
Peoria v. Kidder, 26 111. 351 ; Town
of Pleasant v. Kost, 29 111. 490;
Howard v. St Clair Drain Co., 51
111. 130; Hessler v. Drainage Corns.,
53 111. 105; Wright v. Chicago, 46
111. 44. The Supreme Court of Mich-
igan encountered the same obstacle
in the constitution of that State, but
overcame it by holding that the con-
stitutional provisions applied only
to taxes of the ordinary kind for
State, county and municipal ex-
penses, and that therefore the legis-
lature had plenary power over this
other kind of taxation, and so sus-
tained special assessments as a tax.
Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274.
In City of Raleigh v. Peace, 110 N.
C. 32, 14 S. E. 521, 17 L.R.A. 330,
a special assessment was sustained
as an exercise of the taxing power,
notwithstanding a similar provision
in the constitution of that State.
And see Munson v. Board of Com-
missioners, 43 La. Ann. 15, 8 So.
906; Sperry v. Flygare, 80 Minn.
325, 83 N. W. 177, 81 Am. St. Rep.
261, 49 L.R.A. 757.
2 2 White V. People, 94 111. 604,
1880; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Elm-
hurst, 165 111. 148, 46 N. E. 43.
2 3In Louisiana the court first held
special assessments to be an exer-
cise of the taxing power in Munici-
pality, No. 2 v. White, 9 La. Ann.
446, 1854, and afterwards in the
New Orleans Drainage Co. etc., 11
La. Ann. 338, 1856, and Surgi v.
Snetchman, 11 id. 387, 1856, held
them to be an exercise of the pow-
er of eminent domain, but finally
leave the question in uncertainty in
Wallace v. Shelton, 14 id. 503, 1859,
and City of New Orleans etc., 20 id.
407, 1868; and see further New Or-
leans V. Elliott, 10 La. An. 59, 1855;
Yeatman v. Crandall, 11 id. 220,
1856. Recent eases have settled that
a special assessment is a tax in its
essential nature, though not a tax
within the meaning of the constitu-
tional provisions on the subject of
taxation. Munson v. Board of
Comrs., 43 La. An. 15, 8 So. 906;
Charnock v. Levee Co., 38 La. An.
323 ; Manufacturing Co. v. Green, 39
La. An. 455, 1 So. 873. In the first
of these cases it is said: "The
levy of a local assessment is an ex-
ercise of the taxing power in its
broadest and most comprehensive
sense; yet it is not a tax, eo nomine,
and is not governed by the provisions
of the constitution on the general
subject of taxation; but it is ex-
erted entirely independently of all
its provisions on the subject of tax-
ation." In New York the Court of
Errors in 1844-5 held assessments to
be an exercise of the taxing power.
Striker v. Kelley, 7 Hill, 9, 1844; S.
C. 2 Denio, 323, 1845. Afterwards
there were three decisions to the
contrary in the Supreme Court. Jor-
dan V. Hyatt, 3 Barb. 275, 1S48;
§ 6
THE POWEE DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.
13
that the doctrine is now universal to the effect that special assess-
ments are to be referred to the power of taxation.^*
§ 6. Distinguished from the police power. Every one
is bound so to use his own property as not to interfere with the
reasonable use and enjoyment by others of their property. For
a violation of this duty the law provides a civil remedy. Besides
this obligation, which every property owner is under to the
owners of neighboring property, he is also bound so to use and
enjoy his ovyn as not to interfere with the general welfare of the
People ex rel. etc. v. Mayor etc. of
Brooklyn, 6 id. 209, 1849; People ex
rel. etc. v. Mayor etc. of Brooklyn,
9 id. 535, 1850. But the doctrine
was finally settled in favor of the
text in the case of People ex rel.
etc. V. Mayor etc. of Brooklyn, 4
N. Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266, 1851,
where the court discusses at length
the distinguishing characteristics of
a. tax and of an exercise of the em-
inent domain power. To same ef-
fect, Astor V. Mayor etc. of New
York, 5 Jones & S. 539; Moran v.
City of Troy, 9 Hun 540. Other
cases holding or intimating that spe-
cial assessments fall under the pow-
er of eminent domain are the fol-
lowing: Extension of Hancock
Street, 18 Pa. St. 26 ; Zoeller v. Kel-
logg, 4 Mo. Ap. 163; State v. City
Council, 12 Rich. S. C. 702; Sutton's
Heirs v. City of Louisville, 5 Dana
28. See Cribbs v. Benedict, 64 Ark.
555. In Philadelphia v. Penn Hos-
pital, 143 Pa. St. 367, 22 Atl. 744,
an ordinance that the footways of
all streets and highways should be
graded, curbed, paved and kept in
repair at the expense of the abutting
owner, was held to be an exercise
of the police power and not of the
power of taxation.
24"The form and manner, spirit
and bearing of an act of State, de-
cide whether it be an exercise of the
right of eminent domain, or the right
of taxation, and not the mere phys-
ical nature of the thing ultimately
obtained by it for the public use."
In the Matter of Dorrence Street, 4
R. I. 230, 246. In support of the
text, see: Burnett v. Mayor etc. of
Sacramento, 12 Cal. 76; Creighton
V. Manson, 27 Cal. 613; Emery v.
San Francisco Gas Co., 28 Cal. 345,
350; Chambers v. Saterlee, 40 Cal.
497; Hagar v. Board of Supervisors
of Yolo Co., 47 Cal., 222; German
Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Ramish. 138 Cal.
120, 70 Pac. 1067; Nichols v. Bridge-
port, 23 Conn. 189; Edgerton v.
Green Cove Springs, 19 Fla. 140;
Speer v. Athens, 85 Ga. 49, 9 L.R.A.
402, 11 S E. 802; Briggs v. Union
Drainage Dist., 140 111. 53, 29 N. E.
721; Yeomans v. Riddle, 84 la. 147,
50 N. W. 886; Bradley v. McAtee, 7
Bush, 667, 3 Am. Rep. 309; City of
Covington v. Worthington, 88 Ky.
206, 10 S. W. 790, 11 S. W. 1038;
Alexander v. Mayor etc. of Balti-
more, 5 G. & J. (Md.) 383; Mayor
etc. of Baltimore v. Greenmount
Cemetery, 7 Md. 517; Williams v.
Mayor etc. of Detroit, 2 Mich. 561 ;
Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274;
Roberts v. Smith, 115 Mich. 5, 72
N. W. 1091; McComb v. Bell, 2
Minn. 295; Williams v. Cammack,
27 Miss. 209; Garrett v. St. Louis,
25 Mo. 505; Newby v. Piatt Co., 25
Mo. 258; Palmyra v. Morton, 25 Mo.
593 ; St. Louis v. Speck, 67 Mo. 403 ;
Keith V. Bingham, 100 Mo. 300, 13
S. W. 683; Morrison v. Morey, 146
Mo. 543, 43 S. W. 629; Cain v.
Omaha, 42 Neb. 120, 60 N. W. 368;
14
iEMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 6
community in which he lives.^^ It is the enforcement of this
last duty which pertains to the police power of the State so
far as the exercise of that power affects private property. What-
ever restraints the legislature imposes upon the use and enjoy-
ment of property within the reason and principle of this duty,
the owner must submit to, and for any inconvenience or loss
which he sustains thereby, he is without remedy. It is a reg-
ulation, and not a taking, au exercise of police power, and not of
eminent domain.^* But the moment the legislature passes
State V. Mayor etc. of Newark, 35
N. J. L. 168; State v. Blake, 36 N.
J. L. 442; S. C. 35 N. J. L. 208;
Coster V. Tide Water Co., 18 N. J.
Eq. 54; S. C. on appeal, 18 N. J.
Eq. 518; People v. Brooklyn, 4 N.
Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266; Litchfield
V. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 123; Scoville v.
City of Cleveland, 1 Ohio St. 126;
Hill V. Higdon, 5 Ohio St. 243, 67
Am. Dec. 289; Ridenour v. Saffin, 1
Handy, 464; Allen v. Drew, 44 Vt.
174; Woodhouse v. Burlington, 47
Vt. 300; City of Norfolk v. Cham-
berlain, 89 Va. 196, 16 S. E. 730;
Walston V. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578,
9 S. C. 192; Norwood v. Baker, 172
U. S. 269. The nature of special as-
sessments will be found to be ex-
haustively discussed and the author-
ities reviewed in Town of Macon v.
Patty, 57 Miss. 378, 34 Am. Rep.
451 ; Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65
Pa. St. 146; Hancock Street, 18 Pa.
St. 26; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96
U. S. 97. Where a city assessed
land for repairing and curbing a
street which had just been paved
and curbed by the city and was in
good condition, the object being to
make the street conform to a new
und different plan, it was held that
the assessment would be in deroga-
tion of the rights of private prop-
erty. Wistar v. Philadelphia, 8 Pa.
St. 505.
2 6 "Every right, from an absolute
ownership in property, dowp to a
mere easement, is purchased and
holden subject to the restriction,
that it shall be so exercised as not
to injure others." Coates v. Mayor
etc. of New York, 7 Cow. 585, 605.
See also Jamieson v. Ind. Nat. Gas
& Oil Co., 128 Ind. 555, 28 N. E. 76,
12 L.R.A. 652; Opinion of the Jus-
tices, 103 Me. 506, 69 Atl. 627; Com-
monwealth V. Alger, 7 Cush. 84;
Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.
S. 659; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S.
133; Tenement House Dept. v. Moe-
scher, 89 A. D. 526, 85 N. Y. S. 704;
Same v. Same, 90 A. D. 603, 85 N.
Y. S. 1148; same cases affirmed, 179
N. Y. 325, 72 N. E. 231, 103 Am. St.
Rep. 910, 7 L.R.A. 704; latter case
affirmed without opinion, 203 U. S.
583; and see post, §§ 243-249.
260dd Fellows Cem. Asso. v. San
Francisco, 140 Cal. 226, 73 Pac. 987;
In re Kelso, 147 Cal. 609, 82 Pac.
241, 109 Am. St. Rep. 178, 2 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 796; Hine v. New Haven, 40
Conn. 478; King v. Davenport, 98
111. 305, 38 Am. Rep. 89; Munn v.
People, 69 lU. 80; S. C. affirmed,
94 U. S. 113; N. W. Fertilizing Co.
V. Hyde Park, 70 111. 634; S. C. af-
firmed, 97 U. S. 659; Jamieson v.
Ind. Nat. Gas & Oil Co., 128 Ind.
555, 28 N. E. 76, 12 L.R.A. 652;
People V. Hawley, 3 Mich. 330 ; Bak-
er V. Boston, 12 Pick. 184, 22 Am.
Dec. 421 ; Commonwealth v. Tewks-
bury, 11 Met. 55: Watertovvn v.
Mayo, 109 Mass. 315, 12 Am. Rep.
694; St. Louis V. Stern, 3 Mo. App.
48; Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow.
§ 6
THE POWEE DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.
15
beyond mere regulation, and attempts to deprive the individual
of his property, or of some substantial interest therein, under
pretense of regulation, then the act becomes one of eminent
domain, and is subject to the obligations and limitations which
attend an exercise of that power.^^ We shall defer until a sub-
sequent chapter a discussion of the limits of the police regula-
tion of private property and of the acts which, though under
the guise of police regulation, amount to a taking of property
for public use, and which, therefore, can only be accomplished
349; Roosevelt v. Godard, 52 Barb,
533; Am. Rapid Tel. Co. v. Hess,
125 N. Y. 641, 26 N. E. 919, 4 Am
E. E. & Corp. Rep. 199, 13 L.E.A
454; Tenement House Dept. v. Moe
scher, 179 N. Y. 325, 72 N. E. 231
103 Am. St. Eep. 910, 70 L.E.A. 704
S. C. affirmed, 203 U. S. 583; Me-
Candlass v. Eiehmond & D. R. Co
38 S. C. 103, 16 S. E. 429, 7 Am. E
R. & Corp. Eep. 366, 18 L.E.A. 440
City of Charleston v. Werner, 38 S.
C. 488, 17 S. E. 33, 8 Am. E. R. &
Corp. Eep. 73; Town of Summerville
V. Presby, 33 S. C. 56, 11 S. E. 545,
3 Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 101, 8
L.E.A. 854; Beer Co. v. Massachu-
setts, 97 U. S. 25; C. B. & Q. R.
E. Co. V. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155;
Peik V. C. & N. W. R. R. Co.,
94 U. S. 164; Powell v. Pennsyl-
vania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 S. C. 992,
1257; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S.
133; S. C. 119 N. Y. 326, 23 N, E.
878, 16 Am. St. Rep. 813, 7 L.R.A.
134. In Philadelphia v. Scott, 81
Pa. St. 80, 22 Am. Rep. 738, the
court, speaking of the powers of emi-
nent domain and police, says: "In
their leading features, these powers
are plainly different, the latter
reaching even to destruction of prop-
erty, as in tearing down a house to
prevent the spread of a conflagra-
tion, or to removal at the expense of
the owner, as in case of a nuisance
tending to breed disease. In the
first instance, the community pro-
ceeds on the ground of overwhelming
calamity; and in the second, be-
cause of the fault of the owner of
the thing; and in either case com-
pensation is not a condition of the
exercise of the power. The same
general principles attend its exercise
in other directions, and it is general-
ly based upon disaster, fault, or in-
evitable necessity. On the other
hand, the power of eminent domain
is conditioned generally upon com-
pensation to the owner, and for the
most part is founded, not in calam-
itj' or fault, but in public utility.
These distinctions clearly mark the
cases distant from the border line
between the two powers, but in or
near to it they begin to fade into
each other, and it is difficult to say
when compensation becomes a duty
and when not."
2'Lake View v. Rose Hill Ceme-
tery Co., 70 111. 192, 22 Am. Rep. 71;
Chicago V. Laflin, 49 111. 172; Com-
monwealth V. Bacon, 13 Bush. 210,
26 Am. Rep. 189; Matter of Petition
of Cheesbrough, 78 N. Y. 232; Com-
monwealth V. Penn. Canal Co., 66
Pa. St. 41, 5 Am. Eep. 329; State v.
Glenn, 7 Jones L. 321 ; Cornelius v.
Glenn, 7 Jones L. 512; Turnpike Co.
V. Davidson Co., 3 Tenn. Ch. 396;
New Orleans Water Works Co. v.
St. Tammany Water Works Co., 4
Wood C. 0. 134; Crescent City etc.
Co. V. Butchers' Union etc. Co., 4
Wood C. C. 96.
1-6 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 7
under the power of eminent domain.^* It is sufficient for the
present purpose to point out the distinction between the two
powers. Under the one, the public welfare is prompted by
regulating and restricting the use and enjoyment of property
by the owner ; under the other, the public welfare is promoted
by taking the property from the owner and appropriating it to
some particular use.
§ 7. Distinguished from the damaging or destruction
of property in cases of necessity. At common law the right
exists in individuals, in cases of emergency where the danger is
imminent and admits of no delay, to control and destroy prop-
erty in order to avert a public calamity.^® The most common
example of the exercise of this right, is the demolition of build-
ings to prevent the spreading of a conflagration.^" In all such
cases, if the judgment of the individual was a reasonable one
under the circumstances in which he was placed, he is not liable,
even though it should finally turn out that the destruction was,
in fact, unnecessary.^^ Though the right is regulated by statute
and officers designated to determine upon the necessity and order
the destruction, the nature of the act remains unchanged. In
such cases no remedy exists except such as was previously given
2sPost, §§ 243-249. soThe right of a traveler to go
292 Kent's Com. 338; Dillon upon adjacent property when a high-
Munic. Corp. § 955 (756) ; Mouser's way is impassable is referred to the
Case, 12 Coke, 62; King's Preroga- same law of necessity. Irwin v.
tive in Saltpeter, 12 Coke, 12; Bow- Yeager, 74 la. 174, 37 N. W. 136.
ditch V. Boston, 101 U. S. 16; and This was trespass for such a use of
cases cited in subsequent notes to private property when the highway
this section. "The best elementary was blockaded by snow. The court
writers lay down the principle, and
adjudications upon adjudications "This right is based on the groimd
have for centuries sustained, sane- of inevitable necessity; and also
tioned and upheld it, that in a case when the public convenience and ne-
of actual necessity, to prevent the cessity come in conflict with private
spreading of a fire, the ravages of a right, the latter must yield to the
pestilence, or any other great public former. Such fact, therefore, may be
calamity, the private property of any pleaded and shown as an excuse for
individual may be lawfully destroyed the alleged trespass. Such tempo-
for the relief, protection or safety rary and unavoidable use of private
of the many, without subjecting the property must be regarded as one of
actors to personal responsibility for those incidental burdens to which all
the damages which the owner has property in a civilized community is
sustained." Senator Sherman in subject." p. 177.
Russell V. Mayor etc. of New York, siConwell v. Emrie, 2 Ind. 35;
2 Denio 461, 474. Suroeco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69, 58 Am.
§ 7
THE POWER DEFIlirED AND DISTINGUISHED.
17
by the common law, or is conferred by the statute.*'^ The reg-
ulation of the right by statute does not bring its exercise under
the power of eminent domain.^^ This right is plainly dis-
tinguishable from the right of eminent domain. It is a right
which exists in the individual, and not in the State ; by nature,
and not as the result of political organization.^*
Dec. 385 ; Dunbar v. The Alcalde etc.
of San Francisco, 1 Cal. 355; Mc-
Donald V. City of Red Wing, 13
Minn. 38; Field v. Des Moines, 39
la. 575, 18 Am. Rep. 46; Hale v.
Lawrence, 21 N. J. L. 714; Bowditch
V. Boston, 101 U. S. 16; Mouser's
Case, 12 Coke, 62. In Bishop v.
Macon, 7 Ga. 200, 50 Am. Dec. 400,
a contrary doctrine appears to be
held.
3 2People ex rel. v. Common Coun-
cil of Buffalo, 76 N. Y. 558, 32 Am.
Rep. 337; Bowditch v. City of Bos-
ton, 4 Clifford, 323; Keller v. Cor-
pus Christi, 50 Tex. 614, 32 Am.
Rep. 613; Mayor etc. of New York
V. Lord, 17 Wend. 285; S. C.
18 Wend. 126; Mayor etc. of
New York v. Pentz, 24 Wend. 668;
Russell V. Mayor etc. of New York,
2 Denio 461 ; American Print Works
V. Lawrence, 21 N. J. L. 248, 57 Am.
Dec. 420; S. C. 21 N. J. L. 714;
23 N. J. L. 590; Parsons v. Pettin-
gill, 11 Allen 507; Taylor v. Ply-
mouth, 8 Met. 462; White v. City
Council of Charleston, 2 Hill S. C.
571 ; Field v. Des Moines, 39 la. 575,
18 Am. Rep. 46; Bowditch v. Bos-
ton, 101 U. S. 16; Town of Dawson
V. Katter, 48 Ga. 133. For a con-
struction of the New York statute
as to goods in buildings destroyed,
see Mayor etc. of New York v. Stone,
20 Wend. 139.
3 3In American Print Works v.
Lawrence, 21 N. J. L. 248, 258, 57
Am. Dec. 420, Green, C. J., says: "I
am of opinion, therefore, that the
destruction of buildings to prevent
the spread of a conflagration, is not
Em. D.— 2.
the taking of property for public
use within the meaning of the con-
stitution. Nor is the principle al-
tered by the fact that the destruc-
tion in the present instance was
committed under legislative sanc-
tion. The right of destruction ex-
isted prior to the enactment. The
statute created no new power. It
conferred no new right. It merely
converted a right of necessity into a
legal right. It regulated the mode in
which a previously existing power
should be exercised." See also S. C.
23 N. J. L. 590; Russell v. Mayor
etc. of New York, 2 Denio 461;
Field V. Des Moines, 39 la. 576;
Keller v. Corpus Christi, 50 Tex.
614; Bowditch v. City of Boston, 4
Cliflford 323. Compare Hale v. Law-
rence, 21 N. J. L. 714.
3 4"The right of eminent domain
is a public right, it arises from the
laws of society, and is vested in the
State or its grantee, acting under
the right and power of the State,
and is the right to take or destroy
private property for the use or bene-
fit of the State, or of those acting
under and for it. The right of ne-
cessity arises under the law of na-
ture; it is older than the laws of
society or society itself. It is the
right of self-defense, of self-preser-
vation, whether applied to persons
or to property. It is a private right
vested in every individual, and with
which the rights of the State or
State necessity has nothing to do."
Per Randolph, J., in American Print
Works V. Lawrence, 23 N. J. L. at
615; S. C. 21 N. J. L. at p. 257.
18
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 8. Distinguished from the war power. The taking,
injuring and destruction of property in time of war, is clearly
allied to the injury and destruction of property referred to in
the last section. The war power is founded on necessity. It
is exercised by the State and its authorized agents, not by
individuals acting independently and upon their own author-
ity.*® According to the laws of war, private property in the
enemy's country, whether belonging to friend or foe, useful to
the enemy for attack, or defense, or subsistence, may be right-
fully taken or destroyed.*^ The owners of property injured,
or destroyed, in the actual operations of war, in battle, in the
movement of troops, in the construction of works of attack or
defense, are without remedy.* '^ So of property wantonly de-
stroyed by troops. The destruction of property to prevent its
falling into the hands of the enemy falls under the same power.**
In such cases the officer acts at his peril and upon his own respon-
sibility. If his judgment was a reasonable one, in view of the
circumstances as they appeared to him at the time, and the in-
formation he had a right to rely upon, the act is justifiable, and
the loss is the owner's misfortune. If the ofiicer's action was
not justified as above explained, he is personally responsible.*^
It is in no event an exercise of the power of eminent domain.
There is not wanting, however, some authority for a contrary
view.*" Where the property of a citizen is impressed into the
Beck V. Ingram, 1 Bush er, 6 Bush (Ky.) 606; Christian
(Ky.) 355. County Court V. Rankin, 2 Duv. Ky.
3 6 Bell V. Louisville & Nashville 502, 87 Am. Dec. 505. And see Clark
R. R. Co., 1 Bush (Ky.) 404; see 13 v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 564; S. C. 69
Am. Law Reg. N. S. 275. "For the Mo. 627.
purposes of capture, property found *cGrant v. United States, 1 Ct.
in enemy territory is enemy proper- of CI. 41 ; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13
ty, without regard to the status of How. 115. But see comments on
the owner. In war, all residents of these cases in 13 Am. Law Reg. 415,
enemy country are enemies." La- note. In Corbin v. Marsh, 2 Duv.
mar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187, 194. Ky. 463, and Hughes v. Todd, 2 Duv.
3 7Bell V. Louisville & Nashville R. Ky. 188 the act of Congress provid-
R. R. Co., 1 Bush (Ky. ) 404; see ing for the enlistment or drafting
article in 13 Am. Law Reg. N. S. of colored persons or slaves, author-
337. izing a, compensation of not exceed-
ssRespublica v. Sparhawk, 1 Dall. ing $300 to the loyal owner of any
357; Ford v. Surget, 46 Miss. 130^ such slave and that such slave should
Article 13 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 401. be free, and also providing that the
sojiitchell V. Harmony, 13 How. mother, wife and children of the
115; Farmer v. Lewis, 1 Bush (Ky.) soldier should be free, was held to
66, 89 Am. Dec. 610; Dills v. Hatch- be unconstitutional, as in violation
§ 8
THE POWER DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.
19
service of the State in time of war, which would ordinarily be
procured by contract, except for the emergency, there is a taking
within the meaning of the constitution, and the owner is entitled
to compensation.*^ But if there is a lack of good faith, or of
a sufficient emergency, or of proper authority, the person taking
the property will be liable.*^ In case of such impressment of
property, the compensation must be fixed by an impartial tri-
bunal, and not arbitrarily by the government.** Personal prop-
erty once rightly impressed vests absolutely in the government,
and does not revert when the emergency ceases.** It has been
held that money and real estate cannot be lawfully impressed.*^
of the eminent domain clause of the
Constitution.
"Drehman v. Stifel, 41 Mo. 184,
97 Am. Dec. 268; Wallace v. Al-
vord, 39 Ga. 609; Price v. Poynton,
1 Bush (Ky.) 387.
4 2Barrow v. Page, 5 Haywood
(Tenn.) 97; Tyson v. Rogers, 33 Ga.
473; Jones v. Commonwealth, 1
Bush (Ky.) 34, 89 Am. Dec. 771
Sellards v. Zomes, 5 Bush (Ky.) 90
Brakebill v. Leonard, 40 Ga. 60
Lewis V. McGuire, 3 Bush (Ky. )
202; Hogue v. Penn. 3 Bush (Ky.)
663; Ferguson v. Loar, 5 Bush
(Ky.) 689.
<3Cox V. Cummings, 33 Ga. 549;
Cunningham v. Campbell, 33 Ga.
625.
"Taylor v. Nashville & Chatta-
nooga R. R. Co., 6 Cold. 646. Contra,
Fryer v. McRae, 8 Porter (Ala.)
187. And see Hawkins v. Nelson, 40
Ala. 553, 91 Am. Dec. 492.
"White V. Ivey, 34 Ga. 186; Ter-
rill V. Rankin, 2 Bush 453. On the
general subject of the section the
following cases, arising under the
federal captured and abandoned
property act, will be found of inter-
est. Harrison v. Myer, 92 U. S. Ill;
Whitefield v. United States, 92 U.
S. 165; Lamar v. Brown, 92 U. S.
187; United States v. Ross, 92 U. S.
281 ; United States v. Diekelman, 92
U. S. 520; Conrad v. Waples, 90
U. S. 279; Burbank v. Conrad, 90
U. S. 291 ; Branch v. United States,
100 U. S. 673; Walker v. United
States, 106 U. S. 413; Kirk v. Lynd,
106 U. S. 315.
CHAPTEE II.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
§ 9. In general. The eminent domain, as we have al-
ready seen, is a sovereign power and devolves upon those persons
in a State who are clothed with the supreme authority. In the
States of the American Union these persons are the people, or,
more strictly, that portion of the people invested with the elective
franchise. The power of eminent domain has been delegated
by the people to the legislative department of the government in
the general grant of legislative power.-^ In nearly all the States
this grant has been accompanied by an express limitation upon
the legislature in the exercise of the power. The ordinary and
typical form of this limitation is, that private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation. The
later constitutions, however, display a tendency to amplify and
complicate this simple prohibition with special reference to
the taking of property by municipal and private corporations,
and also with reference to the time and manner of compensation.
As these constitutional provisions form the basis of a great mul-
titude of decisions, they have, for convenience of reference and
the better understanding of the decided cases, been collated at
the end of this chapter. It will be observed that but one State,
North Carolina, now remains without a provision on this sub-
ject in its organic law.^ Other States have been without such
a provision, as follows: ~Sew York, until 1822; New Jersey,
until 1844; Louisiana, until 1845; Maryland, until 1851, and
Arkansas, Georgia and South Carolina, until 1868. The pro-
i"The power itself is an iusep- zThe Constitution of New Hamp-
arable incident of sovereignty, and shire does not expressly require
its exercise was delegated by the compensation to be made and is
sovereign power to the general as- virtually without any provision on
sembly, in the general grant of leg- the subject. See post, § 41, and Opin-
islative authority." Geizey v. C. ion of the Justices, 6fi N. H. 629,
W. & Z. R. E. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308, 33 Atl. 1076. -See also the Constitu-
323; also Todd v. Austin, 34 Conn. tion of Virginia, post, § 57.
78; ante, § 3.
20
§ 10
CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS.
21
vision in the constitution of Kansas relates only to the taking
of rights of way by corporations. The provision first appears in
the constitution of Vermont, adopted in 177Y. Massachusetts
and Pennsylvania follow in 1780 and 1790 respectively. The
principal questions which have arisen in construing these con-
stitutional provisions are, first, what constitutes a taking; sec-
ond, what is a public use, and, third, what is just compensation ;
and these questions are discussed in the succeeding chapters.
§ 10. The constitutional provision a limitation, not a
grant. The constitutional provisions in regard to the eminent
domain are limitations upon the power as vested in the legisla-
tive department of the State. They are neither to be regarded
as declaratory of what the law would be without them, nor as
grants of the power in question to the legislature.^ "This power
to take private property reaches back of all constitutional pro-
visions ; and it seems to have been considered a settled principle
of universal law, that the right to compensation, is an incident
to the exercise of that power ; that the one is so inseparably con-
nected with the other, that they may be said to exist not as sep-
arate and distinct principles, but as parts of one and the same
principle." *
sUnited States v. Jones, 100 U. S.
513, 518; B. & 0. E. E. Co. v. P.
W. & Ky. R. R. Co., 17 W. Va.
812, 841; Challiss v. A. T. & S. F.
R. R. Co., 16 Kan. 117; District of
City of Pittsburg, 2 W. & S. 320;
Steele v. County Comrs., 83 Ala.
304 ; People v. Adirondack R. R. Co.,
160 N. y. 2L5, 237; The Water
Works Co. of Indianapolis v. Burk-
hart, 41 Ind. 364; Kennebec Water
District v. Waterville, 96 Me. 234,
52 Atl. 774; Brown v. Gerald, 100
Me. 351, 360, 61 Atl. 785, 109 Am.
St. Rep. 526, 70 L.R.A. 472; State
V. District Court, 87 Minn. 146, 91
N. W. 300; Samish Riv. Boom Co.
V. Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 580,
595, 73 Pac. 670; Winona etc. R. R.
Co. v. Waldron, 11 Minn. 515, 539,
88 Am. Dec. 100. In the latter case
the court says: "The right of em-
inent domain is hot conferred by the
constitution; but, if affected at all.
is limited thereby, and only to the
extent of the limitation can the
citizen obtain any redress." Again,
in Harvey v. Thomas, 10 Watts 63,
"Tlie clause by which it is declared
that no man's property shall be talc-
en or applied to public use A^■ithout
the consent of his representatives
and without just compensation is a
disabling, not an enabling, one, and
the right would have existed in full
force without it.''
iSinniclcson v. Johnson, 17 N. J.
L. 129, 145. "The right of eminent
domain is limited, not conferred by
the Constitution." Gt. Western
Nat. Gas & Oil Co. v. Hawkins, 30
Ind. App. 557, 565, 66 N. E. 765, "It
exists Independent of constitutional
mandate, and it existed prior to con-
stitutions." Lazarus v. Morris, 212
Pa. St. 128, 130, 61 Atl. 815; Stearns
v. Barre, 73 Vt. 281, 50 Atl. 1086,
87 Am. St. Rep. 721, 58 L.R.A. 240.
22
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 11
§ 11 (10). States having no constitutional provision.
It is an interesting question, whether, in those States whose con-
stitutions contain no provision in regard to taking private prop-
erty for public use, the legislature is under any restraint what-
ever in the exercise of the power. But this question has lost most
of its practical interest, from the fact that all States except one"
now have an express limitation in their organic law touching the
exercise of this power. The courts of nearly all the States which
are, or have been, without such a limitation, have held that the
limitation itself was simply declaratory of certain great and
fundamental principles of natural justice and equity which were
as binding and obligatory upon the legislature as though ex-
pressly incorporated into the written constitution.* The idea.
SNorth Carolina. See ante, § 9.
eSpencer, J., in Bradshaw v. Kod-
gers, 20 Johns. 103, 1822, speaking
of these constitutional provisions,
says : "They are declaratory of a
great and fundamental principle of
government; and any law violating
that principle must he deemed a
nullity, as it is against natural right
and justice." S. C. 20 Johns. 735,
1823. In Harness v. The Chesa-
peake & Ohio Canal Co., 1 Md.
Ch. 248, 1848, it was said that, in-
dependent of constitutions, "there
was a principle of right and justice
inherent in the nature and spirit of
the social compact, which restrained
and set bounds to the authority of
the legislature, and beyond which it
could not be allowed to pass — that
principle which protects the life,
liberty and property of the citizen
from violation in the unjust exercise
of legislative power." And see Mar-
tin et al. ex parte, 13 Ark. 198;
Cairo & Fulton R. R. Co. v. Turner,
31 Ark. 494; Doe v. Georgia R. R.
& B. Co., 1 Ga. 524; Young v. Me-
Kenzie, 3 Ga. 31; Parham v. Jus-
tices etc. of Decatur County, 9 Ora.
341 ; Loughbridge v. Harris, 42 Ga.
501 ; Sinniekson v. Johnson, 17 N. J.
L. 129; Matter of Highway, 22 N. J.
L. 293; The Central R. R. Co. v.
Hetfield, 29 N. J. L. 206, 1861 ; Den
V. Morris Canal Co., 24 N. J. L. 587,
1854; Petition of Mt. Washington
Road Co., 35 N. H. 134, 141, 142;
Eastman v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 44
N. H. 143, 160, 82 Am. Dec. 201;
State V. Franklin Falls Co., 49 N. H.
240, 251, 6 Am. Rep. 513; Piscata-
qua Bridge Co. v. N. H. Bridge Co.,
7 N. H. 35, 66, 70; Opinion of the
Justices, 66 N. H. 629, 33 Atl. Rep.
1076; Polly v. Saratoga etc. R. R.
Co., 9 Barb. 449; Matter of Tut-
hill, 163 N. Y. 133, 57 N. E. 303, 79
Am. St. Rep. 574, 49 L.R.A. 781;
Johnston v. Ranlcin, 70 N. C. 550;
State V. Lyle, 100 N. C. 497, 6 S.
E. 379 ; Phillips v. Postal Tel. Cable
Co., 130 N. C. 513, 41 S. E. 1022, 89
Am. St. Rep. 868; Southport etc.
R. R. Co. V. Piatt Land, 133 N. C.
266, 45 S. E. 589; Cosard v. Kana-
wha Hardwood Co., 139 N. C. 283,
51 S. E. 932, 111 Am. St. Rep. 779,
1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 969. Contra, Lind-
say V. Commissioners etc. 2 Bay
(S. C.) 38, 1796; Stark v. Mc-
Gown, 1 Nott & McCord ( S. C. ) 387,
1818; Patrick v. Commissioners etc.
4 McCord (S. C.) 541, 1828; Mani-
qunet v. Commissioners of Roads, 4
McCord (S. C.) 541, 1828; State v.
§ 12
CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS.
23
however, that the legislature of a State is restrained by limita-
tions which are not to be found in the written constitution, is not
founded upon any sound legal or philosophical principles. The
later authorities and the better reasoning are against such a
view. The subject has been fully treated by Mr. Sedgwick and
Mr. Cooley in their admirable treatises on constitutional law.'
In some of the States, which have or have had, no provision on
the subject, the right to compensation has been worked out
through other provisions of the constitution, such as the one
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property with-
out due process of law.* The latter is undoubtedly the correct
view of the matter, for a law which authorizes the taking of pri-
vate property without compensation or for other than a public
purpose, cannot be considered as due process of law in a free
government.®
§ 12 (11). The provision in the federal Constitution.
The provision in the Constitution of the United States, that
private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation, applies only to the operations of the federal gov-
ernment and is not a limitation upon the power of the States. ■'*'
Dawson, 3 Hill (S. C.) 101, 1836;
Ex parte Withers, 3 Brevard (S. C.)
83; Raleigh & Gaston R. R. Co.
V. Davis, 2 Dev. & B. L. (N. C.)
451, 1837.
'Sedgwick on Const. & Stat. Law,
pp. 123-132, 150-159; Cooley, Const.
Lira. pp. 85, 86, 172, 173. See also
Slack V. Maysville & Lexington R.
R. Co., 13 B. Mon. 1, 22; City of
Logansport v. Seybold, 59 Ind. 225;
Churchman v. Martin, 54 Ind. 380;
Quick V. ^Vhite Water Township, 7
Ind. 570; Consumers' Gas Trust Co.
V. Harless, 131 Ind. 446, 29 N. E.
1062, 15 L.R.A. 505; Philadelphia
V. Field, 58 Pa. St. 320; People v.
Toynbee, 2 Parker (N. Y.) 490;
People V. Gallagher, 4 Mich. 244;
People V. Marshall, 6 111. 672 ; For-
sythe V. City of Hammond, 68 Fed.
774.
8Martin ex parte, 13 Ark. 198;
Harness v. Chesapeake & Ohio Can-
al Co., 1 Md. Ch. 248; Parham v.
Justices etc. of Decatur County, 9
Ga. 341; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.
S. 269. See especially Staton v.
Norfolk, R. R. Co., Ill N. C. 278,
16 S. E. 181, 17 L.R.A. 838. But a
different conclusion is reached in
the South Carolina cases cited ante,
n 46.
sSee post, § 315.
10 Barron v. Mayor etc. of Balti-
more, 7 Peters, 243 ; Withers v.
Buckley, 20 How. 84; Pumpelly v.
Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 176;
Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.
S. 490, 13 S. C. 394; Livingston v.
Mayor etc. of New York, 8 Wend.
85; Cairo and Fulton R. R. Co. v.
Turner, 31 Ark. 494 ; Raleigh & Gas-
ton R. R. Co. v. Davis, 2 Dev. & B.
Law (N. C. ) 451; Johnston v. Ran-
kin, 70 N. C. 550; Concord R. R.
Co. V. Greeley, 17 N. H. 47; Martin
V. Dix, 52 Miss. 53, 24 Am. Rep.
661 ; Renthorp v. Bourg, 4 Martin,
0. S. (La.) 97; Wilson v. Balti-
24 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 13
The only dissent from this proposition is found in an early
case in Georgia; ^^ but the Supreme Court of that State after-
wards modified its views and held in accordance with the
text.^^ The provision applies to the territories.^^
§ 13 (12). Effect of a change in the constitution. A
constitution may be revised or amended so as to introduce im-
portant changes regarding the power of eminent domain. The
question may arise as to the effect of such changes upon existing
laws, pending proceedings or works in progress. The solution
of such questions pertains more properly to works on constitu-
tional law;^* but a brief discussion of them will not be out of
place in this connection. Much must depend upon the facts of
each case, but in general it may be said that provisions intended
to secure the citizen additional rights and safeguards against the
exercise of the power in question, or affecting the remedy or pro-
cedure only, will be deemed to go into operation immediately
and without the aid of legislation, unless the operation of such
provisions is expressly made dependent upon laws to be after-
wards enacted. Thus where, by a change in the constitution, the
compensation or damages for property taken is required to be
ascertained in a particular mode, all laws inconsistent therewith
are at once abrogated ; -^^ and proceedings under such laws there-
after are void and of no effect even collaterally.^^ But a party
by participating in proceedings under such a statute and invok-
ing the benefit thereof will thereafter be estopped to assert its
more & P. K. E. Co., 5 Del. Ch. 524; Barb. 446; Lamb v. Lane, 4 Ohio St.
Phillips V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 130 167. But see as to proceedings pend-
N. C. 513, 521, 41 S. E. 1022, 89 Am. ing on appeal, People v. Super-
St. Eep. 868. visors, 3 Barb. 332. In the foUow-
iiDoe V. Georgia E. E. & B. Co., ing case the right to go on with
1 Ga. 524. pending proceedings was held to be
izYoung V. McKenzie, 3 Ga. 31; secured by a saving clause. Peoria
Parham v. Justices of Decatur Coun- etc. E. E. Co. v. Birhett, 62 111.
ty, 9 Ga. 341. 332.
isTerritory of Utah v. Daniels, isMitchell v. Illinois etc. Co., 68
6 Utah, 288, 22 Pac. 159. 111. 286 ; People v. Kimball, 4 Mich.
K/Sfee Cooley, Const. Lim. chap. 4. 95; Perrysburg Canal and Hydraulic
iBKine v. Defenbaugh, 64 111. 291; Co. v. Fitzgerald, 10 Ohio St. 513;
Mitchell V. Illinois etc. Co., 68 111. Whitehead v. The Arkansas Central
286; Householder v. City of Kansas, E. E. Co., 28 Ark. 460; Weber v.
83 Mo. 488; St Joseph & I. E. R. County of Santa Clara, 59 Cal. 265;
Co. V. Cudmore, 103 Mo. 634, 15 S. Trahern v. San Joaquin Co., 59 Cal.
W. 535; People v. Supervisors, 12 320.
§ 13 CONSTITUTIONAL PEO VISIONS. 25
invalidity.^'' A constitution will not be so construed as to have
a retroactive effect.^*
The constitution of Arkansas of 1868 provided that the com-
pensation for a right of way appropriated by a corporation
should be ascertained by a jury of twelve men in a court of
record as should be prescribed by law.^® The Cairo & Fulton
R. E. Co. was organized under an act of 1855 which provided
for the assessment of damages by five commissioners on the appli-
cation of either party. In ISli Trout filed his petition against
the said company under the act of 1855 for an assessment of
damages. An act was passed in 1873 applicable to all railroads,
which provided a mode of assessing damages in accordance with
the constitution, but it gave the initiative to the railroad com-
pany alone. The petitioners' land was entered upon before the
passage of this act. The court held that the constitution did
not execute itself, but plainly indicated that it was to be carried
into effect only by legislation. It was further held that as the
petitioner's right accrued before the act of 1873 was passed, he
could proceed under the act in force at the time his right ac-
crued.^" Where by the adoption of a new constitution compen-
sation is required to be made for property injured or damaged
as well as for property taken, it has been held that it did not
apply to damages occasioned by works which had been ordered
and contracted for before the new constitution went into effect.^ ^
But where an ordinance was passed for a change of grade before
the new constitution went into effect, and the change was not
made until afterwards, it was held that the new constitution ap-
plied and that the municipality would be liable for damages
to abutting property thereby occasioned.^- The right to impose
1 'Minneapolis etc. E.. R. Co. v. that either party should have the
Neater, 3 N. D. 480, 57 N. W. 510. right to a jury of twelve freeliolders,
is'loledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Pence, the existing laws remained in force
68 111. 524. until a general law was passed as
isArt. V, Sec. 48. See post, § 17. contemplated by the constitution.
20Cairo & Fulton R. R. Co. v. 2iChicago v. Rumsey, 87 111. 348.
Trout, ,32 Ark. 17. In Supervisors 2 2City of Bloomington v. Pollock,
of Dodridge County v. Stout, 9 W. 141 111. 346, 31 N. E. 146; S. C.
Va. 703, it was held that where, 38 111. App. 133. Compare Strouds-
pending proceedings to condemn, a bourg Borough v. Stroudsbourg Pass,
new constitution went into effect re- R. R. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 124 ; St.
quiring compensation to be ascer- Louis v. Lang, 131 Mo. 412, 33 S. W.
tained in such manner as should be 54; Ogden v. Philadelphia, 143 Pa.
prescribed by general law, provided, St. 430, 22 Atl. Rep. 694.
26
EMINENT DOMAIIT.
§ 14
upon existing corporations, by an amendment to the constitution
or othenvise, a liability for consequential damages, where none
existed before, is considered in a future section.^^
§ 14 (13). The provisions apply only to the power of
eminent domain. As we have already seen, private property
may be taken or affected for public use, not only under the power
of eminent domain, but also under other powers vested in the
State, as the power of taxation, the police power and the war
power. ^* Some courts have held that the constitutional provi-
sion in question is a limitation upon the exercise of all these
powers.^^ But the better view undoubtedly is that it applies only
to the power of eminent domain.^^ The just compensation re-
2 3Po«<, § 379. See Pennsylvania
R. R. Co. V. Miller, 132 U. S. 75,
10 S. C. Rep. 34, 1 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 15; Prather v. Jeffersonville
etc. R. R. Co., 52 Ind. 16; Den v.
Morris Canal etc. Co., 24 N. J. L.
587; Duncan v. Pennsylvania R. R.
Co., 94 Pa. St. 435 ; Philadelphia v.
Wright, 100 Pa. St. 235; McElroy
v. Kansas City, 21 Fed. R. 257.
a Ante, Chap. 1.
26In Macon v. Patty, 57 Miss. 37S,
399, 34 Am. Rep. 451, the court says :
"We must apply this provision in
all cases, notwithstanding it has been
said that it is only applicable to
property taken under the right of
eminent domain, which right does
not extend to the taking of money.
We agree that the most important
use of this provision is to restrain
the right of eminent domain; but
that is not its whole force. For the
prohibition is general and absolute:
'Private property shall not be taken
for public use, except upon due
compensation,' is the language of
the constitution. The prohibition is
not as to the methods in which the
appropriation may be made, but is
a denial of the power to make it at
all by any method, under any cir-
cumstances, and under any pretence
whatever, unless compensation is
first made. It was intended to se-
cure the absolute inviolability of
private property of all kinds against
any and all invasions under public
authority. If the right of eminent
domain does not extend to the tak-
ing of money, this is no reason why
that kind of property should not
come within the protection of this
clause of the constitution; but, on
the contrary, the absence of the
right is but an additional safeguard
for its protection. It is true that
money exacted from the citizen, in
the way of lawful and constitutional
taxation, is not within the meaning
of this clause, because it is taken
in discharge of a debt to the State
or public. But if, imder the guise
of taxation, money is attempted to
be exacted beyond the limits of the
taxing power, it is a violation of the
security afforded by this clause of
the constitution." See also Cheaney
V. Hooser, 9 B. Mon. 330, 341; Cain
V. City of Omaha, 42 Neb. 120, 60
N. W. Rep. 368.
2 6 "It is only the taking of specific
pieces of property of an individual
that is prohibited by the constitu-
tional provision mentioned." City
of Logansport v. Seybold, 59 Ind.
225, 228; City of Aurora v. West, 9
Ind. 74, 83.
§ 15 CONSTITUTIONAL PKOVISIONS. 27
quired to be made is an equivalent, either in money, or in
special benefits to particular proporty.^^ In no case is the indi-
vidual compensated in this manner for money exacted for taxa-
tion or loss occasioned by an exercise of police power. In short,
these powers would be rendered nugatory, if such compensation
was obligatory in case of their exercise. It is enough that a
tax or police regulation promotes, or is calculated or intended to
promote, the general welfare. The individual receives his only
compensation by sharing in the common beneiit. But, if the
constitutional provision for just compensation is satisfied by a
participation in the general welfare, then its efficacy to protect
the individual against the power of eminent domain is entirely
gone. As the provision must have a uniform interpretation
and cannot be made to mean one thing at one time and another
thing at another time, one thing when applied to the power of
eminent domain and another when applied to taxation or police
regulation, we think it is clear that its application must be con-
fined to the former power. It does serve to keep the other powers
within their legitimate bounds, but within those bounds it has
no application.^^ These conclusions are enforced by considering
those provisions which require the "just compensation" to be
first made. It can hardly be contended that this modification
changes entirely the scope and purposes of the provision. But
it is evident that it would absolutely preclude the exercise of the
power of taxation or police regulation, if applied thereto; for
it is impossible to receive the benefit of a tax until it has been
collected and expended, or of a police regulation until it has
been made and enforced.
§ 15 (14). Constitutional provisions. — United States.
Art. 5. Amendments of 1Y91. * * * "nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Ordinance of 1787. Sec. 9, Art. 2. "No man shall be de-
prived of his liberty or' property, but by the judgment of his.
peers, or the law of the land; and should the public exigencies
make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any
person's property, or to demand his particular services, full
compensation shall be made for the same."
27We do not mean at this point tion" required to be made may con-
to give a construction of the words sist of special benefits. See post
in question. All we mean is that the §§ 687, 693.
least effect courts have ever given a^See post, §§ 242-249.
to them, is that the "just compensa-
28 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 16
§ 16 (15). Alabama.
1819. Art. 1, § 13. * * * "nor shall any person's
property be taken or applied to public use, unless just compen-
sation be made therefor."
1865. Art. 1, § 25. "That private property shall not be
taken or applied for public use, unless just compensation be
made therefor; nor shall private property be taken for private
use, or for the use of corporations other than municipal, without
the consent of the owner ; provided, however, that laws may be
made securing to persons or corporations the right of way over
the lands of other persons or corporations, and for works of
internal improvement, the right to establish depots, stations and
turn-outs ; but just compensation shall, in such cases be first
made to the owner."
1868. Art. 1, § 25. The same provision is continued, except
for "other persons or corporations" read "either persons or cor-
porations," and in the last line in place of "such cases" read
"all cases."
Art. 13, § 5. "!N"o right of way shall be appropriated to
the use of any corporation, until full compensation therefor
be first made in money, or secured by a deposit of money to the
owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvements pro-
posed by such corporation; which compensation shall be ascer-
tained by a jury of twelve men in a court of record, as shall be
prescribed by law."
1875. Art. 1, § 24. "The exercise of the right of eminent
domain shall never be abridged or so construed as to prevent the
general assembly from taking the property and franchises of
incorporated companies and subjecting them to public use the
same as individuals. But private property shall not be taken for
or applied to public use, unless just compensation be made
therefor ; nor shall private property be taken for private use, or
for the use of corporations, other than" municipal, without the
consent of the owner ; provided, however, that the general assem-
bly may, by law, secure to persons or corporations the right of
way over the lands of other persons or corporations, and by gen-
eral laws provide for and regulate the exercise by persons and
corporations of the rights herein reserved ; but just compensation
shall, in all cases, be first made to the owner ; and provided, that
the right of eminent domain shall not be so construed as to allow
taxation or forced subscription for the benefit of railroads or
§ 16 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS. 29
any other kind of corporations other than municipal, or for the
benefit of any individual or association."
Art. 14, § 7. "Municipal and other corporations and indi-
viduals invested with the privilege of taking private property
for public use shall make just compensation for the property
taken, injured, or destroyed by the construction or enlargement
of its works, highways or improvements, which compensation
shall be paid before such taking, injury or destruction. The gen-
eral assembly is hereby prohibited from depriving any person
from an appeal from any preliminary assessment of damages
against any such corporation or individuals, made by viewers or
otherwise ; and the amount of such damages in all cases of appeal
shall, on the demand of either party, be determined by a jury
according to law."
1901. § 23. That the exercise of the right of eminent do-
main shall never be abridged or so construed as to prevent the
legislature from taking the property and franchises of incorpo-
rated companies, and subjecting them to public use in the same
manner in which the property and franchises of individuals are
taken and subjected ; but private property shall not be taken for,
nor applied to, public use, unless just compensation be first
made therefor; nor shall private property be taken for private
use, or for the use of corporations, other than municipal, with-
out the consent of the owner ; provided, however, the legislature
may by land secure to persons or corporations the right of way
over land of other persons or corporations, and by general laws
provide for and regulate the exercise by persons and corpora-
tions of the rights herein reserved ; but just compensation shall
in all cases, be first made to the owner ; and, provided, that the
right of eminent domain shall not be so construed as to allow
taxation or forced subscription for the benefit of railroads or any
other kind of corporations, other than municipal, or for the
benefit of any individual or association."
§ 227. "Any person, firm, association or corporation, who
may construct or operate any public iitility along or across the
public streets of any city, town or village, under any privilege
or franchise permitting such construction or operation, shall be
liable to abutting proprietors for the actual damage done to the
abutting property on account of such construction or operation."
§ 235. "Municipal and other corporations and associations
invested with its privilege of taking property for public use,
30 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 17
shall make just compensation, to be ascertained as may be pro-
vided by law, for the property taken, injured or destroyed by the
construction or enlargement of its works, highways or improve-
ments, which compensation shall be paid before such taking,
injury or destruction. The legislature is hereby prohibited from
denying the right of appeal from any preliminary assessment of
damages against any such corporations or individuals made by
viewers or otherwise, but such appeal shall not deprive those
who have obtained the judgment of condemnation from a right
of entry, provided the amount of damages assessed shall have
been paid into court in money, and a bond shall have been
given in not less than double the amount of the damages as-
sessed, with good and sufficient sureties, to pay such damages as
the property owner may sustain ; and the amount of damages in
all cases of appeals shall on the demand, of either party, be
determined by a jury according to law."
§ 17 (16). Arkansas.
1836. No provision.
1864. No provision.
1868. Art. 1, § 15. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation therefor."
Art. 5, § 48. * * * "~So right of way shall be appropri-
ated to the use of any corporation until full compensation there-
for shall be first made in money, or first secured by a deposit of
money, to the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any im-
provement proposed by such corporation; which compensation
shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve men in a court of record,
as shall be prescribed by law."
1874. Art. 2, § 22. "The right of property is before and
higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property
shall not be taken, appropriated, or damaged for public use with-
out just compensation therefor."
Art. 12, § 9. "No property nor right of way shall be appro-
priated to the use of any corporations until full compensation
therefor shall be first made to the owner in money, or first se-
cured to him by a deposit of money ; which compensation, ir-
respective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by
such corporation, shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve men,
in a court of competent jurisdiction, as shall be prescribed by
law."
§ 11. "Foreign corporations * * * shall not have
power to condemn or appropriate private property,"
§ 19 CONSTITUTIOITAl, PEOVISIONS. 31
Art. 17, § 9. "The exercise of the right of eminent domain
shall never be abridged or so construed as to prevent the gen-
eral assembly from taking the property and franchises of incor-
porated companies and subjecting them to public use, the same
as the property of individuals."
§ 12. "All railroads, which are now or may be hereafter
built and operated cither in whole or in part, in this State, shall
be responsible for all damages to persons and property, under
such regulations as may be prescribed by the general assembly."
§ 18 (17). California.
1849. Art. 1, § 8. * * * "nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation."
1879. Art. 1, § 14. "Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without just compensation having
been first made to, or paid into court for, the owner, and no
right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation
other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first
made in money or ascertained or paid into court for the owner,
irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by
such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a
jury, unless a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in a court
of record, as shall be prescribed by law."
Art. 12, § 8. "The exercise of the right of eminent domain
shall never be so abridged or construed as to prevent the legis-
lature from taking the property and franchises of incorporated
companies, and subjecting them to public use the same as the
property of individuals."
Art. 14, § 1. "The use of all water now appropriated, or
that may hereafter be appropriated, for sale, rental, or distri-
bution, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to
the regulation and control of the State, in the manner to be pre-
scribed by law."
§ 19 (18). Colorado.
1876. Art. 2, § 14. "That private property shall not be
taken for private use luiless by consent of the owner, except
for private ways of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains,
flumes, or ditches on or across the land of others, for agricultural,
mining, milling, domestic, or sanitary purposes."
§ 15. "That private property shall not bo taken or damaged,
for public or private use, without just compensation. Such
compensation shall be ascertained by a board of commissioners,
of not less than three freeholders, or by a jury, when required
33 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 20
by the owner of the property, in such manner as may be pre-
scribed by law, and until the same shall be paid to the owner,
or into court for the owner, the property shall not be needlessly
disturbed, or the proprietary rights of the owner therein di-
vested; and whenever an attempt is made to take private prop-
erty for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the
contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question,
and determined as such without regard to any legislative asser-
tion that the use is public."
Art. 15, § 8. "The right of eminent domain shall never be
abridged, nor so construed as to prevent the general assembly
from taking the property and franchises of incorporated com-
panies and subjecting them to public use, the same as the proper-
ty of individuals."
§ 20 (19). Connecticut.
1818. Art. 1, § 11. "The property of no person shall be
taken for public use without just compensation therefor."
§ 21 (20). Delaware.
1776. No provision.
1792. Art. 1, § 8 * * * "nor shall any man's prop-
erty be taken or applied to public use without the consent of
his representatives, and without compensation being made."
1831. Art. 1, § 8. Same.
1897. Art. 1, § 8. Same.
§ 22 (21). Florida.
1838. Art. 1, § 14. "That private property shall not be
taken or applied to public use unless just compensation be made
therefor."
1865. Art. 1, § 14. "That private property shall not be
taken or applied to public use, unless just compensation be first
made therefor."
1868. Art. 1, § 9. * * * "nor shall private property
be taken without just compensation."
1886. Declaration of rights, § 12. * * * "nor shall
private property be taken without just compensation."
Art. 16, § 29. "No private property nor right of way shall
be appropriated to the use of any corporation or individual
until full compensation therefor shall be first made to the owner,
or first secured to him by deposit of money ; which compensation,
irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by
any such corporation or individual, shall be ascertained by a
§ 24 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIOWS. 33
jury of twelve men in a court of competent jurisdiction, as shall
be prescribed by law."
§ 23 (22). Georgia.
1777. No provision.
1789. No provision.
1798. No provision.
1865. Art. 1, § 17. "In cases of necessity, private ways
may be granted upon just compensation being first paid; and
with this exception private property shall not be taken, save for
public use, and then only on just compensation, to be first pro-
vided and paid, unless there be a pressing, unforeseen necessity ;
in which event the general assembly shall make early provision
for such compensation."
1868. Art. 1, § 20. "Private ways may be granted upon
just compensation being paid by the applicant."
1877. Art. 1, Sec. Ill, T[ 1. "In cases of necessity, private
ways may be granted upon just compensation being first paid
by the applicant. Private property shall not be taken or dam-
aged for public purposes, without just and adequate compensa-
tion being first paid."
Art. Ill, Sec. VII, f 20. "The General Assembly shall not
authorize the construction of any street passenger railway with-
in the limits of any incorporated town or city, without the con-
sent of the corporate authorities."
Art. IV, Sec. II, fi 2. "The exercise of the right of eminent
domain shall never be abridged, nor so construed as to prevent
the General Assembly from taking the property and franchises
of incorporated companies and subjecting them to public use,
the same as property of individuals." * * *
§ 24 (22a). Idaho.
1889. Art. 1, § 14. "The necessary use of lands for the
construction of reservoirs or storage basins, for the purpose of
irrigation, or for rights of way for the construction of canals,
ditches, flumes or pipes, to convey water to the place of use, for
any useful, beneficial or necessary purpose, or for drainage ; or
for the drainage of mines, or the working thereof, by means of
roads, railroads, tramways, cuts, tunnels, shafts, hoisting works,
dumps, or other necessary means to their complete development,
or any other use necessary to the complete development of the
material resources of the State, or the preservation of the health
of its inhabitants, is hereby declared to be a public use, and
subject to the regulation and control of the State.
Em. D.— 3.
34 EMIlTETfT DOMAIN. § 25
"Private property may be taken for public use, but not until
a just compensation, to be ascertained in a manner prescribed by
law, shall be paid therefor."
Art. 11, § 8. "The right of eminent domain shall never be
abridged, or so construed as to prevent the legislature from tak-
ing the property and franchise of incorporated companies and
subjecting them to public use, the same as property of individ-
uals."
See also the whole of article 15 as to water rights.
§ 25 (23). Illinois.
1818. Art. 8, § 11. * * * "nor shall any man's prop-
erty be taken or applied to public use, without the consent of
his representatives in the general assembly, nor without just
compensation being made to him."
1848. Art. 13, § 11. Same.
18Y0. Art. 2, § 13. "Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without just compensation. Such
compensation, when not made by the State, shall be ascertained
by a jury, as shall be prescribed by law. The fee of land taken
for railroad tracks, without consent of the owners thereof, shall
remain in such owners, subject to the use for which it was
taken."
Art. 4, § 30. "The general assembly may provide for es-
tablishing and opening roads and cartways, connected with a
public road, for private or public use."
Art. 11, § 14. "The exercise of the power and the right of
eminent domain shall never be so construed or abridged as to
prevent the taking, by the general assembly, of the property and
franchises of incorporated companies already organized, and
subjecting them to the public necessity the same as of individ-
uals. The right of trial by jury shall be held inviolate in all
trials of claims for compensation, when, in the exercise of the
said right of eminent domain, any incorporated company shall
be interested either for or against the exercise of said right."
Art. 4, § 31, as amended in 1878. "The General Assembly
may pass laws permitting the owners of lands to construct drains,
ditches and levees for agricultural, sanitary or mining purposes,
across the lands of others, and provide for the organization of
drainage districts and vest the corporate authorities thereof,
with power to construct and maintain levees, drains and ditches,
and to keep in repair all drains, ditches and levees heretofore
§ 29 CONSTITUTIONAL PEO VISIONS. 35
constructed under the laws of this State, by special assessments
upon the property benefited thereby."
§ 26 (24). Indiana.
1816. Art. 1, § 7. "That no man's particular services shall
be demanded, or property taken or applied to public use, without
the consent of his representatives, or without a just compensa-
tion being made therefor."
1851. Art. 1, § 21. "jSTo man's particular services shall be
demanded without just compensation. No man's property shall
be taken by law without just compensation ; nor, except in case
of the State, without such compensation first assessed and ten-
dered."
§ 27 (25). Iowa.
1846. Art. 1, § 18. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation first being made, or
secured, to be paid to the owner thereof, as soon as the damages
shall be assessed by a jury, who shall not take into consideration
any advantages that may result to said owner on account of the
improvement for which it is taken."
1857. Art. 1, § 18. Same.
§ 28 (26). Kansas.
1859. Art. 12, § 4. "ISTo right of way shall be appropri-
ated to the use of any corporation until full coriipensation there-
for be first made in money, or secured by a deposit of money to
the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement
proposed by such corporation."
§ 29 (27). Kentucky.
1792. Art. 12, § 12. * * * "nor shall any man's prop-
erty be taken or applied to public use without the consent
of his representatives, and without just compensation being pre-
viously made to him."
1799. Art. 10, § 12. Same.
1850. Art. 13, § 14. Same.
1891. § 195. "The Commonwealth, in the exercise of the
right of eminent domain, shall have and retain the same powers
to take the property and franchises of incorporated companies
for public use which it has and retains to take the property of
individuals."
§ 242. Municipal and other corporations and individuals,
invested with the privilege of taking private property for public
use, shall make just compensation for property taken, injured
36 EMINENT DOMAIN-. § 30
or destroyed by them ; which compensation shall be paid before
such taking, or paid or secured, at the election of such corpora-
tion or individual, before such injury or destruction. The gen-
eral assembly shall not deprive any person of an appeal from any
preliminary assessment of damages against any other corpora-
tion or individual made by commissioners or otherwise; and
upon appeal from such preliminary assessment the amount of
such damages shall, in all cases, be determined by a jury, accord-
ing to the course of the common law."
§ 30 (28). Louisiana.
Civil Code, Art. 489. "ISTo one can be divested of his prop-
erty, unless for some purpose of public utility and on considera-
tion of an equitable and previous indemnity and in a manner
previously prescribed by law. By an equitable indemnity in this
case is understood, not only a payment for the value of the thing
of which the owner is deprived, but a remuneration for the dam-
ages which may be caused thereby."
1812. ~Sq provision.
1845. Title 6, Art. 109. "Vested rights shall not be di-
vested unless for purposes of public utility, and for adequate
compensation previously made."
1852. Title 6, Art. 105. Same.
1864. Title 6, Art. 109. Same.
1868. Title 6, Art. 110. Same, omitting the word previ-
ously.
1879. Art. 156. "Private property shall not be taken or
damaged for public purposes without just and adequate com-
pensation being first paid."
1898. Art. 167. Private property shall not be taken nor
damaged for public purposes without just and adequate com-
pensation being first paid.
§ 31 (29). Maine.
1819. Art. 1, § 21. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation, nor unless the public
exigencies require it."
§ 32 (30). Maryland,
1776. No provision.
1851. Art. 3, § 46. "The legislature shall enact no law au-
thorizing private property to be taken for public use, without
just compensation, as agreed upon between the parties or award-
§ 34 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS. 37
ed by a jury, being first paid or tendered to the party entitled
to such compensation."
1864. Art. 3, § 39. Same.
1867. Art. 3, § 40. Same.
§ 33 (31). Massachusetts.
1780. Part 1st, Art. 10. "Each individual of the society
has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life,
liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged,
consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this
protection; to give his personal services or an equivalent when
necessary; but no part of the property of any individual
can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses,
without his own consent, or that of the representative body of
the people. In fine, the public of this commonwealth are not
controllable by any other laws than those to which their con-
stitutional representative body have given their consent. And
whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any
individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall re-
ceive a reasonable compensation therefor."
§ 34 (32). Michigan.
1835. Art. 1, § 19. "The property of no person shall be
taken for public use without just compensation therefor."
1850. Art. 10, § 11. "The board of supervisors of each
organized county may provide for laying out highways, con-
structing bridges, and organizing townships, under such restric-
tions and limitations as shall be prescribed by law."
Art. 15, § 9. "The property of no person shall be taken by
any corporation for public use without compensation being first
made or secured, in such manner as may be prescribed by law."
Art. 15, § 15. "Private property shall not be taken for
public improvements in cities and villages without the con-
sent of the owner, unless the compensation therefor shall first
be determined by a jury of freeholders, and actually paid or
secured in the manner provided by law."
Art. 18, § 2. "When private property is taken for the use
or benefit cl the public, the necessity for using such property,
and the just compensation to be made therefor, except when to
be made by the State, shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve
freeholders, residing in the vicinity of such property, or by not
less than three commissioners, appointed by a court of record,
38 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 35
as shall be prescribed by law. Provided, The foregoing provi-
sions shall in no case be construed to apply to the action of
commissioners of highways in the official discharge of their
duties as highway commissioners." (Proviso added in 1860.)
Art. 18, § 14. "The property of no person shall be taken
for public use without just compensation therefor. Private
roads may be opened in the manner to be prescribed by law;
but in every ease the necessities of the road and the amount
of all damages to be sustained by the opening thereof shall be
first determined by a jury of freeholders, and such amount, to-
gether with the expenses of proceedings, shall be paid by the
person or persons to be benefited."
§ 35 (33). Minnesota.
1857. Art. 1, § 13. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or
secured."
Art. 10, § 4. "Lands may be taken for public way, for the
purpose of granting to any corporation the franchise of way
for public use. In all cases, however, a fair and equitable com-
pensation shall be paid for such land and the damages arising
from the taking of the same ; but all corporations being common
carriers, enjoying the right of way in pursuance to the provi-
sions of this section, shall be bound to carry the mineral, agri-
cultural and other productions or manufactures on equal and
reasonable terms."
1896, Art. 1, § 13, (as amended). Private property shall
not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use, without just
compensation therefor first paid or secured.
§ 36 (34). Mississippi.
1817. Art. 1, § 13. * * * "nor shall any person's
property be taken or applied to public use, without the consent
of his representatives, and without just compensation being made
therefor."
1832. Art. 1, § 13. * * * "nor shall any person's
property be taken or applied to public use without the consent
of the legislature, and without just compensation being first
made therefor."
1868. Art. 1, § 10. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use except upon due compensation first being made
to the owner or owners thereof in a manner to be provided by
law."
1890. Art. 3, § 17. "Private property shall not be taken or
§ 37 CONSTITUTIONAL PBOVISIONS. 39
damaged for public use except upon due compensation being first
made to the owner or owners thereof, in a manner to be pre-
scribed by law ; and whenever an attempt is made to take private
property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the
contemplated use be public shall be a judicial question, and as
such determined without regard to legislative assertion that the
use is public."
Art. 7, § 190. "The exercise of the right of eminent do-
main shall never be abridged or so construed as to prevent the
legislature from taking the property and franchises of incorpo-
rated companies and subjecting them to public use."
Art. 11, § 233. "The levee boards shall have and are hereby
granted authority and full power to appropriate private proper-
ty in their respective districts for the purpose of constructing,
maintaining and repairing levees therein ; and when any owner
of land, or any other person interested therein, shall object to
the location or building of the levee thereon, or shall claim
compensation for any land that may be taken, or for any dam-
ages he may sustain in consequence thereof, the president, or
other proper officer or agent of such levee board, or owner of such
land, or other person interested therein, may forthwith apply for
an assessment of damages, to which said person claiming the
same may be entitled."
§ 37 (35). Missouri.
1820. Art. 13, § 7. * * * "and that no private prop-
erty ought to be taken or applied to public use without just com-
pensation."
1865. Art. 1, § 16. Same.
1875. Art. 2, § 20. "That no private property can be
taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by
the consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity,
and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for
agricultural and sanitary purposes, in such manner as may be
prescribed by law ; and that whenever an attempt is made to take
private property for a use alleged to be public, the question
whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial
question, and as such judicially determined, without regard to
any legislative assertion that the use is public."
Art. 2, § 21. "That private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without just compensation. Such
compensation shall be ascertained by a jiiry or board of commis-
sioners of not less than three freeholders, in such manner as
40 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 38
may be prescribed by law ; and until the same shall be paid to
the owner, or into court for the owner, the property shall not
be disturbed or the proprietary rights of the owner therein di-
vested. The fee of land taken for railroad tracks without the
consent of the owner thereof shall remain in such owner, subject
to the use for which it is taken."
Art. 12, § 4. "The exercise of the power and right of emi-
nent domain shall never be so construed or abridged as to prevent
the taking, by the general assembly, of the property and fran-
chises of incorporated companies already organized, or that may
be hereafter organized, and subjecting them to the public use,
the same as that of individuals. The right of trial by jury shall
be held inviolate in all trials of claims for compensation, when in
the exercise of said right of eminent domain, any incorporated
company shall be interested either for or against the exercise of
said right."
§ 38 (35a), Montana.
1889. Art. 3, § 14. "Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without just compensation having
been first made to, or paid into court for, the owner."
Art. 3, § 15. "The use of all water now appropriated, or
that may hereafter be appropriated, for sale, rental, distribution
or other beneficial use and the right of way over the lands of
others, for all ditches, drains, flumes, canals and aqueducts,
necessarily used in connection therewith, as well as the sites for
reservoirs necessary for collecting and storing the same, shall be
a public use. Private roads may be opened in the manner to be
prescribed by law, but in every case the necessity of the road,
and the amount of all damages to be sustained by the opening
thereof, shall be first determined by a jury, and such amount,
together with the expenses of the proceeding, shall be paid by
the person to be benefited."
Art. 15, § 9. "The right of eminent domain shall never be
abridged, nor so construed as to prevent the legislative assem-
bly from taking the property and franchises of incorporated com-
panies, and subjecting them to public use the same as the prop-
erty of individuals."
§ 39 (36). Nebraska.
1867. Art. 1, § 13. "The property of no person shall be
taken for public use without just compensation therefor."
Art. 2, § 3. "The people of the State, in their right of
§ 42 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS. 41
sovereignty, are declared to possess the ultimate property in and
to all lands within the jurisdiction of the State."
1875. Art. 1, § 21. "The property of no person shall be
taken or damaged for public use without just compensation there-
for."
Art. 11, § 6. "The exercise of the power and right of emi-
nent domain shall never be so construed or abridged as to pre-
vent the taking by the legislature of the property and franchises
of incorporated companies already organized or hereafter to be
organized, and subjecting them to the public necessity, the same
as of individuals."
Art. 11, § 8. "No railroad corporation organized under the
laws of any other State, or of the United States, and doing busi-
ness in this State, shall be entitled to exercise the right of emi-
nent domain, or have power to acquire the right of way or real
estate for depot or other uses, until it shall have become a body
corporate pursuant to and in accordance with the laws of this
State."
§ 40 (37). Nevada.
1864. Art. 1, § 8. * * * "nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation having been
first made or secured, except in cases of war, riot, fire, or great
public peril, in which case compensation shall afterwards be
made."
Art. 8, § 7. "ISTo right of way shall be appropriated to the
use of any corporation until full compensation be first made or
secured therefor."
§ 41 (38). New Hampshire.
1776. No provision.
1784. Part I, Art. 12. * * * "but no part of a man's
property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses,
without his own consent, or that of the representative body of
the people."
1792. Part I, Art. 12. Same.
§ 42 (39). New Jersey.
1776. 'No provision.
1844. Art. 1, § 16. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use, without just compensation ; but land may be taken
for public highways, as heretofore, until the Legislature shall
direct compensation to be made."
Art. 4, § 7, cl. 9. "Individuals or private corporations shall
4-2 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 43
not be authorized to take private property for public use -with-
out just compensation first made to the owner."
§ 43 (40). New York.
1777. No provision.
1821. Art. 7, § 7. * * * "nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation."
1846. Art. 1, § 6. Same.
Art. 1, § 7. "When private property shall be taken for any
public use, the compensation to be made therefor,' when such
compensation is not made by the State, shall be ascertained by a
jury, or by not less than three commissioners appointed by a
court of record, as shall be prescribed by law. Private roads may
be opened in the manner to be prescribed by law; but in every
case the necessity for the road, and the amount of all damages
to be sustained by the opening thereof, shall be first determined
by a jury of freeholders, and such amount, together with the
expenses of the proceeding, shall be paid by the person to be
benefited."
Art. 1, § 11. "The people of this State, in their right of
sovereignty, are deemed to possess the original and ultimate
property in and to all lands within the jurisdiction of the
State."
1894. Same, with the following added to Section 7: Gen-
eral laws may be passed permitting the owners or occupants of
agricultural lands to construct and maintain for the drainage
thereof, necessary drains, ditches and dykes upon the lands of
others, under proper restrictions and with just compensation,
but no special laws shall be enacted for such purposes.
§ 44 (41) North Carolina.
1776. No provision.
1868. No provision.
1876. No provision.
§ 45 (41a). North Dakota.
1889. Art. 1, § 14. "Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without just compensation having
been first made to, or paid into court for the owner, and no
right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corpora-
tion, other than municipal, until full compensation therefor
be first made in money or ascertained and paid into court for
the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement
proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be as-
certained by a jury, unless a jury be waived."
§ 47 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS. 43
Art. Y, § 134. "The exercise of the right of eminent domain
shall never be abridged, or so construed as to prevent the legis-
lative assembly from taking the property and franchises of in-
corporated companies and subjecting them to public use, the
same as the property of individuals."
§ 46 (42). Ohio.
1802. Art. 8, § 4. "Private property ought and shall ever
be held inviolate, but always subservient to the public welfare,
provided a compensation in money be made to the owner."
1851. Art. 1, § 19. "Private property shall ever be held
inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare. When taken in
time of war or other public exigency, imperatively requiring its
immediate seizure, or for the purpose of making or repairing
roads, which shall be open to the public without charge, a com-
pensation shall be made to the owner in money, and in all other
cases where private property shall be taken for public use a
compensation therefor shall be first made in money, or first se-
cured by a deposit of money ; and such compensation shall be as-
sessed by a jury, without deduction for benefits to any property
of the owner."
Art. 13, § 5. "No right of way shall be appropriated to the
use of any corporation, until full compensation therefor shall be
first made in money, or first secured by a deposit of money to the
owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement pro-
posed by such corporation ; which compensation shall be ascer-
tained by a jury of twelve men, in a court of record, as shall
be prescribed by law."
§ 47. Oklahoma.
1907. Sec. 32. ISTo private property shall be taken or dam-
aged for private use, with or without compensation, unless by
consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, or
for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural,
mining, or sanitary purpose,- in such manner as may be pre-
scribed by law.
Sec. 33. Private property shall not be taken or damaged
for public use without just compensation. Such compensation,
irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed, shall
be ascertained by a board of commissioners of not less than three
freeholders, in such manner as may be prescribed by law. The
commissioners shall not be appointed by any judge or court with-
out reasonable notice having been served upon all parties inter-
ested. The commissioners shall be selected from the regular
44 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 48
jury list of names prepared and made as the legislature shall
provide. Any party aggrieved shall have the right of appeal,
without bond, and trial by jury in a court of record. Until the
compensation shall be paid to the owner, or into court for the
owner, the property shall not be disturbed, or the proprietary
rights of the owner divested. When possession is taken of prop-
erty condemned for any public use, the owner shall be entitled
to the immediate receipt of the compensation awarded, without
prejudice to the right of either party to further proceedings for
the judicial determination of the sufficiency or insufficiency of
such compensation. The fee of the land taken by common car-
riers for right of way, without the consent of the owner, shall
remain in such owner subject only to the use for which it is
taken. In all cases of condemnation of private property for
public or private use, the determination of the character of the
use shall be a judicial question."
§ 48 (43). Oregon.
1857. Art. 1, § 19. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demand-
ed without just compensation, nor except in case of the State,
without such compensation first assessed and tendered."
Art. 11, § 4. "No person's property shall be taken by any
corporation under authority of law, without compensation being
first made or secured, in such manner as may be prescribed by
law."
§ 49 (44). Pennsylvania.
1776. Art. 8. * * * "but no part of a man's property
can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without
his own consent, or that of his legal representatives."
1790. Art. 9, § 10. * * * "nor shall any man's prop-
erty be taken or applied to public use without the consent of his
representatives, and without just compensation being made."
1838. Art. 7, § 4. "The legislature shall not invest any
corporate body or individual with the privilege of taking private
property for public use, without requiring such corporation or
individual to make compensation to the owners of said property,
or give adequate security therefor, before such property shall be
taken."
Art. 9, § 10. Same as in 1790.
1874. Art. 1, § 10. * * * "nor shall private property
be taken or applied to public use without authority of law, and
without just compensation being first made or secured."
§ 51 CONSTITUTIONAL PEOVISIONS. 45
Art. 16, § 3. "The exercise of the right of eminent domain
shall never be abridged or so construed as to prevent the general
assembly from taking the property and franchises of incorpo-
rated companies and subjecting them to public use, the same as
the property of individuals."
§ 8. "Municipal and other corporations and individuals in-
vested vyith the privilege of taking private property for public
use shall make just compensation for property taken, injured,
or destroyed, by the construction or enlargement of their v^orks,
highways, or improvements, which compensation shall be paid
or secured before such taking, injury, or destruction. The gen-
eral assembly is hereby prohibited from depriving any person
from an appeal from any preliminary assessment of damages
against any such corporations or individuals made by viewers or
otherwise ; and the amount of such damages in all cases of appeal
shall, on the demand of either party, be determined by a jury
according to the course of the common law."
§ SO (45). Rhode Island.
1842. Art. 1, § 16. "Private property shall not be taken
for public uses, without just compensation,"
§ 51
(46). South Carolina,
1776.
No provision.
1778.
No provision.
1790.
No provision.
1865.
No provision.
1868.
Art. 1, § 23. "Priva
"Private property shall not be taken
or applied for public use, or for the use of corporations, or
for private use, without the consent of the owner or a just com-
pensation being made therefor: Provided, however, that laws
may be made securing to persons or corporations the right of
way over the lands of either persons or corporations, and for
works of internal improvement, the right to establish depots,
stations, turnouts, etc. ; but a just compensation shall, in all
cases, be first made to the owner."
Art. 6, § 3. "The people of the State are declared to pos-
sess the ultimate property in and to all lands within the juris-
diction of the State."
Art. 12, § 3. "No right of way shall be appropriated to
the use of any corporation until full compensation therefor shall
be first made, or secured by a deposit of money, to the owner,
irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by
such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a
46 EMHiTENT DOMAIIT. § 52
jury of twelve men, in a court of record, as shall be prescribed
by law."
1895. Art. 1, § 17. "Private property stall not be taken
for private use without the consent of the owner, nor for public
use without just compensation being made therefor."
Art. 9, § 20. ISTo right of way shall be appropriated to the
use of any corporation until full compensation therefor shall be
first made to the owner or secured by a deposit of money, irre-
spective of any benefit from any»improvement proposed by such
corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury
of twelve men, in a court of record, as shall be prescribed by
law.
Art. 14, § 3. The people of the State are declared to possess
the ultimate property in and to all lands within the jurisdiction
of the state.
§ 52 (46a). South Dakota.
1889. Art. 6, § 13. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use, or damaged, without just compensation as deter-
mined by a jury, which shall be paid as soon as it can be ascer-
tained and before possession is taken. No benefit which may
accrue to the owner as the result of an improvement made by
any private corporation shall be considered in fixing the com-
pensation for property taken or damaged. The fee of land
taken for railroad tracks or other highways shall remain in such
owners, subject to the use for which it is taken."
Art. 17, § 4. "The exercise of the right of eminent do-
main shall never be abridged or so construed as to prevent the
legislature from taking the property and franchises of incor-
porated companies and subjecting them to public use, the same
as the property of individuals."
Art. 17, § 18. "Municipal and other corporations and in-
dividuals invested with the privilege of taking private property
for public use shall make just compensation for property taken,
injured or destroyed by the construction or enlargement of their
works or improvements, which compensation shall be paid or
secured before such taking, injury or destruction. The legis-
lature is hereby prohibited from depriving any person of an
appeal from any preliminary assessment of damages against
any such corporation or individuals made by viewers or other-
wise, and the amount of such damages in all cases of appeal
shall, on the demand of either party, be determined by a jury
as in other civil cases."
§ 56 CONSTITUTIONAL PKO VISIONS. 47
§ 53 (47). Tennessee.
179G. Art. 11, § 21. "That no man's particular services
shall be demanded or property taken, or applied to public use,
without the consent of his representatives, or without just com-
pensation being made therefor."
1834. Art. 1, § 21. Same.
1870. Art. 1, § 21. Same.
§ 54 (48). Texas.
1836. Eepublic of Texas, Declaration of Eights, 13th. "Ko
person's particular services shall be demanded, nor property
taken or applied to public use, unless by the consent of himself
or his representatives, without just compensation being made
therefor according to law."
1845. State of Texas, Art. 1, § 14. "JSTo person's property
shall be taken or applied to public use, without adequate com-
pensation being made, unless by the consent of such person."
1866. Art. 1, § 14. Same.
1868. Art. 1, § 14. Same.
1876. Art. 1, § 17. "ISTo person's property shall be taken,
damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without ade-
quate compensation being made, unless by consent of such per-
son ; and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such com-
pensation shall be first made, or secured, by a deposit of money ;
and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges
or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises
granted by the legislature or created under its authority shall
be subject to the control thereof."
§ 55 (50a). Utah.
1895. Art. 1, § 22. "Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without just compensation."
Art. 12, § 11. "The exercise of the right of eminent do-
main shall never be so abridged or construed, as to prevent the
legislature from taking the property and franchises of incor-
porated companies, and subjecting them to public use the same
as the property of individuals.
§ 56 (49). Vermont.
1777. Chap. 1, § 2. "That private property ought to be
subservient to public uses, when necessity requires it ; neverthe-
less, whenever any particular man's property is taken for the
use of the public, th€ owner ought to receive an equivalent in
money."
1786. Chap. 1, § 2. Same.
48 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 57
1793. Chap. 1, § 2. Same, except for "any particular
man's property" read "any person's property."
§ 57 (SO). Virginia.
1776. Bill of Eights, § 6. * * * "that all men, hav-
ing sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with,
and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage,
and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public
uses, -without their own consent, or that of their representatives
so elected."
1850. Bill of Eights, § 6. Same.
1870. Art. 1, § 8. Same.
1902. Art. 1, § 6. That all elections ought to be free; and
that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common
interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right
of suffrage, and cannot he taxed, or deprived of, or damaged in,
their property for public uses, without their own consent, or
that of their representatives duly elected, or bound by any law to
which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public
good.
Art. 4, § 58. It (the general assembly) shall not enact any
law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for
public uses, without just compensation.
Art. 12, § 159. The exercise of the right of eminent do-
main shall never be abridged, nor so construed as to prevent the
general assembly from taking the property and franchises of
corporations and subjecting them to public use, the same as the
property of individuals.
§ 58 (50a). Washington.
Art. 1, § 16. "Private property shall not be taken for
private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains,
flumes or ditches on or across the lands of others for agricul-
tural, domestic or sanitary purposes. No private property shall
be taken or damaged for public or private use, without just
compensation having been first made, or paid into court for the
owner, and no right of way shall be appropriated to the use of
any corporation, other than municipal, until full compensation
therefor be first made in money, or ascertained and paid into
court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any im-
provement proposed by such corporation, which compensation
shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived, as in
other civil cases, in courts of record, in the manner prescribed
by law. Whenever an attempt is made to take private property
§ 60 CONSTITUTIOIfAL PEOVISIONS. 49
for a use alleged to be public, the question ■whether the con-
templated use be really public, shall be a judicial question, and
determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion
that the use is public."
Art. 12, § 10. "The exercise of the right of eminent do-
main shall never be so abridged or construed as to prevent the
legislature from taking the property and franchises of incor-
porated companies, and subjecting them to public use the same
as the property of individuals."
Art. 22, § 1. "The use of the waters of this State for irri-
gation, mining and manufacturing purposes shall be deemed
a public use."
§ 59 (51). West Virginia.
1861-3. Art. 2, § 6. "Private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation."
1872. Art. 3, § 9. "Private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without just compensation ; nor shall
the same be taken by any company incorporated for the pur-
poses of internal improvement until just compensation shall
have been paid, or secured to be paid, to the owner ; and when
private property shall be taken, or damaged, for public use, or
for the use of such corporations, the compensation to the owner
shall be ascertained in such manner as may be prescribed by
general law: Provided, that when required by either of the
parties such compensation shall be ascertained by an impartial
jury of twelve freeholders."
Art. 11, § 12. "The exercise of the power and the right of
eminent domain shall never be so construed or abridged as to
prevent the taking, by the legislature, of the property and
franchises of incorporated companies already organized, and
subjecting them to the public use, the same as of individuals."
§ 60 (52). Wisconsin.
1848. Art. 1, § 13. "The property of no person shall be
taken for public use without just compensation therefor."
Art. 9, § 3. "The people of this State, in their right of sov-
ereignty, are declared to possess the ultimate property in and
to all lands within the jurisdiction of the State."
Art. 11, § 2. "No municipal corporation shall take private
property for public use against the consent of the owner, with-
out the necessity thereof being first established by the verdict
of a jury."
Em. D. — 4.
50 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 61
§ 61 (S2a). Wyoming,
Art. 1, § 32. "Private property shall not be taken, for private
use unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of
necessity, and for reservoirs, drains, flumes, or ditches on or
across the lands of others for agricultural, mining, milling,
domestic or sanitary purposes, nor in any case without due
compensation."
Art. 1, § 32. "Private property shall not be taken or dam-
aged for public or private use without just compensation."
Art. 8, § 1. "The water of all natural streams, springs,
lakes, or other collections of still water, within the boundaries
of the State, are hereby declared to be the property of the State."
§§ 2 to 5 of the same article provide for the control and
utilization of such waters.
Art. 10, § 9. "The right of eminent domain shall never be
so abridged or construed as to prevent the legislature from tak-
ing the property and franchises of incorporated companies and
subjecting them to the public use the same as the property of
individuals."
CHAPTER III.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A T,4KING; GENERAL. PRINCIPLES,
§ 62 (53). Statement of the question. The constitu-
tional limitations upon the powey of eminent domain, which
have been considered in the last chapter, though seemingly plain
and definite, nevertheless contain three important ambiguities.
These are found in the word "taken" and in the phrases "public
use" and "just compensation." The first of these, or what, con-
stitutes a talcing of proper1;y, within- the meaning of the con-
stitution, will form the subject of inquiry in the present aiid suc-
ceeding chapters. In regard to personal property, no question
can ordinarily arise. It is seldom necessary to appropriate it,
but if appropriated, it is taken; ii not appropriated, it can be
removed beyond the influence of any particular inlprovement
and so escape the deterioration or injury it might otherwise' Stife-
tain.^ jSTor does any question arise in regard to real property
when some legal estate or interest therein is acquired, or a physi-
cal appropriation made. But it frequently happens whfeniland
has been taken for some public purpose, that the use of- the land
for that purpose, or the adaptation of the land for such' use,
may occasion damage to adjacent property, the title/ and pos-
session of which remain wholly unaffected. Such damage may
consist of a real structural or physical injury to the property,
of an interference with certain rights appurtenant thereto', or
enjoyed in connection therewith, or of a mere deterioratiori in
value. Do such damages, whether structural or otherwise, come
"Within the purview of the constitution ? Are they, in any case,
a talcing for which compensation must be made ?
§ 63 (54). What is property? In determining the qiieis-
tion of what constitutes a taking of property, it is important to
■ have at the outset, a clear understanding of what property, rea,lly
is.
iThe constitution protects person- W. Va. Cent. & P. R. Co., 35 W. Va.
alty as fully as real estate. Teter v. 433, 14 S. E. 146.
51
52
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 63
The term is applied with many different meanings.^ "Some-
times," says Austin, "it is taken in a loose and vulgar accep-
tation to denote not the right of property or dominium,
but the subject of such a right ; as where a horse or piece
of land is called my property." * A little reflection, however,
vdll suffice to convince any one that property is not the
corporeal thing itself of which it is predicated, but certain rights
in or over the thing. Land undergoes no corporeal change by
the mere fact of being reduced to the dominion and ownership
of man. An animal fercB naturw tuslj be precisely the same
before and after capture, but in his former state no one would
speak of him as property.* We must, therefore, look beyond the
thing itself, beyond the mere corporeal object, for the true idea
of property. Property may be defined as certain rights in things
which pertain to persons and which are created and sanctioned
by law.' These rights are the right of user, the right of exclu-
sion and the right of disposition.^ These rights are not pos-
2At the close of his forty-seventh
lecture, Mr. Austin enumerates some
of the "various meanings of the very
ambiguous word property." 2 Aus-
tin's Jurisprudence, § 1051.
sAustin's Jur., § 1051.
^Animals ferce natures are not
property until reduced to possession.
Ex parte Fritz, 86 Miss. 210, 38 So.
722, 109 Am. St. Rep. 700.
6We do not mean to be understood
as announcing the doctrine that
property was originally created by
law. Property and the laws of prop-
erty grew up together out of a prim-
itive condition of things in which
neither existed. See Laveleye's Prim-
itive Property, Morgan's Ancient
Society, and Works of Sir Henry
Maine. What we mean to assert is
that now property is exactly what
the law makes it.
6"The integral or entire right of
property," says Benthan, "includes
four particulars: 1. Right of oc-
cupation. 2. Right of excluding oth-
ers. 3. Right of disposition, or the
right of transferring the integral
right to other persons. 4. Right of
transmission, in virtue of which the
integral right is often transmitted
after the death of the proprietor,
without any disposition on his part
to those in whose possession he
would have wished to place it." 3
Benthan's Works, ed. 1843, Edin-
burgh, p. 182. The same author
also says : "Property is entirely the
creature of the law. * » • There
is no form, or color, or visible trace,
by which it is possible to express the
relation which constitutes property.
It belongs not to physics, but to
metaphysics; it is altogether a crea-
ture of the mind. • • » i can
reckon upon the enjoyment of that
which I regard as my own, only ac-
cording to the promise of the law,
which guarantees it to me. It is the
law alone which allows me to forget
my natural weakness; it is from the
law alone that I can enclose a, field
and give myself to its cultivation, in
the distant hope of the harvest."
Principles of the Civil Code, chap,
viii. Works, vol. 1, p. 308. "Prop-
erty signifies the right or interest
which one has in land or chattels.
§ 63
WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKIKG.
53
sessed in an absolute degree, but are limited. The right of user
is limited by those regulations which are enacted for the general
good and by those restraints which are imposed by the common
law under the maxim sic uiere tuo id alienum non Icedas. It
may also be limited in various ways by contract and testamen-
tary dispositions. The right of exclusion must yield to the re-
quirements of legal process and to the law of necessity. The
right of disposition may be limited and regulated in the same
In this sense it is used l)y the learn-
ed and unlearned, by men of all
ranks and conditions. We find it so
defined in dictionaries, and so under-
stood by the best authors." Tilgh-
man, C. J., in Morrison v. Semple,
6 Binn. (Pa.) 94, 98, 1813. This
definition is approved by the court
in Jackson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281,
283, 1820, and Spencer, C. J., in
that case adds the following: "Prop-
erty is defined to be the highest right
a man can have to a thing ; being used
for that right which one hath to
lands or tenements, goods or chat-
tels, which no way depend on an-
other man's courtesy." "Property
itself in a legal sense is nothing
njore than the exclusive right 'of
possessing, enjoying and disposing
of a thing,' which, of course, includes
the use of a thing." Chicago &
Western Indiana E. R. Co. v. En-
glewcod Connecting Ry. Co., 115
111. 375, 385, 56 Am. Hep. 173.
"Property, in its broader and more
appropriate sense, is not alone the
chattel or land itself, but the right
to freely possess, use and alienate
the same; and many things are con-
sidered property which have no tan-
gible existence^ but which are neces-
sary to the satisfactory use and
enjoyment of that which is tangible."
City of Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo.
113. "Sometimes the term is ap-
plied to the thing itself, as to a
horse or tract of land. These things,
however, though the subjects of prop-
erty, are, when coupled with posses-
sion, but the indicia, the visible
manifestations of invisible rights,
'the evidence of things not seen.'
Property, then, in a determinate ob-
ject, is composed of certain constitu-
ent elements, to wit., the unrestrict-
ed right of use, enjoyment and dis-
posal, of that object." City of St.
Louis V. Hill, 116 Mo. 527, 22 S. W.
861, 8 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 422.
"The term 'property' includes every
interest any one may have in any
and everything that is the subject
of ownership by man, together with
the right to freely possess, use, en-
joy and dispose of the same." Bailey
V. People, 190 111. 28, 33, 60 N. E.
98, 83 Am. St. Rep. 116, 54 L.R.A.
838. See also Tripp v. Ovorocker, 7
Colo. 72; Selden v. Jacksonville, 28
Fla. 558, 10 So. 457; Ritchie v. Peo-
ple, 155 111. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 46 Am.
St. Rep. 315, 29 L.R.A. 79; Chicago
v. Wells, 236 111. 129; Drainage
Comrs. V. Knox, 237 111. 148; East
St. Louis V. O'Flynn, 19 111. App.
64; Metropolitan W. S. El. R. R. Co.
V. Goll, 100 111. App. 325; De Land-
er V. Baltimore Co., 94 Md. 1, 50
Atl. 427 ; Eaton v. B. C. & M. R. R.
Co., 51 N. H. 504, 511; Wynehamer
v. People, 13 N. Y. 378, 433, 12
Am. Rep. ,147; Caro v. Met. El. R.
R. Co. 46 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 138; Callen
V. Columbus Edison Elec. Lt. Co.,
66 Ohio St. 166, 64 N. E. 141, 58
L.R.A. 72; Lycoming Gas & W. Co.
V. Moyer, 99 Pa. St. 615; Dibsell v.
Morris, 89 Tenn. 497, 15 S. w! 87;
State V. Superior Court, 26 Wasli.
54 EMINENT DOMAIN. . § 04
v/ay as the right of useJ A person's right of property in things,
therefore, consists of the right to possess, use and dispose thereof
in such manner as is not inconsistent with the law of the land.
As regards real property, in addition to the rights already'
enumerated, which pertain to the use and disposition of that
limited area which a man calls his own, there are others which
pertain to the use which may lawfully be made of contiguous
and surrounding areas and which form an important part of
that aggregate of rights constituting property in land. Such are
the rights to the support of soil, to light and air, the right to be
imdisturbed by nuisances or the unreasonable use of neighboring
property, the right, to the protection, atforded by natural barriers
against tide and flood, waves and currents, rights in tide waters
aiid running streams and various rights respecting waters flow-
ing lipon the surface ot percolating through the soil in no deflned
channel. . These rights, wherever they exist, and to the extent
to which they are secured by law, are part and parcel of the
owner's property in land.*
§ 64 (55). Meaning of the word property in the con-
stittition. Having indicated the true meaning of the word;
property, it remains to inquire what meaning it has in the con-
stitution. Undoubtedly, in such an instrument, it should be
given a meaning that accords with the ordinary usage and under-:
standing of the people who made the instrument. We do not'
refer to the small body of persons who actually formulated the
instrument, but the large body of citizens who gave it vitality
by their votes. The sovereign people say to their agents and.
servants, the executive and legislative oiEcers of the State : We
delegate to you all of our sovereign powers, but you must not
278, 66 Pac. 385; State v. Superior which he considers the diflferent
Court, 48 Wash. 277, 93 Pac. 423; meanings of the word property will
1 Bl.Com. 138; Austin's Jurispru- be found in the North American Ee-
dence, §§ 47 and 48; Rutherford, b. view for September, 1882. Vol. 135,
1, c. iv, § 1. "Full property in a p. 253.
thing," says the author last cited. The views of this section are very
"is a; perpetual right to use it to fully adopted in the following eases:
any purpose and to dispose of it at City of St. Louis v. Hill, 116 Mo.
pleasure." 527, 22 S. W. 861; Selden v. City
72 Austin's Jurisp. 825, 826, sec. of Jacksonville, 28 Fla.. 558, It) So.'
48; 3 Bentham's Works, p. 182 et Rep. 457^ 29 Am. St. Rep. 278, 14
■seq.- Rutherford, b. 1, c. iv. L.R.A. 370; Callen v. Columbus Ed-
sAn interesting and instructive ison Elec. Lt. Co., 66 Ohio St. 166,
article by Mr. A. G. Sedgwick in 64 N. E. 141, 58 L.R.A. 782.
§ 64 WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING. 55
take our private property for public use without making us a
just compensation therefor. What did they mean by property ?
The dullest individual among the people knows and understands
that his property in anything is a bundle of rights. It is no
more common for ordinary people to speak of things as property
than it is for them to speak of their rights in things, as the right
to dispose of a thing in this way or that, the right to use a thing
in this way or that, the right to compel a neighbor to desist from
doing this or that, etc. Although, as Austin says, all men speak
loosely of things as property, yet practically all men understand
that property consists of certain rights in things which are
secured by law. They constantly act upon this understanding,
although they may never have formulated a definition of the
word and would be at a loss to do so. However unable a man
may be to formulate his ideas, yet if you turn a stream of water
on his land, or defile his atmosphere with gas or smoke, or create
other like disturbance, you will soon find that he has a very clear ,
idea of his right to be exempt from such intrusion. Now it
seems to us that the word property in the constitution should be
given a meaning which, while in accord with the sense in which
it is practically used and understood by the people, will also
secure to the individual the largest degree of protection against
the exercise of the power intended to be restricted. The mean-
ing which, in our opinion, fulfills both of these conditions, is the
one set forth in the preceding section.® Chief Justice Shaw, of
Massachusetts, in speaking on this subject says: "The word
'property,' in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, which pro-
vides that 'whenever the public exigencies require that the prop-
erty of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he
shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor,' should have
such a liberal construction as to include every valuable interest
which can be enjoyed as property and recognized as such." ^'^
9/8ee the article referred to In the confounded with the property itself,
last note. In that article Mr. Sedg- That the second of these two views
wick says: "If the views here sug- must in the end prevail and render
gested are sound, the process of in- the first obsolete, no one who has
terpretation through which the con- paid much attention to the develop-
stitutional provision as to taking ment of the law on the subject in
■property' is passing, is one under this country can for a moment
which what Austin calls the true or doubt."
strict sense of the word is being sub- lOQld Colony & Fall River E. E.
stituted for the vulgar acceptation Co. v. County of Plymouth, 14 Gray,
in which the subject of property is 155, 161. "The constitutional pro-
56 EMIJTEIv'T DOMAIIT. § 65
And the supreme court of Washington speaking of the -word
property, says: "It is used in the constitution in a comprehen-
sive and unlimited sense, and so it must be construed. It is
not any particular kind of property that is mentioned, but the
"wording is, 'no private property.' It need not be any physical
or tangible property which is subjected to a tangible invasion.
The right to the use and possession of a lot abutting on a public
street is property. The right to light and air and access is
equally property. * * * And the modern authorities are
uniform that these are rights which are guaranteed by constitu-
tional provisions similar to ours." ^^
§ 65 (56). Principles which determine when there has
been a taking. If property, then, consists, . not in tangible
things themselves, but in certain rights in and appurtenant to
those things, it follows that, when a person is deprived of any
of those rights, he is to that extent deprived of his property,
and hence, that his property may be taken, in the constitutional
sense, though his title and possession remain undisturbed; and
it may be laid down as a general proposition, based upon the
nature of property itself, that, whenever the lawful rights of an
individual to the possession, use or enjoyment of his land are in
any degree abridged or destroyed by reason of the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, his property is, pro tanto, taken, and
he is entitled to compensation.-'^ "Any substantial interference
vision is adopted for the protection States, 136 Fed. 273, 70 C. C. A. 641,
of and security to the rights of the 69 L.R.A. 723. "Property, then, in
individual as against the govern- a determinate object, is composed of
ment, and the word 'taking' should certain constituent elements, to wit.,
not be used in an unreasonable or the unrestricted right of use, en-
narrow sense." Pearsall v. Board joyment, and disposal, of that ob-
of Supervisors, 74 Mich. 558, 42 N. ject. It follows from this premise
W. 77. that anything which destroys or sub-
11 State V. Superior Court, 26 verts any of the essential elements
Wash. 278, 286, 66 Pac. 385. In aforesaid is a taking or destruction
Drainage Comrs. v. Knox, 237 III. pro tanto of property, though the
148, 151, the court says: "Property possession and power of disposal of
in land is the right of user and dis- the land remain undisturbed, and
position and dominion to the exclu- though there be no actual or phy-
sion of all others, and that is the sical invasion of the lomis in quo."
sense in which it is used in the con- City of St. Louis v. Hill, 110 Mo.
stitution." 527, 22 S. W. 861, 8 Am. R. R. &
^Quoted and approved. State v. Corp. Rep. 422. Similar rulings and
Superior Court, 26 Wash. 278, 287, expressions of opinion will be found
06 Pac. 385; Nahant v. United in the following cases: San Mateo
§ 65 WHAT COK^STITUTES A TAKING. 57
with private property -which destroys or lessens its value, or by
v?hich the owner's right to its use and enjoyment is in any sub-
stantial degree abridged or destroyed, is, in fact, and in law, a
taking, in the constitutional sense, to, the extent of the damages
suffered, even though the title and possession of the owner re-
main undisturbed." ^*
It will thus be seen that, in order that there may be a recovery
of compensation for damages to property no part of which is
taken, such damages must be the result of a violation of some one
or more of the rights which constitute property. In other words,
the damage must be actionable damage, that is, damage which
would be remediable if done by an individual without any pre-
tense of statutory authority. If, for damage caused to my land
by certain acts of my neighbor done upon his own land for his
own use, I may have compensation, and if, for the same damage
caused by the same acts done upon the same land by the public
or its agents for public use I can have no compensation, it is
plain that the right upon which the former action was founded
has been taken from me, that so much has been subtracted from
my property in the land. Every such taking we hold to be
within the constitutional prohibition requiring compensation to
be made. In any given case, therefore, where the land of an
Water Works v. Sharpstein, 50 Cal. Rep. 1; Passaic v. Patterson Bill
284 ; Piatt Bros. & Co. v. Waterbury, Posting Co., 72 N. J. L. 285, 62 Atl.
72 Conn. 531, 45 Atl. 154, 77 Am. 267, 111 Am. St. Rep. 676; Forster
St. Rep. 335, 48 L.R.A. 691; Sel- v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577, 32 N. E. Rep.
den V. Jacksonville, 28 Fla. 558, 976, 18 L.R.A. 543, 8 Am. R. R. &
10 So. 457, 29 Am. St. Rep. 278, 14 Corp. Rep. 428 note; Huffmire v.
L.R.A. 370; Chicago v. Wells, 236 Brooklyn, 162 N. Y. 584, 57 N. E.
111. 129; Drainage Comrs. v. Knox, 176, 48 L.R.A. 421; Callen v. Colum-
237 111. 148; Metropolitan W. S. El. bus Edison Elec. Lt. Co., 66 Ohio
R. R. Co. V. Goll, 100 111. App. 323; St. 166, 64 N. E. 141, 58 L.R.A. 782;
Commonwealth v. Boston Advertiser Bollinger v. Southern Pipe Line Co.,
Co., 188 Mass. 348, 74 N. E. 601, 2 Pa. Dist. Ct. 604; Barron v. Mem-
108 Am. St. Rep. 494, 69 L.R.A. phis, 113 Tenn. 89, 80 S. W. 832,
817; Pearsall v. Board of Supes., 74 106 Am. St. Rep. 810; Janesville v.
Mich. 558, 42 N. W. 77 ; Gunnerus v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W.
Spring Prairie, 91 Minn. 473, 98 N. 128. See also the succeeding sec-
W. 340, 974; Richardson v. Levee tions.
Comrs., 77 Miss. 518, 26 So. 963; isStockdale v. Rio Grande West-
Bigelow V. Whitcomb, 72 N. H. 473, ern Ry. Co. 28 Utah 201, 211, 77
57 Atl. 680, 65 L.R.A. 676 ; Pennsyl- Pae. 849. To same effect, Fisher v.
vania R. R. Co. v. Angell, 41 N. J. Bountiful City, 21 Utah 29, 36, 59
Eq. 318, 329, 7 Atl. 432, 56 Am. St. Pac. 520.
58 EMINENT DOMAIN. § CG
indiyidual has been damaged or diminished in value by the con-
struction or operation of works for public use, whether he is
entitled to compensation or not will depend upon whether the
damage or deterioration is due to an interference with any right
appurtenant to the land or parcel of his property in it. If this
question can be answered in the affirmative, there is a right to
compensation; otherwise, not. Thus, if a city takes a lot ad-
jacent to my own and, under proper authority, erects thereon
works, the operation of which necessarily fills my premises with
noxious gases, whereby my property is depreciated in value, I
am entitled to compensation, because my right not to be damaged
by an unreasonable use of the adjacent lot has been violated.
But if the city erects upon the same lot a school-house and uses
it for school purposes and thereby my premises are lessened in
value, I am remediless, because no right whatever which I had,
as owner of my lot, respecting the use which could be made of
the adjoining lot, has been violated. A school is not a nuisance
in a legal sense, and the city, in the case supposed, has done no
more than any individual could have done upon the same prem-
ises.^*
§ 66 (57). Changes which the law has undergone.
The law as to what constitutes a taking has been undergoing
radical changes in the last few years. Mr. Sedgwick, writing
in 1857, in speaking of this subject, says : "It seems to be settled
that, to entitle the owner to protection under this clause, the
property must be actually taken, in the physical sense of the
word, and that the proprietor is not entitled to claim remunera-
tion for indirect or consequential damage, no matter how serious
or how clearly and unquestionably resulting from the exercise of
the power of eminent domain." ^' The Supreme Court of
Maine, in interpreting the constitutional provision in question,
in 1852, said: "The design appears to have been simply to de-
clare, that private property shall not be changed to public prop-
erty, or transferred from the owner to others, for public use,
nWe do not remember any deci- Wehn v. Commissioners of Gage Co.,
sion which exactly covers the illus- 5 Neb. 494, 25 Am. Ecp. 497; Bur-
tration used, but there are cases well v. Commissioners, 93 N. C. 73,
which involve the same principle. 53 Am. Rep. 454. See post, §§ 234r-
Thus it has been decided that a suit 236, 363-366.
will not lie either to prevent, or to isSedgwick Const. Law, 2d ed. pp.
recover damages for, the erection of 456-458.
a, jail upon adjoining property.
§'■66' WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING. 59
without just compensation." *" These quotations present a fair
stateanent of the condition of the law in the middle of the nine-
teenth century. ^^ The learned author just quoted, after review-
ing: the decisions which he has summed up in the above quotation,
ventures his own opinion upon the subject as follows : "To differ
from the voice of so many learned and sagacious magistrates
may almost wear the aspect of presumption; but I can not
refrain from the expression of the opinion, that this limitation
of the term taking to the actual physical appropriation of the
property or a divesting of title is, it seems to me, far too nari'ow
a construction to answer the purposes of justice, or to meet the
demands of an equal administration of the great powers of gov-
ernment. The tendency under our system is too often to sacri-
fice the individual to the community ; and it seems very difficult
in reaspn to show why the State should not pay for property
which it destroys or impairs the value, as well as for what it
physically takes. If by reason of a consequential damage the
value of real estate is postively diminished, it does not appear
arduous to prove that, in point of fact, the owner is deprived of
property, though a particular piece of property may not be ac-
tually, taken." ^«
Numerous cases decided since Mr. Sedgwick wrote have vin-
dicated his view of what the law should be. In stating, in the
last section, the conclusions at which we have arrived after a
cateful examination of all the decided cases, and in discussing
the principles upon which those conclusions are based, we have
not referred to the decisions, because they must be referred to
under the different divisions of the subject to which they respec-
tively pertain, and because the soundness of the conclusions we
have announced must be tested, not by the few cases which
discuss general principles, but by the points actually adjudicated
in all the cases. But, in view of the great importance of the
question, the numeroiis cases which call for its solution, and the
magnitude of the interests involved, we shall, at the risk of some
repetition, refer to some of the leading cases in support of the
views we have expressed.
I6(^ushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247, appropriation of the property of an-
258. other."
I'ln the recent case of Hart v. At- isSedgwick Const. Law, 2d ed. pp.
lanta, 100 Ga. 274, it is said that a 462-463.
"taking" "means a physical, tangible
60 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 67
§ 67 (58). Leading cases. The leading case upon the
subject, and the one which has contributed more than any other
towards bringing about the change referred to in the last section,
is Eaton v. B. 0. & M. E. E. Co.,'^® decided by the Supreme
Court of !N"ew Hampshire in 1872. In referring to this case.
Judge Christiancy, of Michigan, says : "But the most satisfac-
tory and best considered case which can be found in the books
upon this subject, which examines, classifies and analyzes nearly
all the cases, and in the conclusions of which I wholly agree,
is that of Eaton v. B. C. & M. E". E. Co., 51 N. H. 504." ^o
The defendant, a railroad company, laid out its road through
the plaintiff's farm, whose damages were duly assessed, paid and
released. But in constructing their road the company cut
through a ridge north of plaintiff's farm, through which in times
of freshet the waters of an adjacent river found their way, flood-
ing the plaintiff's land and bringing down and lodging upon it
quantities of earth and stones, thereby rendering the land unfit
for cultivation or use. The plaintiff brought suit to recover for
this damage, and the court held in an elaborately considered opin-
ion that he was entitled to succeed. It was conceded in the case
"that, if the cut through the ridge had been made by a private
landowner, who had acquired no rights from the plaintiff or
from the legislature, he would be liable for the damages sought
to be recovered in this action." "The vital issue then is," says
the court, "whether the injuries complained of amount to a tak-
ing of the plaintiff's property, within the constitutional mean-
ing of those terms. To constitute 'a taking of property,' it seems
to have sometimes been held necessary that there should be 'an
exclusive appropriation,' 'a total assumption of possession,' 'a
complete ouster,' an absolute or total conversion of the entire
property, 'a taking the property altogether.' These views seem
to us to be founded upon a misconception of the meaning of
the term 'property,' as used in the various State constitutions.
In a strict legal sense, land is not 'property,' but the subject of
property. The term property, although in common parlance fre-
quently applied to a tract of land or a chattel, in its legal signi-
fication 'means only the right of the owner in relation to it.' 'It
denotes a right over a determinate thing.' 'Property is the right
1951 N. H. 504.
2 0Grand Rapids Booming Co. v.
Jarvis, 30 Mieh. 308, 321.
§ 67 WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING. 61
, of any person to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of a thing.' *^
If property in land consists in certain essential rights, and a
physical interference with the land substantially subverts one
of those rights, such interference 'takes,' pro tanto, the owner's
'property.' The right of indefinite user (or of using indefi-
nitely) is an essential quality or attribute of absolute property,
without which absolute property can have no legal existence.
'Use is the real side of property.' This right of user necessarily
includes the right and power of excluding others from using
the land.^^ From the very nature of these rights of user and of
exclusion, it is evident that they cannot be materially abridged
without, ipso facto, taking the owner's 'property.' If the right
of indefinite user is an essential element of absolute property or
complete ownership, whatever physical interference annuls this
right takes 'property,' — although the owner may still have left
to him valuable rights (in the article) of a more limited and
circumscribed nature. He has not the same property that he
formerly had. Then, he had an unlimited right; now, he has
only a limited right. His absolute ownership has been reduced
to a qualified ownership. Restricting A's unlimited right of
using one hundred acres of land to a limited right of using the
same land, may work a far greater injury to A than to take from
him the title in fee simple to one acre, leaving him the unre-
stricted right of using the remaining ninety-nine acres. Nobody
doubts that the latter transaction would constitute a taking of
'property.' Why not the former? * * '^ The principle
must be the same whether the oAvner is wholly deprived of the
use of his land, or only partially deprived of it; although the
amount or value of the property taken in the two instances may
widely differ. If the railroad corporation takes a strip four rods
wide out of a farm to build their track upon, they cannot escape
paying for the strip by the plea that they have not taken the
whole farm. So a partial, but substantial, restriction of the right
of user may not annihilate all the owner's rights of property in
the land, but it is none the less true that a part of his property
is taken. * * * The injury complained of in this case is
not a mere personal inconvenience or annoyance to the occupant.
Two marked characteristics distinguish this injury from that
2iSelden, J., in Wynehamer v. Peo- ^^Citing, 2 Austin on Jurispru-
ple, 13 N. Y. 378, 433; 1 Bl. Com. dence, 3d ed. 830; Wells, J., in Wallc-
138; 2 Austin's Jurisprudence, 3d er v. 0. C. W. R. R. Co., 103 Mass.
ed. 817, 818. 10, p. 14.
62 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 68
described in many other cases. First, it is a physical injui:y to
the land itself, a physical interference with the rights of prop-
erty, an actual disturbance of the plaintiff's possession. Second,
it would clearly be actionable if done by a private person with-
out legislative authority. * * * WTg think there ha^ been
a taking of the plaintiff's property ; that, as the statutes uride'r
which the defendants acted make no provision for the plkintiff's
compensation, they afford no justification; that the defeiidarits
are liable in this action as wrong-doers; and that the ruling of
the court was correct." The true ^ound of this decision is that
the plaintiff as owner of this farm had a right to the protection
of the natural barrier against the overflow upon his land of the
river in question, that this right was a part of the property in
his land, and that the acts of the defendant company amounted
to a taking of this right and consequently to a taking of his
property in the land pro tanto, for which he was entitled to com-
pensation under the constitution.
§ 68 (59). Leading cases, continued. The decision in
the Eaton case was reviewed two years later by the same court,
in the case of Thompson v. The Androscoggin River linprove-
ment Company,*^ and the true principles of the decision set
forth with great clearness and ability. As the Eaton case has
exerted so large an influence upon this branch of the law of
eminent domain since its rendition, we shall give the views of
the court at length from the case last cited :
"Property in land must be considered, for many purposes, not
as an absolute, unrestricted dominion, but as an aggregation of
qualified privileges, the limits of which are prescribed by the
equality of rights, and the correlation of rights and obligations
necessary for the highest enjoyment of land by the entire com-
munity of proprietors. Two of Eaton's proprietary rights in the
tract of land described as his farm — his right of exclusive pos-
session and his right of reasonable use of the soil — included the
right that the soil should not be injured by E either appropriat-
ing it to his own use, or committing a trespass upon it, or mak-
ing an unreasonable use of his own land. When Eaton's right
of not being injured by an unreasonable use of R's land was in-
vaded, his property was taken, in the same legal sense in which
it would have been taken if his right of not being injured by a
trespass or appropriation had been infringed. If Eaton's farm
2 354 N. H. 545, 1874.
§ 68 WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING. 63
had been damaged by R's reasonable use of his own land, Eaton
would have had no cause of action ; his rights would not have
been invaded by E, exercising his right of reasonably using his
own. The proprietary rights of each were limited in that man-
ner. They were not absolute in respect to each one's use of
his own ; they included a right in respect to the use of the other's.
The soil is often called property ; and this use of language is suf-
ficiently accurate for some purposes. But the proposition that
the soil is property conveys a very imperfect idea of the numer-
ous and variously limited rights comprised in landed estate ; and
it is sometimes necessary to remember that the name of property
belongs to some of the essential proprietary rights vested in the
person called the owner of the soil. A refusal to pay a debt is an
injury to the property of the creditor.^* A patent right, a copy
right, a right of action, an easement, an incorporeal heredita-
ment, may be property as valuable as a granite quarry ; and the
owner of such property may be practically deprived of it, —
such property may be practically taken from its owner, — al-
though it is not corporeal. So those proprietary rights, which
are the only valuable attributes or ingredients of a land-owner's
property, may be taken from him, without an asportation or
adverse personal occupation of that portion of the earth which
is his, in the limited sense of being the subject of certain legally
recognized proprietary rights which he may exercise for a short
time. Property is taken, when any one of those proprietary
rights is taken, of which property consists.^' Eaton's right of
not being injured in his real estate by an unreasonable use of
R's land was one of the proprietary rights of which his general
and comprehensive right of property was composed. And that
particular right of being uninjured by an unreasonable use of
R's land was equally an element of his property, whether such
a use were made of R's land by R or by the defendants.
"The right of R to make a reasonable use of his own (al-
though such a use might cause damage to Eaton's farm), like
other rights included in R's property, could be transferred to
the defendants (the B. C. & M. R. R.) by R himself, or by the
legislature exercising the public power of compulsory purchase,
commonly called eminent domain. But the right, by an unrea-
sonable use of R's land, to cause a damage to Eaton's farm, not
^iCiting, Opinion of the Justices, ^^Citing, Arimond v. Green Bay
23 N. H. 538, 540. etc. Co., 31 Wis. 316, 335.
64 EMIITENT DOMAIK. § 68
being E's right, could not be transferred from K to the defend-
ants by E, or by eminent domain, or by any other person or
power. Eaton's right of not suffering the damage done his farm
by the imreasonable use of E.'s land could be legally taken
from him; he could voluntarily divest himself of it; he could
be compulsorily deprived of it by the legislature wielding that
power of eminent domain which requires compensation.
* * * In Eaton v. Eailroad, the public (by their agents,
the defendants) took from E,^ and converted to its own use,
E's right to make a reasonable use of his own land — that is,
a right to make such a use of his land as it would be reasonable
for him to make without compensating Eaton or any one else
for any damage resulting therefrom. In making such a use
of E's land, the defendants would not transcend the authority
conferred upon them. But in making an unreasonable use of E's
land as against Eaton, and thereby causing Eaton's land to be
injured, they took Eaton's property without compensation, and
transcended their authority. The power of eminent domain
could neither take from E a right (to make such a use of his
land) which he never possessed, nor take from Eaton, without
compensation, his proprietary right to be unharmed by such a
use of E's land. Thus interpreted and applied, the rule, fairly
stated by Sedgwick as the result of the adjudicated cases, is
intelligible and sound. It is generally called a rule of conse-
quential damages; and it may safely be called so, if sufficient
pains be taken to give such an explanation of its operation and
effect as will show how unmeaning and inappropriate the name
is.
"If the railroad company, by changing the course of traffic
and travel and causing a village to be built on E's land, had
reduced the value of Eaton's property in a neighboring village
more than the entire worth of his farm, they would not have been
liable to him for that damage. They would have been justified,
not on the ground that the damage was remote and consequential,
in the sense of being a remote consequence, but on the ground
that a railroad changing the channels of commerce and causing
a rival village to spring up, would be a reasonable use for
others to make of their land, an exercise of their rights of j)rop-
erty in land, and not a violation of Eaton's right. The idea
sometimes conveyed, in such a case, by the supposed doctrine
of remote and consequential damage is, that, although the suf-
ferer's legal right is violated, the damage is too remotely conse-
§ 68 WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING. 65
quential, too remote in degree, to be actionable; as if the law
would not give redress for the violation of a legal right, when
the space between cause and effect exceeds a certain prescribed
legal distance. A proprietor's right may be more seriously in-
fringed by a cut through the bank of a river at a great distance
from his land, than by a railway built across his hearth-stone.
* * , * Suppose, in Eaton's case, E — 'the former owner of
the land where the cut was made — had owned not only that,
but also all the rest of the strip on which the railroad was built,
from Concord to the northern end of the road, or had, by con-
tract, acquired from the owners the right to build and use a
railroad upon it; and suppose he could have built and used it
without infringing any public right of way on land or water,
or any other public right ; he could, without legislative authority,
have lawfully built and used a railroad there for his exclusive
private purposes, or for carrying the passengers and freight
now carried by the railroad corporation; he could have built it
over the spot where the cut was made, without violating Eaton's
right. Such a use of his own land would have been reasonable ;
but if he had made such a cut there as the corporation made,
without taking the precautions necessary to prevent the natural,
apparent, and expected consequence of the river being poured
upon Eaton's farm, he would have been liable, because such a
cut, causing such an injury, would have been an unreasonable
use of his own land. His liability, under such circumstances,
was understood to be admitted, and would seem to be too clear
to be contested.
"Then modify the supposed case, by inserting the fact that
he could not have built the road, on the route on which it was
built, without infringing public rights of way on land and
water ; and suppose that difficulty obviated by an act of the leg-
islature, authorizing him to encroach upon public rights of
way to an extent necessary for the building of a railroad, to be
used by him in the business of a common carrier ; such a modi-
fication of public rights would not affect Eaton's private right
of not being injured in his property by E. pouring Baker's river
upon his farm. Modify the supposed case further, by insert-
ing the fact that E, obtains a charter, making him a corporation
by the name of E; Eaton's right of property would not be
affected by the circumstance that the river was poured upon his
farm by E, acting, not in his natural capacity, but as an arti-
ficial being— invisible, intangible, and existing only in contem-
Em. D.— 5.
66
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 68
plation of law. How, then, could E. acquire the right to pour
the river upon Eaton's farm through a cut which it would be
an unreasonable use of his own land for him to make? By
a purchase, voluntary or compulsory. The public, exercising
the public power of compulsory purchase, otherwise called emi-
nent domain, whereof compensation is an essential element,
could authorize him as a public agent, in his natural or in his
artificial capacity, to take as many of Eaton's rights of prop-
erty as were necessary for a public use. In that way E, as an
agent of the public, could obtain Eaton's right of not being in-
jured by an unreasonable use of K's land. That right was
property before the B. C. & M. Railroad acquired any of E's
rights ; and it continued to be property afterwards. It was prop-
erty that the railroad corporation could not acquire from R ; and
it could not be transferred to them from Eaton by a compulsory
purchase without compensation." ^^
2 6 We shall not take the space to
quote to any extent from the opin-
ions of other courts. The Supreme
Court of the United States in a case
which is often cited on this ques-
tion says : "It would be a very cu-
rious and unsatisfactory result, if,
in construing a provision of consti-
tutional law, always understood to
have been adopted for protection and
security to the rights of the individ-
ual as against the government, and
which has received the commen-
dation of jurists, statesmen and
commentators as placing the just
principles of the common law on
that subject beyond the power of or-
dinary legislation to change or con-
trol them, it shall be held that if
the government refrains from the ab-
solute conversion of real property to
the uses of the public it can destroy
its value entirely, can inflict irrep-
arable and permanent injury to
any extent, can, in effect, subject
it to total destruction without mak-
ing any compensation, because, in
the narrowest sense of that word,
it is not taken for the public use.
Such a construction would pervert.
the constitutional provision into a
restriction upon the rights of the
citizen, as these rights stood at the
common law, instead of the govern-
ment, and make it an authority for
the invasion of private right under
the pretext of the public good, which
had no warrant in the laws or prac-
tices of our ancestors." Pumpelly
v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 177,
1871. Approved and followed in Ari-
mond V. The Green Bay and Miss.
Canal Co., 31 Wis. 316, 1872.
"Depriving an owner of property
of one of its essential attributes, is
depriving him of his property." Peo-
ple v. Otis, 90 N. Y. 48, 52.
The following are also leading cases
on the question: Conniff v. San
Francisco, 67 Cal. 45; Hooker v.
New Haven & Northampton Co., 14
Conn. 146, 36 Am. Dec. 477 ; Same v.
Same, 15 Conn. 312; Denslow v.
Same, 16 Conn. 98; Piatt Bros. Co.
v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 531, 45 Atl.
154, 77 Am. St. Rep. 335, 48 L.R.A.
691 ; Nevins v. Peoria, 41 111. 502,
89 Am. Dec. 392 ; Evansville & Craw-
fordsville R. R. Co. v. Dick, 9 Ind.
433; Kemper v. Louisville, 14 Bush.
"WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING.
67
87; Lee v. Pembroke Iron Co., 57
Me. 481, 2 Am. Rep. 59 ; Old Colony
& Fall River R. R. Co. v. County of
Plymouth, 14 Gray 155; Common-
wealth V. Boston Advertising Co.,
188 Mass. 348, 74 N. E. 601, 108 Am.
St. Rep. 494, 69 L.R.A. 817; Grand
Rapids Booming Co. v. Jarvis, 30
Mich. 308 ; Vanderlip v. Grand Rap-
ids, 73 Mich. 522, 41 N. W. 677
O'Brien v. St. Paul, 25 Minn. 331
Weaver v. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534
McKenzie v. Miss. & Rum River
Boom Co., 29 Minn. 288; Peters v.
Fergus Falls, 35 Minn. 549; Thurs-
ton V. St. Joseph, 51 Mo. 510 ; Broad-
well V. City of Kansas, 75 Mo. 213,
42 Am. Rep. 406; St. Louis v. Hill,
116 Mo. 527, 22 S. W. 861; Bigelow
V. Whitcomb, 72 N. H. 473, 57 Atl.
680, 65 L.R.A. 676; Trenton Water
Power Co. v. Rafif, 36 N. J. L. 335;
Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting
Co., 72 N. J. L. 285, 62 Atl. 267, 111
Am. St. Rep. 076; Story v. N. Y.
El. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am.
Rep. 146; Seifert v. Brooklyn, 101
N. Y. 136, 54 Am. Rep. 664; Cogs-
well V. New York, New Haven &
Hartford R. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 10,
67 Am. Rep. 701 ; Lahr v. Metropoli-
tan El. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 208;
Forster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577, 32
N. E. Rep. 976, 18 L.R.A. 543; Huff-
mire V. Brooklyn, 162 N. Y. 584, 57
N. E. 176, 48 L.R.A. 421 ; Foster v.
Stafford National Bank, 57 Vt. 128.
CHAPTER IV.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING: WATEES.
§ 70 (60). Streams defined and classified. Ruiming
streams consist of a well defined channel with sides or banks, in
which water habitually flows, though it need not flow continu-
ously.-^ Some streams are small and inacapable of navigation
for any purpose. All the authorities agree that such streams are
wholly private property and that the title of the riparian owner
extends to the middle of the stream.^ In regard to navigable
streams, there is much conflict of authority, both as to the title
of the riparian owner to the bed of the stream and as to
his rights in the stream itself. As to what constitutes navi-
gability is a question which does not fall within the province of
this treatise, and for a solution of it the reader is referred to
other works.^ So also as to title to the bed of navigable
streams.* The decisions of the different States vary upon these
questions, and especially upon the latter. For thfe purposes of
this treatise it is necessary to ascertain and define the rights of
riparian owners; and, as respects such rights, streams may be
divided into three classes : First, private non-navigable streams ;
second, private navigable streams ; third, public navigable
streams.® The second and third classes are public highways
by water, the only difference being that in the second class the
title to the bed of the stream is in the riparian proprietors, while
in the third class it is in the public. Important distinctions
are, by some courts, based upon this circumstance which will
be noticed hereafter.
lAngell on Watercourses, §§ 1-4; xiii; Gould on Waters, §§ 19, 41,
Gould on Waters, § 41; 2 Farnham et seq.; 1 Farnham on Waters, § 23;
on Waters, §§ 455-460; Sanguinette* post, § 91.
V. Pock, 136 Cal. 466, 69 Pac. 98, 89 4Angell on Waterc, chap, xiii;
Am. St. Rep. 169; Rait v. Furrow, Gould on Waters, §§ 19, 41, e* seg.; 1
74 Kan. 101, 85 Pac. 934, 6 L.R.A. Farnham on Waters, §§ 36-50; post,
(N.S.) 157. §§ 87, 94^100.
sAngell on Waterc, §§ 10 & 11; BAngell on Waterc, chap, xiii;
Gould on Waters, §§ 46, et seq.; 1 Gould on Waters, chap, iii; Wood on
Farnham on Waters, § 29b. Nuisances (1st ed.), § 586.
sAngell on Watercourses, chap.
68
i 71
WATEES.
69
§ 71 (61). Rights of riparian owners in the flow of the
stream. It may be laid down as a well-settled principle that
every proprietor over or past whose land a stream of water flows
has a right that it shall continue to flow to and from his prem-
ises in the quantity, quality and manner in which it is accus-
tomed to flow by nature, subject to the right of the upper pro-
prietors to make a reasonable use of the stream as it flows past
their land.^ This right is a part of his property in the land
and in many cases constitutes its most valuable element.'' It
sAngell on Watercourses, §§ 90-
96; Gould on Waters, § 204; Ala.
Consol. C. & I. Co. V. Turner, 145
Ala. 639, 39 So. 603, 117 Am. St. Rep.
Gl; Tutwiler C. & I. Co. v. Nichols,
146 Ala. 364, 39 So. 762, 119 Am.
St. Rep. 34; Fisher v. Feige, 137 Cal.
39, 69 Pac. 618, 92 Am. St. Rep. 77,
59 L.R.A. 333; Duckworth v. Wat-
sonville W. & L. Co., 150 Cal. 520,
89 Pac. 338; Jessup & M. I'aper Co.
V. Ford, 6 Del. Ch. 52; Tampa Water
Works Co. V. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 20
So. 780, 53 Am. St. Rep. 262, 33
L.R.A. 370; Ferguson v. Firmenich
Mfg. Co., 77 la. 576, 42 N. W. 448,
14 Am. St. Rep. 319; Shamleffer v.
Peerless Mill Co., 18 Kan. 24; Clark
V. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206, 80 Pac.
571, 70 L.R.A. 971; Anderson v.
Cinn. So. R. R. Co., 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.
W. 49; Heath v. Williams, 25 Me.
209, 43 Am. Dec. 265; Allen v.
Thornapple Elec. Co., 144 Mich. 370,
108 N. W. 79, 115 Am. St. Rep. 453;
Liles v. Cawthorn, 78 Miss. 558, 29
So. 834; Clark v. Cambridge etc.
Impv. Co., 45 Neb. 799, 64 N. W.
239; Slattery v. Harley, 58 Neb.
575, 79 N. W. 151 ; Crawford Co. v.
Hathaway, 60 Neb. 754, 84 N. W.
271; Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 61
Neb. 317, 85 N. W. 303; Crawford
Co. V. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 93
N. W. 781, 108 N. W. 647, 60 L.R.A.
889; Meng v. Coffee, 67 Neb. 500,
93 N. W. 713, 108 Am. St. Rep. 697,
60 L.R.A. 910; New York Rubber
Co. V. Rothery, 132 N. Y. 293, 30
N. E. 841 ; Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co.,
164 N. Y. 303, 58 N. E. 142, 79 Am.
St. Rep. 643, 51 L.R.A. 687; Parry
V. Citizens' Water Works Co., 59
Hun 196, 37 N. Y. St. 715, 14 N. Y.
Supp. 471; Gilzinger v. Saugerties
Water Co., 66 Hun 173, 21 N. Y.
Supp. 121; Brown v. Gold Coin Min.
Co., 48 Ore. 277, 86 Pac. 361 ; Clark
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 145 Pa. St. 438, 22
Atl. 989, 27 Am. St. Rep. 710; Sil-
ver Spring Co. v. Wanskuck Co., 13
R. I. 611 ; Cox V. Howell, 108 Tenn.
130, 65 S. W. 868, 58 L.R.A. 487;
Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98
Tex. 578, 86 S. W. 733, 107 Am. St.
Rep. 653, 70 L.R.A. 964; Carpenter
V. Gold, 88 Va. 551, 14 S. E. 329;
Neselhous v. Walker, 45 Wash. 621,
88 Pac. 1032 ; New Whatcom v. Fair-
haven Land Co., 24 Wash. 493, 64
Pac. 735, 54 L.R.A. 190; Van Eg-
mond V. Seaforth, 6 Ont. 599; Unit-
ed States V. Rio Grande Dam & Irr.
Co., 174 U. S. 690; also numerous
cases cited in the following sections.
Where the waters of a stream grad-
ually sink into the sand and disap-
pear, finding their way by percola-
tion along the valley of the stream
to a lake, they no longer constitute
a natural water course, and may be
treated as percolating water. Meyer
V. Tacoma L. & P. Co., 8 Wash. 144,
35 Pac. 601. Aiid see post, § 114.
'Bottoms V. Brewer, 54 Ala. 288;
St. Helena Water Co. v. Forbes, 62
70
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 71
necessarily follows, therefore, that any violation of this right
in the exercise of the power of eminent domain is a taking of
private property for which compensation must be made.* Such
a violation must occur in one of three ways: (1) By abstract-
ing or diverting water above, (2) by changing or corrupting
the current, or (3) by works below which prevent the water flow-
ing off in its accustomed manner. As respects the rights of the
riparian owner in the flow of the water, we apprehend it makes
no difference whether the stream is public or private, navigable.
Cal. 182, 45 Am. Rep. 659; Lux v.
Haggin, 69 Cal. 255; Wadsworth
V. Tillotson, 15 Conn. 365, 373, 39
Am. Dec. 391 ; Harding v. Stamford
Water Co., 41 Conn. 87; Blberton
V. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 749, 49 S. E. 779;
Mofifett V. Brewer, 1 G. Greene, 348;
Shamleffer v. Peerless Mill Co., 18
Kan. 24; Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kan.
588, 37 Am. Rep. 265; Clark v. Cam-
bridge etc. Impv. Co., 45 Neb. 799,
64 N. W. 239; Crawford Co. v.
Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N. W.
781, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647, 60 L.R.A.
889; Ten Eyck v. Delaware & Rari-
tan Canal Co., 18 N. J. L. 200, 37
Am. Dec. 233; Stamford Water Co.
V. Stanley, 39 Hun 424; Mansfield
V. Balliet, 65 Ohio St. 451, 63 N. E.
86, 58 L.R.A. 528; Deming v. Cleve-
land, 22 Ohio C. C. 1; Weiss v.
Oregon etc. Co., 13 Ore. 496; Sil-
ver Spring etc. Co. v. Wanskuek
Co., 13 R. L 611; Fisher v. Bounti-
ful City, 21 Utah 29, 59 Pac. 520;
Rigney v. Tacoma L. & T. Co., 9
Wash. 576, 38 Pac. 147; Avery v.
Fox, 1 Abb. U. S. 246; Gould on
Waters, § 204. "The right of a ri-
parian proprietor, as such, is prop-
erty, and, when vested, can be de-
stroyed or impaired only in the in-
terest of the general public, upon
full compensation, and in accordance
with established law." Clark v.
Cambridge etc. Impv. Co., 45 Neb.
799, 64 N. W. 239.
In some of the arid States the
common law rules as to the rights
of riparian owners upon streams are
held to be inapplicable to the condi-
tions there existing, and therefore
not in force, and in several the com-
mon law rules are modified by con-
stitutions or statutes. See Chandler
V. Austin, 4 Ariz. 347, 42 Pac. 483;
Lux V. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac.
674; Bathgate v. Irvine, 126 Cal.
135, 58 Pac. 442, 77 Am. St. Rep.
158; Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.,
6 Colo. 443; Hammond v. Rose, 11
Colo. 524, 7 Am. St. Rep. 258; Crip-
pen V. White, 28 Colo. 298, 64 Pac.
184; Reno Smelting Works v. Stev-
enson, 20 Nev. 269, 21 Pac. 317, 19
Am. St. Rep. 364, 4 L.R.A. 160;
Walsh V. Wallace, 26 Nev. 299, 67
Pac. 914, 99 Am. St. Rep. 692; Sto-
well V. Johnson, 7 Utah, 215, 26
Pac. 290 ; Moyer v. Preston, 6 Wyo.
308, 44 Pac, 845; Farm Investment
Co. V. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61
Pac. 258, 87 Am. St. Rep. 918, 50
L.R.A. 747.
SLux V. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255; El-
berton v. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 749, 49 S.
E. 779 ; Hamor v. Bar Harbor Water
Co., 78 Me. 127; Mayor etc. of Balti-
more V. Apphold, 42 Md. 442; Craw-
ford Co. V. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325,
93 N. W. 781, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647,
60 L.R.A. 89 ; McCook, Irr. & W. P.
Co. V. Crews, 70 Neb. 109, 96 N. W.
996; Mansfield v. Balliet, 65 Ohio
St. 451, 63 N. W. 86, 58 L.R.A. 628;
Fisher v. Bountiful City, 21 Utah
29, 59 Pac. 520. And see cases cited
in the succeeding sections.
§ 72
WATEES.
71
or not navigable f but we shall recur to the rights of riparian
owners upon public and navigable streams hereafter.^"
§ 72 (61a). What constitutes a reasonable use of a
stream by an upper proprietor. Although this question does
not fall strictly within the scope of this work, some reference
to authorities on the question may be found convenient. ^^ The
principal uses to which the water of a stream may be put are
for domestic purposes, for watering stock, for irrigation and
for manufacturing. The right to take water for domestic pur-
poses and for watering stock is an absolute right, and each pro-
prietor may take what is necessary for these purposes, without
regard to the effect upon lower proprietors.-'^ But the right
9 Gould on Waters, § 204.
loPosf, §§ 87, 94-100.
iiThe following are some of the
leading cases in wliieh the question
of reasonable use is discussed:
Drake v. Lady Ensley Coal etc. Co.,
102 Ala. 501, 14 So. 749, 48 Am.
St. Eep. 77, 24 L.R.A. 64; Heilbron
V. Land & Water Co., 80 Cal. 189, 22
Pae. 62; Parker v. Hotchkiss, 25
Conn. 321 ; White v. East Lake Land
Co., 96 Ga. 415, 23 S. E. 393, 51 Am.
St. Rep. 141; Bwight v. Hays, 150
111. 273, 37 N. E. 218, 41 Am. St.
Rep. 367; Barnard v. Shirley, 135
Ind. 547, 34 N. E. Rep. 600, 35 N.
E. 117; Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan.
206, 80 Pac. 571, 70 L.R.A. 971 ; Dav-
is V. Winslow, 51 Me. 264, 81 Am.
Dec. 573; Helfrich v. Catonsville
Water Co., 74 Md. 269, 22 Atl. 72,
28 Am. St. Rep. 245; Smith v. Aga-
wam Canal Co., 2 Allen 355; Door-
man V. Ames, 12 Minn. 451 ; Minn.
L. & T. Co. V. St. Anthony Falls
W. P. Co., 82 Minn. 503, 85 N. W.
520 ; Creek v. Bozeman Water Works
Co., 15 Mont. 121, 38 Pac. 459; Craw-
ford Co. V. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325,
93 N. W. 781, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647,
60 L.R.A. 889; Meng v. Coffee, 67
Neb. 500, 93 N. W. 713, 108 Am.
St. Rep. 697, 60 L.R.A. 910; McCook
Irr. & W. P. Co. V. Crews, 70 Neb.
109, 96 N. W. 996 ; Jones v. Adams,
19 Nev. 78, 6 Pac. 442, 3 Am. St.
Rep. 788; Hays v. Waldron, 44 N.
H. 580, 84 Am. Dec. 105; Holden v.
Lake Co. 53 N. H. 552; Garwood
V. N. Y. Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 83
N. Y. 400; Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co.,
164 N. Y. 303, 58 N. E. 1242, 79 Am.
St. Rep. 643, 51 L.R.A. 687; Pier-
son V. Speyer, 178 N. Y. 270, 70 N.
E. 799, 102 Am. St. Rep. 499; Hen-
derson Real Est. Co. v. Carroll etc.
Co., 189 N. Y. 531, affirming, 113
A. D. 775, 99 N. Y. S. 365; Piatt v.
Root, 15 Johns. 213 ; Palmer v. Mul-
ligan, 3 Caines Rep. 307, 2 Am. Deo.
270 ; Standen v. New Rochelle Water
Co., 91 Hun 272, 36 N. Y. Supp. 92;
Jones V. Conn, 39 Ore. 30, 64 Pac.
855, 65 Pac. 1068, 87 Am. St. Rep.
634, 54 L.R.A. 630; Pennsylvania
Coal Co. V. Sanderson, 113 Pa. St.
126, 6 Atl. 453; White v. Whitney
Mfg. Co., 60 S. C. 254, 38 S. E. 456 ;
Lawrie v. Silsby, 76 Vt. 240, 56
Atl. 1106, 104 Am. St. Rep. 927;
Mumpower v. City of Bristol, 90
Va. 151, 17 S. E. 853, 44 Am. St.
Rep. 902; Green Bay etc. Canal
Co. V. Kaukauna Water Power
Co., 90 Wis. 370, 61 N. W. 1121,
48 Am. St. Rep. 937; Indianapolis
Water Co. v. Am. Straw Board Co.,
53 Fed. Rep. 970, 57 Fed. Rep. 100;
Gould on Waters, §§ 205 et seq.
i2Garwood v. New York Central
72
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 73
to take the water for irrigation or manufacturing purposes is
qualified and limited by the existence of like rights in the
lower owners, and must be exercised with a due regard to such
rights.-'^ The rights of a riparian owner have no dependence
upon the extent of the watershed which he owns, except perhaps
as respects irrigation.-^* A riparian owner has no right, as
against lower proprietors, to take and divert water for the use
of non-riparian owners, or for the use of his own non-riparian
lands. ^®
§ 73 (61b). What riparian rights in the flow of a,
stream attach to property held for public use. Eiparian
rights in a stream pertain to the land abutting on the stream.
They pass with the title to the property and are the same, wheth-
er the property is owned by a natural or an artificial person.
The rights are not dependent upon the uses made of the prop-
erty or the purposes for which it is held. The fact that the
property is held for public use, therefore, would not seem to
etc. R. R. Co., 8a N. Y. 400; An-
derson V. Cinn. So. R. R. Co., 86
Ky. 44, 5 S. W. 49; White v. East
Lake Land Co., 96 Ga. 415, 23 S. E.
393, 51 Am. St. Rep. 141; Cox v.
Howell, 108 Tenn. 130, 65 S. W. 868,
58 L.RA. 487; Watkins Land Co.
V. Clements, 90 Tex. 578, 86 S. W.
733, 107 Am. St. Rep. 653, 70 L.R.A.
964.
isSame; Minnesota L. & T. Co. v.
St. Anthony Falls W. P. Co., 82
Minn. 505, 85 N. W. 520; Crawford
Co. V. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 93
N. W. 781, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647,
60 L.R.A. 889.
i4Standen v. New Rochelle Water
Co., 91 Hun 272, 36 N. Y. Supp.
92. As to what are to be deemed ri-
parian lands see 2 Farnham on
Waters, § 463; Crawford Co. v.
Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N. W.
781, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647, 60 L.R.A.
889; Jones v. Conn, 39 Ore. 30, 64
Pac. 855, 65 Pae. 1068, 87 Am. St.
Rep. 634, 54 L.R.A. 630; Watkins
Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578,
86 S. W. 733, 107 Am. St. Rep. 653,
70 L.R.A. 964.
"Ulbrecht v. Eufaula Water Co.,
86 Ala. 587, 4 L.R.A. 572; Heilbron
V. Land & Water Co., 80 Cal. 189, 22
Pac. 62; Wutchuma Water Co. v.
Pogue, 151 Cal. 105; Montecito Val.
Water Co. v. Santa Barbara, 151
Cal. 377, 90 Pac. 935; Anderson v.
Cinn. So. R. R. Co., 86 Ky. 44, 5
S. W. 49; Crawford Co. v. Hatha-
way, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N. W. 781, 108
Am. St. Rep. 047, 60 L.R.A. 889;
Parry v. Citizens' Water Works Co.
59 Hun 196, 37 N. Y. St. 715, 14
N. Y. Supp. 471 ; Standen v. New
Rochelle Water Co., 91 Hun 272,
38 N. Y. Supp. 92; Appeal of Haupt,
125 Pa. St. 211, 17 Atl. 436, 3
L.RA. 536 ; Clark v. Pennsylvania
R. R. Co., 145 Pa. St. 438, 32 Atl.
089, 27 Am. St. Rep. 710; Lord v.
Meadville Water Co. 135 Pa. St. 122,
19 Atl. 1007, 20 Am. St. Rep. 864,
8 L.R.A. 202; Watkins Land Co. v.
Clement, 98 Tex. 578, 86 S. W. 733,
107 Am. St. Rep. 653, 70 L.R.A. 964;
Clements v. Watkins Land Co., 36
Tex. Civ. App. 339, 82 S. W. 665;
Saunders v. Bluefield W. W. Co.,
58 Fed. 133.
§ 74
WATEES.
73
affect the question of riparian rights.^" But as the right to use
the water pertains to the property, the use must be upon the
property for the benefit of the same or its occupants.-^'' As a
natural person may not take and sell the water to non-riparian
owners, so the same may not be done by a city or water company
owning land upon a stream.^* As a natural person may not
use the water in his business upon non-riparian property, so a
railroad company or other corporation of a public nature is
restricted in like manner.^® It has been held in Oregon that
the State, as a riparian proprietor on a stream may not divert
water for the supply of a penitentiary and insane asylum sit-
uated on the riparian lands.^" But the contrary has been held
in Pennsylvania.^^
§ 74 (62). Abstracting or diverting the water of a
stream. Where the waters of a stream or any part thereof are
taken or diverted to supply a city or village with water,^* or for
iBSaunders v. Bluefield etc. Co,
58 Fed. 13.3; Lord v. Meadville Wa
ter Co., 135 Pa. St. 122, 19 Atl
1007, 20 Am. St. Eep. 834, 8 L.R.A,
202; Appeal of Haupt, 125 Pa. St,
211, 17 Atl. 436, 3 L.R.A. 536; Rig-
ney v. Tacoma Light &, W. Co., 9
Wash. 576, 38 Pac. 147; People v.
Hulbert, 131 Mich. 156, 91 N. W.
211, 100 Am. St. Rep. 588, 64
L.R.A. 265.
17 Garwood v. New York Cent. etc.
R. R. Co., 83 N. Y. 400.
isMontroae Canal Co. v. Loutsen-
hiser Ditch Co., 23 Colo. 223, 48 Pac.
532; Osborn v. Norwalk, 77 Conn.
663, 60 Atl. 645; Elberton v. Pearle
Cotton Mills, 123 Ga. 1, 50 S. E. 977 ;
People V. Hulbert, 131 Mich. 156,
91 N. W. 211, 100 Am. St. Rep. 588,
64 L.R.A. 265; Sparks Mfg. Co. v.
Newton, 60 N. J. Eq. 399, 45 Atl.
596; Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co. v.
Pottsville Water Co., 182 Pa. St. 418,
38 Atl. 404; Irving v. Media, 194 Pa.
St. 648, 45 Atl. 482, affirming 10 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 132; Lonsdale Co. v. Woon-
socket, 25 R. I. 428, 56 Atl. 448;
State V. Superior Court, 46 Wash.
eOO, 90 Pac. 650 ; post, § 74. Contra,
Canton v. Shock, 66 Ohio St. 19, 63
N. E. 600, 90 Am. St. Rep. 557, 58
L.R.A. 637. See Framingham Water
Co. V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 176
Mass. 404, 57 N. E. 680.
19 Same.
2 0 Salem Mills Co. v. Lord, 42 Ore.
82, 69 Pac. 1033^ 70 Pac. 832.
21 Filbert v. Dechert, 22 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 362.
2 2 Stein V. Burden, 24 Ala. 130, 55
Am. Dec. 453; Stein v. Ashby, 24
Ala. 521; Burden v. Stein, 27 Ala.
104, 62 Am. Dee. 758 ; Stein v. Bur-
den, 29 Ala. 127; Stein v. Ashby, 30
Ala. 363 ; Ulbricht v. Eufaula Water
Co., 86 Ala. 587; St. Helena Water
Co. V. Forbes, 62 Cal. 182, 45 Am.
Rep. 659; Moore v. Clear Lake W.
W., 68 Cal. 146; Harding v. Stam-
ford Water Co., 41 Conn. 87 ; Board
of Water Comrs. v. Perry, 69 Conn.
461, 37 Atl. 1059 ; Fisk v. Hartford,
70 Conn. 720, 40 Atl. 906, 66 Am. St.
Rep. 147; Watson v. New Milford
Water Co., 71 Conn. 442, 42 Atl. 265;
Osborn v. Norwalk, 77 Conn. 663,
60 Atl. 645; Elberton v. Hobba, 121
Ga. 749, 49 S. E. 779; Elberton v.
Pearle Cotton Mills, 123 Ga. 1, 50 S.
u
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ u
the use of a canal ^^ or railroad company,^* or to improve a
E. 977; Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kan.
588, 37 Am. Rep. 265; King v. Dan-
ville, 32 Ky. L. E. 1188; Hamor v.
Bar Harbor Water Co., 78 Me. 127;
Aberdeen v. Bradford, 94 Md. G70,
51 Atl. 614; Lund v. New Bedford,
121 Mass. 286; Aetna Mills v. Wal-
tham, 126 Mass. 422; Bailey v. AVo-
burn, 126 Mass. 416; Aetna Mills v.
Brookline, 127 Mass. 69; Watuppa
Reservoir Co. v. Fall River, 134
Mass. 267; Nemasket Mills v. Taun-
ton, 166 Mass. 540, 44 N. E. Rep.
609; Stevens v. Worcester, 196 Mass.
45 ; Hall v. Ionia, 38 Midi. 493 ; Peo-
ple V. Hulbert, 131 Mich. 156, 91 N.
W. 211, 100 Am. St. Rep. 588, 64
L.R.A. 265 ; Creek v. Bozeman W. W.
Co., 15 Mon. 121, 38 Pac. 439; Hig-
gins V. Flemington Water Co., 36 N.
J. Eq. 538 ; Acquackanonk Water Co.
V. Watson, 29 N. J. Eq. 366; East
Jersey Water Co. v. Bigelow, 60 N.
J. L. 201; Butler Hard Rubber Co.
V. Newark, 61 N. J. L. 32, 40 Atl.
224; Sparks Mfg. Co. v. Newton, 60
N. J. Eq. 399, 45 Atl. 596, reversing
S. C. 57 N. J. Eq. 367, 41 Atl. 385;
Gardner v. Village of Newburgh, 2
Johns. Ch. 161, 7 Am. Dec. 526;
Smith T. City of Rochester, 92 N.
Y. 463, 44 Am. Rep. 393; Smith v.
Brooklyn, 160 N. Y. 357, 45 L.R.A.
664; Stamford Water Co. v. Stanley,
39 Hun 424; Van Buren v. Fishkill
W. W. Co., 50 Hun 448, 21 N. Y.
St. 448, 3 N. Y. Supp. 336; Parry v.
Citizens' W. W. Co., 59 Hun 196, 37
N. Y. St. 715, 14 N. Y. Supp. 471 ;
Gilzinger v. Saugerties W. Co., 68
Hun 173, 21 N. Y. Supp. 121 ; Stan-
den V. New Roehelle Water Co., 91
Hun 272, 36 N. Y. Supp. 92; Covert
V. Brooklyn, 13 App Div. 188, 42 N.
Y. S. 310 ; Duesler v. Johnstown, 24
A. D. 608; Gallagher v. Kingston
Water Co., 25 App. Div. 82 ; Geer v.
Durham Water Co., 127 N. C. 349,
37 S. E. 474; Hough v. Doylejtown,
4 Brews., 333; Appeal of Haupt, 125
Pa. St. 211, 17 Atl. 436, 3 L.R.A.
536; Lord v. Meadville Water Co.,
135 Pa. St. 122, 19 Atl. 1007, 20 Am.
St. Rep. 864, 8 L.R.A. 202; Bowers
V. Citizens' Water Co., 162 Pa. St.
9, 29 Atl. 98; Hogg v. Connellsville
Water Co., 168 Pa. St. 456, 31 Atl.
1010; Lee v. Springfield Water Co.,
170 Pa. St. 223, 35 Atl. 184; Irving
V. Media Borough, 194 Pa. St. 048, 45
Atl. 482, affirming S. C. 10 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 132; Lonsdale v. Woonsocket, 25
R. I. 428, 56 Atl. 448; Rigney v.
Taeoma L. & Water Co., 9 Wash.
576, 38 Pac. 147, 26 L.R.A. 425;
New York v. Pine, 185 V. S. 93, 22
S. C. 592; Pine v. New York, 112
Fed. 98, 50 C. C. A. 145, affirming
S. C. 103 Fed. 337 ; Saunders v. Blue-
field W. W. etc. Co., 58 Fed. Rep.
133; Swindon Water Works Co. v.
Wilts & Berks Canal Navigation Co.,
L. R. 7 E. & I. App. Cas. 697. A
temporary diversion by a water com-
pany for the purpose of repairing
its dam was held not actionable.
Mott V. Consumers Water Co., 188
Pa. St. 521, 41 Atl. 611.
2 3Denslow v. New Haven & North-
ampton Canal Co., 16 Conn. 98;
Heilman v. Union Canal Co., 50 Pa.
St. 268; Walker v. Board of Public
Works, 16 Ohio 540; Heilbron v.
Canal Co., 75 Cal. 426, 7 Am. St.
Rep. 183; Beidler v. Sanitary Dist.,
211 111. 628, 71 N. E. 1118, 67
L.R.A. 820.
24It has been held that a railroad
company, being a riparian proprie-
tor, either by virtue of its right of
way crossing a stream or otherwise,
may take therefrom a reasonable
amount of water for the purpose of
supplying its locomotives or for
other use. Eliot v. Fitchburg R. R.
Co., 10 Cush. 191; Pennsylvania R.
§ 74
WATEES.
75
highway by land,^' or to make a new channel either for the
improvement of navigation,^*' or for the protection of a public
E. Co. V. Miller, 112 Pa. St. 34; Earl
of Sandwich v. Great Northern Ky.
Co., L. R. 10 Ch. Div. 707; Graham
V. Northern R. R. Co., 10 Grant Ch.
259. But this right is denied in An-
derson V. Cinn. So. R. R. Co., 86
Ky. 44, 5 S. W. 49, and a railroad
company was held liable to the lower
proprietor for withholding water for
railroad uses. To the same effect is
Garwood v. New York Central etc.
R. R. Co., 83 N. Y. 400, S. C. 17 Hun
356. This case also denies the right
of a railroad company to withdraw
water for its locomotives to the in-
jury of a lower proprietor. After
stating that a riparian proprietor
has an absolute right to withdraw
sufficient water for domestic pur-
poses and for cattle and a qualified
right to use the water for irrigation
and manufacturing, provided the use
is upon the land to which the right
is incident, the court says: "Now
in the case before us the defendant
has done something more ; it has not
been content with exercising this
privilege; it has diverted a consid-
erable portion of the stream not for
any use upon the land past which it
flows, but for the transaction of its
business in other places, and for
purposes in no respect pertaining to
the laud itself. * * * So far as
the plaintiff is concerned, it has car-
ried away from his premises the
water, as effectually as if it had
been turned into another channel
and discharged at Albany or Buffa-
lo; and from this, as the jury has
found, he has sustained damages."
In Clark v. Penn. R. R. Co., 145 Pa.
St. 438, 22 Atl. 989, 27 Am. St. Rep.
710, it is held that, no matter what
the necessities of the defendant's
business, it had no right to take
water from a stream for its locomo-
tives, without compensation to those
damaged hereby. And this would
seem to be the correct rule. See §
72; Whitney v. Fitchburg R. R.
Co., 178 Mass. 559, 60 N. E. 384;
Rice V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 130
N. C. 375, 41 S. E. 1031.
Where a railroad company, in
constructing its road totally diverted
a stream from a lower proprietor,
the latter was held entitled to a
mandatory injunction for its restor-
ation. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R.
Co. v. Long, 46 Kan. 701, 27 Pac.
182, 26 Am. St. Rep. 165. But an
owner may lose his right to equit-
able relief by keeping silent while
he sees the company expend large
sums in diverting a small stream.
Slocumb v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 57
la. 675.
2 6McCord v. High, 24 la. 336.
2 6Avery v. Fox, 1 Abb. U. S. 246,
253. In this case the court says : "To
divert a, stream from its natural
channel into an artificial one, for
the purpose of affording improved
navigation and benefiting commerce,
may be a work of great public con-
cernment and advantage, but if
thereby a riparian owner is wholly
or injuriously deprived of the use
of its waters, which he is employ-
ing advantageously as an incident to
his land, it is taking the private
property of such owner in and to
the use of that water for public use,
and, unless just compensation is
made, is against both the principles
of the common law and the provi-
sions of the Constitution of the Unit-
ed States, and courts have no alter-
native but to so administer the law as
to secure and protect such rights in
a proper case." The improvement in
76
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 74
road,^'' or for any other public use, compensation must be made
to the inferior proprietors on the banks of the stream who
are injured thereby.^* The only dissenting case which has
come to our notice is that of the Commissioners of Homochitto
River v. Withers, in which the Supreme Court of Mississippi
held that it was not a taking, to divert a stream of water from
the plaintiff's property into a new channel for the purpose of
improving navigation.^® This decision is so palpably wrong that
we do not think it requires discussion. Where a railroad com-
pany divert a stream into a new channel for a short distance,
it is bound to restore it unimpaired to its natural channel, and
where in such case the stream escaped from the new channel by
percolation the company was held liable.^"
this case was being made by the
United States and so the federal
Constitution applied to the case.
To same effect, Cohen v. United
States, 162 Fed. 364.
27Smith V. Gould, 59 Wis. 631, 18
N. W. 457; S. C. 61 Wis. 31, 20 N.
W. 369; State ex rel. Smith v.
Board of Supervisors, 66 Wis. 199,
28 N. W. 140. So where a stream was
diverted into a new channel by a
railroad company. Louisville etc.
E. E. Co. V. Whitsell, 125 Ky. 433.
2 8See also the following cases, in
most of which, however, the diver-
sion was not for public use. Heil-
bron V. Land & Water Co., 80 Cal.
189, 22 Pae. 62; Vernon Irr. Co. v.
Los Angeles, 106 Cal. 237, 39 Pae.
762; Bank of Hopkinsville v. \^'est-
ern Ky. Asylum, 108 Ky. 357, 56 S.
W. 525; McCook Irr. & W. P. Co. v.
Crews, 70 Neb. 109, 96 N. W. 996;
Harper H. & D. Co. v. Mountain
Water Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 479, 56 Atl.
297; Piatt v. Boot, 15 Johns. 213;
Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Caines Eep.
307, 2 Am. Dec. 270; New York
Rubber Co. v. Eothery, 132 N. Y.
293, 30 N. E. 841 ; Hogg v. Connells-
ville Water Co., 168 Pa. St. 456, 31
Atl. 1010 ; Carpenter v. Gold, 88 Va.
551, 14 S. E. 329; Mumpower v.
City of Bristol, 90 Va. 151, 17 S.
E. 853; Green Bay etc. Cajial Co. v.
Kaukauna W. P. Co., 90 Wis. 370, 61
N. W. 1121, 48 Am. St. Rep. 937.
2929 Miss. 21, 32, 64 Am. Dec. 126.
The court says: "It appears to us
that it (the constitution) applies to
such property as belongs absolutely
to the individual, and of which he
has the exclusive right of disposi-
tion; property of a specific, fixed,
and tangible nature, capable of be-
ing had in possession and transmit-
ted to another, as houses, lands, and
chattels. But it is not easy to un-
derstand how a man can be said to
have, a, property in water, light, or
air of so fixed and positive a char-
acter as to deprive the sovereign
power of the right to control it for
the public good and general conven-
ience." In South Carolina v. Geor-
gia, 93 U. S. 4, it was held that
Congress might close one of two nav-
igable channels of a river. No ques-
tion of private right was involved in
this case and, besides, causing the
water of a stream to flow in one of
two natural channels is quite differ-
ent from diverting it wholly into
an artificial channel. See also Black
Eiv. Imp. Co. V. La Crosse Booming
& Tram. Co., 54 Wis. 659 ; Wisconsin
V. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379.
aoCott V. Lewiston E. R. Co., 36
§ 74 WATEES. 77
The manner in whicli the diversion is accomplished is im-
material, whether by an artificial channel, by pumping, by
percolation into a well or gallery, or by other means. The injury
consists in taking the water. Under a general authority to take
water for the purpose of supplying its inhabitants with water
for domestic use, for extinguishing fires and for manufacturing,
a city purchased land on a stream bordering a mill pond and
dug a well about seventy-five feet from the water's edge, from
which it pumped a supply. The water came to the well by per-
colation from the pond. The city also extended a pipe directly
into the pond, to be used only in case of fire. The owner of the
pond and of the mill which the pond supplied brought suit for
the damages. It was held that he was entitled to recover, that
the city had no more right to draw the water from the pond in-
directly, by percolation, than directly, by a pipe or other means,
and that the distance of the well from the pond was immaterial,
provided its supply came from the pond.^^ Similar decisions
have been made in Massachusetts and other States.*^ The fact
that the city is the owner in fee of land on the stream where
such works are constructed does not alter the case.^* The right
of a riparian owner to take sufficient water for domestic use does
not apply to a city. It is not an individual and has no natural
wants.^* Where a city under a special act has voted to take a
N. Y. 214. See also White v. East Rep. 826; Smith v. Brooklyn, 18
Lake Land Co., 96 Ga. 415, 23 S. E. App. Div. N. Y. 340; Smith v.
393, 51 Am. St. Eep. 141 ; Louisville Brooklyn, 160 N. Y. 357, 45 L.R.A.
etc. R. R. Co. V. Whitsell, 31 Ky. L. 664, affirming S. C. 32 App. Div.
R. 76, 101 S. W. 834. N. Y. 257; Irving v. Media Borough,
siCity of Emporia v. Soden, 25 10 Pa. Supr. Ct. 132.
Kan. 588, 37 Am. Rep. 265. 3 3 Same; also Stein v. Burden, 24
32Bailey v. Woburn, 126 Mass. Ala. 130, 55 Am. Dec. 453; and as
416; Aetna Mills v. Waltham, 126 respects other corporations with-
Mass. 422; Aetna Mills v. Brook- drawing water for a public use as
line, 127 Mass. 69; Cowdrey v. Wo- riparian proprietors, see Garwood v.
bum, 136 Mass. 409; Hollingsworth N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co. 83
& V. Co. V. Foxborough Water Sup- N. Y. 400 ; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v.
ply Dist., 165 Mass. 186, 42 N. E. Miller, 112 Pa. St. 34; Swindon Wa-
574; Montecito Val. Water Co. v. ter Works Co. v. Welts & Berks
Santa Barbara, 144 Cal. 578, 77 Pac. Canal Co., L. R. 7 E. & I. App. Cas.
1113; Aberdeen V. Bradford, '94 Md. 697; Earl of Sandwich v. Great
670, 51 Atl. 614; Van Wycklen v. Northern Ry. Co., L. R. 10 Ch. Div.
City of Brooklyn, 118 N. Y. 424, 24 707; ante, note 18.
N. E. 179; Covert v. Cranford, 141 s^City of Emporia v. Soden, 25
N. Y. 521, 36 N. E. 597, 38 Am. St. Kan. 588, 607. The court says:
78 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 75
million gallons a day from a river, and has constructed a filter-
ing gallery on land adjacent to the river into which water comes
by percolation both from the river and from other sources, a ri-
parian owner on the stream is entitled to have his damages as-
sessed on the basis of the taking of the maximum amount daily.^®
The riparian owners upon a stream which flows through or
from a pond or lake, are entitled to compensation for water
taken from the lake.^® Where a canal company used a stream
of water for a period of years, in pursuance of a contract, and
continued the use after the contract expired, it was held to be
an appropriation under the eminent domain powers conferred
upon the company and that the owner at the time of the appro-
priation was entitled to compensation.^'' But, where a canal
company constructs an artificial feeder over an individual's land,
he acquires no right to the use of the water as against the com-
pany, and the latter may divert it at pleasure.^^ Where a
canal company has the right to take water from a stream for
navigation purposes only, it cannot take a surplus for the pur-
pose of leasing it to mill owners.^® The same rules apply to
springs which fiow in a surface stream, as to the stream itself.*"
§ 75 (63). Increasing the quantity of water. ITot only
is it a violation of the right of a riparian owner to obstruct
or divert the water of a stream before it reaches his land, but it
is equally a violation of his rights to increase the quantity of
"The city, as a corporation, may 156 N. Y. 213, affirming 8. C. 88
own land on the banks, and thus in Hun 614.
one sense be a riparian owner. But STHeilman v. Union Canal Co., 50
this does not make each citizen a Pa. St. 268.
riparian owner. And the corpora- 3 8 Cooper v. Williams, 4 Ohio 253;
tion is not taking the water for its Erkenbrecher v. Cincinnati, 2 Cinn.
own domestic purposes; it is not an Sup. Ct. 412; Burbanlc v. Fay, 65
individual; it has no natural wants, N. Y. 57. But where a natural water
it is not taking for its own use, but course was changed into a canal, and
to supply a multitude of Individ- used as such for twenty years, it
uals; it takes to sell." was held the riparian proprietors
ssAetna Mills v. Waltham, 126 had the same rights as though it
Mass. 422. had continued a natural water course.
3 6Bailey v. Town of Woburn, 126 Burk v. Siuionson, 104 Ind. 173, 54
Mass. 416; Watuppa Reservoir Co. Am. Rep. 304.
V. Fall River, 134 Mass. 267; 3 9 Adams v. Slater, 8 Ills. App. 72.
Smith V. City of Rochester, 92 N. ^oSuisun City v. DeFeritas, 142
Y. 463, 44 Am. Rep. 393; S. C. 38 Cal. 350, 75 Pac. 1092; Cohen v. La
Hun 612; Stock v. Township of Jef- Canada L. & W. Co., 142 CaL 437,
ferson, 114 Mich. 357, 72 N. W. 132, 76 Pac. 47.
38 L.R.A. 355; Neal v. Rochester,
§ 75
■WATERS.
79
•water flowing past his land by artificial means not connected
Avith the reasonable use of the land above. *^ Thus plaintiff
owned land on both sides of Roland's Run, which was a natural
stream. The City of Baltimore proposed to introduce into the
stream, above plaintiff, an artificial supply of ten million gal-
lons a day, for the purpose of increasing the supply in a reser-
voir situated in the run below plaintiff's land, from which the
city was supplied. It appeared that this increase would cause
the stream to overflow some of plaintiff's land and saturate
and injure other parts. The court held that the plaintiff was
entitled to have the stream "continue to flow through his land
in its usual quantity, at its natural place and at its usual
height," and that the city should be enjoined from doing the
damage until it had acquired the right by condemnation.*^ No
action lies for raising the water in a stream by drains and
sewers which conduct surface water only, and which only in-
crease the flow by draining the watershed more quickly.*^ But
where a city collected the water from the watershed of a small
<iWood on Nuisances, § 365.
<2Mayor of Baltimore v. Apphold,
42 Md. 442. To same effect, Rudel
V. County of Los Angeles, 118 Cal.
281; Smafield v. Smith, 153 Mich.
270; McKee v. Del. & H. Canal Co.,
125 N. Y. 353, 26 N. E. 305, 21 Am.
St. Rep. 740; S. C. 52 Hun 52, 22
N. Y. St. 222, 4 N. Y. Supp. 753;
Brewster v. J. & J. Rogers Co. 169
N. Y. 73, 62 N. E. 264, 58 L.R.A.
495, affirming S. C. 42 App. Div. 343,
59 ISr. Y. S. 32; Craft v. Norfolk
etc. R. R. Co., 136 N. C. 49, 48 S.
E. 519; Pfeiffer v. Brown, 165 Pa.
St. 267, 30 Atl. 844, 44 Am St. Rep.
660; Owens v. Lancaster, 182 Pa. St.
257; Rankin v. Harrisburg, 104 Va.
524, 52 S. E. 555, 113 Am. St. Rep.
1050, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 919; Malott v.
Mersea, 9 Ontario 611 ; aiid see Grant
V. Kugler, 81 Ga 637; Kay v. Kirk,
76 Md. 41, 24 Atl. 326; Barrett v.
Mt. Greenwood Cem. Ass., 57 111.
App. 401; Plattsmouth Water Co. v.
Smith, 57 Neb. 579, 78 N. W. 275;
Rice V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 130
N. C. 375, 41 S. E. 1031 ; Miller v.
Wisenberger, 61 Ohio St. 561, 56 N.
E. 454. In Brown v. Atlanta, 66 Ga.
71, the defendant city had a reser-
voir above plaintiff and let off the
water in -a, way to damage plaintiff
by the increased flow. It was held
that the city had a right to do so,
provided it exercised that care which
a prudent person would do who had
lands below, and provided it did no
more harm than nature's floods
would do had there been no reser-
voir, and provided the flow would
not, in the absence of other causes,
more than fill the bed of the
stream.
■*3Bainard v. City of Newton, 154
Mass. 255, 27 N. E. 995; O'Donnell
v. Syracuse, 184 N. Y. 1, 76 N. E.
738, reversing S. C. 102 App. Div. 80,
92 N. Y. S. 55; Prime v. Yonkers,
192 N. Y. 105, reversing S. C. 116
App. Div. 699; Penfield v. New
York, 115 App. Div. 502, 101 N. Y.
S. 442; Hamilton v. Ashbrook, 62
Ohio St. 571, 57 N. E. 239; Strauss
80 EMINENT DOMAIN. § '?^6
stream in its sewers whicli drained the watershed with such
rapidity as to cause the stream to overflow, it was held liahle.**
Water turned into a running stream by a riparian proprietor, be-
comes, after leaving his land, identified with the natural stream
as to any benefit to the lower proprietors, and one such lower
proprietor cannot abstract an amount equal to that artificially
added, to the injury of another.*®
§ 76 (64). Interfering with the regularity of the cur-
rent. The upper proprietor may always make a reasonable use
of the water as it passes over his land, although such use may
to a certain extent change the natural current of the stream or
affect its volume or quality. What constitutes a reasonable use
in any given case is a question of fact for the jury.*" Beyond
this neither individuals nor the public can go without com-
pensation to the inferior proprietor who suffers damage. Any
interference with the regularity of the current for public use,
so as to make the flow fitful, uncertain and intermittent, is a
violation of the common law right to have the stream flow as it
is wont by nature, and a recovery may be had for any damages
so occasioned.*'^ Where a booming company erects dams across
a stream and lets off the water from time to time in floods for
the purpose of floating logs, and in the intervals retains the
water for such purpose, a lower proprietor whose mill is inter-
fered with or whose lands are flooded may recover compensa-
tion.*® But a boom company was held not liable for damages
caused by an unusual accumulation of logs and an unusual rise
V. Allentown, 215 Pa. St. 96, 63 Atl. N. Y. 353, 26 N. E. 305, 21 Am. St.
1073; Miller v. Newport News, 101 Eep. 740; Ordway v. Village of Can-
Va. 432, 44 S. E. 712. And see isteo, 66 Hun 569, 21 N. Y. Supp.
Mizell V. McGowan, 129 N. C. 93, 835; Lakeside Paper Ck). v. State, 15
39 S. E. 729, 85 Am. St. Rep. 705. App. Div. N. Y. 169; Blizzard v.
4 4Hents V. Mt. Vernon, 78 App. Danville, 175 Pa. St. 479, 34 Atl.
Div. 515, 79 N. Y. S. 774. 846; Lone Tree Ditch Co. v. Rapid
4 5Druley v. Adams, 102 111. 177. City E. & G. Lt. Co., 16 S. D. 451,
4 6Thompson v. The Androscoggin 93 N. W. 650; Compare Brov?n v.
River Improvement Co., 54 N. H. Atlanta, 66 Ga. 71. See ante, § 72.
545; Phillips v. Sherman, 64 Me. ^sThunder Bay Booming Co. v.
171. See ante, § 72. Speechly, 31 Mich. 336; Middleton v.
4 70sbom V. Norwalk, 77 Conn. Flat River Booming Co., 27 Mich.
663, 60 Atl. 645; Boston Belting Co. 533; Koopman v. Blodgett, 70 Mich.
V. City of Boston, 152 Mass. 307, 25 610, 38 N. W. 649, 14 Am. St. Rep.
N. E. 613 ; Carlson v. St. Louis etc. 527 ; Folsom v. The Apple River Log
Co., 73 Minn. 128, 75 N. W. 1044 ; Driving Co., 41 Wis. 602 ; Thompson
McKee v. Del. & H. Canal Co., 125 v. Androscoggin River Improvement
§ 77
■TATEES.
81
of water.** And a recent case in Wisconsin holds that a riyer
improvement company, authorized to construct dams and other
works, to aid in the iioating of logs, was not liable to a mill
owner below for damages resulting from alternately retaining
and letting off the water.^"
§ 77 (65). Pollution of the water. The general right
to the flow of a stream in its natural purity is fully established
by the decisions.^ ^ The upper proprietor may, of course, make
a reasonable use of the stream or of his land, though the stream
is to some extent pointed thereby.^^ This right to pure water
Co., 54 N. H. 545; Phillips v. Sher-
man, 64 Me. 171 ; Carroll v. Atlanta,
74 Ga. 386 ; Brown v. Atlanta, 66 Ga.
71 ; Kamm v. Normand, 50 Ore. 9, 91
Pac. 448, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 290; Mon-
roe Mill Co. V. Mensel, 35 Wash.
487, 77 Pac. 813, 102 Am. St. Rep.
905, 70 L.E.A. 272; Matthews v. Bel-
fast Mfg. Co., 35 Wash. 662, 77 Pac.
1046; Hackstack v. Keshena Im-
provement Co., 66 Wis. 439. In the
last case the plaintiff's property was
situated twenty miles below the im-
provements. It was flooded by water
detained and let off in large volumes
for the purpose of floating logs. In
Massachusetts it is held that under
the Mill act a mill owner is not li-
able for any injury done to interven-
ing land by letting down water from
his reservoir dam for the use of his
mill, for which he would not be li-
able at common law. Drake v. Ham-
ilton Woolen Co., 99 Mass. 574.
isLawler v. Baring Boom Co., 56
Me. 443.
sopalls Mfg. Co. V. Oconto Eiv.
Imp. Co., 87 Wis. 134, 58 N. W.
Rep. 257. As to damages by worKs
for the improvement of navigation
see post, § 85.
siDrake v. Lady Ensley Coal etc.
Co., 102 Ala. 501, 14 So. 749, 48 Am.
St. Rep. 77, 24 L.R.A. 64; Alabama
C. C. & I. Co. v. Vines, 151 Ala.
398, 44 So. 377; Horton v. Fulton,
130 Ga. 466; Jessup & Moore Paper
Em.D. — 6.
Co. V. Ford, 6 Del. Ch. 52; Western
Paper Co. v. Pope, 155 Ind. 394, 57
N. E. 719, 56 L.R.A. 899; West
Munoie Strawboard Co. v. Slack,
164 Ind. 21, 72 N. E. 879;
Muncie Pulp Co. v. Martin, 164
Ind. 30, 72 N". E. 882; Muncie
Pulp Co. V. Keesling, 166 Ind.
479, 76 N. E. 1002; Ferguson v.
Firmenich Mfg. Co., 77 la. 576,
42 N. W. 448, 14 Am. St. Rep. 319;
Gladfelter v. Walker, 40 Md. 1; West
Arlington Imp. Co. v. Mount Hope
Retreat, 97 Md. 191, 54 Atl. 982;
Parker v. Am. Woolen Co., 195 Mass.
591; MacNamara v. Taft, 196 Mass.
597; Holsman v. Boiling Spring
Bleaching Co., 14 N. J. Eq. 335;
Beach v. Sterling Iron &, Z. Co., 54
N. J. Eq. 65, 33 Atl. 286; Sterling
Iron & Z. Co. v. Sparks Mfg. Co.,
55 N. J. Eq. 824, 41 Atl. 1117; Dur-
ham V. Eno Cotton Mills, 141 N. C.
615, 54 S. E. 453, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.)
321; Richmond Manufacturing Co.
V. Atlantic DeLaine Co., 10 R. I.
106; Randolph v. Pennsylvania S.
V. R. R. Co., 186 Pa. St. 541 ; Silver
Spring etc. Co. v. Waunskuck Co.,
13 R. I. 611; Van Egmond v. Sea-
forth, 6 Ontario 599; Attorney Gen-
eral V. Lunatic Asylum, 4 L. R. Ch.
App. 146; Angell on Waters.,
§ 136; Wood on Nuisances, § 697;
ante, § 71.
B2Helfrich v. Catonsville Water
Co., 74 Md. 269, 22 Atl. 72, 28 Am.
82 EMINENT DOMAIN. § TY
is property''^ and any interference with the right is a taking, to
the extent of such interference.^* It necessarily follows that
a stream may not he polluted for private purposes against
the will of the riparian owner, with or without compensation f^
also that it cannot be polluted for public purposes, except under
authority of law, and upon compensation made.''*' In Indiana
and Massachusetts ^'^ it has been held that it is a reasonable use
of a stream running through a city, to empty into it the public
sewers of the town, and that for such pollution as arises there-
from the lower proprietor has no remedy. This is contrary to
the principle just enunciated and seems to us a wrong conclu-
sion. Undoubtedly the lower proprietor must endure without
remedy such impurities as find their way into a stream from
the natural wash and drainage of a city situated on its banks.
Drains and sewers may be constructed for the purpose of fa-
cilitating the drainage into the stream of the water which falls
upon the surface or percolates beneath.^* This is no more than
a reasonable use of the stream. But it is a different thing to
conduct directly into the stream, by means of sewers and arti-
ficial supplies of water, the waste and filth which come from a
dense population. There is no principle upon which this can
be justified. A city is not a riparian proprietor simply because
St. Kep. 245; Grey v. Paterson, 60 J. Eq. 385, 45 Atl. 995, 83 Am. St.
N. J. Eq. 385, 45 Atl. 995, 83 Am. St. Eep. 642, 48 L.R.A. 717; New Odor-
Kep. 642, 48 L.R.A. 717. The ques- less Sewerage Co. v. Wisdom, 30
tion of reasonable use, as respects Tex. Civ. App. 224, 70 S. W. 354.
pollution, is mueli considered in In- ssBeacli v. Sterling Iron & Z. Co.,
dianapolis Water Co. v. Am. Straw- 54 N. J. Eq. 65, 33 Atl. 286; S. C.
board Co., 53 Fed. 970, 57 Fed. Rep. affirmed on opinion below. Sterling
1000, and Barnard v. Shirley, 135 Iron & Z. Co. v. Sparks Mfg. Co., 55
Ind. 547, 34 N. E. 600. And see N. J. Eq. 824, 41 Atl. 1117.
ante, § 72. i^Post, §§ 367, 671, 672, 673.
ssKewanee v. Otley, 204 111. 402, BTMerrifield v. Worcester, 110
08 N. E. 388; Beach v. Sterling Iron Mass. 216, 14 Am. Rep. 592; com-
& Z. Co., 54 N. J. Eq. 65, 33 Atl. pare Middlesex Co. v. City of Low-
286; S. C. affirmed Sub Nom. Ster- ell, 149 Mass. 509, 21 N. E. 872.
ling Iron & Z. Co. v. Sparks Mfg. So in Indiana, Valparaiso w Hagen,
Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 824, 41 Atl. 1117; 153 Ind. 337, 54 N. E. 1082, 74 Am.
Mansfield v. Balliet, 65 Ohio St. 451, St. Eep. 305, 48 L.R.A. 707; Rich-
63 N. E. 86, 58 L.R.A. 628; Winchell mond v. Test, 18 Ind. App. 482.
V. Waukesha, 110 Wis. 101, 85 N. ssCrane v. Roselle, 236 111. 97;
W. 668, 84 Am. St. Rep. 902; ante, Bainard v. City of Newton, 154
§ 64. Mass. 255, 27 N. B. 995.
p 4 Same; Grey v. Paterson, 60 N,
§ 77
■WATEES.
83
a stream runs tlirougli or past its limits.'* Those who own the
banks of the stream are the riparian proprietors. And even if
the city could be regarded as a riparian owner, either because
the stream was within its corporate limits or because its streets
or public grounds intersected or bounded on it, there is no ri-
parian right to cast filth directly into the stream. A single
proprietor upon a very small stream would not be allowed to
place his privy over the stream and turn directly into it the
refuse from his kitchen and stable. No more can a hundred
proprietors on a larger stream or the corporate authorities of
a city through which it runs. Accordingly it has been held
in numerous cases that an action will lie against a municipality
to enjoin the polution of a stream with sewerage,®" or to rcjover
damages for such pollution.®^ The terms and conditions upon
which injunctive relief will be granted are considered in a sub-
B 9 Vale Mills v. Nashua, 63 N. H.
42; ante, § 73.
sopeople V. San Luis Obispo, 116
Cal. 617, 48 Pac. 723; Nolan v. New
Britain, 69 Conn. 668; Butler v.
Thomasville, 74 Ga. 570; Waycross
V. Houk, 113 Ga. 963, 39 S. E. 577;
Village of Dwight v. Hayes, 150 111.
273, 37 N. E. 218, 41 Am. St. Rep.
367; Kewanee v. Otley, 204 111. 402,
08 N. E. 388; Mason v. Mattoon,
95 111. App. 525; Middlesex Co. v.
Lowell, 149 Mass. 509, 21 N. E. 872;
Grey v. Paterson, 58 N. J. Eq. 1,
42 Atl. 749; Grey v. Paterson, 60
N. J. Eq. 385, 45 Atl. 995, 83 Am.
St. Rep. 642, 48 L.R.A. 717; Dorem-
us V. Paterson, 69 N. J. Eq. 188, 57
Atl. 548; S. C. affirmed, 69 N. J.
Eq. 775, 61 Atl. 396; Sammons v.
Gloversville, 175 N. Y. 346, 67 N. E.
622, affirming 67 App. Div. 628;
Morgan v. Bingham, 32 Hun 602;
Schriver v. Village of Johnstown, 71
Hun 232, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1083;
Moody V. Saratoga Springs, 17 App.
Div. N. Y. 207; Butler v. White
Plains, 59 App. Div. 30, 69 N. Y. S.
193; Warner v. Gloversville, 81 App.
Div. 291, 80 N. Y. S. 912; Sammons
>'. Gloversville, 81 App. Div. 332, 81
N. Y. S. 466; Donovan v. Royal, 26
Tex. Civ. App. 248, 63 S. W. 1054;
Winchell v. Waukeska, 110 Wis.
101, 85 N. W. 668, 84 Am. St. Rep.
902; Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells
Impr. Comrs., L. R. 1 Ch. App. 349,
affirming S. C. L. R. 1 Eq. 161 ; Van
Egmond v. Seaforth, 6 Ontario 599;
Attorney General v. Leeds, 5 L. R.
Ch. App. 583, 589. And see Robb
v. La Grange, 158 HI. 1, 42 N. E.
77; Barrett v. Mt. Greenwood Cem.
Ass. 159 111. 385, 42 N. E. 891, 31
L.R.A. 109; Lefrois v. Monroe Coun-
ty, 24 App. Div. 421 ; Abraham v.
Fremont, 54 Neb. 391, 74 N. W. 834;
Peterson v. Santa Rosa, 119 Cal.
387. In Cleveland v. Standard Bag
& Paper Co., 72 Ohio St. 324, 74 N.
E. 206, 100 Am. St. Rep. 613, a
city was held to liave a prescriptive
right to pollute a stream with sew-
erage after twenty years user and
an injunction was refused. See
Norwalk v. Blatz, 9 Ohio C. C. 417.
oiBirmingham v. Land, 137 Ala.
538, 34 So. 61 3 ; Watson v. New Mil-
ford, 72 Conn. 561, 45 Atl. 167, 77
Am. St. Rep. 345; Gorham v. New
Haven, 79 Conn. 070, 66 Atl. 505;
Piatt Bros. & Co. v. Waterbury, 80
84
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 77
sequent chapter.^^ The legislature may doubtless authorize the
pollution of streams with sewerage, upon providing for compen-
sation to riparian owners and this has been done in some States.®*
Conn. 179 ; Jacksonville v. Doan, 145
111. 23, 33 N. E. 878, affirming 8. C. 48
111. App. 247; Bloomington v. Cos-
tello, 65 111. App. 407; Loughram v.
Des Moines, 72 la. 382; Hollenbeok
V. Marion, 116 la. 69, 89 N. W. 210;
Bennett v. Marion, 119 la. 473, 93
N. W. 558; Vog-fc v. Grinnell, 123
la. 332, 98 N. W. 782; Vogt v. Grin-
nell, 133 la. 363, 110 N. W. 603;
Long V. Emporia, 59 Kan. 46; Ed-
mondson v. Moberly, 98 Mo. 523, 11
S. W. 990; Sohoen v. Kansas City,
65 Mo. App. 134; Smith v. Sedalia,
152 Mo. 283, 53 S. W. 907, 48 L.K.A.
711; S. C. 182 Mo. 1, 81 S. W. 165;
Kellogg V. Kirksville, 132 Mo. App.
519; Todd v. York, 3 Neb. (Unof.)
763, 92 N. W. 1040; Vale Mills v.
Nashua, 63 N. H. 42; Hooker v.
Rochester, 37 Hun 181; Demby v.
City of Kingston, 60 Hun 294, 38
N. Y. St. 42, 14 N. Y. Supp.
601 ; S. C. affirmed without opin-
ion 133 N. Y. 538; Moody v.
Saratoga Springs, 17 App. Div. 207,
45 N. Y. S. 365; S. C. affirmed, 163
N. Y. 581, 57 N. E. 1118; Davis v.
Same, 17 App. Div. 623; S. C. af-
firmed, 163 N. Y. 581, 57 N. E.
1108; Lasher v. Same, 17 App. Div.
624; S. C. affirmed, 163 N. Y. 582,
57 N. E. 1115; Swart v. Same, 25
App. Div. 622; S. C. affirmed, 164
N. Y. 609, 58 N. E. 1092; Mansfield
V. Balliet, 65 Ohio St. 451, 63 N. E.
86, 58 L.R.A. 628; McBride v.
Akron, 11 Ohio C. 0. 610; Mans-
field V. Hunt, It) Ohio G. C.
488; Markwardt v. Guthrie, 18
Okla. 32, 90 Pac. 26, 9 L.K.A(N.S.)
1150; Good V. City of Altoona, 102
Pa. St. 493, 29 Atl. 741, 42 Am. St.
Rep. 840; Owens v. Lancaster, 182
Pa. St. 257; Glasgow v. Altoona, 27
Pa. Supr. 55; Matheny v. Aiken, 68
S. C. 163, 47 S. E. 56; Paris v. All-
red, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 125, 43 S.
W. 62; Trevitt v. Prison Ass., 98
Va. 332, 36 S. E. 373, 81 Am. St.
Rep. 727, 50 L.R.A. 564; Weber v.
Berlin, 8 Ont. 302. See also Lind
V. City of San Luis Obispo, 109
Cal. 340, 42 Pac. 437; Ilobb v. L,a-
Grange, 57 111. App. 386; Pfeififer
V. Brown, 165 Pa. St. 267, 30 Atl.
844, 44 Am. St. Rep. 660; Gray v.
Dundas, 11 Ontario 317; City of
Hutchinson v. Delano, 46 Kan. 345,
26 Pac. 740. A mill owner may be
enjoined from depositing sawdust in
a. stream to the damage of a lower
proprietor. Waterman v. Buck, 58
Vt. 519. See also Indianapolis Wa-
ter Co. V. Am. Strawboard Co., 53
Fed. 970, 57 Fed. 1000.
6 2Post, § 916. See especially.
Grey V. Paterson, 60 N. J. Eq. 385,
45 Atl. 995, 83 Am. St. Rep. 642,
48 L.R.A. 717; Winehell v. Wau-
kesha, 110 Wis. 101, 85 N. W. 668,
84 Am. St. Rep. 902.
ssKellogg V. New Britain, 62
Conn. 232, 24 Atl. 996; Washburn &
M. Mfg. Co. V. City of Worcester,
153 Mass. 494, 27 N. E. Rep. 664;
Worcester Gas Light Co. v. County
Comrs., 138 Mass. 289; Joplin Con.
Min. Co. v. Joplin, 124 Mo. 129, 27
S. W. 406. And see Sayre v. New-
ark, 60 N. J. Eq. 361, 45 Atl. 985,
83 Am. St. Rep. 629, 48 L.R.A. 722;
Matheny v. Aiken, 68 S. C. 163,
47 S. B. 56. In Pennsylvania an
act of 1905 prohibits the discharge
of sewerage into the streams and
waters of the State, except ,by sew-
erage systems already constructed.
Commonwealth v. Emmers, 33 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 151.
§ 17 WATEES. 85
But a general authority to construct sewers, or even to discharge
them into a stream, will not be construed as authorizing the pol-
lution of the stream or the creation of a nuisance.^* In a New
York case the charter of the defendant city empowered its com-
mon council to construct sewers and discharge them into the
stream in question. Of this authority the court says: "Thia
is a permission and not a direction, and a legislative permission
neither implies a right to appropriate property, without com-
pensation; nor confers a license to commit a nuisance."'^''
In New Jersey it has been held that in case of a stream where
the tide ebbs and flows, the title to the water and bed of the
stream is absolutely in the public and that the legislature may
authorize its use for sewerage disposal without compensation
to the riparian owners."" It has been held that a company
to supply a village with water could not take the water of a
stream and return to it an equal amount of inferior quality to
the damage of a lower proprietor . "'' Under authority to takc-
the waters of a stream for sewer purposes, a section was taken,
the sewer constructed and the waters of the stream conducted
through it, but the same were restored to their natural channel
before reaching plaintiff's land. It was held a taking of the
waters as to plaintiff and that his right to compensation ac-
crued at the time of such appropriation."* Where a river is
public, that is where the title to the bed is in the State, it has
been held that the remedy for pollution must be sought through
the attorney-general."^ One who has been accustomed to foul
a stream by using the water for manufacturing purposes, but
64Edmondson v. Moberly, 98 Mo. 361, 45 Atl. 985, 83 Am. St. Kep.
523, 11 S. W. 990; Moody v. Sara- 629, 48 L.E.A. 722, reversing S. C.
toga Springs, 17 App. Div. 207, 45 58 N. J. Eq. 136, 42 Atl. 106S.
N. y. S. 365; S. C. affirmed, 163 N. « VAcquackanonk Water Co. v.
Y. 581, 57 N. E. 1118; Butler v. Watson, 29 N. J. Eq. 366.
White Plains, 59 App. Div. 30, 69 ssWorcester Gas Light Co. v.
N. Y. S. 193; Donovan v. Royal, 26 County Comrs., 138 Mass. 289.
Tex. Civ. App. 248, 63 S. W. 1054; 6 9Newark Aqueduct Board v. City
Winchell v. Waukesha, 110 Wis. 101, of Passaic, 45 N. J. Eq. 393, 18 Atl.
85 N. W. 668, 84 Am. St. Eep. 902. 106. See also King v. Bristol Dock
65Sammon3 v. Gloversville, 175 Co., 12 East, 429. As to the protec-
N. Y. 346, 352, 67 N. E. 622, affirm- tion of a public water supply from
ing S. C. 67 App. Div. 628. The pollution see Kelley v. New York,
point is elaborately discussed in the 6 Misc. 516, 27 N. Y. Supp. 164;
Wisconsin case last cited. Commonwealth v. Russell, 172 Pa.
6 6Sayre v. Newark, 60 N. J. Eq. St. 508, 33 Atl. 709.
86 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 78
has acquired no riglit to do so by grant or prescription, cannot
recover damages when compelled to relinquish such use of the
water by reason of the stream being taken at a point below his
mill under the power of eminent domain to supply a city with
water.''" But if the mill-owner has acquired such riglit by pre-
scription or otherwise, then the right must be condemned. As
the riparian owner has no right to pollute a stream, the legisla-
ture may prohibit such pollution without compensation.''^
§ 78 (66). Changing the current by works in, across
or near the channel to the injury of those below. Works of
public utility must be so constructed us not to interfere with
the accustomed flow of the stream, otherwise there is a right to
recover for any consequent damage to private property.''^ Au-
thority to bridge or cross a stream does not imply authority to
interfere with its current.''^ Where a railroad company, in
carrying its road across a stream, erected a bridge and embank-
ment in such a way as to change and increase the current of
the stream in times of high water, thereby causing damage to
the lands of a proprietor some distance below, none of whose land
was taken, it was held he could recover compensation for the
loss.^* And, generally, if a railroad company in bridging a
7 0Baltimore v. Warren Manufac- 56 S. E. 966; Gulf etc. E. R. Co. v.
turing Co., 59 Md. 96; Dwight Locker, 78 Tex. 279, 14 S. W. 611.
Printing Co. v. Boston, 122 Mass. See Bedford v. United States, 192
583. U. S. 217, 24 S. C. 238; Manigault
7iSprague v. Dorr, 185 Mass. 10, v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473, 26 S. C.
69 N. E. 344; Commonwealth v. 127.
Emmers, 221 Pa. St. 298. 7 3Rowe v. Granite Bridge Cor-
7 2Durham v. Lisbon Falls Fibre poration, 21 Pick. 344; Robinson v.
Co., 100 Me. 238, 61 Atl. 177; Eowe N. Y. & E. R. R. Co., 27 Barb. 512.
V. Granite Bridge Corp., 21 Pick. 7 4EvansvilIe & Crawfordsville E.
344; Nelson v. Miss. & Rum Riv. R. Co. v. Dick, 9 Ind. 433, 436. "A
Boom Co., 99 Minn. 484, 109 N. W. proper construction of the word tak-
1118; Bowers v. Miss. & Rum Riv. en," says the court, "makes it syn-
Boom Co., 78 Minn. 398, 81 K. W. onymous with seized, injured, de-
208, 79 Am. St Rep. 395; Ten Eyck stroyed, deprived of. It is, tliere-
V. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 18 fore, evident that the legislature
N. J. L. 200, 37 Am. Dec. 233; Rob- have no power to authorize, in any
inson v. N. Y. & E. R. R. Co., 27 case, either a, direct or conseqiien-
Barb. 512; Chapman v. City of Roch- tial injury to private property, with-
ester, 110 N. Y. 273, 18 N. E. 88, 6 out compensation to the owner."
Am. St. Rep. 366, 1 L.R.A. 296; But where the road crossed on the
Howard Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., land of the plaintiff it was held
130 Mo. 652, 32 S. W. 651 ; Sutton v. that it must be presumed that he
Catawba Power Co., 76 S. C. 320, had been compensated for all such
§ 78
WATEKS.
87
stream changes in any way the natural current of the stream
to the damage of private property, there is a right to
compensation.'^'* So where a railroad crossed a small stream
obliquely and a culvert was put in at right angles to the road,
thereby changing the course of the stream and causing it to
flow upon the plaintiff's land to his damage.'''^ The same rule
applies to a bridge built by a tovm or city as part of a highway.'' '^
It is held that one over whose land such crossing is made is en-
titled to receive compensation for all such damages as will result
from constructing the bridge or other crossing in a reasonable
and proper manner.''* If no part of one's land is taken, he
may always recover for damages occasioned by such interfer-
ence with the current of a stream, either by an assessment under
damages as would resylt from con-
structing the bridge in a reasonable
and proper manner with a view both
to the safety of passengers and the
protection of the property-holder,
and that he could only recover for
damages resulting from improper
construction as thus explained. See
also Terre Haute & Indianapolis E.
E. Co. V. McKinley, 33 Ind. 274.
"Chicago, Rock Island & P. Ky.
Co. V. MofFitt, 75 111. 524; Rock Is-
land etc. R. R. Co. V. Krapp, 74
111. App. 158; Lake Erie etc. R. R.
Co. V. Purcell, 75 111. App. 573; Union
Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dyche, 31 Kan. 120;
Estabrooka v. Peterborough etc. R.
R. Co., 12 Cush. 224; Kansas City
etc. R. R. Co. V. Lackey, 72 Miss. 881,
16 So. 909; Mobile & 0. R. R. Co.
V. Bynura (Miss), 15 So. 795; Dick-
son V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 71
Mo. 575 ; Delaware etc.. Canal Co.
^. Lee, 22 N. J. L. 243; Robinson
V. N. Y. & E. R. R. Co., 27 Barb.
512; Freeland v. Pa. R. R. Co., 197
Pa. St. 529, 47 Atl. 745, 80 Am. St.
Rep. 850, 58 L.R.A. 206; Braine v.
Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 218 Pa. St.
43, 00 Atl. 985; Matteson v. New
York Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 218 Pa.
St. 527, 67 Atl. 817; St. Louis etc.
R. R. Co. v. Craigo, 10 Tex. Civ.
App. 238, 31 S. W. 207; Eells v.
Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co., 49 W. Va.
65, 38 S. E. 479, 87 Am. St. Rep.
787. Contra: Norris v. Vermont
Central R. R. Co., 28 Vt. 99; Henry
V. Same, 30 Vt. 638.
7 6 St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Brook-
sher, 86 Ark. 91.
"Perry v. Worcester, 6 Gray 544;
Stone V. Augusta, 46 Me. 127; Bar-
ron V. Memphis, 113 Tenn. 89, 80
S. W. 832, 106 Am. St. Rep. 810.
Where road officers diverted a stream
of water on to plaintiff they were
held personally liable for the conse-
quences. Wrightsel v. FeR, 70 Ohio
St. 529.
'STerre Haute & Indianapolis R.
R. Co. V. McKinley, 33 Ind. 274;
Mississippi Central R. R. Co. v.
Mason, 51 Miss. 234; Baltimore &
Potomac R. R. Co. v. Magruder, 34
Md. 79. As to the correctness of
this position, see post, chap. xxiv.
AVhere an owner grants a right of
way over his land to a railroad,
with the right to change water-
courses, this only authorizes changes
on his own land, and he may recover
damages caused to his land by a
change made by the company on the
land of another. St Louis etc. E. E.
Co. V. Harris, 47 Ark. 340. To the
same effect, Eaton's Case, 54 N. H.
502.
88 EMI]S-ENT DOMAIJSr. § 78
the statute/^ or by a common law action.^" Damages which
result from negligent or improper construction may always be
recovered, whether there has been an assessment of damages or
not.®^ In bridging a stream, by legislative authority, a rail-
road company is only required to exercise reasonable diligence
and foresight to avoid damages by reason of extraordinary floods
and ice gorges.^ ^ Such floods are deemed an act of God, for
the consequences of which no one is liable.®* A railroad com-
pany, in crossing a small stream, diverted it into a ditch along
its track for about 300 feet and then discharged it through a
culvert upon the plaintiff's land, whence it sought the regular
channel. In times of flood, stones and gravel were deposited
upon the plaintiff's land. It was held that this amounted to
a taking of the plaintiff's property, which could not be accom-
plished without a condemnation, and that, in the absence of
such condemnation, a bill would lie to compel a restoration of
the stream to its original channel.** Changing the channel or
direction of the current, so that the stream is cast upon the
lower proprietor in a different place, or so that the current strikes
his land from a different direction, to his injury, is a taking or
actionable injury.*^ The channel of the American Eiver, a
'SEstabrooks v. Peterborough & 8 S. W. 535; and see post, § 80 note
Shirley R. E. Co., 12 Cush. 224. 3.
soDelaware & Raritan Canal Co. ssDoorman v. Ames, 12 Minn. 451.
V. Lee, 22 N. J. L. 243; Evansville 8 4 Wright v. Syracuse etc. R. R.
& Crawfordsville R. R. Co. v. Dick, Co., 49 Hun 445, 23 N. Y. St. 78,
9 Ind. 433. 3 N. Y. Supp. 480; S. C. affirmed
siSpencer v. Hartford, Providence without opinion, 124 N. Y. 668. To
& T. R. R. Co., 10 R. I. 14; Fowle the same effect. East St. Louis etc.
V. N. H. & N. R. R. Co., 112 Mass. R. R. Co. v. Eisentraut, 134 HI. 96,
334, 17 Am. Rep. 108; Kansas City 24 N. E. 760; Atchison etc. Ry. Co.
etc. R. R. Co. V. Lackey, 72 Miss. v. Jones, 110 111. App. 626; Burnett
881, 16 So. Rep. 909; Brink v. Kan- v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 76 Minn,
sas City etc. R. R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 461, 79 N. W. 523 ; George v. Wabash
177; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Klaus, Western R. R. Co., 40 Mo. App. 433;
64 Tex. 293 ; Shores v. Southern Ry. Koch v. Del. L. & W. R. R. Co., 54
Co., 72 S. C. 244, 51 S. E. 699; San N. J. L. 401, 24 Atl. 442; Fleming
Antonio etc. Ry. Co. v. Klersey, 98 v. Wilmington & W. R. R. Co., 115
Tex. 590, 86 S. W. 744; post, §§ 829, N. C. 076, 20 S. E. Rep. 714. Gom-
933. pare City of Kansas City v. Slang-
8 2Bellinger v. New York Central strom, 53 Kan. 431, 36 Pae. Rep.
R. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 42; Omaha & 706.
R. V. R. R. Co. V. Brown, 14 Neb. ssSame; also Grant v. Kugler, 81
170; S. C. 16 Neb. 161; Gulf C. & S. Ga. 637, 12 Am. St. Rep. 348, 3
F. R. R. Co. V. Pool, 70 Tex. 713, L.R.A. 606; Kay v. Kirk, 76 Md. 41,
§ 79
WATEES.
tributary of the Sacramento, was changed so as to enter the
latter river opposite the plaintiff's jjremises. During a high
flood, the force of the current was such as to wash away the
plaintiff's land and buildings, causing damage to the amount
of $28,000. It Avas held by the Supreme Court of California
that the damage was not a taking and that there was no liability
on the part of the commissioners engaged in the work or of the
city for whose benefit it was done.*"
§ 79 (66a). Embankment on one side of stream caus-
ing an increase of flood water upon the opposite side.
Where a railroad company builds an embankment on one side
of a stream, which causes an increased flow of flood waters
upon the lands situated along the opposite bank, to their dam-
age, the company will be liable.*^ Some cases, however, hold
the contrary.** A city was held not liable because a levee which
it had built caused the flood water to accumulate to a greater
depth upon the plaintiff's lots which were situated between the
24 Atl. 326; Parker v. Atkinson, 58
Kan. 29; 111. Cent. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 110 Ky. 203, 61 S. W. 2;
Powers V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co.,
158 Mo. 87, 57 S. W. 1090. And see
Briscoe v. Young, 131 N. C. 386, 42
S. E. 893; Stone v. State, 138 K. Y.
124, 33 N. E. 733; Rogers v. Coal
River B. & D. Co., 39 W. Va. 272,
19 S. E. 401. Contra: Warfel v.
Cochran, 34 Pa. St. 381; Sallicotte
V. King Bridge Co., 122 Fed. 378,
58 C. C. A. 466, 65 L.R.A. 620.
ssGreen v. Swift, 47 Cal. 536;
Hoagland v. Sacramento, 52 Cal.
142; see also a similar case in Ohio:
Railroad Co. v. Carr, 38 Ohio St.
448, 43 Am. Rep. 428; see § 115.
8 70'ConneIl v. East Tenn. V. &
G. R. R. Co., 87 Ga. 246, 13' S. E.
489, 27 Am. St. Rep. 246, 13 L.R.A.
394, which contains a valuable re-
view of cases; Barden v. City of
Portage, 79 Wis. 126, 48 N. W. 210;
Cairo etc. R. R. Co. v. Brevoort, 62
Ffd. 129; Hartshorn v. Chaddoclc,
135 N. Y. 116, 31 N. E. 997, 17 L.R.A.
426; Lawrence v. Great Northern K.
R. Co., 16 Q. B. 642. See Uhl v.
Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 56 W. Va. 494,
49 S. E. 378, 107 Am. St. Rep. 968,
68 L.R.A. 138; Richards v. Ohio
Riv. R. R. Co., 56 W. Va. 592, 49
S. E. 385; Keck v. Vanghause, 127
la. 529, 103 N. W. 773; Priest v.
Maxwell, 127 la. 744, 104 N. W.
344.
8 8Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 72 Miss. 677, 17 So. 78, 48
Am. St. Rep. 579, 27 L.R.A. 762;
Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. v. Lackey,
72 Miss. 881, 16 So. 909; Meyer v.
New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 88
N. Y. 351. In Tyron v. Baltimore
County, 28 Md. 510, it was held
there was no liability for similar
injuries caused by a wall erected by
county authorities to protect a piib-
lic road. And see De Baker v.
Southern California R. R. Co., 106
Cal. 257, 39 Pac. 610, 46 Am. St.
Rep. 237. As to whether flood wa-
ters, overflowing the banks of a
stream, are to be regarded as sur-
face water or as a, part of the
stream, see post, § 111.
90
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 80
levee and the river.^" But where a levee built by a drainage dis-
trict on one side of a stream caused a flooding and washing
of plaintiff's lands on the opposite side of the stream, which
would not otherwise have occurred, the district was held liable
as for a taking or damaging of the plaintiff's property within the.
constitution.^"
§ 80 (67). Works which set back the water and cause
a flooding of the lands above. The right to have a stream
flow as it is wont by nature,®-^ includes the right to have the
water flow off from one's premises as it is accustomed to do,
and this right is property.^^ Where works are constructed be-
low the lands of a proprietor, such as a bridge, or culvert, or
dam, or alteration of the channel, which cause the water to set
back and overflow the land of such proprietor, there is a viola-
tion of such right and, if the works are authorized by law, there
is a taking for which compensation must be made."^ Works
8 8 Hoard v. Des Moines, G2 la.
326.
soBradbury v. Vandalia Levee &
Dr. Dist., 236 111. 36.
siAnte, § 71.
9 2Trenton Water Power Co. v.
Eafif, 36 N. J. L. 335.
9 3The cases which support this
proposition are very numerous. Tlie
leading cas,es are the following:
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall.
166; Lee v. Pembroke Iron Co., 57
Me. 481, 2 Am. Eep. 59; Grand
Rapids Boom Co. v. Jarvis, 30 Mich.
308; Weaver v. Miss. etc. Boom Co.,
28 Minn. 534; S. C. 30 Minn. 477;
McKenzie v. Miss. etc. Boom Co., 29
Minn. 288 ; Trenton Water Power Co.
v. KaflF, 36 N. J. L. 335; Arimond
V. Green Bay etc. Co., 31 Wis. 316;
Same v. Same,'35 Wis. 41.
Of numerous other eases in sup-
port of the text we cite the follow-
ing: Bottoms V. Brewer, 54 Ala.
288; Lindsay v. Southern Ry. Co.,
149 Ala. 349, 43 So. 139; Martin ex
parte, 13 Ark. 198; St. Louis etc. E.
R. Co. V. Lyman, 57 Ark. 512, 22 S.
W. Rep. 170; St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co. V. Morris, 35 Ark. 622; St. Louis,
etc. Ry. Co. v. Saunders, 78 Ark.
589, 94 S. W. 709 ; St. Louis, etc. Ry.
Co. V. Saunders, 84 Ark. Ill; Davis
V. Sacramento, 59 Cal. 590; Richard-
son V. Eureka, 96 Cal. 443, 31 Pac.
458; Larrabee v. Cloverdale, 131 Cal.
96, 63 Pac. 143; Georgia etc. R. E.
Co. V. Berry, 78 Ga. 744; West-
brook v. Baldwin Co., 121 Ga. 442,
49 S. E. 286; Warner v. Maxwell,
124 Ga. 518, 52 S. E. 809; Hill v.
Ward, 2 Gil. (111.) 285; Ohio etc.
R. E. Co. V. Wachter, 123 111. 440,
5 Am. St. Eep. 532; Chicago, B. & Q.
E. R. Co. v. Schaffer, 124 111. 112,
affirming 26 111. App. 280 ; Kankakee
6 S. R. R. Co. V. I-Ioran, 131 111. 288,
23 N. E. 621; S. C. 30 III. App. 552;
Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Eamey, 139
111. 9, 28 N. E. 1087, 32 Am. St. Rep.
176; Ohio & M. E. E. Co. v. Webb,
142 111. 402, 32 N. E. 527; Ohio &
M. R. E. Co. V. Thillman, 143 111.
127, 32 N. E. 529, 36 Am. St. Eep.
359; S. C. 43 111. App. 78; Gaylord
v. Sanitary District, 204 111. 576,
68 N. E. 522, 98 Am. St. Eep. 235,
63 L.R.A. 582; Ramey v. Baltimore
etc. R. R. Co., 235 111. 502; Fenter
V. Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 29 111. App.
§ 80
WATEUS.
91
which obstruct the flow of a stream are not authorized by law,
unless the authority \inder which they are constructed, is prac-
tically incapable of execution without causing such obstruc-
250; Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Combs,
43 111. App. 119; Ohio & M. R. Co.
V. Neutzel, 43 111. App. 108; St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Winkleman,
47 111. App. 276; Ohio & M. R. R.
Co. V. Long, 52 111. App. 670; City
of Centralla v. Wright, 58 111. App.
51; City of Piclcneyville v. Huteh-
ings, 63 111. App. 137 ; City of Pick-
neyville v. Rhine, 63 111. App. 139;
Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Fcrrell,
108 111. App. 659; Illinois Cent. R.
R. Co. V. Lockwood, 112 111. App.
423; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v.
Carpenter, 125 111. App. 306; St.
Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal
Ry. Co. V. Schulz, 126 111. App. 552;
Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Stew-
art, 128 111. App. 270; Mel-
endy v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 132
111. App. 431 ; Madison v. Ross, 3
Ind. 236; Trustees of Wabash &
Erie Canal v. Spears, 16 Ind. 441 ;
Hebron Gravel Road Co. v. Harvey,
90 Ind. 192, 46 Am. Rep. 199; Terre
Haute etc. R. R. Co. v. Zahner, 1C6
Ind. 149, 76 N. E. 169, 3 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 277; Kelly v. Pittsburg etc.
R. R. Co., 28 Ind. App. 457, 63 N. E.
233, 91 Am. St. Rep. 134; Lewis Tp.
Imp. Co. V. Royer, 38 Ind. App. 151,
76 N. E. 1068; Graham v. Chicago
etc. Ry. Co., 39 Ind. App. 294, 77 N
E. 57; Noe v. Chicago, B. & Q. R
Co., 76 la. 300, 41 N. W. 42; Hough-
taling v. Chicago Gt. Western Ry
Co., 117 la. 540, 91 N. W. 811; Chi
cago etc. R. R. Co. v. Scott, 71 Kan
874, 81 Pae. 1131; Atchison etc. Ry
Co. '. Herman, 74 Kan. 77, 85 Pae
817 ; Barrett v. Bangor, 70 Me. 335
Ingram v. Me. Water Co., 98 Me
56B, 57 Atl. 893 ; Baltimore v. Merry
man, 86 Md. 584; Estabrooks v. Pet
erborough & Shirley R. R. Co., 12
Cush. 224; Lawrence v. Fairhaven, 5
Gray 110; Proctor v. Old Colony R.
R. Co., 154 Mass. 251, 28 N. E. 13;
Stinson V. Brookline, 197 Mass. 568 ;
Treat v. Bates, 27 Mich. 390; Mil-
ler V. Cornwell, 71 Mich. 270, 38 N.
W. 912; Miller v. Bank of Belleville,
148 Mich. 339, 111 N. W. 1002;
Doorman v. Ames, 12 Minn. 451 ;
Byrne v. Minn. & St. Louis R. R. Co.,
38 Minn. 212, 36 N. W. 339, 8 Am.
St. Rep. 668; Hueston v. Miss. &
Rum Riv. Boom Co., 76 Minn. 251,
79 N. W. 92; Mississippi Central R.
R. Co. V. Mason, 51 Miss. 234; Sil-
ver Creek Nav. and Imp. Co. v.
Mangum, 64 Miss. 682; Richardson
v. Levee Comrs. 77 Miss. 518, 20
So. 963; Leflore Co. v. Cannon, 81
Miss. 334, 33 So. 81; Rose v. St.
Charles, 49 Mo. 509; Barnes v. City
of Hannibal, 71 Mo. 449; Young v.
City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App. 101;
Bird V. Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co.,
30 Mo. App. 365 ; McKee v. St. Louis
etc. R. R. Co., 49 Mo. App. 174;
Standley v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co.,
121 Mo. App. 537, 97 S. W. 244;
Omaha etc. R. R. Co. v. Standen, 22
Neb. 343; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v.
Buel, 76 Neb. 420, 107 N. W. 590;
Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Ely, 77 Neb.
809, 110 N. W. 539; Fairbury Brick
Co. V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 79 Neb.
854; Eastman v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.,
44 N. H. 143, 82 Am. Dec. 201;
Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Goodale, 46
N. H. 53; Siniekson v. Johnson, 17
N. J. L. 129, 34 Am. Dec. 184; Dela-
ware etc. Canal Co. v. Lee, 22 N. J.
L. 243 ; Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cow.
165, 15 Am. Dec. 462; Rochester
White Lead Co. v. Rochester, 3 N.
Y. 463; Benedict v. State, 120 N. Y.
228, 24 N. E. 314; Emry y. Raleigh
92
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 80
tion.®* In that case the damages caused by the interference
with the natural flow of the stream are a taking, and compensa-
tion must be made according to the constitution.®^ But if such
interference can be avoided by the exercise of reasonable care
and skill, then the interference is not authorized, and the works
which cause it are a nuisance. Many of the cases already re-
ferred to in this section go upon this ground, and there are
many more of the same purport.®^ Some of the cases imply that
etc. E. R. Co., 102 N. C. 209, 9 S.
B. 139; Ridley v. Seaboard etc. R. R.
Co., 118 N. C. 996, 24 S. E. 730, 32
L.R.A. 857; Adams v. Durham & N.
R. R. Co., 110 N. C. 325, 14 S. E. 857;
Knight V. Albermarle etc. R. R. Co.,
Ill N. C. 80, 15 S. E. 929; Krause v.
Oregon Steel Co., 45 Ore. 378, 7 Pac.
883 ; Barclay R. R. & C. Co. v. Ingham,
36 Pa. St. 194; Wallace v. Colum-
bia & G. R. R. Co., 37 S. C. 335, 16
S. E. 35; Lampley v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. R. Co., 63 S. C. 462, 41 S.
E. 517; Lawton v. Seaboard Air
Line R. R. Co., 75 S. C. 82, 55 S. E.
128; Railway Co. v. Higdon, 111
Tenn. 121, 76 S. W. 895; Gulf etc.
R. R. Co. V. Locker, 78 Tex. 279, 14
S. W. 611; Gulf etc. R. R. Co. v.
Hepner, 83 Tex. 136, 18 S. W. 441;
Dallas & W. R. R. Co. v. Kinnard
(Tex. Supm.), 18 S. W. 1062; Texas
Trunk R. R. Co. v. Elan, 1 Tex. Civ.
App. 201; Ennis v. Gilder, 32 Tex.
Civ. App. 351, 74 S. W. 585; Willey
V. Hunter, 59 Vt. 479 ; Royce v. Car-
penter, 80 Vt. 37, 66 Atl. 888; Cloyes
V. Middlebury Elec. Co., 80 Vt. 109,
66 Atl. 1039; Atlantic etc. R. R. Co.
V. Peake, 87 Va. 130, 12 S. E. 348;
Watkinson v. McCoy, 23 Wash. 372,
63 Pac. 245; White v. Codd, 39
Wash. 14, 80 Pac. 836; Neal v. Ohio
Riv. R. R. Co., 47 W. Va. 316, 34
S. E. 914; Pickens v. Coal Riv. Boom
& T. Co., 58 W. Va. 11, 50 S. E. 872;
Arimond v. Green Bay etc. Co., 35
Wis. 41 ; Jones v. United States,
48 Wis. 385; Velte v. United States,
76 Wis. 278, 45 N. W. 119; Schmeok-
pepper v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 116
Wis. 592, 93 N. W. 533; United
States V. Lynch, 188 U. S. 445, 23
S. C. 349; Woodruff v. Mining Co.,
18 Fed. Rep. 753; King v. United
States, 59 Fed. Rep. 9; Paine Lum-
ber Co. V. United States, 55 Fed.
Rep. 854; High Bridge Lumber Co.
V. United States, 69 Fed. Rep. 320,
16 C. C. A. 460.
9 4 Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. An-
derson, 62 Neb. 456, 87 N. W. 167;
Morton v. New York, 140 N. Y.
207, 35 N. E. 490, 22 L.R.A. 241;
Mundy v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
75 Hun, 479, 27 N. Y. Supp. 469;
and many of the cases cited in last
note.
9 6 Cases cited in note 88.
9 6In addition to the cases cited
in the last section, the following are
more especially based upon negli-
gence: Southern Ry. Co. v. Plott,
131 Ala. 312, 31 So. 33; Southern
Ry. Co. V. Leard, 146 Ala. 349, 39
So. 449; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v.
Hoshall, 82 Ark. 387, 102 S. W. 207 ;
Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Bohler, 98
Ga. 184; St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v.
Brown, 34 III. App. 552; Peoria etc.
R. R. Co. V. Barton, 38 111. App. 469;
Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Willi, 53
HI. App. 603 ; Cleveland etc. Ry. Co.
V. Wisehart, 162 Ind. 208, 67 N. E.
993; Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. v.
Kline, 29 Ind. App. 390, 63 N. E.
483; Vyse v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
126 la. 90, 101 N. W. 736; Kansas
City V. Slangstran, 53 Kan. 431, 36
Pac. 706; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v.
§ 80
WATEES.
93
if reasonable care and skill have been exercised to avoid injury
to neighboring proprietors, there is no liability, although the
flow of the stream is obstructed to their damage."^ But we
apprehend that the question of care and skill is one which
affects the remedy only and not the liability. If the works are
constructed with due care and skill they are not a nuisance,
and the only remedy is one for compensation, and the damages
must be recovered once for all.^^ If otherwise, then the works
may be prevented by injunction,®® or abated as a nuisance,-^ and
successive actions may be brought as damages are sustained.^
Webster, 3 Kan. App. 166, 42 Pac.
Rep. 845; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co.
V. Wilbourn, 74 Miss. 284; Abbott
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 83
Mo. 271, 53 Am. Rep. 581; Culver v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 38 Mo. App.
130; Barnett v. St. Francis Levee
Dist., 125 Mo. App. 61, 102 S. W.
583; McCleneghan v. Omaha etc. R.
R. Co., 25 Neb. 523, 41 N. W. 350,
13 Am. St. Rep. 508 ; Omaha etc. R.
R. Co. V. Brown, 29 Neb. 492, 46 N.
W. 39; Omaha etc. R. R. Co. v.
Standen, 29 Neb. 622, 46 N. W. 46;
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Anderson,
62 Neb. 456, 87 N. W. 167; Chicago
etc. R. R. Co. V. Mitchell, 74 Neb.
563, 104 N. W. 1144; Orvis v. El-
mira etc. R. R. Co., 17 App. JJiv.
N. Y. 187; Mundy v. Newf York etc.
R. R. Co., 75 Hun 479, 27 N. Y.
Supp. 469; Higgins v. New Yorlc
etc. R. R. Co., 78 Hun 567, 29 N. Y.
Supp. 563 ; Corwin v. Erie R. R. Co.,
84 App. Div. 556, 82 N. Y. S. 753;
S. C. affirmed, 178 N. Y. 590, 70 N.
E. 1097 ; Knight v. Albemarle etc. R.
R. Co., 110 N. C. 58, 14 S. E. 650;
Price V. Oregon R. R. Co., 47 Ore.
350, 83 Pac. 843; Krug v. Borough
of St. Mary's, 152 Pa. St. 37, 25
Atl. 161, 34 Am. St. Rep. 616; Mil-
ler V. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 29
Pa. Supr. Ct. 515; Wallace v. Co-
lumbia etc. R. R. Co., 34 S. C. 62,
12 S. E. 815; Sabine etc. R. R. Co.
V. Broussard, 75 Tex. 597, 12 S. W.
1126; Taylor v. B. & 0. R. R. Co.,
33 W. Va. 39, 10 S. E. 29; Uhl v.
Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 56 W. Va. 494,
49 S. E. 378, 107 Am. St. Rep. 968,
68 L.R.A. 138; Richards v. Ohio
Riv. R. R. Co., 56 W. Va. 592, 49
S. E. 385; Hodge v. Lehigh Val. R.
R. Co., 58 Fed. 195; Philadelphia
etc. R. R. Co. V. Smith, 64 Fed. 679,
12 C. C. A. 384, 27 L.R.A. 131;
Moison V. Great Western R. R. Co.,
14 U. C. Q. B. 109.
9 '/See especially St. Louis etc. R.
R. Co. V. Morris, 35 Ark. 622; Geor-
gia R. & B. Co. V. Bohler, 98 Ga.
184; Kansas City v. Slangatrom, 53
Kan. 431, 36 Pac. 706; Illinois Cen-
tral R. R. Co. V. Wilbourn, 74 Miss.
284; Cleneghan v. Omaha etc. R. R.
Co., 25 Neb. 531, 41 N. W. 350;
Braine v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co.,
218 Pa. St. 43, 66 Atl. 985; Wallace
V. Columbia etc. R. R. Co., 34 S. C.
62, 12 S. E. 815.
ssOhio etc. R. R. Co. v. Wach-
ter, 123 111. 440, 5 Am. St. Rep. 532 ;
City of Centralia v. Wright, 58 111.
App. 51 ; Melandy v. Chicago etc.
Ry. Co., 132 111. App. 431; Bird v.
Hannibal etc. R. R. Co., 30 Mo. App.
365.
9 9Lake Erie & W. R. R. Co. v.
Young, 135 Ind. 426, 35 N. E. 177, 41
Am. St. Rep. 430.
iMiller v. Cornwell, 71 Mich. 270,
38 N. W. 912.
20hio etc. R. R. Co. v. Thillman,
94
EMINEITT DOMAIN.
§ 80
The practical outcome of the cases is that a work which inter-
feres with the flow of a stream, either at its ordinary height or
in case of such floods as are to be anticipated, is negligently con-
structed, and the only exemption from liability is in those
cases where the damage is caused by a flood of such an extra-
ordinary and unprecedented character as to amount to an act
of God.*
In the case of damages by flooding, it is immaterial whether
the flooding is continuous and .permanent or only occasional.
Where the works of a boom company cause lands to be occa-
sionally flooded and obstructed by stranded logs, there is a tak-
ing to the extent of the injury.* It has been held in New York
and Ohio that merely raising the water in the channel of a
stream without producing any actual injury affords no ground
of action,* but a contrary view is taken by the Supreme Court
143 111. 127, 32 N. E. 529, 36 Am. St.
Eep. 359; St. Louis etc. E. R. Co. v.
Brown, 34 111. App. 552; Chicago
& A. K. E. Co. V. Willi, 53 111. App.
603; Melendy v. Chicago etc. R. E.
Co., 132 111. App. 431; Byrne v.
Minn. & St. L. R. E. Co., 38 Minn.
212, 36 N. W. 339, 8 Am. St. Eep.
668; Adams v. Durham etc. E. E.
Co., 110 N. C. 325, 14 S. E. 857;
Lawton v. Seaboard Air Line E. E.
Co., 75 S. C. 82, 55 S. E. 128; Pick-
ens V. Coal Eiv. Boom & T. Co., 58
W. Va. 11, 50 S. E. 872; and see post,
§§ 938-948.
^Alabama Great Southern E. E.
Co. V. Shahan, 116 Ala. 302, 22 So.
509; Ohio etc. R. E. Co. v. Ramey,
139 111. 9, 28 N. E. 1087; Ohio etc.
E. E. Co. V. Webb, 142 111. 402, 32
N. E. 527, 32 Am. St. Rep. 176 ; Ohio
etc. R. R. Co. V. Thillman, 143 111.
127, 32 N. B. 529; S. C. 43 111. App.
78 ; Madison v Ross, 3 Ind 236 ; New
York etc. R. R. Co. v. Hamlet Hay
Co., 149 Ind. 344; St. Louis etc. R.
E. Co. V. Sullivan, 7 Kan. App. 527 ;
Lawler v. Baring Boom Co., 50 Me.
443; PenlQy v. Me. Cent. E. E. Co.,
92 Me. 59, 42 Atl. 233; Doorman v.
Ames, 12 Minn. 451; Kenney v. Kan-
sas City etc. R. R. Co., 74 Mo. App.
301; Omaha & R. V. R. R. Co. v.
Brown, 14 Neb. 170; Chicago etc. R.
R. Co. T. Emmert, 53 Neb. 237, 73
N. W. 540, 68 Am. St. Eep. 602;
Chicago etc. Ey. Co. v. Buel, 76
Neb. 420, 107 N. W. 590; Bellinger
V. New York Central R. R. Co., 23
N. Y. 42; Higgins v. New York etc.
R. E. Co., 78 Hun 567, 29 N. Y.
Supp. 563 ; Mundy v. New York etc.
R. R. Co., 75 Hun 479, 27 N. Y.
Supp. 469 ; Ridley v. Seaboard etc.
R. E. Co., 124 N. C. 34; Tonnes v.
Augusta, 52 S. C. 396, 29 S. E. 851 ;
Gulf etc. E. R. Co. v. Pomeroy, 67
Tex. 498; Am. Locomotive Co. v.
Hoffman, 105 Va. 343, 54 S. E. 25,
6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 252; Taylor v. B. &
O. R. R. Co., 33 W. Va. 39, 10
S. E. 29 ; Burehardt v. Wausau Boom
Co., 54 Wis. 107.
^Weaver v. Mississippi & Rum
River Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534; S. C.
30 Minn. 477; McKenzie v. Same,
29 Minn. 288.
6 Cooper V. Hall, 5 Ohio 320; Peo-
ple V. Canal Appraisers, 13 Wend.
355. But this is certainly the vio-
lation of a right and should entitle
the upper proprietor to nominal
§ 81
"WATEES.
95
of North Carolina,® and "Virginia ; ' but if damage results, as
by rendering abxitting land wet and soggy, an action will lie ; ®
so if the water is set back upon a mill.* Where a city or rail-
road company undertakes to make a new channel for a creek,
it interferes with the stream at its peril, and if, by reason of the
insufficiency of the new channel, lands are flooded, it will be
liable.-" A lake had its outlet through a bed of porous gravel,
which outlet was obstructed by a gravel-road company, causing
the lake to rise and flood the plaintiff's land. The company
was held liable. ^^ Where one has a right to maintain a dam
at a certain height, he will not be liable for additional flooding
caused by repairing the dam and making it tight. ^^
§ 81 (67a). Bridges — authority to construct — dam-
ages thereby — interfering with navigation. Congress has
paramount authority over interstate commerce and over the
ways and means of transportation for such commerce.-'^ It
may, therefore, control rivers navigable for such commerce and
damages. Canal Appraisers v. Peo-
ple, 17 Wend. 603.
6Little V. Stanbank, 63 N. C. 285.
See ante, § 75.
'Rankin v. Harrisburg, 104 Va.
524, 52 S. E. 555, 113 Am. St. Rep.
1050, 3 L.R.A.(lSr.S.) 919.
sAthens Mfg. Co. v. Rucker, 80
Ga. 292; Westbrook v. Baldwin Co.,
121 Ga. 442, 49 S. E. 286.
9 Gibson v. Fisher, 68 la. 29; Tren-
ton Water Power Co. v. Raff, 36 N.
J. L. 335 ; Barclay R. R. & Coal Co.
V. Ingham, 36 Pa. St. 194; Tinsman
V. Belvidere Del. R. R. Co., 26 N. J.
L. 148; Lee v. Pembroke Iron Co.,
57 Me. 481, 2 Am. Rep. 59; Heath
V. Williams, 25 Me. 209, 43 Am.
Dec. 265; Riddle's Exrs. v. Dela-
ware County, 156 Pa. St. 643, 27
Atl. 569; Rosser v. Randolph, 7 Por-
ter 238, 31 Am. Dec. 712.
lost. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Mor-
ris, 35 Ark. 622; Kankakee etc. R.
R. Co. V. Horan, 30 111. App. 552;
affirmed 131 111. 288, 23 N. E. 621;
Barnes v. Hannibal, 71 Mo. 449;
Bird V. Hannibal etc. R. R, Co., 30
Mo. App. 365; Adams v. Durham
& R. Co., 110 N. C. 325, 14 S. E.
857.
11 Hebron Gravel Road Co. v. Har-
vey, 90 Ind. 192, 46 Am. Rep. 199.
To same effect, Troe v. Larson, 84
la. 649, 51 N. W. 179, 35 Am. St.
Rep. 336; Roberts v. Rust, 104 Wis.
619, 80 N. W. 914.
i2Cowell V. Thayer, 5 Met. 253, 38
Am. Dec. 400 ; Jackson v. Harring-
ton, 2 Allen, 242. But where there
is a, prescriptive right to flood cer-
tain land, and a new dam, tighter
but not higher, causes additional
flooding and saturating, there is a
liability. Powell v. Lash, 64 N. C.
456. Where a person has a right to
maintain a dam at u, certain height,
it is no ground of complaint tliat,
because of non use of mill, the water
stands higher than it otherwise
would. Daniels v. Citizens Savings
Institution, 127 Mass. 534.
13 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Min-
. nesota, 134 U. S. 418, 10 S. C. Rep.
462, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 564
and note.
96
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 81
authorize bridges in aid thereof.-^* The States may authorize
bridges over navigable streams wholly within their limits, sub-
ject to the power of congress to regulate and control the same.^*^
A bridge between two States can only be authorized by congress
or by the concurrence of both States. -^^ The subject of damages
to private property by bridges has been considered in the pre-
ceding sections. The question of authority does not fall with-
in the province of this treatise, but in case of damage to prop-
erty would be important as affecting the remedy. -^^ The inter-
ference with navigation by an authorized bridge affords no cause
of action to those who are merely inconvenienced thereby.-'*
If the bridge is unauthorized, or if the interference is due to
the bridge being negligently or improperly constructed or man-
aged, it is otherwise. •'^* But where the bridge interferes with
access to property there is a remedy.^" And in Michigan it
has been held that a riparian owner may enjoin the erection of
KLuxton V. North River Bridge
Co., 153 U. S. 525, 14 S. C. Rep.
891; Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R.
R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 9.
isWillson V. Blackbird Creek
Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245; Oilman v.
Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713; Willam-
ette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125
U. S. 1, 8 S. C. 811; Chicago v.
McGinn, 51 111. 266, 2 Am. Rep. 295 ;
State V. Leighton, 83 Me. 419, 22
Atl. 380; Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co. V. Wiggal, 82 Miss. 223, 32 So.
965, 61 L.R.A. 578; Dover v. Ports-
mouth Bridge, 17 N. H. 200; People
V. Jessup, 160 N. Y. 249; reversing
28 App. Div. 524; Clark v. Birming-
ham etc. Co., 41 Pa. St. 147; Mo-
nongahela Bridge Co. v. Kirk, 46 Pa.
St. 112, 84 Am. Dec. 527; Railroad
Co. V. Ferguson, 105 Tenn. 552, 59
S. W. 343, 80 Am. St. Rep. 908;
Rhea v. Newport etc. R. R. Co., 50
Fed. 16; Oregon City Trans. Co. v.
Columbia St. Bridge Co., 53 Fed.
549.
IS President v. Trenton City
Bridge Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 46.
i^One whose property will be dam-
aged thereby may enjoin the erec-
tion of an unauthorized bridge. Rid-
dle V. Del. Co. Comrs., 3 Pa. Co. Ct.,
598, 600, 605; and see Stofflet v. Es-
tes, 104 Mich. 208, 62 N. W. 347.
isPeusacola etc. R. R. Co. v. Hy-
er, 32 Fla. 539, 14 So. 381, 22 L.R.A.
368; Thomas v. Wade, 48 Fla. 311,
37 So. 743; State v. Leighton, 83
Me. 419, 22 Atl. 380; Commonwealth
v. Breed, 4 Pick. 460; Silver v. Mo.
Pac. R. R. Co., 101 Mo. 79, 13 S. W.
410; Clarke v. Birmingham etc. R.
R. Co., 41 Pa. St. 147 ; Monongahela
Bridge Co. v. Kirk, 46 Pa. St. 112,
84 Am. Dec. 527 ; Cantwell v. Knox-
ville etc. R. R. Co., 90 Tenn. 638, 18
S. W. 271; Railroad Co. v. Fergu-
son, 105 Tenn. 552, 59 S. W. 343, 80
Am. St. Rep. 908.
isOregon City Trans. Co. v. Co-
lumbia St. Bridge Co., 53 Fed. 549;
Central R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania
R. R. Co., 59 Fed. 192, 8 C. C. A. 86;
Farmers' Co-op. Mfg. Co. v. Albe-
marle etc. R. R. Co., 117 N. C. 579,
23 S. E. 43, 29 L.R.A. 700; Delaware
etc. R. Co. V. Mehrhof Bros. Mfg.
Co., 53 N. J. L. 205, 23 Atl. 170.
20Post, § 102.
§ 83 WATERS. 97
a bridge without a draw, which will prevent navigation between
his mill and a railroad station, although the bridge would not
interfere with access to his property from the navigable water.^^
It has been held that authority to bridge a navigable stream, is
not authority to construct a bridge without a draw or so as
to obstruct navigation.^^
§ 82 (68). Making a private stream public, or navi-
gable, by statute. As we have already stated, streams which
are not navigable are wholly private property. The riparian
owner, by means of dams, or otherwise, may make a reasonable
use of the water as it flows over his land. An act of the legis-
lature declaring such a river public, or navigable, will not affect
such rights,^^ and the riparian owner cannot be deprived of the
use of the water,^* or his private rights or works on the stream
interfered with without compensation.^^ Compensation must
be made for all damages occasioned to private rights by improve-
ments making such a stream navigable in f act.^^
§ 83 (69). Rights of riparian owners on private navi-
gable streams. Private atreams which are navigable are pub-
lic highways by water, and the rights of riparian proprietors
thereon are subject to the paramount right of the public to use
and improve the stream as such highway.^^ In all other respects
riparian owners have the same rights as upon private, non-
21 stofflet V. Estes, 104 Mich. 208, De Camp v. Thompson, 16 App. Div.
62 N. W. 347. N. Y. 528.
22tMlver Creek Nav. & Imp. Co. v. 26Macdonnell v. Caledonia Canal
Yazoo etc. R. E. Co., 90 Miss. 345, Commisaioners, 8 Shaw & Dunl. 881 ;
43 So. 478; Hiekok v. Hine, 23 Ohio White Deer Creek Improvement Co.
St. 523, 13 Am. Rep. 255; Southern v. Sassaman, 67 Pa. St. 415; De
R. R. Co. V. Ferguson, 105 Tenn. 552, Camp v. Dix, 159 N. Y. 436, 54 N. E.
59 S. W. 343, 80 Am. St. Rep. 908. 63; Brewster v. Rogers Co., 42 N. Y.
23PotIatch Lumber Co. v. Peter- App. Div. 343. See post, § 107.
son, 12 Ida. 769, 88 Pao. 426, 118 Am. 27Attorney General v. Delaware
St. Rep. 233 ; Murray v. Preston, etc. R. R. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 1 ; S. C.
106 Ky. 561, 50 S. W. 1095, 90 Am. affirmed, 27 N. J. Eq. 631 ; Brown v.
St. Rep. 232. See Darning v. Cleve- Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9, 50 Am. Dec.
land, 22 Ohio C. C. 1. An act de- 641; Treat v. Lord, 42 Me. 552, 66
daring a stream navigable and pro- Am. Dec. 447; Dwinel v. Veazie, 44
viding for compensation to riparian Me. 167, 69 Am. Dec. 94; Beidler
owners is valid. Matter of Wilder, v. Sanitary District, 211 111. 028,
90 App. Div. 262, 85 N. Y. S. 741. 71 N. E. 1118, 67 L.R.A. 820; West
2 4Walker v. Board of Public Chicago St. R. R. Co. v. People, 214
Works, 16 Ohio 540. 111. 9, 73 N. E. 393. The right of
2 5Morgan v. King, 35 N. Y. 454, navigation confers no right to use
91 Am. Dec. 58; S. C. 18 Barb. 277; the banks of the stream. Garth L.
Em. D.— 7.
98 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 83
navigable streams, and the further right of making use of the
navigable vsraters in connection with their property, including
the right to build piers, booms and the like.^" "The public
right is one of passage, and nothing more ; as in a common high-
way. It is called by the cases an easement and the proprietor
of the adjoining land has a right to use the land and water
of the river in any way not inconsistent with this easement." ^^
The Court of Appeals of New York, in a recent opinion, speak-
ing of this easement, says : "It is an elementary principle that
all easements are limited to the very purpose for which they
were created, and their enjoyment cannot be extended by impli-
cation. This right, being founded upon the public benefit sup-
posed to be derived from their use as a highway, cannot be
extended to a different purpose inconsistent with its original
use." ^" And again in another case : "The legislature, except
under the power of eminent domain, upon making compensa-
tion, can interfere with such streams only for the purpose of
regulating, preserving and protecting the public easement. Fur-
ther than that, it has no more power over these fresh-water
streams than over other private property. It may make laws
for regulating booms, dams, ferries and bridges, only so far as
is necessary to protect and preserve the public easement ; and
when it goes further, it invades private rights protected under
the constitution." ^^ These conclusions, so -well put by the 'Sew
York court, state fully and correctly the rights of riparian own-
ers upon private navigable streams, and the limitations to which
they are subject, and are fully sustained by the authorities.^^
These limitations necessarily prevent any structure on the bed
or banks of the stream which interferes with navigation, such
& S. Co. V. Johnson, 151 Mieh. 205, 3 0 Smith v. Rochester, 92 N. Y.
115 N. W. 52; Watkins t. Dorris, 24 463, 483, 44 Am. Rep. 393.
Wash. 636, 64 Pac. 840, 54 L.R.A. 31 Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige,
199; Lownsdale v. Grays Harbor 83 N. Y. 178, 185, 38 Am. Rep. 407.
Boom Co., 36 Wash. 198, 78 Pac. 3 2Hool{er v. Cummings, 20 Johns.
904. See Ala. Lumber Co. v. Keel, 90, 99, 11 Am. Dec. 249; State of
125 Ala. 603, 28 So. 204, 82 Am. St. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont
Rep. 265. Bridge Co., 18 How. 421; Canal Cora-
^sPost, §§ 94-100. missioners v. Kempshall, 26 Wend.
29Ex parte Jennings, 6 Cow. 518, 404.
527, 16 Am. Dec. 447.
§ 85 WATERS. 99
as a dam,^* or boom,^^ and all such structures are nuisances and
may be abated. ^^
§ 84 (70). An interference with such rights is a taking.
Such being the rights of the riparian owner upon a private navi-
gable stream, it follows that any interference with these rights,
under legislative sanction, for any purpose not connected with
the navigation of the stream, is a taking.^^ The water cannot
be taken as a feeder for a canal,^^ or to supply a town with
water,^^ or for any public purpose without compensation. Any
interference with the accustomed flow of the stream, in its quan-
tity, quality or uniformity, to the damage of a riparian proprie-
tor, except for the improvement of navigation, will be action-
able, and the authorities heretofore referred to in treating of
non-navigable streams apply with full force. A statute making
it unlawful to drive piles, or build piers, cribs or other structures
in the bed of a private navigable river, without regard to whether
the same obstruct navigation, was held invalid, as depriving
the riparian owners of their property without compensation and
without due process of law.^^
§ 85 (71). Damages by reason of improving naviga-
tion. The public easement in a private navigable stream in-
cludes not only the right to use, but also the right to improve.
The public may make such changes and construct such works
in the bed of the stream, as may be deemed necessary to promote
its usefulness and efficiency as a highway.*" If such improve-
ssWisconsin River Improvement 39City of Janesville v. Carpen-
Co. V. Lyons, 30 Wis. 61; Woodward ter, 77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W. 128.
.. Kilbourn Mfg. Co., 1 Abb. U. S. ^oSpring v. Russell, 7 Me. 273
C. 158. Scranton v. Wheeler, 113 Mich. 565,
34Warner v. Ford L. & M. Co., 123 71 N. W. 1091, 67 Am. St. Rep. 484
Ky. 103, 93 S. W. 650; Stevens Point Osborne v. Knife Falls Boom Corp
Boom Co. V. Reilly, 44 Wis. 295; 32 Minn. 412, 50 Am. Rep. 500
S. C. 46 Wis. 237. Doucette v. Little Falls Imp. & Nav,
35Atlee V. Packet Co., 21 Wall. Co., 71 Minn. 206, 73 N. W. 847
389. Slingerland v. International Con
ssBeidler v. Sanitary District, 211 tracting Co., 169 N. Y. 60, 62 N. E
111. 628, 71 N. E. 1118, 67 L.R.A. 1097, 56 L.R.A. 494, affirming S. C
820; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 43 App. Div. 215, 60 N. Y. S. 12
83 N. Y. 178, 185, 44 Am. Hep. 393. Falls Mfg. Co. v. Oconto Riv. Imp
3 7Ex parte Jennings, 6 Cow. 518; Co., 87 Wis. 134, 58 N. W. Rep. 257
Canal Commissioners v. Kempshall, Scranton v. Wheeler, 57 Fed. Rep
26 Wend. 404. 803, 6 C. C. A. 585 ; Gibson v. Unit
ssSmith V. Rochester, 92 N. Y. ed States, 166 U. S. 269, 17 S. C.
463, 38 Am. Rep. 407. Rep. 578 ; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179
100
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 85
ments change the current of the stream so as to wash away the
land of a proprietor, it is damnum absque injuria.*^ The ri-
parian owner, in such case, must protect his bank. But, if
such works cause private property to be overflowed, compensa-
tion must be made.*^ The banks of the stream and land adjoin-
ing, being private property, cannot be occupied without com-
pensation.*^ It has been held in Wisconsin that a side chute,
or subsidiary channel, though forming a navigable connection
with the main stream, may be dosed for the purpose of turning
all the water into the principal channel, and that a proprietor
upon the former, who is thus cut off from all access to the river,
is not entitled to compensation.** The Supreme Court of Mis-
sissippi has gone so far as to hold that a stream may be turned
into an entirely new channel without compensation to those
whose use of it is thus destroyed.*^ The latter decision seems
to us erroneous. The public right is a right of passage only, in-
cluding the right to improve the navigation. It is necessarily
limited to the bed of the stream.** So far as the water is con-
cerned, it can only use it for navigation; it cannot take it or
divert it.*^ The public easement includes the right to make
U. S. 141, 21 S. C. 48; Bedford v.
United States, 192 U. S. 217, 24 S.
C. 238 ; and cases cited in succeed-
ing notes. In Thompson v. Andro-
scoggin Riv. Impv. Co., 58 N. H.
108, it is held tliat the right of the
public is one of reasonable use and to
make reasonable improvements in
aid of that use, and that, for dam-
ages resulting from unreasonable im-
provements, a recovery may be had.
^iHolIister v. Union Co., 9 Conn.
436, 25 Am. Dec. 38 ; Brooks v. Cedar
Brook Impv. Co., 82 Me. 17, 19 Atl.
87, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459, 7 L.R.A.
460; Bedford v. United States, 192
U. S. 217, 24 S. C. 238. But it is
held that one State cannot author-
ize works for the improvement of
navigation which will produce dam-
age, either direct or consequential, to
lands in another State. Holyoke
Water Power Co. v. Connecticut Riv-
er Co., 22 Blatch. 131; S. C. 52
Conn. 570.
4 2Arimond v. Green Bay & Mis-
sissippi Canal Co., 31 Wis. 316; Pum-
pelly V. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166;
United States v. Lynch, 188 U. S.
445, 23 S. C. 349; Grand Rapids
Boom Co. V. Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308;
Carpenter v. Board of Comrs., 56
Minn. 513, 58 N. W. 295; see also
ante, § 80.
4 s Same; Cotton v. Mississippi &
Rum River Boom Co., 19 Minn. 497;
Perry v. Wilson, 7 Mass. 393.
4 4Black River Improvement Co. v.
La Crosse Booming & Trans. Co., 54
Wis. 659.
4 6 Commissioners of Homochitto
River v. Withers, 29 Miss. 21, 64
Am. Dec. 126. This case was taken
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, but there dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. Withers v. Buck-
ley, 20 How. 84.
•46Weaver v. Miss. & Rum River
Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534, 538.
< TSee cases cited ante, § 74.
§ 85 WATERS. 101
any use of the water or bed of the stream, for promoting the
navigation of the stream itself, which the legislature deems
expedient. But the public right is one of passage only, and
improvements can be made only for that purpose. While these
general principles are admitted by all, there is much diversity
in their application. It has recently been held in Wisconsin
that it was competent to confer upon a corporation the exclu-
sive right of constructing and operating booms for a certain dis-
tance on the Wisconsin River, where the result was not only to
deprive the riparian owner of the right or privilege of con-
structing a boom opposite his own bank, but also to cut him
off from the navigable part of the river.*^ Plaintiff had about
two thousand feet of frontage on the river and was owner of tim-
ber lands above. The channel was about two hundred feet from
shore. He had bought the property for the purpose of erecting
saw mills thereon and with a view to constructing in front
thereof booms for storing logs. The defendant company con-
structed a boom along the whole front of his land, extending
from near the shore to the channel. The maintenance of the
defendant's works would virtually ruin his property. The court
held the defendant's works to be a legitimate exercise of the
public easement of navigation, that no property of the plaintiff's
was taken, and that he was not entitled to any relief. Undoubt-
edly a boom in such a stream is a work of public utility for which
property may be taken.*" But the construction of a boom for
the storing, sorting and handling of logs can hardly be called
an improvement of the right of passage in a stream. It is a
legitimate use of highways to drive cattle along them, and the
public may make the ways safe and convenient for that purpose ;
but it would not be contended that this would justify the con-
struction of cattle yards in front of a man's door to enable the
drover to feed, water, rest or sell his stock.^° The right of access
<8Cohn V. Wausau Boom Co., 47 vessels, or floatable for logs, is but
Wis. 314. a. public highway by water; the
4SCotton V. Mississippi & Rum right to navigate the one or float
River Boom Co., 22 Minn. 372; post, the other is but a right of passage,
§ 274. including only such rights as are in-
6 0 We wish to credit this illustra- cident to that right and necessary to
tion, which is a very apt one, to its render it reasonably available. And
proper source. In Grand Rapids though the drover has the right to
Booming Co. v. Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308, drive his herds of cattle along a
319, Christiancy, J., says : "This public road, no one will contend that
river, so far as it is navigable for he has a right to convert a, certain
102 EMINEJN^T DOMAIN. § 85
to the navigable part of the river ^-^ and the right to constinact
booms for logs adjacent to one's premises,®^ which do not inter-
fere with the public use of the stream, are valuable riparian
rights which cannot be taken or impaired without compensa-
tion.^^ A lighthouse, being in aid of navigation, may be built
in the bed of the stream without compensation to the riparian
owner.^* A dike built in aid of navigation so changed the cur-
rent as to prevent access to the plaintiff's wharf below, except
in high water. It was held that there was no taking and no
liability.^^ Where the riparian owner's title extends to the
middle of the stream, the appurtenances of a bridge cannot be
placed in the bed of the stream without compensation.^* Where
the riparian owner has built a tunnel under the Chicago river
by permission of the city, he may be compelled to lower it at
his own expense, when it has become an obstruction to naviga-
tion.^'' The improvement of navigation to which riparian rights
on a stream are subject relates solely to the improvement of the
stream itself as a natural highway by water, and when such
rights are impaired by the construction of an artificial channel,
connecting such stream with another stream and designed to
reverse the current of the former, there is a right to compensa-
tion.^® Where the plaintiff had a rice plantation upon a fresh
water stream which had its outlet through a lake and bayou to
the sea and by the improvement of navigation in the lower
waters the stream was made salt and its value destroyed for the
length of the highway into a cattle 310, 30 N. Y. Supp. 92; Bigaouetto
yard, and occupy it for that pur- r. North Shore K. R. Co., 17 Duvall
pose for months or weeks, or even a 363 ; post, §§ 94^100.
day, while he is purchasing, collect- B2Wiliamsburg Boom Co. v. Smith,
ing and bringing in his droves, as- 84 Ky. 372.
sorting, dividing or selling them. ^^Post, § 101 et seq.
* * * Every man sees at once 5 4Hawkins Point Light House
that, however convenient such right Case, 39 Fed. 77. To same effect,
might be to the drover, and however Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141,
necessary to enable him to make his 21 S. C. 48.
business profitable, it is a eonven- ssQibson v. United States, 166 U.
ience and necessity for which he S. 2G9, 17 S. C. 578.
must pay." seBallance v. Peoria, 180 111. 29.
5iRumsey v. New York etc. R. R. 5 7 West Chicago St. R. R. Co. v.
Co., 133 N. Y. 79, 30 N. E. 654, 28 People, 214 111. 9, 73 N. E. 393.
Am. St. Rep. 600, 15 L.R.A. 618, 6 6 sBeidler v. Sanitary District, 211
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 67; Hedges v. 111. 628, 71 N. E. 1118, 67 L.R.A. 820.
West Shore etc. R. R. Co., 80 Hun
86
WATEES.
103
irrigation of rice lands it was held that he was entitled to com-
pensation.^^
§ 86 (72). What streams are public. At common law
all streams and waters where the tide ebbed and flowed were re-
garded as navigable, and the soil below high water mark was
held to be in the pnblic. All other waters were regarded as pri-
vate property.®" In this country, with its great inland lakes and
rivers, there has been some tendency to depart from the com-
mon law doctrine, but no definite rule has been enunciated by
any State by which it can be determined in any given case
whether the title to the bed of a stream is in the public or the
riparian owners. The Supreme Court of the United States,
after originally confining admiralty jurisdiction to tide waters,
in accordance with the common law of England,®^ at length
overcame the force of English precedent and extended that juris-
diction to all waters navigable in fact for purposes of commerce,
without regard to the ebbing and flowing of the tide ; ®^ and
even where the river was only rendered navigable for boats of
any size by means of locks and canals, as in the case of the Fox
Eiver, Wisconsin.®^ Most of the States have adhered to the
common law rule. Of these are Connecticut,®* Illinois,®^ Indi-
ana,®® Kentucky,®^ Maine,®^ Maryland,®^ Massachusetts,''® Mich-
BSBigham Bros. v. Port Arthur C
& D. Co., 100 Tex. 192, 97 S. W. 680,
6 0De Juris Maris, Part I, C. 2
Angell on Watercourses, §§ 542-551
Wood on Nuisances, {1st ed.) § 575
Gould on Waters, chap. iii. ; 1 Fam
ham on Waters, §§ 36-55.
eiThe Thomas Jeflferson, 10 Wheat.
428; The Steamboat New Orleans
V. Phoebus, 11 Peters, 175.
6 2The Propeller Genesee Chief, 12
How. 43; The Magnolia, 20 How.
296; A. 0. Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 455.
63The Montello, 20 Wall. 430.
6 4 Adams \. Pease, 2 Conn. 481;
Chapman v. Kimball, 9 Conn. 38, 21
Am. Dec. 707; East Haven v. Hem-
ingway, 7 Conn. 188; Middleton v.
Sage, 8 Conn. 221.
ssMiddletown v. Pritehard, 3
Scam. 510; People v. St. Louis, 5
Gil. 351; Seaman v. Smith, 24 111.
523; Hubbard v. Bell, 54 111. 112,
5 Am. Rep. 98; Braxton v. Bressler,
64 111. 488.
66Cox V. State, 3 Blackf. 193; Por-
ter V. Allen, 8 Ind. 1, 65 Am. Dec.
750; Sherlock v. Bainbridge, 41 Ind.
35, 41, 13 Am. Rep. 302; Ross v.
Faust, 54 Ind. 471, 23 Am. Rep. 655.
6 'Williamsburg Boom Co. v.
Smith, 84 Ky. 372.
ssBerry v. Carle, 3 Greenl. 269;
Lapish V. Bangor Bank, 8 Greenl.
85; Springer v. Russell, 7 Me. 273;
Simpson v. Seavy, 8 Me. 138, 22
Am. Dec. 228; Wadsworth v. Smith,
11 Me. 278, 26 Am. Dec. 525; Brown
V. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9, 50 Am.
Dec. 641; Knox v. Chaloner, 42 Me.
150; Granger v. Avery, 64 Me. 292.
6 9 Brown v. Kennedy, 5 H. & J.
195.
TO Commonwealth v. Chapin, 5
Pick. 199; Gray v. Bartlett, 20 Pick.
186, 32 Am. Dec. 208.
104
EMINENT DOMAIN
86
igan/^ Mississippi,''^ ISTew Hampshire,''^ Ohio,''* Virginia,''^
and Wisconsin,''® and perhaps other States.''^ On the other hand
several of the States have held some of our large inland rivers
to- be public streams, in the fullest sense of the term. This has
always been the doctrine in Pennsylvania, which holds the title
to navigable streams to be in the public from low water mark.''*
Several decisions in Iowa in relation to the Mississippi Kiver
have held the title to the bed of the stream to be in the public
from high water mark.''® Several other States have held or in-
clined to similar views.®" The Supreme Court of the United
States, while holding that the question is one of State policy
and State law,®^ yet inclines to approve the doctrine maintained
'iLa Plaisance Ba.y Harbor Co.
V. Monroe, Walk. Ch. 155; Loi-man
V. Benson, 8 Mich. 18, 77 Am. Dec.
435; Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich.
125; Webber v. Pere Marquette Boom
Co., 62 Mich. 626, 30 N. W. 469.
7 2Morgan v. Reading, 3 S. & M.
366; Steamboat Magnolia v. Mar-
shall, 39 Miss. 109.
7 3 Scott V. Wilson, 3 N. H. 321
State V. Gilmanton, 9 N. H. 461
State V. Canterbury, 28 N. H. 195
Norway Plaines Co. v. Bradley, 52
N. H. 86.
7 4Gavit V. Chambers, 3 Ohio 495;
Lamb v. Rickets, 11 Ohio 311;
Walker v. Board of Public Works,
16 Ohio 540.
76Hays V. Bowman, 1 Rand. 417;
Mead v. Haynes, 3 Rand. 33.
7 6 Jones V. Pettibone, 2 Wis. 308;
Mariner v. Shulte, 13 Wis. 692; Ar-
nold V. Elmore, 16 Wis. 509; Olsen
v. Merrill, 42 Wis. 203.
TTSee 1 Farnham on Waters, §§ 48-
50.
7 8 Carson v. Blazer, 2 Binn. 475;
Shrunk v. Schuylkill Navigation Co.,
14 S. & R. 71; Union Canal Co. v.
Landis, 9 Watts 228; Covert v. O'-
Connor, 8 Watts 470; Barclay Road
V. Ingham, 36 Pa. St. 194, 201 ; Flan-
nagan v. Philadelphia, 42 Pa. St.
219; Fulmer v. Williams, 122 Pa.
St. 191, 15 Atl. 726, 9 Am. St. Rep.
88, 1 L.R.A. 603.
7 9McManus v. Carmichael, 3 la.
1; Haight v. Keokuk, 4 la. 199;
Tomlin v. Dubuque, B. & M. R. R.
Co., 32 la. 106, 7 Am. Rep. 176; Mus-
ser V. Hershey, 42 la. 356. in
Houghton V. C. D. & M. R. R. Co., 47
la. 370, high water mark is defined
"as co-ordinate with the limit of the
river bed. What the river does not
occupy long enough to wrest from
vegetation, so far as to destroy its
value for agriculture, is not river
bed."
8 0 Webb v. City of Demopolis, 95
Ala. 116, 13 S. E. 289, 21 L.R.A.
62; St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v.
Ramsey, 53 Ark. 314, 13 S. W. 931,
22 Am. St. Rep. 195, 8 L.R.A. 559;
Harlan & H. Co. v. Parchall, 5 Del.
Ch. 435 ; Terrell v. Paducah, 122 Ky.
331, 92 S. W. 310; Gibson v. Kelly,
15 Mont. 417, 39 Pac. 517 ; Benson v.
Morrow, 61 Mo. 345; State v. Long-
fellow, 169 Mo. 109, 69 S. W. 374;
State V. Muncie Pulp Co., 119 Tenn.
47; Ravenswood v*. Flemings, 22 W.
Va. 52, 46 Am. Rep. 485; Gates v.
Waddington, 1 McCord, 580; Schur-
mier v. Railroad Co., 10 Minn. 82,
88 Am. Dee. 59.
siBarney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324.
§ 86 WATEES. 105
by the Iowa court.*^ The decisions in JSTew York are seemingly-
conflicting, but the common law doctrine may be said to prevail,
except as to the Mohawk and Hudson. These rivers are ex-
ceptional, owing to the fact that they were originally under the
jurisdiction of the Dutch, and through them were, so to speak,
impressed with the doctrines of the civil law.^* As we have
before said, it is not within the purview of this treatise to ex-
amine these decisions and work out the true doctrine in respect
to the title to navigable streams. The subject is fully treated in
works upon Waters, where the authorities are referred to and
discussed.®* We have referred to the question here for the pur-
pose of showing how it stands. The question which concerns
us is, what consequences follow from the title to the bed of the
stream being in the public ?
The boundary line between public and private ownership
where the tide ebbs and flows is high water mark.*^ Where
the tide does not ebb and flow the boundary "is to be determined
by examining the bed and banks, and ascertaining where the
presence and action of the water are so common and usual as
to mark upon the soil of the bed a character distinct from that
of the banks in respect to vegetation as well as the nature of the
soil." *** The owner cannot extend his ownership by filling in
below high water mark.®^ The Des Moines Eiver was declared
navigable by Congress, and afterwards the act was repealed. It
was held that the title of riparian owners was not thereby ex-
tended to the thread of the stream.^®
82Railroad Co. v. Sehurmier, 7 Ark. 314, 13 S. W. 931, 22 Am. St.
Wall. 272; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 Rep. 195, 8 L.R.A. 559.
U. S. 324. It is held to be low water mark in
ssCanal Commissioners v. People, State v. Longfellow, 169 Mo. 109,
5 Wend. 423; S. C. 13 Wend. 355; 69 S. W. 374.
17 Wend. 570; Canal Appraisers v. STDiedrich v. N. W. U. R. R. Co.,
Kempshall, 26 Wend. 404; People v. 42 Wis. 248; People v. Comrs. of
Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 461; Land Office, 135 N. Y. 447, 32 N. E.
Smith V. Rochester, 92 N. Y. 463, 44 139; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Illi-
Am. Rep. 393. In the latter case nois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 S. C. 110;
prior decisions are reviewed, ex- Sweeney v. Shakespeare, 42 La. An.
plained and distinguished. 614, 7 So. 729; Commonwealth v.
84Gould on Waters, §§ 46-79; 1 Young Men's Christian Asso., 169 Pa.
Farnham on Waters, §§ 48-53b. St. 24, 32 Atl. 121 ; but see Han-
isSee ante, n. 60. ford v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 43
ssCarpenter v. Board of Comrs., Minn. 104, 44 N. W. 1144, 7 L.R.A.
56 Minn. 513, 58 N. W. 295; St. 722.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 53 8 8 Wood v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
106 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 87
§ 87 (73). Rights of riparian owners on public navi-
gable streams. So far as these rights are connected with the
navigation of the stream, we shall treat of them under the gen-
eral head of "Eights of riparian owners on public waters." ^^
We shall only discuss here the right to the flow of the stream.
In New York it has been held that the State has an absolute right
to appropriate the water of public streams in any way it sees
fit, as to supply a city with water,*" or create a feeder for a
canal," ^ without compensation to the riparian owners. So it
has been held in Minnesota that the water of public streams may
be taken for a public water supply without compensation."^
The doctrine is not without support in other States, especially
in Pennsylvania."^ The logic of these cases is, that a public
river may be entirely appropriated by the State, so as to leave
the riparian owners abutting on a dry river bed, and yet violate
no right of private property. It seems to us that this is a result
not to be tolerated, and that the principles which involve it are
erroneous. As respects the flow of the stream, we think there is
no difference between public and private navigable rivers.
Though title is declared to be in the State, it holds it as a mere
trustee, for the benefit of the public and the riparian owners
alike."* The public are beneficiaries to the extent of having a
common right of passage, and perhaps of fishery; the riparian
owners are beneficiaries to the extent of having a right to all
those advantages which the stream affords, and which can be
enjoyed without interfering with the public rights. These bene-
ficiary rights are property, and within the protection of the
constitution. They are attached to the riparian property by
60 la. 456 ; Serrin v. Gref e, 67 la. rights of the public, and that he was
196; Steele v. Sanchez, 72 la. 65, entitled to compensation when such
2 Am. St. Rep. 233; Chicago etc. right was taken. S. C. 15 Abb. N.
R. R. Co. V. Porter, 72 la. 426. C. 159 and 395.
ssPost, §§ 94^100. 9 2Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Board of
soCrill V. Rome, 47 How. 398. Water Comrs., 56 Minn. 485, 58
9iCanal Commissioners v. People, N. W. 33. And see St. Anthony
5 Wend. 423; S. C. 13 Wend. 355; 17 Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul
Wend. 570; People v. Canal Ap- Water Comrs., 168 U. S. 349.
praisers, 33 N. Y. 461. In matter of ss^ee Fulmer v. Williams, 122 Pa.
Commissioners of State Reservation St. 191, 15 Atl. 726, 9 Am. St. Rep.
at Niagara, 37 Hun 537, affirmed in 88, 1 L.R.A. 603; Williams r. Ful-
102 N. Y. 734, it was held that u ri- mer, 151 Pa. St. 405, 25 Atl. 103, 31
parian owner could acquire by pre- Am. St. Rep. 767 ; post, % 89 and
scription a right to such use of the cases cited,
stream as did not interfere with the ^*See post, § 93.
§ 88 WATEKS. 107
nature, are universally estimated as part of its value in all
the dealings between man and man, and should receive the pro-
tection of the law. For a justification of these conclusions we
refer to what is said further on in regard to rights in public
waters.®^
§ 88 (74). Interfering with the flow of public streams.
According to the conclusions announced in the last section, any
damage to riparian owners on public streams by works for any
purpose not connected with the improvement of navigation is
a taking for which compensation is to be made. Exactly the
same rules apply as in case of private navigable streams.^®
\Vhere the city of St. Louis extended a street or pier seven hun-
dred feet into the Mississippi Eiver, thereby destroying a chan-
nel adjacent to plaintiff's property and greatly depreciating its
value, the city was held liable.*^ But most of the decisions on
this question are of older date and adverse to the views we have
expressed. We referred in the last section to some cases in re-
lation to diverting the water of public streams,®* and will now
refer to some additional cases holding the same doctrine. A
railroad company, authorized to cross a tidal river, constructed
a bridge, the piers of which caused a change in the current of
the river, which rendered additional sea wall and piling neces-
sary in order to protect the plaintiff's land. It was held that
the company was not liable. "It is incident to the power of the
legislature," says the court, "to regulate a navigable stream so
as best to promote the public convenience, and if, in doing so,
some damage is done to riparian proprietors, and some increased
expense thrown upon them, it is damnum absque injuria." ^^
It is difficult to reconcile this case with anotlier in the same vol-
ume which seems to hold that precisely the same item of dam-
ages is allowable.^
^^Post § 94 et seq. In St. Louis CommonweaPth v. Boston & Maine
etc. R. R. Co. V. Ramsey, 53 Ark. R. R. Co., 3 Cush. 25.
314, 13 S. W. 931, 22 Am. St. Rep. ssSee cases cited in last section.
195, 8 L.R.A. 559, it is held that a ssFitchburg R. R. Co. v. Boston
riparian owner cannot maintain an & Maine R. R. Co., 3 Cush. 58, 88;
action for gravel removed from the also Bailey v. Philadelphia etc. R.
bed of a public stream by a railroad R. Co., 4 Harr. (Del.) 389, 44 Am.
company. Dec. 593 ; to the same point, Missis-
9^ Ante, §§ 71-80. sippi River Bridge Co. v. Lonergan,
9 'Meyers v. St. Louis, 8 Mo. Ap. 91 111. 508.
266; see also Chapman v. Oshkosh i Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine
& Miss. R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 629, and R. R. Co., 3 Cush. 25; see also
108
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 89
§ 89 (75). Damage to authorized works on public
streams. It lias been repeatedly held, in Pennsylvania, that,
where a dam has been built on a public navigable stream, under
an act of the legislature granting permission to do so, the grant
is a mere license, revocable at pleasure, and that where such
dam is injured or destroyed by reason of other improvements in
or upon the stream, authorized by the legislature, no compensa-
tion need be made.^ The Supreme Court of the United States,
in a case which went up from Pennsylvania, characterize this
doctrine as "somewhat peculiar," but, nevertheless, follow it as
being a rule of property in that State.* In Virginia and other
States it has been held, in such case, that, the legislature having
granted the right to erect the dam, and the grantee having
erected it, he had a vested right to maintain it which could not
be taken or impaired without compensation.* This would seem
to be the better rule and to be of general application to all works
erected in public waters by legislative authority.^
§ 90 (76). Title to lakes and ponds. The title to the
great fresh-water lakes of the United States is universally held
to be in the public from low water mark.* As to the smaller
Fowle V. N. H. & N. Co., 112 Mass.
334, 17 Am. Eep. 106. The follow-
ing cases from Pennsylvania tend to
support the doctrine that the water
of a public stream cannot be divert-
ed from the riparian owner without
compensation. Fulmer v. Williams,
122 Pa. St. 191, 15 Atl. 726, 9 Am.
St. Eep. 88, 1 L.R.A. 603; Williams
V. Fulmer, 151 Pa. St. 405, 25 Atl.
103, 31 Am. St. Rep. 767.
2Union Canal Co. v. Landis, 9
Watts 228; Monongahela Naviga-
tion Co. V. Coons, 6 W. & S. 101;
Susquehanna Canal Co. v. Wright,
9 W. & S. 9, 42 Am. Dec. 312; New
York & Erie R. R. Co. v. Youngs, 33
Pa. St. 175; McKeen v. Delaware
Canal Co., 49 Pa. St. 424; Freeland
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 91;
see also Bailey v. Phil. W. & B. R.
R. Co., 4 Harr. Del. 389, 44 Am. Dec.
593.
sRundle v. Delaware & Raritan
Canal Co., 14 How. 80, 93.
4 Crenshaw v. Slate River Co., 6
Rand. Va. 245; Glover v. Powell, 10
N. J. Eq. 211; Lee v. Pembroke
Iron Co., 57 Me. 481, 2 Am. Rep. 59 ;
State V. Glen, 7 Jones L., 321 ; and
see Langdon v. Mayor etc. of New
York, 93 N. Y. 129; Railroad Com-
pany V. Renwick, 102 U. S. 180.
BMonongahela Nav. Co. v. United
States, 148 U. S. 312, 13 S. C. Rep.
622.
6 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illi-
nois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 S. C. Rep.
110; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371,
382; Diedrich v. N. W. Ry. Co., 42
Wis. 248; Seaman v. Smith, 24 111.
521. These cases relate to Lake
Michigan, and, in the latter, the pre-
cise limit of private ownership in
that lake is held to be the line where
the water usually stands when un-
affected by disturbing causes. Smith
V. Rochester, 92 N. Y. at p. 479, 44
Am. Rep. 393; Canal Commissioners
V. People, 5 Wend. 423, 446; Aus-
§ 90
WATEES.
109
lakes, varying in size from one or two to many miles in circum-
ference, the decisions are conflicting, some holding that the title
to the bed of the lake is in the riparian owners,'' others that it
is in the public from low or high water mark.^ By colonial
ordinances of 1641 and 1647, all great ponds in Massachusetts
containing more than ten acres were made public and common
forever, and in that State it has been held that the title to all
such ponds below low water mark is in the public." The same
tin V. Rutland R. E. Co., 45 Vt. 215 ;
Revell V. People, 177 111. 468, 52 N.
E. 1052, 69 Am. St. Rep. 257 ; People
V. Silberwood, 110 Mich. 103, 32
L.R.A. 694.
'Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371,
11 S. C. 808, 838; Mitchell v. Smale,
140 U. S. 406, U S. C. 819; Rhodes
V. Cissel, 82 Ark. 367, 101 S. W. 758;
Fuller V. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 44 N.
E. 286, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380, 33
L.R.A. 146; Applegate v. Franklin,
109 111. App. 293; Ridgeway v. Lud-
low, 58 Ind. 248; Stoner v. Rice,
121 Ind. 51, 22 N. E. 968, 6 L.R.A.
387; Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich.
125; Glut* V. Fisher, 65 Mich. 48;
Cobb V. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369 ;
S. C. 33 N. J. L. 223; Smith v.
Rochester, 92 N. Y. 463, 44 Am.
Rep. 393; Gouverneur v. National
Ice Co., 134 N. Y. 355, 31 N. E. 865,
30 Am. St. Rep. 669, 18 L.R.A. 695;
Ledyard v. Ten Eyck, 36 Barb. 102;
Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 24
N. E. 686, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828, 8
L.R.A. 578. Hardin v. Jordan, 140
U. S. 371, 11 S. C. 808, holds the
common law rule to be that the title
to small lakes and ponds is in the
riparian owners.
sTrustees of Schools v. Schroll,
120 111. 509; Hammond v. Shepard,
186 111. 235, 57 N. E. 867, 78 Am.
St. Rep. 274; Bradley v. Rice, 13
Me. 198, 29 Am. Dec. 501 ; Robinson
V. White, 42 Me. 209; Fernold v.
Knox Woolen Co., 82 Me. 48, 19 Atl.
Rep. 93; Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass.
160; Fay v. Salem & D. Aqueduct
Co., Ill Mass. 27; Watuppa Reser-
voir Co. V. Fall River, 147 Mass. 548,
1 L.R.A. 466; Attorney General v.
Revere Copper Co., 152 Mass. 444,
25 N. E. 605; Lamphrey v. State,
52 Minn. 181, 53 N. W. 1139, 38 Am.
St. Rep. 541; Witty v. Board of
Comrs., 76 Minn. 286, 79 N. W. 112;
Dressen v. Board of Comrs., 76 Minn.
290, 79 N. W. 113; State v. Gil-
manton, 9 N. H. 461; Concord Mfg.
Co. V. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl.
718, 18 L.R.A. 679; State v. Welch,
66 N. H. 178, 28 Atl. 21; Wheeler
v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377 (The last
case is distinguished, or overruled,
in Gouverneur v. National Ice Co.,
134 N. Y. 355, 31 N. E. 865, 30 Am.
et. Rep. 669, 18 L.R.A. 695) ; New
Whatcom v. Fairhaven Land Co., 24
Wash. 493, 64 Pac. 735, 54 L.R.A.
190; Brace & H. Mill Co. v. State,
49 Wash. 326, 95 Pac. 278; Dela-
plaine v. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., .42
Wis. 214; Boorman v. Sunnuck, 42
Wis. 233 ; Attorney General v. Smith,
109 Wis. 532, 85 N. W. 512; Ross-
miller V. State, 114 Wis. 169, 89
N. W. 839, 91 Am. St. Rep. 910, 58
L.R.A. 93. See also Fuller v. Shedd,
161 111. 462, 44 N. E. 286; Auburn
V. Union Water Power Co., 90 Me.
576, 38 Atl. 561, 38 L.R.A. 188; New
England T. & S. Club v. Mather, 68
Vt. 33«, 35 Atl. 323, 33 L.R.A. 569.
9West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 7
Allen, 158; Watuppa Reservoir Co.
V. Fall River, 147 Mass. 548, 1 L.R.A.
110 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 90
rule obtains in Maine^" and ITew Hampshire. ■^^ The rule in
Minnesota is thus stated by the Supreme Court of that State in
a syllabus of its own: "The same rules govern the rights of ri-
parian owners on lakes or other still waters as govern the rights
of riparian owners upon streams. Hence, if a meandered lake
is 'non-navigable,' in fact the patentee of the riparian land takes
the fee to the center of the lake; but if the lake is 'navigable'
in fact, its waters and bed belong to the State, in its sovereign ca-
pacity, and the riparian patentea takes the fee only to the water
line, but with all the rights incident to riparian ownership on
navigable waters, including the right to accretions or relictions
formed in front of his land by the action or recession of the
water. The division of waters into navigable and non-navigable
is merely a method of dividing them, into public and private,
which is the more natural classification; and the definition or
test of navigability to be applied to our inland lakes must be
sufficiently broad and liberal to include all the public uses, in-
cluding boating for pleasure, for which such waters are adapted.
So long as they continue capable of being put to any beneficial
public use, they are public waters." ^^ In Michigan the title to
small lakes and ponds is held to be in the riparian owners, sub-
ject to the public right of navigation. ^^ The question as to the
ownership of the bed of streams and lakes is one which each
State is at liberty to determine for itself, in accordance with its
own views of public law and public policy.^*
The question of title then may be summarized as follows:
All agree that the great lakes emptying into the St. Lawrence
are public.-'' All agree that there is a class of lakes and ponds
so small as to be wholly private.-'® Between the two extremes
466 ; Attorney General V. Kevere Cop- "Delaplaine v. C. & N. W. Ey.
per Co., 152 Mass., 444, 25 N. E. Co., 42 Wis. 214, 225; Barney v.
605. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338 ; Pollard's
10 American Woolen Co. v. Kenne- Lessee v. Hogan, 3 How. 212; Har-
bec Water Dist., 102 Me. 153, 66 din v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 382,
Atl. 316. 383; St. Anthony Falls Water Pow-
iiDolbeer v. Suncook W. W. Co, er Co. v. St. Paul Water Comrs.,
72 N. H. 562, 58 Atl. 504. 168 U. S. 349; post, % 92.
izLamphrey v. State, 52 Minn. i5Coneord Mfg. Co. v. Robertson,
181, 53 N. W. 1139, 38 Am. St. Rep. 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl. 718, 18 L.R.A.
541. See also Carpenter v. Board of 679; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v.
Commissioners, 56 Minn. 513, 58 N. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 31 S. C. 110;
W. Rep. 295. ante, note 6.
isRice V. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125. I6"ln respect to title the law di-
§ 90
WATEES.
Ill
the cases are conflicting. It is not the province of this treatise
to resolve this question of title, or of what waters are public
and what private. But as it is agreed on all hands that the
test of the ebb and flow of the tide must be abandoned in this
country, it is manifest that some other test must be sought.^''
To say that the five or six great lakes are public and all the
others private is purely arbitrary.^* There would seem to be
no reasonable criterion to be applied but that of navigability in
faet.^^ This is said by the Supreme Court of the United States
to be the real reason of the common law rule which makes the
ebb and flow of the tides the test of public ownership.^"
If this test is adopted, then the only question which remains
is to define what is meant by navigability and, upon this point,
the position of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, that any water
which is navigable for either profit or pleasure is within the
rule, seems a reasonable one.^^ In the larger sense the reason
vides natural fresh water ponda in-
to two classes, — the small, which
pass by an ordinary grant of land,
like brooks and rivers, from which,
as conveyable property, they are
not distinguished; and the large,
which are exempt from the operation
of such a grant, for reasons that
stop private ownership at the wa-
ter's edge of the sea and its estu-
aries." Concord Mfg. Co. v. Robert-
son, 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl. 718, 719,
18 L.R.A. 679.
I'ln the case last cited, referring
to lakes and ponds, it is said: "The
standard of size, or other test, that
establishes their public or private
title, is a point left undecided by
our reported cases. But the law,
classing large ponds with tide wa-
ters, and small ponds with fre.5h
waters and brooks, necessarily pro-
vides a mode of determining to
which class every pond belongs."
Concord Mfg. Co. %-. Robertson, 66
N. H. 1, 25 Atl. 7 IS, 720, 18 L.R.A.
679. But the court does not make
it clear what this mode is and later
in the opinion indicates that the
question may have to be determined
arbitrarily. "The abandonment of
the arbitrary tidal test makes it
necessary to choose another, and it
may be impossible to find one that
is not arbitrary." Ibid. 25 Atl. p.
731.
i8"Nothing can be more arbitrary
than six exceptions to the English
rule" (meaning the exception of the
six great lakes). Concord Mfg. Co.
v. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl. 718,
731, 18 L.R.A. 679.
i9Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn.
181, 53 N. W. 1139, 38 Am. St. Rep.
541.
2 0"So, also, by the common law,
tfte doctrine of the dominion over
and ownership by the crown of lands
within the realm under tide waters
is not founded upon the existence of
the tide over the lands, but upon
the fact that the waters are navi-
gable, tide waters and navigable wa-
ters, as already said, being used as
synonomous terms in England." Il-
linois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois,
146 U. S. 387, 436, 13 S. C. 110.
21 "Most of the definitions of 'nav-
igability' in the decided cases, while
perhaps conceding that the size of
112 EMINENT DOMAllT. § 91
for declaring any waters public is thereby the better to preserve
them for the public use and benefit, and if beneficial use by the
public is taken as the test, then any waters are public which are
capable of such beneficial use, whether for pecuniary gain or
for health and pleasure.^^
§ 91 (76a). What constitutes navigability. As the
question of title to land under water depends largely, if not
wholly, upon the question of navigability, we refer briefly to
some authorities upon that question. Many of the cases affirm
or imply that a stream or lake, in order to be navigable in the
legal sense, must be navigable for some useful purpose connected
with trade or agriculture. Thus in a Florida case it is said:
"A stream of sufficient capacity and volume of water to float
to market the products of the country will answer the conditions
of navigability, and is a public highway, open to all persons for
the business of floatage to which it is adapted, whatever the
character of the product, or the kind of flotage suited to their
conditions; though it may not be adapted to the use of vessels,
and only fit for floating logs and rafts, yet if required for such
use, and there is sufficient business, present or prospective, to
render the easement a matter of public concern, it will be re-
garded as a public stream for that purpose ; and it is not essen-
tial to the easement that the stream should be continuously, at
all seasons of the year, in a state suited to such floatage." ^* So
in a Massachusetts case it is said that, in order that a stream may
have the character of navigability in law, "it must be navigable
to some purpose, useful to trade or agriculture." ^* But more
the boats or vessels is not impor- should not be considered navigation,
tant, and, indeed, that it is not nee- as well as boating for mere pecun-
essary that navigation should be by iary profit." Lamphrey v. State,
boats at all, yet seem to convey the 52 Minn. 181, 53 N. W. 1139, 1143,
idea that the water must be capable 38 Am. St. Kep. 541.
of some commerce of pecuniary val- ^^See Illinois Central R. R. Co. v.
ue, as distinguished from boating Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 436, 13 S. C.
for mere pleasure. But if, under 110; New England T. & S. Club v.
present conditions of society, bodies Mather, 68 Vt. 338, 35 Atl. 323, 32
of water are used for public uses L.R.A. 569; post, % 91.
other than mere commercial naviga- 2 3Bucki v. Cone, 25 Fla. 1, 6 So.
tion, in its ordinary sense, we fail 160.
to see why they ought not to be held 2 4Rowe v. Granite Bridge Corp.,
to be public waters, or navigable 21 Pick. 344. To the same efect:
waters, if the old nomenclature is Charlestown v. County Comrs., 3
preferred. Certainly we do not see Met. 202; Murdock v. Stickney, 8
why boating or sailing for pleasure Cush. 113, 115; Nutter v. Gallagher,
§ 92 WATEES. 113
recent cases are to the effect that it is the capacity of being navi-
gated, and not the purpose of the navigation, which deter-
mines the question of navigability in lavy.^^ The Massachv
setts court, referring to the language already quoted from th
State, says: "But this language is applied to the capacity <
the stream, and is not intended to be a strict enumeration of th.
uses to which it must be actually applied in order to give ii
this character. Navigable streams are highways ; and a travelei
for pleasure is as fully entitled to protection in using a publi;
way, whether by land or by water, as a traveler for business.
Certainly fishing and fowling are as really regarded, on navi-
gable waters, as trade and agriculture, though not mentioned
in the case cited above; and in West Roxbury v. Stoddard,^
it is said that the use of great ponds, which are public property,
may as well be for bathing, boating, skating, fishing and fowl-
ing, as for business, and is entitled to equal consideration. If
water is navigable for pleasure boating, it must be regarded as
navigable water, though no craft has ever been upon it for the
purposes of trade or agriculture. The purpose of the naviga-
tion is not the subject of inquiry, but the fact of the capacity of
the water for use in navigation." ^'^ The question of naviga-
bility is one of fact.^^
§ 92 (76b). The question of title to the bed of navi-
gable waters and of the rights of riparian owners upon
such waters is one of State policy and State law. It has
19 Ore. 375, 24 Pac. 250; Haines 679; Clark v. Cambridge, 45 Neb.
V. Hall, 17 Ore. 165, 20 Pac. 799, 64 N. E. 239; Chisolm v. Caines,
831; Brown v. Cbadbourne, 31 67 Fed. 285.
Me. 9, 50 Am. Dec. 641; East Ho- 267 Allen 158, 171.
quaim B. & L. Co. V. Neeson, 20 Wash. 'iTTo same effect is Lamphrey v.
142, 54 Pac. 1001; Griffith v. Hoi- State, 52 Minn. 181, 53 N. W. 1139,
man, 23 Wash. 347, 63 Pac. 239, 83 38 Am. St. Rep. 541. See on ques-
Am. St. Eep. 821, 54 L.K.A. 178. tion of navigability, Murray v. Pres-
2 5Attomey General v. Woods, 108 ton, 106 Ky. 561, 50 S. W. 1095. 90
Mass. 436; Lamphrey v. State, 52 Am. St. Rep. 232; Webster v. Harris,
Minn. 181, 53 N. W. 1139, 38 Am. Ill Tenn. 668, 69 S. W. 782; 1
St. Eep. 541 ; Falls Mfg. Co. v. Farnham on Waters, § 23.
Oconto Riv. Imp. Co., 87 Wis. 134, zsRailroad Co. v. Ferguson, 105
58 N. W. 257; Heyward v. Farm- Tenn. 552, 59 S. W. 343, 80 Am. St.
ers' Min. Co., 42 S. C. 138, 19 S. E. Rep. 908; State v. Twiford, 136 N.
963, 46 Am. St. Rep. 702, 28 L.R.A. C. 603, 48 S. E. 586; Griffith v. Hol-
42; Concord Mfg. Co. v. Robertson, man, 23 Wash. 347, 63 Pac. 239, 83
66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl. 718, 18 L.R.A. Am. St. Rep. 821, 54 L.R.A. 178; 1
Em. D. — 8. Farnham on Waters, § 26,
114 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 93
been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of the United States
that it is for each State to determine whether the title to the
bed of navigable waters is in the State or in the riparian owner,
and to what extent the prerogative of the State shall be exerted
over such waters and the lands under them.^^ And so it is held,
by the same high authority, that each State may determine for
itself what rights, if any, attach to the ownership of lands ad-
jacent to such waters.^** Upon these questions the Federal
Courts follow the decisions o£ the, State Court.^^
§ 93 (76c). Nature and limitations of the title to the
bed of navigable waters, whether in the public or riparian
owners. The nature of the public title to the bed of navigable
waters received very careful consideration at the hands of the
Supreme Court of the United States, in the recent case of Illi-
nois Central E,. E. Co. v. Illinois.^^ The legislature of the
State had assumed to grant to the railroad company a thousand
acres of the submerged lands of Lake Michigan adjacent to the
shore in the city of Chicago. The grant extended for a con-
siderable distance along the shore and embraced both shoal and
deep water. The court held that the grant was revocable, if
not absolutely void, and discussed at length the nature of the
State's title to such lands. The title of the State is held to be
in trust for the people at large, for the purposes of navigation
and fishing.^* In Wisconsin it is held that the title to the bed
of navigable waters in the State is vested in the State in trust
to preserve the same for the enjoyment of the people ; that the
State has no proprietary rights in such beds, or in the water
2 9 St. Anthony Falls Water Power the decisions of the State courts.
Co. V. St. Paul Water Comrs., 168 Compare Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S.
U. S. 349; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. 371, 11 S. C. 838, and Trustees of
S. 371, 382, 11 S. C. 808; Illinois Schools v. Sehroll, 120 111. 509.
Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois, U6 U. 30Same.
S. 387, 13 S. C. 110; Shively v. siShively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1,
Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 40, 14 S. C. 14 S. C. 548.
548; Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661; 32146 U. S. 387, 13 S. C. 110.
Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324. See ssgan Francisco Savings Union v.
also Webb v. City of Demopolis, 95 G. R. Petroleum & Min. Co., 144 Cal.
Ala. 116, 13 So. 289, 21 L.R.A. 62; 134, 77 Pac. 823, 103 Am. St. Rep.
Webber v. Pere Marquette Boom 72, 66 L.R.A. 242; State v. Long-
Co., 62 Mich. 626, 30 N. W. 469; fellow, 169 Mo. 109, 69 S. W. 374;
Chisolm V. Caines, 67 Fed. 285. But Attorney General v. Smith, 109 Wis.
the determination of this question 532, 85 N. W. 512; Illinois Cent. R.
by the federal courts does not al- R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 452-
\vays appear to be in harmony with 454, 455, 456.
93
WATEES.
115
above the same, nor in the fish that inhabit such water, or
the fowls that resort thereto, or the ice which forms thereon,
which it can deal in by sale or otherwise; and that
the power of the State over navigable waters within its
boundaries is limited to the enactment and enforcement of such
reasonable police regulations as may be deemed necessary to
preserve the common right of all to enjoy the same for naviga-
tion by boats or otherwise, and all incidents of navigable waters,
including the taking of ice therefrom for domestic use or sale.^*
Numerous other cases assert the trust character of the public
title to the bed of navigable waters, and that the trust is for
the benefit of the whole people and to aid in preserving and pro-
moting the public rights of navigation and fishing.^^ All navi-
gable streams and bodies of water have more or less shoal water
along the shores which is not navigable. A distinction may,
doubtless, be made between the soil under shoal water and the
soil under deep water. The former may be reclaimed and de-
voted to private uses without detriment to the pviblic interests.
34E,ossmiller v. State, 114 Wis.
169, 89 N. W. 839, 91 Am. St. Eep.
910, 58 L.R.A. 93. The same court,
speaking of a small navigable lake
about three miles in diameter, says:
"The title to its bed is in the State
in trust for legitimate public uses,
such as fishing, navigation, and the
like; and the State cannot convey
it away for private uses, nor can it
abdicate the trust." Attorney Gen-
eral V. Smith, 109 Wis. 532, 539,
85 N. W. 512.
ssFarist Street Co. v. Bridgeport,
60 Conn. 278, 22 Atl. 561 ; State v.
Black Riv. Phosphate Co., 32 Kla.
82, 13 So. 640; Illinois Cent. R. R.
Co. V. Chicago, 173 111. 471, 50 N.
E. 1104; Revell v. People, 177 111.
468, 52 N. E. 1052, 69 Am. St. Rep.
257; Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn.
181, 53 N. W. 1139, 38 Am. St. Rep.
541; Witty v. Board of Comrs., 76
Minn. 286, 79 N. W. 112; Dressen v.
Board of Comrs., 76 Minn. 290, 79
N. W. 113; State v. Longfellow, 169
Mo. 109, 69 S. W. 374; Concord Mfg.
Co. V. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl.
718, 18 L.R.A. 679; State v. Welch,
66 N. H. 178, 28 Atl. 21 ; Saunders
V. New York Central R. Co., 144 N.
Y. 75, 38 N. E. 992, 43 Am. St. Rep.
729, 26 L.R.A. 378; Matter of New
York, 168 N. Y. 134, 61 N. E. 158,
56 L.R.A. 500; Knickerbocker Ice
Co. V. Forty-Second Street R. R. Co.,
176 N. Y. 408, 68 N. E. 864, affirming
S. C. 85 App. Div. 530, 83 N. Y. S.
469; Heyward v. Farmers' Min. Co.,
42 S. C. 138, 19 S. E. 963, 46 Am. St.
Rep. 702, 28 L.R.A. 42; Illinois
Steel Co. V. Beloit, 109 Wis. 418, 84
N. W. 855, 85 N. W. 402, 83 Am. St.
Rep. 905; Martin v. Waddell, 16
Pet. 367; Den v. Jersey Co., 15 How.
426; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1,
14 S. C. 548; Chisolm v. Caines,
67 Fed. 285; Scranton v. Wheeler,
57 Fed. 803, 6 C. C. A. 585. As to
the power of the legislature over
the public rights of navigation and
fishing see also Bedlow v. New York
Floating Dry Dock Co., 112 N. Y.
263, 19 N. E. 800, 2 L.R.A. 629;
State V. Elk Island Boom Co., 41 W.
Va. 796, 24 S. B. 590,
116 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 94
It may be otherwise with the latter. Just what are the limita-
tions upon the power of the State over lands under public waters,
is not definitely settled, beyond the fact that it is subject to
the paramount authority of Congress to regulate interstate and
foreign commerce and to control navigable waters and the soil
thereunder in the interest of such commerce.^^
In those States in which the title to the bed of non-tidal navi-
gable waters is held to be in the riparian owners, the private
right is subject to the public i^ights of navigation and fishing
and to the control of the State in the interest of such public
rights.^'^ The State may use the submerged lands for the im-
provement of navigation or promotion of commerce^ Subject
to such use and control the riparian owner may make any use
of the submerged lands which does not materially interfere with
the rights of the public.^*
According to what seems to the writer the better view, there
is thus no practical difference in the rights of riparian owners
on navigable waters, whether the title to the bed is in the ripa-
rian owners or the public. If the former, the title and riparian
rights are subject to the right of the public to use, improve and'
regulate. If the latter, the right of the public is limited to the
same purposes ; the title to the bed is thus wholly unimportant.
§ 94 (77). Rights of riparian owners on public waters.
There is not more diversity of opinion among the courts as to the
title to the bed and shores of navigable streams and waters than
there is as to the rights of riparian owners in such waters as
are conceded to be entirely puhlici juris. The older authorities
hold that such an owner has no private rights in the stream or
body of water which are appurtenant to his land, and, in short,
no rights beyond that of any other member of the public, and
that the only difference is that he is more conveniently situated
to enjoy the privileges which all the public have in common, and
that he has access to the waters over his own land, which the
36Gibson v. United States, 166 U. R. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 1; S. C. af-
S. 269, 17 S. C. 578. firmed, 27 N. J. Eq. 631; Scraiiton
3 'Webber v. Pere Marquette Boom v. Wheeler, 57 Fed. 803, 6 C. C. A.
Co., 62 Mich. 626, 30 N. W. 469; 585; Clark v. Irrigation Co., 45 Neb.
Williamsburg Boom Co. v. Smith, 84 799, 64 N. W. 239; Freeland v. Pa.
Ky. 372; City of Grand Rapids v. R. R. Co., 197 Pa. St. 529, 47 Atl.
Powers, 89 Mich. 94, 50 N. W. 661, 745, 80 Am. St. Rep. 850, 58 L,R.A,
28 Am. St. Rep. 276, 14 L.R.A. 498, 206.
5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 490; At- 3 8 game,
torney General v. Delaware etc. R.
§ 04
WATEES.
117
public do not. The stream is regarded as an adjoining freehold,
the title to which is absolutely in the public, and which the
public may use and control in the same manner as an individual
could if the stream was his private property. Access to and use
of the stream by the riparian owner is regarded as merely per-
missive on the part of the public and liable to be cut off abso-
lutely if the public sees fit to do so.^® Wood, in his work on
Nuisances, states the doctrine as follows: "The State is the
owner, absolutely, of the alveus of the stream to high-water
mark, and, as such owner, may devote the stream, or any part
thereof, to such purposes as it sees fit, so long as it does not
materially obstruct navigation. Riparian owners, as such, upon
this class of streams, have no more rights than any other member
of the public, either in the stream, or any of the lands covered
thereby. They cannot erect a wharf thereon, or use any portion
3 9The leading cases in support of
this doctrine are Stevens v. Patter-
son etc. K. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 532,
3 Am. Rep. 269, 1870, and Gould v.
Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 N. Y.
522, 1852 {overruled in 1892, see §
96). Other cases in which the same
doctrine is held are the following:
Tomlin v. Dubuque B. & M. R.
R. Co. 32 la. 106 (Beck, J.,
dissents), 7 Am. Rep. 176; Boa-
ton & Worcester R. R. Co. v.
Old Colony R. R. Co., 12 Cush. 605;
Fay V. Salem & Danvers Aqueduct
Co., Ill Mass. 27; Thayer v. New
Bedford R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 253;
State V. Sunapee Dam Co., 70 N. H.
458, 50 Atl. 108, 59 L.R.A. 55; Penn-
sylvania R. R. Co. V. New York etc.
R. R. Co., 23 N. J. Eq. 157 (opinion
of Chancellor only) ; Sugar Refining
Co. V. Jersey City, 26 N. J. Eq. 247
(opinion of Chancellor only) ; Amos
V. Norcross, 58 N. J. Eq. 256,
43 Atl. 195 (V. C.) ; Sayre v.
Newark, 60 N. J. Eq. 361, 45
Atl. 785, 83 Am. St. Rep. 629,
48 L.R.A. 722, affirming S. C.
58 N. J. Eq. 136, 42 Atl. 1068;
Atlantic City v. New Auditorium
Pier Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 644, 53 Atl.
99 (V. C.) ; Evans v. S4me, 63 N. J.
Eq. 674, 53 Atl. Ill (V. C.) ; Same
V. Same, 67 N. J. Eq. 315, 58 Atl.
191 (V. C.) ; Canal Commissioners
V. People, 5 Wend. 423; S. C. 13
Wend. 355; 17 Wend. 570; People v.
Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 461 ;
Gould V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 12
Barb. 616; Matter of Water Com-
missioners, 3 Edwards Ch. 290; Get-
ty v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 21
Barb. 617; Matter of N. Y., W. S. &
B. Ry. Co., 29 Hun 269; Mononga-
hela Navigation Co. v. Coons, 6 W.
& S. 101 ; McKeen v. Delaware Canal
Co., 49 Pa. St. 424. See also Ho-
boken v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
124 U. S. 656, which states and ap-
plies the law of New Jersey. Since
the first edition was published, this
view of the law has received its
chief support, from the states of
Oregon and Washington. In Eisen-
bach V. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 236, 26
Pac. 539, 12 L.R.A. 632, which is
the leading authority in the latter
State, the court says: "The result
of our investigation of the authori-
ties leads us to the conclusion that
riparian proprietors on the shore of
the navigable waters of the State
118
EMINEITT DOMAIN.
§ 94
of the alveus of the stream for any purpose whatever, except in
the exercise of the common right of navigation. They may
cross and recross the same for the purpose of approaching the
sea, and so may any other member of the public. They may
use the waters of the stream for ordinary domestic purposes,
and so may any one else. The owner of the bank has no jus
privatum, or special usufructuary interest, in the water. He
does not, from the mere circumstance that he is the owner of
the bank, acquire any special or particular interest in the stream,
over any other member of the public, except that, by his prox-
imity thereto, he enjoys greater conveniences than the public
generally. To him, riparian ownership brings no greater
have no special or peculiar rights
therein as an incident to their es-
tate. To hold otherwise would he to
deny the pojver of the State to deal
with its own property as it may
deem best for the public good. If
the State cannot exercise its consti-
tutional right to erect wharves and
other structures without the consent
of adjoining owners, it is obviously
deficient in the powers of self-devel-
opment, which every government is
supposed to possess, — a proposition
to which we cannot assent. See Gal-
veston V. Menard, 23 Tex. 349. Nor
do we think this view in any way
conflicts with the constitution of the
State, but, on the contrary, we be-
lieve it is in strict harmony with it,
when all its parts are construed to-
gether. We cannot think that the
building by the State or its grantees
of wharves, upon shores of navi-
gable waters, would constitute either
a taking or damaging of private
property for public use, in contem-
plation of the constitution." ( Stiles,
J., dissents.) See also State ex rel.
Yesler v. Prosser, 2 Wash. 530, 27
Pac. 550; Stinson Ivlill Co. v. Board
of Harbor Line Comrs. (Wash.), 29
Pac. 938; State ex rel. v. Prosser,
4 Wash. 816, 30 Pac. 734; Columbia
etc. R. R. Co. V. City of Seattle, 6
Wash. 332, 33 Pac. 824, 34 Pac. 725;
City of Seattle v. Columbia etc. R.
R. Co., 6 Wash. 379, 33 Pac. 1048;
Seattle & M. R. R. Co. v. State, 7
Wash. 150, 34 Pac. 551, 22 L.R.A.
217; Yesler v. Washington Harbor
Line Comrs., 146 U. S. 646, 13 S. C.
190; Prosser v. Northern Pac. R.
R. Co., 152 U. S. 59, 14 S. C. 528.
Compare New Whatcom v. Fair-
haven Land Co., 24 Wash. 493, 64
Pac. 735, 54 L.R.A. 190; Burrows v.
Grays Harbor Boom Co., 44 Wash.
630, 87 Pac. 937. The same rule is
held in Oregon. Bowlby v. Shively,
22 Or. 410; S. C. 152 U. S. 1 ; Hin-
man v. Warren, 6 Ore. 408; Parker
V. Taylor, 7 Ore. 435; Parker v.
Rogers, 8 Ore. 183 ; Shively v. Park-
er, 9 Ore. 500; McCann v. Oregon
R. R. Co., 13 Ore. 455; Shively v.
Welch, 10 Sawyer, 136, 140, 141.
Compare Parker v. West Coast Pack-
ing Co., 17 Or. 510, 21 Pac. 822;
Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Ore. 244,
66 Pac. 923; Wilson v. Welch, 12
Ore. 353-. But it has been held that
where a wharf has been built out to
navigable water by the express or
implied license of the State, it can-
not be appropriated to public use
without compensation. Lewis v.
City of Portland, 25 Ore. 133, 35
Pac. 256, 42 Am. St. Rep. 772, 22
L.R.A. 736. And see Oakland v. Oak-
land Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 160.
§ 95 WATERS. 119
rights than those incident to all the public, except that he can
approach the water more readily, and over lands which the
general public have no right to use for that purpose. But this
is a mere convenience, arising from his ownership of the lands
adjacent to the ordinary high water mark, and does not prevent
the State from depriving him entirely of this convenience, by
itself making erections upon the shore, or authorizing the use
of the shore by others, in such a way as to deprive him of this
convenience altogether, and the injury resulting to him there-
from, although greater than that sustained by the rest of the
public, is damnum absque in-juria." *°
§ 95 (78). The same continued. On the other hand,
there are cases which hold that the riparian owners, upon waters
the bed of which belongs to the public, have valuable rights
appurtenant to their estates, of which they cannot be deprived
without compensation. This seems to us the better and sounder
rule. The opposite conclusion has been reached by a narrow
and technical course of reasoning, based upon the fact that the
title to the soil is in the State, or the public. It is assumed that
this title gives the State the same absolute and exclusive con-
trol of the waters and their bed, as an individual possesses over
his private property. But there is really no analogy between
the relations of a riparian owner to the waters upon which he
abuts and the relations between the proprietors of adjoining
lands. The State holds the title to public waters as a trustee,
merely, for the use of all the public in common. The very
object of declaring the title in the public is the better to secure
this common use and benefit.*^ The riparian owner is pecu-
"Wood on Nuisances (1st ed.), 44 N. J. Eq. 398, 15 Atl. 227, 1
592. See further on the subject, L.R.A. 133; Fulmer v. Williams, 122
Payne y. English, 79 Cal. 540, 21 Pa. St. 191, 15 Atl. 726, 9 Am. St.
Pac. 952; Pacific G.ns Imp. Co. v. Rep. 88, 1 L.R.A. 603; Williams v.
Ellert, 64 Fed. 421 ; Watuppa Reser- Fulmer, 151 Pa. St. 405, 25 Atl. 103,
voir Co. V. Fall River, 147 Mass. 12 L.R.A. 632; Wood on Nuisances,
548, 1 L.R.A. 460; Henry v. New- {1st ed.), 592. Stiles, J., in Eisen-
buryport, 149 Mass. 582, 22 N. E. bach v. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 236, 26
75, 5 L.R.A. 179; Mehrhof Bros. Pac. 539, 551, 12 L.R.A. 632, says
Brick Mfg. Co. v. Delaware etc. that Mr. Wood is the only modern
R. R. Co., 51 N. J. L. 56, 16 text writer who maintains this
Atl. 12; Easton & A. R. R. ground.
Co. V. Central R. R. Co., 52 N. J. L. "Illinois Central R. R. Co. v.
267, 19 Atl. 722; State v. Wright, 54 Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 452, 453, 455,
N. J. L. 130, 23 Atl. 116; New Jer- 456, 457, 13 S. C. 110; Lamphrey v.
Bey Zinc Co. v. Morris C. & B. Co., State, 52 Minn. 181, 53 N. W. 1139,
120 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 95
liarly situated for the enjoyment of these advantages. He has
rights in the waters upon which he abuts which no private owner
has in the land of his neighbor. No private owner holds his
lands for the purpose of being used by his neighbors and the
public. The conclusions, therefore, which are based upon the
artificial and purely metaphysical notion of title, carried to its
extremest logical consequences, as in the case of ordinary private
ownership, are, it seems to us, unsound and unwarranted. As
matter of fact, riparian owners have always enjoyed, in connec-
tion with their estates, various privileges in the contiguous
shore and waters, and, practically-, these privileges have been
regarded as annexed to their estates and estimated as part of
the property in business transactions touching the value of the
same. When a court is called upon to say whether these privi-
leges are rights appurtenant to the property and part and parcel
of it, it must establish a rule of law and of property, whichever
way it decides the question. To look simply to the fact of title
and then apply the law relating to adjoining proprietors, is to
ignore some of the most important features in the case. True,
the title is in the State, but it is only in the State by the declara-
tion of courts, and then only as trustee for the benefit of all the
public in common, including the riparian owners. And, looking
further, it is seen that the riparian owner, in addition to rights
which he shares in common with others, has other rights or privi-
leges which are peculiar to himself, such as the right to accre-
tions, the right of wharfage, the right of access to and from his
lot, and the like, which destroy all analogy to the case of adjoin-
ing proprietors. It is more reasonable, more logical and more
just to say that these privileges are in fact rights, as inviolable
as the soil itself. The public loses nothing, for it is conceded
that all these rights are subject to the paramount right of the
State to use and improve the waters as shall best subserve the
common rights of all.*^
38 Am. St. Rep. 541 ; Concord Mfg. public lands which are open to pre-
Co. V. Hobertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 emption and sale. It ia a title held
Atl. 718, 721, 724, 725, 18 L.R.A. in trust for the people of the State
679; ante, § 93. In the first case that they may enjoy the navigation
cited, speaking of this title, the of the waters, carry on commerce
court says : "But it is a title dif- over them, and have liberty of fish-
ferent in character from that which ing therein freed from the obstruc-
the State holds in lands intended for tion or interference of private par-
sale. It is different from the title ties," p. 452.
which the United States hold in the i^Ante, § 93.
§ 96 WATEES. 121
§ 96 (79). The same continued. These views are not
without a strong support in the earlier cases and cases already
cited, and have been vindicated by several late decisions by courts
of the highest authority. In Gould v. Hudson Eiver Railroad
Co.,*^ Judge Edmonds filed an elaborate dissenting opinion,
in which he combated the conclusions of the majority with great
learning and ability. He enumerates eight rights which the
riparian owner has, that are peculiar to himself and appurtenant
to his property: 1. The right of navigating the river to and
from his land, and landing upon his shore. 2. The right,
under the statute, to be preferred in the grant of a ferry right
terminating upon his land and in a grant of the soil under
water opposite his land. 3. The right of fishing in the river
and of using his land in connection therewith. 4. The right
to accretions. 5. The right to use the water in his business,
whatever it may be, and for domestic purposes. 6. The right
to lade and unlade upon the bank. 7. The right of way from
his land to the channel of the river. 8. The right to be and
remain a riparian owner, and have the water lave his land.
And so in the case of Stevens v. Paterson & Newark E.. R.
Co.,** two of the Judges unite with the Chancellor in a dis-
senting opinion in which similar views are maintained. Says
the Chancellor: "The right, on the principles of the common
law, which I for convenience call the right of adjacency, consists
in the right of ferriage, of landing boats alongside a wharf, or
land by the shore, and unloading goods upon or taking them
from it, the right of fishing from the shore, and drawing nets
upon it, of entering upon it from the land, for bathing or pro-
curing water, and such other benefits as can be enjoyed only by
the adjoining owner, peculiar to him, and not common to the
rest of the public." And he concludes as follows :
"The conclusions to which I have arrived are these :
"First. That the owner of lands upon tide waters has a
right to the natural advantages conferred on his land by its
adjacency to the water, which, like the right to have fresh water
streams flow unobstructed and unpolluted upon and from his
land, and like the right to support for the natural soil from the
adjacent soil, is an incident to the land, and is property.
4 36 N. Y. 522.
"34 N. J. L. 532, 562, 3 Am. Rep.
269.
122
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 96
"Second. That, by the law of New Jersey, being the com-
mon law as adopted here, altered to suit the circumstances and
necessities of the people and the genius of our government, the
right to wharf out from the lands situate on tide waters over the
shore in front, has become an incident to such lands and a right
of property.
"Third. That, by the wharf act of 1851, the right to fill
in and appropriate the shore is conferred upon the shore owner
as an incident to his property. ,
"Lastly. That alL these rights, being incidents to an estate
which add to its value, are property, and cannot be taken away
by general or special legislation, except by the power of eminent
domain for public use and upon compensation." *^
Since the first edition was published the case of Gould v. Hud-
son River R. R. Co. has been overruled and the law of New York
declared to be in accordance with the dissenting opinion of Judge
Edmonds."
< 6 Judge Cooley, in his work upon
Constitutional Limitations (p. 544),
speaking of these cases, says: "So
far as these cases hold it competent
to cut off a riparian proprietor from
access to the navigable water, they
seem to us to justify an appropria-
tion of his property without com-
pensation; for, even those courts
which hold the fee in the soil under
navigable streams to be in the State,
admit valuable riparian rights in
the adjacent proprietor."
"Rumsey v. New York & N. E. R.
R. Co., 133 N. y. 79, 30 N. E. 654,
28 Am. St. Rep. 600, 15 L.R.A. 618,
6 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 67. For
other litigation between the same
parties and growing out of the same
facts, see: Rumsey v. New York &
N. E. R. E. Co., 114 N. Y. 423, 21
N. E. 1066; Rumsey v. New York &
N. E. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 681, 25
N. E. 1080; Rumsey v. New York &
N. E. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 88, 28
N. E. 763; Rumsey v. New York &
N. E. R. R. Co., 136 N. Y. 543, 32
N. E. 979. The following are other
New York cases bearing on the ques-
tion: Steers v. City of Brooklyn,
101 N. Y. 51 ; Williams v. New York,
105 N. Y. 419; New York Cent. etc.
R. R. Co. V. Aldridge, 135 N. Y. 83,
32 N. E. 50; People ex rel. etc. v.
Comrs. of Land Office, 135 N. Y. 447,
32 N. E. 139; Saunders v. New York
Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 144 N. Y. 75,
38 N. E. 992, 43 Am. St. Rep. 729,
26 L.R.A. 378; Sage v. New York,
154 N. Y. 61, 47 N. E. 1096, 61 Am.
St. Rep. 592; Archibald v. New York
Central etc. R. R. Co., 157 N. Y. 574,
52 N. E. 567; Saunders v. New
York Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 71 Hun
153, 23 N. Y. Supp. 927; Nolan v.
Brockway Park Imp. Co., 76 Hun
458, 28 N. Y. Supp. 102; Hedges v.
West Shore R. R. Co., 80 Hun 310,
30 N. Y. Supp. 92; Babcock v. City
of Buffalo, 1 Sheldon 317; People
V. Mould, 37 App. Div. 35; and see
New York cases cited post, § 99,
note 56.
In Saunders v. New York Cent,
etc. R. R. Co., 144 N. Y. 75, 38 N.
E. 992, 43 Am. St. Rep. 729, 26
L.R.A. 378, the court, in speaking
of the rights of riparian owners.
§ 98 WATERS. 123
§ 97 (80). The same continued. The same doctrine is
affirmed in a recent case in the Supreme Court of the United
States which went up from Wisconsin. The plaintiff had ex-
tended a wharf into the Milwaukee Eiver. Afterwards the city
of Milwaukee, acting under certain legislative acts, established
dock lines upon the river, and declared a part of plaintiff's wharf
which projected beyond these lines a nuisance and ordered its
abatement. The plaintiff filed his bill to enjoin and prevailed.
The court says that, though the title to the bed of the river is in
the public, yet the abutting owner has riparian rights, and
"among those rights are access to the navigable part of the river
from the front of his lot, the right to make a landing, wharf or
pier for his own use or for the use of the public, subject to such
general rules and regulations as the legislature may see proper
to impose for the protection of the rights of the public, whatever
those may be. * * * This riparian right," says the court,
"is property, and is valuable, and, though it must be enjoyed in
due subjection to the rights of the public, it cannot be arbitrarily
or capriciously destroyed or impaired. It is a right of which,
when once vested, the owner can only be deprived in accordance
with established law, and if necessary that it be taken for the
public good, upon due compensation." *' These views have been
confirmed by recent decisions of the same court.**
§ 98 (81). The same continued. Several well consid-
ered cases upon this question are to be found in the 42d volume
of the Wisconsin Reports. In one of these cases it appeared that
one Diedrich owned a lot on Lake Michigan and had, by artificial
means, extended his lot some eighty-five feet into the lake. A
railroad company located its road across this new land, and in-
stituted proceedings to condemn so much of the land as was re-
quired for its track. On appeal the court held that Diedrich
says : "What these rights are has his own use or for that of the public,
been decided in the Rumsey case, 133 with the right of passage to and
N. Y. 79, 30 N. E. 654, and since from the same with reasonable safe-
that decision reaffirmed in the case ty and convenience."
of Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Illinois, i^Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall.
146 U. S. 387, 13 S. C. 110. They 497,504. .To the same effect, Chicngo
embrace the right of access to the v. Laflin, 49 Ills. 172.
channel or navigable part of the ^slllinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illi-
river for navigation, fishing, and noia, 146 U. S. 387, 13 S. C. 110;
such other uses as commonly be- Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 14 S.
long to riparian ownership, the right C. 548.
to make a landing, wharf or pier for
124r EMINENT DOMAIN. § 98
liad no title to the made land on which the railroad was laid,
and that, as the damages awarded had been given for the land
taken, and not for injury to riparian rights, the case must be
reversed. The question of riparian rights was discussed and
the opinion expressed that, for any injury thereto, the owner
would be entitled to compensation.*^
In another case°° a railroad company constructed its road
across a small lake in the city of Madison so as entirely to cut
off the plaintiff from access to tha lake and leave a stagnant pool
in front of his premises. The lake was navigable and about nine
miles in circumference. The plaintiff sued for damages. The
title to the bed of the lake beyond the water's edge was held to be
in the State, but the court held the plaintiff had riparian rights
appurtenant to his land of which he could not be deprived with-
out compensation. The court says: "But, while the riparian
proprietor only takes to the water line, it by no means follows,
nor are we willing to admit, that he can be deprived of his ripa-
rian rights without compensation. As proprietor of the adjoin-
ing land, and as connected with it, he has the right of exclusive
access to and from the waters of the lake at that particular
place ; he has the right to build piers and wharves in front of
his land, out to navigable waters, in aid of navigation, not in-
terfering with the public use. These are private rights incident
to the ownershp of the shore, which he possesses distinct from
the rest of the public. All the facilities which the location of
his land with reference to the lake affords, he has the right to
enjoy for purposes of gain or pleasure ; and they oftentimes give
property thus situated its chief value. It is evident, from the
nature of the case, that these rights of user and of exclusion are
connected with the land itself, grow out of its location, and can-
not be materially abridged or destroyed without inflicting an
injury upon the owner which the law should redress. It seems
unnecessary to add the remark, that these riparian rights are
not common to the citizens at large, but exist as incidents to
the right of the soil itself adjacent to the water. In other words,
according to the uniform doctrine of the best authorities, the
foundation of riparian rights, ex vi iermini, is the ownership
of the bank or shore. In such ownership they have their origin.
They may and do exist, though the fee in the bed of the river or
49Diedrieh v. N. W. U. Ry. Co., BODelaplaine v. C. & N. W. Ky.
42 Wis. 248. Co., 42 Wis. 214, 226.
§ 99 WATERS. 125
lake be in the State. If the proprietor owns the bed of the
stream or lake, this may possibly give him some additional right ;
but his riparian rights, strictly speaking, do not depend on that
fact.""
The same views are entertained by the Supreme Court of
Minnesota, which in a recent case, says: "In this State it is
the settled doctrine that the riparian owner has the fee to low
water mark. But, while he only has the fee to low water mark,
he has certain rights incident to the ownership of real estate bor-
dering upon a navigable stream. Among these are the right to
enjoy free communication between his abutting premises and
the navigable channel of the river, to build and maintain suitable
landings, piers, and wharves, on and in front of his land, and to
extend the same therefrom into the river to the point of naviga-
bility, even beyond low water mark, and, to this extent, exclu-
sively to occupy for such and like purposes, the bed of the stream,
subordinate only to the paramount public right of navigation.
These riparian rights are property, and cannot be taken away
without paying just compensation therefor." ^^
Since the first edition various other States have rendered deci-
sions in conformity with these views.^^
§ 99 (82). The same continued. These views are fully
sustained by a decision of the House of Lords, in the late case
of Lyon v. Fishmongers Co.^* The question was, whether a ri-
parian proprietor on the banks of a tidal navigable river had
any rights or natural easements similar to those which belong to
a riparian proprietor upon a non-tidal stream. This question
was answered in the affirmative. "I cannot entertain any
doubt," says the Lord Chancellor, "that the riparian owner on
a navigable river, in addition to the right connected with navi-
BiThe same questions of right Wis. 534, 67 N. W. 918, 33 L.R.A.
are discussed in the following cases, 643; and eases cited § 99 note 56.
which, however, do not involve any 6 2Union Depot etc. Co. v. Bruns-
exercise of the eminent domain pow- 'W'"'^' 31 Minn. 297, 301. See also
er: Olson v. Merrill, 42 Wis. 203; Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 53
Boorman v. Sunnuchs, 42 Wis. 233. f ^^ ^^^S, 38 Am. St. Rep. 541;
„ , „ , T 1 TT i. , /-. Bradshaw v. Duluth Imperial Mil)
See also Cedar Lake Hotel Co. v. ., ^„ ,^. ,„ ^„ ^^' „, ,„„„
^ , T , XT , ,■ r, ^n -.TT- Co., 52 Minn. 59, 53 N. W. 1066;
Cedar Lake Hydraulic Co., 79 Wis. -„. _., . i. t. t, /., „„
•' Kippe v. Chicago etc R. R. Co., 23
297, 48 N. W. Rep. 371; City of ^^^ jg
Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 535,^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ g 99^ j^^^g gg
46 N. W. Rep. 128; Priewe v. Wis- 6 4Law Reports, 1 Appeal Cases,
consin State Land & Imp. Co, 93 662, 674, 682; 1876.
126
EMINENT DOMAIN.
gation to -which he is entitled as one of the puhlic, retains his
rights, as an ordinary riparian owner, underlying and controlled
by, but not extinguished by, the public right of navigation."
And from Lord Selbourne's opinion we take the following:
"The rights of a riparian proprietor, so far as they relate to
any natural stream, exist jurw naturae, because his land has,
by nature, the advantage of being washed by the stream; and
if the facts of nature constitute the foundation of the right, I
am unable to see why the law should not recognize and follow
the course of nature in every part of the same stream. Water
which is more or less salt by reason of the flow of the tides may
still be useful for many domestic and other purposes, though
there are no doubt some purposes which fresh water only will
serve. The general law as to riparian rights is not stated by
any authorities, that I am aware of, in terms which require
this distinction, and, if there is any sound principle on which it
ought to be made, the burden of proof seems to lie on those who
so affirm. As for the public right of navigation, it may well
co-exist with private riparian rights, which must of course be
enjoyed subject to it; just as where there is no navigation, each
riparian proprietor's right is concurrent with, and is so far
limited by, the rights of other proprietors. With respect to the
ownership of the bed of the river, this cannot be the natural
foundation of riparian rights, properly so called, because the
word 'riparian' is relative to the bank, and not the bed, of the
stream; and the connection, when it exists, of property on the
bank with property in the bed of the stream depends, not upon
nature, but on grant or presumption of law." ^^
5 Bin this case the facts were as
follows : Lyon owned a wharf which
fronted south on the Thames and
west on an inlet extending north
about forty feet, known as Winck-
worth's Hole, at the bottom of which
was the defendant company's wharf,
and west of the inlet was Winek-
worth's wharf, thus: —
Fishmongers
Company.
Winck-
worth's
Wharf.
Winckworth's
Hole.
Lyon's
Wharf.
By an act of parliament, a body
called the Conservators of the
Thames was constituted, with power
to grant to the owner or occupier
of any land fronting and immediate-
ly adjoining the Thames a license
to make any dock or other work im-
mediately in front of his land and
into the body of said river, but not
so as to take away, alter or abridge
any right to which any owner or
occupier of lands on the banks of
the river, including the banks there-
of, was by law entitled. The de-
fendants obtained a license to extend
their wharf to the main line of the
WATEES.
127
This case may safely be regarded as settling the law of
England in favor of the conclusions reached in the text. Fur-
ther confirmation of the text will be found in the cases cited in
the note and in the following sections.^*
river, so as entirely to displace the
water in Winckworth's Hole, and
cut oflF the plaintiff from access to
his premises on the west side there-
of. The plaintiff applied for an in-
junction, which was granted by the
Vice Chancellor. On appeal, the de-
cision of the Vice Chancellor was
reversed, on the ground that the
plaintiff had no right or claim which
would be taken away, altered or
abridged by the execution of the pro-
jected improvement. (Law Rep., 10
Ch. App. 679.) The broad ground
was taken that a riparian owner on
tidal waters has no private right
in the waters appurtenant to his
land. The latter decision ' was re-
versed by the House of Lords with-
out a dissenting opinion. See also
Bill V. Quebec, L. R. 5 H. L. 84;
North Shore R. R. Co. v. Pion, 14
App. tDas. 612, affirming S. C. 14
Duvall 677; Bigaouette v. North
Shore R. R. Co., 17 Duvall 363.
5 6The authorities sustaining these
views are here collated, for conven-
ience of examination and compari-
son with the cases supporting the
opposite view, to be found in note 39,
§ 94: Organ f. Memphis & L. R. R.
Co., 51 Ark. 235, 11 S. W. 96; San
Francisco Savings Union v. Petrol-
eum & Min. Co., 144 Cal. 134, 77
Pae. 823, 103 Am. St. Rep. 72, 66
L.R.A. 242; Prior v. Swartz, 62
Conn. 132, 25 Atl. 398, 36 Am. St.
Rep. 333, 18 L.R.A. 668; New York
etc. R. R. Co. v. Long, 72 Conn. 10,
43 Atl. 559; Richards v. New York
etc. R. R. Co., 77 Conn. 501, 60 Atl.
295, 69 L.R.A. 929; Harlan & H.
Co. V. Parchall, 5 Del. Ch. 435; State
V. Black Riv. Phosphate Co., 32 Fla.
82, 13 So. 640, 21 L.R.A. 189; Ren-
wick V. D. & N. W. Ry. Co., 49 la.
664, affirmed, 102 U. S. 180; Balti-
more etc. R. R. Co. V. Chase, 43 Md.
23; Gariter v. Baltimore, 52 Md.
422; People v. Severance, 125 Mich.
556, 84 N. W. 1089; Rippe v. Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co., 23 Minn. 18;
Carli v. Stillwater Street R. & T.
Co., 28 Minn. 373, 41 Am. Rep. 290;
Brisbine v. St. Paul & Sioux City
R. R. Co., 23 Mirni: 114; Union De-
pot etc. Co. V. Brunswick, 31 Minn.
297; Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn.
181, 53 N. W. 1139, 38 Am. St. Rep.
541 ; Reeves v. Backus-Brooks Co.,
83 Minn. 339, 86 N. W. 337; Myers
V. St. Louis, 82 Mo. 367; Gough v.
Bell, 2 Zab. 441 ; Langdon v. New
York, 93 N. Y. 129; Steers v. City
of Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 51 ; Williams
V. New York, 105 N. Y. 419; Rum-
sey V. New York & N. E. R. R. Co.,
133 N. Y. 79, 30 N. E. 654, 28 Am.
St. Rep. 600, 15 L.R.A. 618, 6 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 67; Saunders v.
New York Central etc. R. R. Co., 144
N. Y. 75, 38 N. E. 992, 43 Am. St.
Rep. 729, 26 L.R.A. 378; Matter of
New York, 168 N. Y. 134, 61 N. E.
158, 56 L.R.A. 500; Brookhaven v.
Smith, 188 N. Y. 74, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.)
326, reversing S. C. 98 App. Div.
212, 90 N. Y. S. 646; Hedges v.
West Shore R. R. Co., 80 Hun 310,
30 N. Y. Supp. 92 ; Babcock v. City
of Buffalo, 1 Sheldon 317; North
Hempstead v. Gregory, 53 App. Div.
350, 65 N. Y. S. 867; Gregory v.
Forbes, 96 N. C. 77; Bond v. Wool,
107 N. C. 139, 12 S. E. 281; Wool
V. Town of Edonton, 115 N. C. 10, 20
S. E. 165; Wilson v. Welch, 12 Ore.
353 ; Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Ore.
244, 66 Pac. 923; Ball v. Slack, 2
Whart. Pa. 538, 30 Am. Dec. 278;
128
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 100
§ 100 (83). The same concluded. In conclusion, the
following rights may be enumerated as appurtenant to property
upon public waters :
First. The right to be and remain a riparian proprietor and
to enjoy the natural advantages thereby conferred upon the land
by its adjacency to the water.^^
Second. The right of access to the water, including a right
of way to and from the navigable part.^*
Sherman v. Sherman, 18 E. I. 504,
30 Atl. 459; Chesapeake etc. Ry.
Co. V. Walker, 100 Va. 69, 40 S. E.
633, 914; New Whatcom v. Fair-
haven Land Co., 24 Wash. 493, 64
Pac. 735, 54 L.R.A. 190; Burrows
V. Grays Harbor Boom Co., 44 Wash.
630, 87 Pac. 937 ; Delaplaine v. C. &
N. W. Ky. Co., 42 Wis. 214; Boorman
V. Sunnucks, id. 233; Diedrich v. N.
W. Union Ry. Co., id. 248; Janesville
V. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W.
128; Cedar Lake Hotel Co. v. Cedar
Lake Hydraulic Co., 79 Wis. 297, 48
X. W. 371; Attorney General v.
Smith, 109 Wis. 532, 85 N. W. 512;
Rossmiller v. State, 114 Wis. 169,
89 N. W. 839, 91 Am. St. Rep. 910,
58 L.R.A. 93; Draper v. Brown, 115
Wis. 361, 91 N. W. 1001 ; McCarthy
V. ilurphy, 119 Wis. 159, 96 N. W.
531, 100 Am. St. Rep. 163; Thomas
T. Ashland etc. Ry. Co., 122 Wis. 519,
100 N. W. 993, 106 Am. St. Rep.
1000; Button v. Strong, 1 Black
23; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall.
497; Illinois Central R. R. Co. t.
Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 S. C. 110;
Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 14
S. C. 548; Paine Lumber Co. \.
United States, 55 Fed. 854; Sulli-
van Timber Co. v. Jlobile, 124 Fed.
644; Lyon v. Fishmongers' Com-
pany, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 662; Duke
of Buecleuch v. Metropolitan Board
of Works, L. R. 5 H. L. 418; Bill
V. Quebec, L. R. 5 H. L. 84; North
Shore E. R. Co. v. Pion, 14 App.
Cas. 612; S. C. 14 Duvall 677; Big-
aoutte V. North Shore E. R, Co.,
17 Duvall 363; Miner v. Gilmour,
12 Moore P. C. 131 ; Rose v. Groves,
5 M. & G. 613; Attorney General v.
Conservators of the Thames, 1 H.
6 M. 1. See Frost v. Worthington
Co. R. R. Co. 96 Me. 76, 51 Atl.
806, 59 L.R.A. 68 ; Western Pac. Ry.
Co. V. Southern Pac. Co., 151 Fed.
376, 80 C. C. A. 606.
^T Dissenting opinion, Stevens v.
Patterson, 34 N. J. L. 532, 3 Am.
Rep. 269; opinion of Judge Ed-
monds, dissenting in Gould v. Hud-
son River R. R. Co. 6 N. Y. 522;
Lyon V. Fishmongers Co., L. R. 1
App. Cas. 662; Delaplaine v. C. &
N. W. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 214; Rice v.
Euddiman, 10 Mich. 125, 142; Illi-
nois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146
U. S. 387, 13 S. C. 110; Concord
Mfg. Co. V. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25
Atl. 718, 18 L.R.A. 679; Fulmer v.
Williams, 122 Pa. St. 191, 15 Atl.
726, 9 Am. St. Eep. 88, 1 L.E.A. 603,
Williams v. Fulmer, 151 Pa. St. 405,
25 Atl. 103, 31 Am. St. Rep. 767.
5 8 Same, Shirley r. Bishop, 67
Cal. 543; New York etc. E. E. Co.
V. Long, 72 Conn. 10, 43 Atl. 559;
Baltimore & Ohio E. E. Co. v. Chase,
43 Md. 23, 35; Garitee v. Baltimore,
52 Md. 422; Brisbine v. St. Paul etc.
E. E. Co., 23 Minn. 114; Carli v.
Stillwater Street E. & T. Co., 28
Minn. 373; Union Depot etc. Co. v.
Brunswick, 31 Minn. 297 ; Concord
Mfg. Co. \. Eobertson, 68 N. H. 1,
25 Atl. 718, IS L.R.A. 679; Williams
V. New York, 105 N. Y. 419; Rum-
sey V. New York & N. E. E. E. Co.,
§ 100
WATEES.
129
Third. The right to build a pier or wharf out to navigable
water, subject to any regulations of the State.®'
133 N. Y. 79, 30 N. E. 654, 6 Am. R.
N. & Corp. Rep. 67, 28 Am. St. Rep.
600, 15 L.R.A. 618; Saunders v. New
York Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 144 N. Y.
75, 38 N. E. 992, 43 Am. St. Rep.
729, 26 L.R.A. 378; North Hemp-
stead V. Gregory, 53 App. Div. 350,
65 N. Y. S. 867; Montgomery v.
Shaver, 40 Ore. 244, 66 Pac. 923;
Fulmer v. Williams, 122 Pa. St. 191,
15 Atl. 726, 9 Am. St. Rep. 88, 1
L.R.A. 603; Sherman v. Sherman, 18
R. I. 504, 30 Atl. 459 ; McCarthy v.
Murphy, 119 Wis. 159, 96 N. W.
531, 100 Am. St. Rep. 163; Yates v.
Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497; Illinois
Cent. R. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S.
387, 13 S. C. 110; Paine Lumber Co.
V. United States, 55 Fed. 854 ; Lewis
V. Johnson, 76 Fed. 476; Sullivan
Timber Co. v. Mobile, 124 Fed. 644;
McCloskey v. Pacific Coast Co., 160
Fed. 794 (C. C. A.) ; North Shore R.
R. Co. V. Pion, 14 App. Caa. 612;
Pion V. North Shore R. R. Co., 14
Duvall 677; Bigaouette v. North
Shore R. R. Co., 17 Duvall 363.
See Sage v. New York, 10 App. Div.
294. 41 N. Y. Supp. 938.
ssOrgan v. Memphis etc. R.
R. Co., 51 Ark. 235, 11 S. W.
96; New Haven v. Hemingway,
7 Conn. 186; State v. Sargent,
45 Conn, 358; Prior v. Swartz,
62 Conn. 132, 25 Atl. 398, 36
Am. St. Rep. 333, 18 L.R.A. 668;
New York etc. R. R. Co. v. Long, 72
Conn. 10, 43 Atl. 559; Richards v.
New York etc. R. R. Co., 77 Conn.
501, 60 Atl. 295, 69 L.R.A. 929;
Lane v. Smith Bros., 80 Conn. 185;
Chicago V. Van Ingen, 152 111. 624,
38 N. E. 894, 43 Am. St. Rep. 285;
Grant v. Davenport, 18 la. 179;
Musser v. Hershey, 42 la. 356, 361;
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Chase,
43 Md. 23, 35 ; Garitee v. Mayor etc.
Em. D.— 9.
of Baltimore, 52 Md. 422; Grand
Rapids v. Powers, 89 Mich. 94, 50
N. W. 661, 28 Am. St. Rep. 276, 14
L.R.A. 498 ; Rippe v. Chicago etc. R.
R. Co., 23 Minn. 18; Brisbine v. St.
Paul etc. R. R. Co., 23 Minn. 114;
Carli V. Stillwater Street R. & T.
Co., 28 Minn. 373, 380, 41 Am.
Rep. 290; Union Depot etc. Co.
V. Brunswick, 31 Minn. 297;
Reeves v. Backus-Brooks Co., 83
Minn. 339, 86 N. W. 337; Gough v.
Bell, 2 Zab. 441; Concord Mfg. Co.
V. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl.
718, 18 L.R.A. 679; Sturs v. Brook-
lyn, 101 N. Y. 51; Rumsey v. New
York & N. E. R. R. Co., 133 N. Y.
79, 30 N. E. 654, 6 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 67, 28 Am. St. Rep. 600,
15 L.R.A. 618; Saunders v. New
York Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 144 N. Y.
75, 38 N. E. 992, 43 Am. St. Rep.
729, 26 L.R.A. 378; Brookhaven v.
Smith, 188 N. Y. 74, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.)
326, reversing S. C. 98 App. Div. 212,
90 N. Y. S. 646; Brooklyn v.
Mackey, 13 App. Div. 105; North
Hempstead v. Gregory, 53 App.
Div. 350, 65 N. Y. S. 867; Greg-
ory V. Forbes, 96 N. C. 77; Bond v.
Wool, 107 N. C. 139, 12 S. E. 281;
Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Ore. 244,
66 Pac. 923; Delaplaine v. Chicago
etc. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 214; Janesville
V. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W.
128; McCarthy v. Murphy, 119 Wis.
159, 96 N. W. 531, 100 Am. St. Rep.
163; Dutton V. Strong, 1 Black 23;
Yates V. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497;
Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois,
146 U. S. 387, 13 S. C. 110; Paine
Lumber Co. v. United States, 55
Fed. 854; Sullivan Timber Co. v.
Mobile, 124 Fed. 644. See Hart v.
Baton Rouge, 10 La. An. 171;
Gregory v. Forbes, 96 N. C. 77;
Eavenswood v. Flemings, 22 W. Va.
130 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 101
Fourth. The right to accretions or alluvium.*'
Fifth. The right to make a reasonable use of the water as it
flows past or laves the land.®^
In addition to these rights, which are recognized by the com-
mon law, the riparian owner upon public waters is frequently
invested with rights by statute.*^ All these rights are sub-
ordinate to the regulation and use of the waters by the public
for navigation and fishing.
§ 101 (84). Injury to riparian rights upon public wa-
ters is a taking. According to principles heretofore laid
down, it follows that any injury to riparian rights for public
use is a taking for which compensation must be made.^^
"These riparian rights founded on the common law, are prop-
erty, and are valuable, and while they must be enjoyed in due
subjection to the rights of the public, they cannot be abridged
or capriciously destroyed or impaired. They are rights of
which, when once vested, the owner can only be deprived in ac-
cordance with the law of the land, and, if necessary that they
be taken for public use, upon due compensation." "* The gen-
eral proposition is sufficiently illustrated by the cases reviewed
in the preceding sections.
§ 102 (84a). Interfering with access; railroads and
52, 46 Am. Rep. 485; Western Pac. & Atlantic Land Co. v. Lippineott,
Ry. Co. V. Southern Pac. Co., 151 45 N. J. L. 405; Chesapeake etc. Ry.
Fed. 376, 80 C. C. A. 606. But this Co. v. Wallcer, 100 Va. 69, 40 S. E.
does not authorize the riparian own- 633, 914; Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall,
er to build out piers for the pur- 57.
pose of making new land, and such BiOpinion of Judge Edmonds in
piers may be abated as a nuisance Gould v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6
at the suit of the State. Revell v. N. Y. 522. The above enumeration
People, 177 111. 468, 52 N. E. 1052, of rights is approved in Taylor v.
69 Am. St. Rep. 257; Gordon v. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 759, 47 S
Winston, 181 111. 338, 54 N. E. 1095. E. 875, 102 Am. St. Rep. 865.
See North Hempstead v. Gregory, 6 2 As to the right of the ripari-
53 App. Div. 350, 65 N. Y. S. 867. an owner to maintain a, ferry, see
6 0Lockwood v. New York etc. R. Braddock Ferry Co.'s Appeal, 3
R. Co., 37 Conn. 387 ; Tomlin v. D. Penny. 32 ; McRoberts v. Washburn,
B. & M. R. R. Co., 32 la. 106, 109, 10 Minn. 23.
7 Am. Rep. 176; Baltimore etc. R. 6 3/Sfee ante, §§ 63-65, 84.
R. Co. V. Chase, 43 Md. 23, 35; Gi- 64Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v.
rard's Lessee v. Hughes, 1 G. & J. Chase, 43 Md. 23, 35. To same ef-
249; Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn. feet Diedrich v. N. W. Union R. R.
181, 53 N. W. 1139, 38 Am. St. Rep. Co., 42 Wis. 248; Kingsland v. New
541 ; St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., York, 35 Hun 458.
114 Mo. 13, 21 S. W. 202; Camdea
§ 102
WATEES.
131
other works below high-water mark. The legislature can-
not authorize the construction of a railroad between high and
low water mark, or anywhere below the line of private owner-
ship, without compensation to the riparian owner.^^ It is im-
material that a public highway intervenes between the plain-
tiff's lot and high water mark, if the fee is in the plaintiff."''
So when a speedway was constructed along a tidal river, mostly
below high water mark, which could not be crossed except by
esDruxy v. Midland K. R- Co., 127
Mass. 571 ; Carli v. Stillwater St.
E. & T. Co., 28 Minn. 373, 41 Am.
Eep. 290; Union Depot etc. Co. v.
Brunswick, 31 Minn. 297; Rumsey
V. New York & N. E. R. R. Co., 125
N. Y. 681, 25 N. E. 1080; Rumsey v.
New York & N. E. R. R. Co., 133
N. Y. 79, 30 N. E. 654, 28 Am. St.
Rep. 600, 15 L.R.A. 618, 6 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 67; Rumsey v. New
York & N. E. R. R. Co., 136 N.
Y. 543, 32 N. E. 979; Saunders v.
N. Y. Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 144 ]S.
Y. 75, 38 N. E. 992; Saunders v. New
York Cent. etc. R. R. Co. 71 Hun
153, 23 N. Y. Supp. 927; Hedges v.
West Sliore K. R. Co., 80 Hun 310,
30 N. Y. Supp. 92; Delaplaine v. C.
& X. W. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 214; Died-
rieh v. N. W. Union Ry. Co. id. 248;
Railway Co. v. Renwick, 102 U. S.
180; S. C. 49 la. 664; North Shore
R. R. Co. V. Pion, 14 App. Cas. 612,
affirming S. C. 14 Duvall 677 ; Biga-
ouette V. North Shore R. R. Co., 17
Duvall, 363 ; and see New York Cent,
etc. R. R. Co. V. Aldridge, 135 N. Y.
83, 32 N. E. 50; Mehrhof Bros. Brick
Mfg. Co. V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co.,
51 N. J. L. 56, 16 Atl. 12. Contra:
Gould V. Hudson River R. R. Co.,
6 N. Y. 522; S. C. 12 Barb. 616;
Getty V. Same, 21 Barb. 617 ; Penn-
sylvania R. R. Co. V. New York etc.
E. R. Co., 23 N. J. Eq. 157 ; Stevens
V. Pater.son etc. R. R. Co., 34 N. J.
L. 532, 3 Am. Rep. 269; Toralin v.
D. B. & M. R. R. Co., 32 la. 106, 7
Am. Rep. 176; Boston & Worcester
R. R. Co. V. Old Colony R. R. Co.,
12 Cush. 605; Thayer v. New Bed-
ford R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 253; Or-
merod v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 13
Fed. 370. And see Wood v. Chicago
etc. R. R. Co., 60 la. 456; Chicago
etc. R. R. Co. v. Porter, 72 la. 426
Starnes v. Molson, 1 Montreal L. Q,
B. 425 ; Widder v. Buffalo etc. R. R,
Co., 20 U. C. Q. B. 638; Regina v.
Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 23 U. C. Q.
B. 208 ; Widder v. Buffalo etc. R. R,
Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 222.
6 6Brisbine v. St. Paul & Sioux
City Ry. Co., 23 Minn. 114; Chesa-
peake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Union
Bank, 5 Cranch, C. C. 509. But it is
otherwise where the fee of the street
is in the public. EUinger v. Mo.
Pac. R. R. Co., 112 Mo. 525, 20 S.
W. 800 ; City of St. Louis v. Mo. Pac.
R. R. Co. 114 Mo. 13, 21 S. W. 202.
To the same effect as the last cases
cited: Backus v. Detroit, 49 Mich.
110, 13 N. W. 380, 43 j\m. Rep. 447;
Smith V. St. Louis Public Schools,
30 Mo. 290; Potomac S. B. Co. v.
Upper S. B. Co., 109 U. S. 672, 3
S. C. 445, 4 S. E. 15. Some cases
hold tnat a street along the water
front cuts off the riparian riglits of
the adjacent owner, without regard
to whether the public has a fee or
an easement. Godfrey v. Alton, 12
111. 27, 52 Am. Dec. 476; Rowan v.
Portland, 8 B. Mon. 232; Pewaukee
V. Savoy, 103 Wis. 271, 79 N. W.
436, 74 Am. St. Rep. 859, 50 L.R.A.
836; McCloskey v. Pacific Const. Co.,
100 Fed. 794, — C. C. A. — .
132 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 102
pedestrians above or below grade.®'' Booms may not be con-
structed so as to cut off access to riparian property.^* Nor can
a city, in making an improvement of the channel of a tidal
river, deposit mud and debris in front of private property so as
to cut off access to the channel.*'^ In Massachusetts it is held
that a riparian owner has no right to the ebb and flow of the
tide over flats between high and low water mark, which belong
in fee to another, and that a city, owning the fee of such flats,
may fill them up and thus prevent- the flow of the tide, to the
riparian owner, without being liable to him in damages.''^ A
navigable slip adjacent to plaintiff's premises cannot be filled
up, or obstructed, by a city, without compensation.'^ But as
riparian rights are held to be subject to the public right, works
for the improvement of navigation may be constructed, though
access from private property to navigable water is thereby pre-
vented or impaired.''^
The right of the State, as the trustee for the public, of lands
below high water mark, to grant a right of way over the same to
a railroad corporation, is considered and sustained in Saunders
V. New York Central etc., E. R. Co.''* Whether the grant or
condemnation of a right of way below high water mark, or along
the bank, takes absolutely the riparian rights, would doubtless
depend upon whether a fee or an easement was acquired. In
the former case there would probably be a complete taking of the
riparian rights,''^ but in the latter a taking only to the extent of
the impairment.'*
67Matter of New York, 168 N. Y. Corp. Rep. 176. Compare Egan v.
134, 61 N. E. 158, 56 L.R.A. 500. Hart, 45 La. Ann. 1358, 14 So. 244;
osReeves v. Backus-Brooks Co., 83 Payne v. English, 79 Cal. 540, 21
Minn. 339, 86 N. W. 337; Burrows Pac. 952.
V. Gray's Harbor Boom Co., 44 Wash. 7 3Sage v. New York, 154 N. Y.
630, 87 Pac. 937; see ante, § 85. 61, 61 Am. St. Rep. 592; Scrantom
69-70Gariteev. Mayor etc. of Balti- v. Wheeler, 57 Fed. 803, 6 C. C. A.
more, 52 Md. 422. See also Langdon 585; and see ante, § 85.
V. Mayor etc. of New York, 93 N. Y. 74144 N. Y. 75, 38 N. E. 992, 43
129; Butcher's Ice & Coal Co. v. Am. St. Rep. 729, 26 L.R.A. 378.
Philadelphia, 156 Pa. St. 54, 27 Atl. See also Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v.
37G. Porter, 72 la. 426.
7iHenry v. City of Newburyport, 7 6City of St. Louis v. Mo. Pac.
149 Mass. 582, 22 N. E. 75, 5 L.R.A. R. R. Co., 114 Mo. 13, 21 S. W. 202;
179. Harford v. St. Paul & D. R. R. Co.,
7 2Babcock v. City of Buffalo, 1 43 Minn. 104, 44 N. W. U44, 7
Sheldon 317; Ligare v. City of Clii- L.R.A. 722; Ellinger v. Mo. Pac. R.
cago, 139 III. 4G, 28 N. E. 934, 32 R. Co., 112 Mo. 525, 20 S. W. 8O0.
Am. St. Rep. 179, 5 Am. R. R. & 7 6New Jersey Zinc & I. Co. v.
§ 102
WATEES.
133
It has been held that a proprietor upon a navigable stream
cannot recover for any damages to his property by reason of an
authorized dam or bridge across the river which prevents navi-
gation between his premises and the general system of waters
with which the stream connects.'^ So the construction of a
bridge or highway across the mouth of a cove, which prevented
those living on its shore from having access to the sea, has been
held not to be a taking of any property of such shore owners.''^
Tavo recent cases upon this point deserve mention. In one case,
the plaintiff owned property situated on a cove connected with
Passamaquoddy bay by a navigable channel, by which the
plaintiff had access to the bay and high seas. His property con-
sisted of a grist mill and store and he transported most of his
goods and supplies by water. The defendant railroad company
Morris, 44 N. J. Eq. 398, 15 Atl. 227,
1 L.R.A. 133; New York Central etc.
R. E. Co. V. Aldridge, 135 N. Y. 83,
32 N. E. 50; Eumsey v. New York
& N. E. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 681,
25 N. E. 1080; Saunders v. New
York Central etc. R. E. Co., 144 N.
Y. 75, 38 N. E. 992, 43 Am. St. Rep.
729, 26 L.R.A. 378. In Smart v.
Aroostook Lumber Co., 103 Me. 37,
the plaintiff owned a summer cot-
tage on a navigable stream about
five miles above the village of P.
The defendant built a dam and mill
at P. and filled the river with logs
so as to prevent navigation be-
tween P. and the plaintiflf's cottage.
It was held that he suffered special
damage and could recover.
77Parker v. Cutter Mllldam Co.,
20 Me. 253 ; Blackwell v. Old Colony
R. R. Co., 122 Mass. 1 ; Swanson v.
Miss. & Rum River Boom Co., 42
Minn. 532, 44 N. W. 986; Dover v.
Portsmouth Bridge, 17 N. H. 200;
Sugar Refining Co. v. Jersey City,
26 N. J. Eq. 247; Matter of Water
Commissioners, 3 Edwards, Ch. 290;
Lansing v. Smith, 8 Cow. 140; 8.
C. 4 Wend. 9; State v. Charleston
Lt. & W. Co., 68 S. C. 540, 47 S. E.
979 ; Oilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall.
713. See Thomas v. Wade, 48 Fla.
311, 37 So. 743; Stofflet v. Estes, 104
Mich. 208, 62 N. W. 347 ; Viebahn v.
Crow Wing Co., 96 Minn. 276, 104
N. W. 1089, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1126;
Pedrick v. Raleigh etc. R. R. Co.,
143 N. C. 485, 55 S. E. 877, 10 L.R.A.
(N.S.)554; Railroad Co. v. Fergu-
son, 105 Tenn. 552, 59 S. W. 343, 80
Am. St. Rep. 90S. No recovery can
be had for the temporary interrup-
tion of navigation while rebuilding
a draw. Hamilton v. Vicksburg er.c.
R. R. Co., 119 U. S. 280; and see
Willson v. Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245;
Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Albemarle R.
R. Co., 117 N. C. 579, 23 S. E. 213,
29 L.R.A. 700; Mehrhof Bros. Mfg.
Co. V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 51
N. J. L. 56, 16 Atl. 12.
'80'Brien v. Norwich & Worcester
Ry. Co., 17 Conn. 371 ; Clark v. Say-
brook, 21 Conn. 313. See Ocker-
hausen v. Tyson, 71 Conn. 31, 40 Atl.
1041; Matter of New York, West
Shore & Buffalo Ry. Co., 101 N. Y.
685; Trustees of Southampton v.
Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122, 56 N. E. 538;
Carvalho v. Brooklyn etc. Turnpike
Co., 56 App. Div. 522, 67 N. Y. S.
539; S. C. affirmed, 173 N. Y. 586,
65 N. E. 1115.
134
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 102
was authorized to cross the channel upon a trestle and this con-
struction was approved by the federal government. The effect
was to prevent navigation through the channel, whereby the
plaintiff's business was injured and his property depreciated in
value. In a suit against the railroad for damages the court
held that the bridge was a lawful structure and that his loss
was damnum absque injuria.''^
"Frost V. Washington Co. R. R.
Co., 9G Me. 76, 51 Atl. 806, 59 L.R.A.
68. The court says ; "The only right
of the plaintiff interfered with by
the defendant company was his
right of navigation by water in and
out of the cove through the channel.
This right of the plaintiiT, however,
was not his private property nor
even his private right. It could' not
be bought, sold, leased or inherited.
He did not earn it, create it or ac-
quire it. He did not own it as
against the sovereign. The right
was the right of the public, the title
and control being in the sovereign in
trust for the public and for the ben-
efit of the general public, and not
for any particular individual. The
plaintiff only shared in the public
right. He had no right against the
public. The sovereign had absolute
control of it and Could regulate, en-
large, limit or even destroy it, as he
might deem best for the whole pub-
lic and this witliout making or pro-
viding for any compensation to such
individuals as might be inconven-
ienced or damaged thereby. The
sovereign cannot take private prop-
erty for public uses without provid-
ing for just compensation to its
owner, but this constitutional pro-
vision does not limit the power of
the sovereign over public rights. If,
in the evolution of life and com-
merce, the sovereign comes to be-
lieve that the public good will be in-
creased by the creation of some new
or additional means of communica-
tion and commerce at the expense
or even sacrifice of some older one
enjoyed merely as a public right, the
sovereign can so ordain, even to the
detriment of individuals. If, in the
judgment of the sovereign, a rail-
road across a navigable channel
of water and completely obstructing
its navigation is of more benefit to
the public than the navigation of
the channel, he has the unrestricted
power to thus close the channel to
navigation, without making compen-
sation to those who had been wont
to use it. Every individual making
use of a merely public privilege must
bear in mind that he may be law-
fully deprived of that privilege
whenever the sovereign deems it nec-
essary for the public good, and he
must order his business accordingly.
Unless the person authorized by stat-
ute to obstruct or close a navigable
channel is required by statute to
make compensation to persons in-
jured by such action, he is under no
legal obligation to do so. In such
case the inconvenience and loss how-
ever great, an damnutn absque inju-
ria. The company has damaged the
plaintifl' but it has not wronged him.
The defendant company has not in-
terfered with the private property
nor private rights of the plaintiff.
It has lawfully by express authority
of the sovereign, merely abridged the
use of a public right which was with-
in the exclusive control of the sov-
ereign. For this lawful act it is
not obliged to make any compensa-
tion to the plaintiff any more man
to all other persons who might
§ 103 WATEES. 135
In the other case the plaintiff owned about five hundred feet
of frontage on a cove which connected with a tidal navigable
river. The defendant railroad company was authorized to cross
the mouth of the cove by an embankment and bridge. The cove
was shallow, being practically dry at low tide and having two to
three feet of water at high tide. It was found as a fact that the
uses of the cove and outlet for navigation had always been and
in the nature of things must always continue to be insignificant
and that the bridge and embankment were no material inter-
ference with such navigation as was possible. On the rights
of shore owners in the cove, the court says : "Riparian propri-
etors in the cove have the right to wharf out, and to reclaim,
but they are rights confined to the cove, and to be exercised there-
in, and not in the main river ; and to be exercised by each, sub-
ject to the riparian rights of his neighbors, and to the rights
of the public in the cove and its waters. They also have, each,
the important right of access ; that is, the right to go from their
land to the river, and from the river to their land, through the
waters of the cove. This right is distinct from the right of each
•as a member of the public to navigate the waters of the cove.
It is a private right belonging to each as an owner of land
bordering upon waters forming part of a great water highway.
However much courts may differ upon the question whether
such a right can be destroyed or impaired by the state without
compensation to the owner, they all agree that the right of access
exists." 80
Building a bridge or dam across the mouth of a non-navigable
bayou is held to give abutters on the bayou no cause of action,
although it might be made navigable.®^ But a city cannot lay
out a street across a navigable waterway or bayou so as to destroy
the same for navigation.*^
§ 103 (84b). Establishing harbor lines and interfering
have occasion, however seldom, to 14 So. 244; St. Louis etc. E. R. Co.
navigate the channel." pp. 85, 86. v. Schneider, 30 Mo. App. 620; Pot-
soRichards v. New York etc. R. R. ter v. Indiana etc. R. R. Co., 95
Co., 77 Conn. 501, 505, 60 Atl. 295, Mich. 389, 54 N. W. 956. In the
69 L.R.A. 929. In Thomas v. Ash- latter case it is said the plaintiff
land etc. Ry. Co., 122 Wis. 519, 100 may recover if he shows special dam-
N. W. 993, 106 Am. St. Rep. 1000, age.
it is held that riparian owners on saLigare v. City of Chicago, 139
a cove are entitled to access to navi- 111. 46, 28 N. E. 934, 5 Am. R. R. &
gable water. Corp. Rep. 176, 32 Am. St. Rep. 179.
siEgan v. Hart, 45 La. Ann. 1358,
136 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 103
with piers and wharves. The establishing of harbor lines or
dock lines is simply a regulation of the private right of build-
ing piers and wharves out to navigable water, in the interest
of the public right of navigation and commerce. The establish-
ment of such lines and prohibiting the building of piers and
wharves beyond such lines, is not a taking of private property,
and no compensation need be made to riparian owners on account
thereof.^^ But existing piers, extending beyond the lines so
established, cannot be taken or destroyed without compensation,
unless they are an obstruction to navigation.^* Merely estab-
lishing a harbor line, which cuts off a portion of plaintiff's
wharf, is not a taking, when no attempt is made to remove it.^^
A pier which obstructs navigation is a public nuisance,*® and
the owner is not entitled to compensation if it is taken or
impaired by works for the improvement of navigation.*' Where
the abutter owns the bed of a stream, a dock line cannot be es-
tablished which prevents the erection of such structures in or
over the water as do not interfere with the public use of the
stream.** JTor can a dock line be established which at certain
points passes across the natural bank of the river.*® The right
to collect wharfage fees cannot be taken without compensation.®"
8 3 State V. Sargent, 45 Conn. 358; Farist Steel Co. v. City of Bridge-
Farist Steel Co. v. City of Bridge- port, 60 Conn. 278, 22 Atl. 561.
port, 60 Conn. 278, 22 Atl. 561 ; Har- siYates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall.
Ian & H. Co. v. Paschall, 5 Del. Ch. 497; City of Chicago v. Lafiin, 49 111.
435; Commonwealth V. Alger, 7 Cush. 172.
53; City of Grand Rapids v. Powers, seProsser v. Northern Pac. K. E.
89 Mich. 94, 50 N. W. 661, 5 Am. Co., 152 U. S. 59, 14 S. C. 528; Yes-
E. R. & Corp. Rep. 490, 28 Am. St. ler v. Washington Harbor Line
Eep. 276, 14 L.R.A. 498; Bowlby v. Comrs., 146 U. S. 646, 13 S. C. 190;
Shively, 22 Ore. 410, 30 Pac. 154; Paine Lumber Co. v. United States,
Sherman v. Sherman, 18 R. I. 504, 55 Fed. 854.
30 Atl. 459 ; Eisenback V. Hatfield, 2 seAtlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall.
Wash. 236, 26 Pac. 539, 12 L.R.A. 3S9.
632; State v. Prosser, 2 Wash. 530, srPaine Lumber Co. v. United
27 Pac. 550; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 States, 55 Fed. 854.
Wall. 497; Weber v. Harbor Comrs., ssCity of Grand Rapids v. Powers,
18 Wall. 57; Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 89 Mich. 94, 50 N. W. 661, 5 Am.
Wall. 389; Yesler v. Wash. Harbor R. R. & Corp. Eep. 490, 28 Am. St.
Line Comrs., 146 U. S. 646, 13 S. C. Rep. 276, 14 L.R.A. 498; and see City
190; Prosser v. Northern Pac. R. R. of Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis.
Co., 152 U. S. 59, 14 S. C. 528; 288, 46 N. W. 128.
Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 14 ssSame.
S. C. Rep. 548. Tlie State may, of soGrant v. Davenport, 18 la. 179;
course, provide for compensation in Crocker v. New York, 15 Fed. 405.
such cases, if it sees fit to do so.
§ 104 WATEES. 13Y
Those States -which hold the doctrine of the absolute title of
the public to public waters, of course, deny any redress for
injury to riparian rights, for the reason that they do not recog-
nize the existence of such rights. It has accordingly been held
in such States that the converting of a private wharf into a
public one,®^ or the building of public wharves in front of
private property, to be owned and controlled by the public, are
things which may be done without compensation to the riparian
owner.^^ But even in such States a wharf which has been built
by express license from the State cannot be taken for public
use, as for the pier of a bridge, without compensation.^* The
grant by the State of the right to plant oysters is subject to the
right of the riparian owner to wharf out through such beds.''*
§ 104 (84c). Rights of riparian owners upon lakes and
ponds and what interference therewith is a taking. The
rights of riparian owners upon lakes and ponds are the same as
upon other waters.®* Accordingly the abutting owners upon a
lake or pond, whether the title to the bed is in the public or the
abutters, have a right to have the water stand at its natural
level,®® and it follows that the waters cannot be raised or low-
ered or taken away without compensation.*'^ The temporary
raising of the water in a pond and flooding of plaintiff's land
siHart V. Mayor etc. of Baton 371; Draper v. Brown, 115 Wis. 361,
Rouge, 10 La. Ann. 171; Shepherd v. 91 N. W. 1001.
New Orleans, 6 Rob. La. 349. s'Same; Valparaiso City Water
92Ravenswood v. Fleming, 22 W. Co. v. Diclcover, 17 Ind. App. 233;
Va. 52, 46 Am. Rep. 485; Payne v. Hebron v. Gravel Road Co., 90 Ind.
English, 79 Cal. 540, 21 Pac. 052. 192, 46 Am. Rep. 199; Troe v. Lar-
9 3Lewis V. City of Portland, 25 son, 84 la. 649, 51 N. W. 179, 35 Am.
Ore. 133, 35 Pac. 256, 42 Am. St. Rep. St. Kep. 336; Clark v. Rockland
772, 22 L.R.A. 736; and see Classen Water Co., 52 Me. 68; Fernold v.
V. Guano Co., 81 Md. 258, 31 Atl. Knox Woolen Co., 82 Me. 48, 19 Atl.
808. 93; People v. Hulbert, 131 Mich. 156,
9 4Prior V. Swartz, 62 Conn. 132, 25 91 N. W. 211, 100 Am. St. Rep. 588,
Atl. 398, 36 Am. St. Rep. 333, 18 64 L.R.A. 265; Concord Mfg. Co. v.
L.R.A. 668. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl. 713,
95Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn. 18 L.R.A. 679; Peay v. Salt Lake
181, 53 N. W. 1139; and cases cited City, 11 Utah 331, 40 Pac. 206; New
in § 90. Whatcom v. Fairhaven Land Co.,
9 6 Albert Lea v. Nielsen, 80 Minn. 24 Wash. 493, 64 Pac. 735, 54 L.R.A.
101, 82 N. W. 1104, 81 Am. St. Rep. 190; ante, § 87. And see next sec-
242; Madson v. Spokane Val. L. & tion. Compare Kales v. Spokane
W. Co., 40 Wash. 414, 82 Pac. 718; Val. L. & W. Co., 42 Wash. 43, 84
Cedar Lake Hotel Co. v. Cedar Lake Pao. 395.
Hydraulic Co., 79 Wis. 297, 48 N. W.
138 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 105
by a coffer dam in the outlet, for tlie purpose of constructing
a bridge, was held to be no actionable injury.*"* And where a
city, on the recommendation of its board of health and pursuant
to statutory authority, raised the surface of a lake as a health
measure, whereby the plaintiff's riparian lands were flooded,
the city was held not liable on the ground that it acted as an
agent of the State.®® The question of a taking was not discussed.
§ 105 (84d). Withdrawing, diverting or polluting
public waters. We have considered this question with refer-
ence to public rivers in a former section.-^ We have there en-
deavored to sustain the view that the right to the flow of the
stream is the same, whether the bed is public or private prop-
erty. The same principles which apply to public streams apply
to public lakes and ponds, so far as the conditions make them
applicable.^ It would follow that the water of public lakes and
ponds could not be withdrawn for public use, without compen-
sation to the riparian owners. But some of the courts hold
that the waters of a public stream or pond may be taken for pub-
lic use, as to supply a city with water, or for a canal, without
compensation to the , riparian owner.^ But in Massachusetts,
where this doctrine prevails, it is held not to apply to the case
of private ponds.* In JSTew Jersey it is held that public waters
belong absolutely to the public and that the legislature may au-
thorize the pollution of a tidal stream with sewerage, without
liability to riparian proprietors.^
ssAtwater v. Village of Canandal- 504; Grill v. Rowe, 47 How. Pr. 398;
gua, 124 N. Y. 602, 27 N. E. 385, af- and see Fulmer v. Williams, 122 Pa.
firming S. C. 56 Hun 293, 30 N. Y. St. 191, 15 Atl. 726, 9 Am. St. Eep.
Supp. 577. 88, 1 L.E.A. 603; Williama v. Ful-
9 9Murray v. Grass Lake, 125 mer, 151 Pa. St. 405, 25 Atl. 103, 31
Mich. 2, 83 N. W. 995. Am. St. Eep. 767; Auburn v. Union
^Ante, § 87. Water Power Co., 90 Me. 576, 38 Atl.
2See last section. 561, 38 L.E.A. 188; St. Anthony
3Am. Woolen Co. v. Kennebec Palls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul
Water Dist., 102 Me. 153, 66 Atl. Water Comrs., 168 U. S. 349.
316; Fay v. Salem & D. Aqueduct ^Watuppa Reservoir Co. v. Fall
Co. Ill Mass. 27; Cole v. Eastham, River, 154 Mass. 305, 28 N. E. Rep,
133 Mass. 65; Watuppa Reservoir 257. And the taking the water of
Co. V. Fall River, 147 Mass. 548, 1 a, public pond by a water company,
L.R.A. 466; Minneapolis Mill Co. v. without authority of law, will be en-
Eoard of Water Comrs., 56 Minn. joined. Proprietors of Mills v.
485, 58 N. W. 33; State v. Sunapee Braintree Water Supply Co., 149
Dam Co., 70 N. H. 458, 50 Atl. 108, Mass. 478, 21 N. E. 761.
59 L.R.A. 55; Dolbear v. Suncook sSayre v. Newark, 60 N. J. Eq.
W. W. Co., 72 N. H. 562, 58 Atl. 361, 45 Atl. 985, 83 Am. St. Rep.
§ 106 WATEES. 139
§ 106 (85). Miscellaneous cases in regard to public
waters. The plaintiff had land on an island in the Savannah
Eiver and also on the banks of the same, prepared for rice fields.
There were canals by which the water could be let in at high
tide and drained off at low tide, both operations being essential
for rice. The government, for the purpose of improving the
navigation of the river, built a dam, which raised the water so
that the plaintiff could not drain his lands at low tide and there-
by interfered with their use for raising rice and diminished
their value. It was held that there was no taking of the plain-
tiff's property and that he could not recover any compensation."
It has been held that interfering with a fishery by a wall or
wharf,'' or destroying a fording by deepening the channel of a
public river,* were damnum absque injuria. A statute of Wis-
consin made it unlawful for any person to drive piles, build
piers, cribs or other structures in Eock River, in Eock County.
It was held to be an attempt to take the property of riparian
owners without compensation, and upon this and other grounds
was declared invalid.® Where a company is authorized to con-
struct tide-water mills, with suitable basins and other works
below high water mark, a railroad company cannot cross the
same without compensation for the damages occasioned.^" It
has been held in California that one who erected a house in San
Francisco Bay had a right of property therein as against the
city of San Francisco, which proposed to take the ground it oc-
cupied for a public slip.-^^ One who has planted oysters in
public waters for thirty years acquires no rights as against the
public. -^^ If one has an exclusive right to the wharfage of
a pier, the city cannot appropriate the adjoining slip to the pur-
poses of a ferry without compensation.^^ Defendant was pro-
629, 48 L.R.A. 722, reversing S. C. butes, as to say that the owner shall
58 N. J. Eq. 136, 42 Atl. 1068. not use his property as he pleases,
sMilla V. United States, 46 Fed. takes it in violation of the constitu-
738. tion."
'Tinicum Fishing Co. v. Carter, 61 lOBoston Water Power Co. v. Bos-
Pa. St. 21; S. C. 90 Pa. St. 85. ton & Worcester E. R. Co., 16 Pick.
sZiramerman v. Union Canal Co., 512.
1 W. & S. 346. iiGunter v. Geary, 1 Cal. 462.
9City of Janesville v. Carpenter, i2Post v. Kreischer, 32 Hun 49;
77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W. 128. The Lane v. Harbor Comrs., 70 Conn,
court says: "Any restriction or in- 685; Lane v. Smith, 71 Conn. 65, 41
terruption of the common and nee- Atl. 18.
essary use of property that destroys i3Murray v. Sharp, 1 Bos. 539.
its value, or strips it of its attri-
140 EMINENT BOMAIN. § 107
ceeding to erect a building at the foot of a street terminating
on Chatauqua Lake, a navigable body of. water, and the city
filed a bill to enjoin him from doing so. It was held that the
city had no riparian rights and could not maintain the bill and
that only the Attorney-General could interfere.-^* The State
of Virginia granted to plaintiff submerged lands in York River
for oyster beds. The United States in improving the naviga-
tion of the river cut a channel through these lands, deposited
materials thereon and diverted water therefrom, thus occupying
part and destroying the value of the remainder for oyster
raising. It was held that the plaintiff had a property right
in the lands granted and was entitled to compensation from
the federal government. ^^ A law setting apart certain sub-
merged lands on the margin of Lake Erie for a public shooting
ground and forbidding the cutting of rushes thereon was held
not to interfere with the riparian owner's rights.-'® The State
may develop and utilize the natural resources in land under
tide water, when there is no actual interference with riparian
rights in so doing." A statute of Wisconsin forbade, under
a penalty, the cutting of ice upon any meandered lake of the
State for shipment out of the State, without a license from
the Secretary of State and the payment of ten cents a ton upon
all ice so cut and shipped. The act was held void on the ground
that it violated the fourteenth amendment of the federal Consti-
tution and amounted to a taking of property without compen-
sation.^*
§ 107 (8Sa). Riparian rights cannot be abolished with-
out compensation. A statute of Nebraska authorized corpo-
rations to appropriate the water of streams more than twenty
feet in width, for purposes of irrigation, without compensation
to riparian owners. It was held to be contrary to the consti-
tution.^^ The court says: "The right of a riparian proprietor,
as such, is property, and, when vested, can be destroyed or im-
paired only in the interest of the general public, upon full com-
14 Village of Mayville v. Wilcox, Va. 759, 47 S. E. 875, 102 Am. St.
61 Hun 223, 40 N. Y. St. 892, 16 N, Rep. 865.
Y. Supp. 15. isRossmiller v. State, 114 Wis.
isBrown v. United States, 81 Fed. 169, 89 N. W. 839, 91 Am. St. Rep.
55. 910, 58 L.R.A. 93.
16 People V. Silberwood, 110 Mich. is Clark v. Irrigation Co., 45 Neb.
103, 32 L.R.A. 694. 799, 64 N. W. 239.
1 'Taylor v. Commonwealth, 102
§ 108 WATERS. 141
pensation, and in accordance with established law. That the
State may, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, ap-
propriate the water of any stream to any purpose which will
subserve the public interests, is not doubted. And that the
reclamation of the inarable lands of the State is a work of pub-
lic utility, within the meaning of the constitution, is a propo-
sition not controverted in this proceeding. But even the State,
in its sovereign capacity, is, as we have seen, within the restric-
tions of the constitution, and can take or damage private prop-
erty only upon the conditions thereby imposed. The proposi-
tion that the rights of riparian proprietors were abolished by
operation of the statute is therefore without merit." ^° A stat-
ute of Texas, declaring the unappropriated waters of every
river or natural stream within the arid portions of the State
to be the property of the public, was held to be inoperative as
to existing riparian owners on such streams.^-^ It has been held
that the State cannot, under the guise of a police regulation,
deprive the riparian owners upon a lake of the ordinary and
customary uses of the water for bathing, boating, fishing, and
watering stock, without compensation.^^
§ 108 (86). Damages from discharge of sewer. A
municipal corporation has no right to discharge a sewer upon
private property, either directly or indirectly, and will be liable
for any damage thereby occasioned.^^ Nor has it a right to
^oSce also Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. rig, 111 Ky. 903, 64 S. W. 958, 98
255, 10 Pac. 674; City of Janesville Am. St. Rep. 437; Covington v. Ber-
V. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W. ry, 120 Ky. 582, 87 S. W. 317; Statu
128; Priewe v. Wisconsin State v. Jersey City, 55 N. J. Eq. 117;
Land & Imp. Co., 93 Wis. 534, 67 Stoddard v. Saratoga Springs, 127
N. W. 918, 33 L.R.A. 645. N. Y. 261, 27 N. B. 1030; New York
2iMcGee Irrigation Ditch Co. v. Central etc. R. R. Co. v. Rochester,
Hudson, 85 Tex. 587, 22 S. W. 967; 127 N. Y. 591, 28 N. E. 416; Bradt
Barrett v. Metcalfe, 12 Tex. Civ. v. Albany, 5 Hun 591 ; Byrnes v.
App. 247, 33 S. W. 758. See ante, Cohoes, 5 Hun 602 ; Beach v. Elmira,
§ 82. 22 Hun 158; Duryea v. Mayor ete. of
2 2George v. Chester, 59 Misc. 553; New York, 26 Hun 120; Harris v.
Heaton v. Chester, 59 Misc. 558. City of Philadelphia, 155 Pa. St. 76,
23Smith V. Atlanta, 75 Ga. 110; 26 Atl. 874; Pierce v. Gibson
Martin v. Gainsville etc. R. R. Co., County, 107 Tenn. 224, 64 S. W. 33,
78 Ga. 307; Langley v. Augusta, 118 89 Am. St. Rep. 946, 55 L.R.A. 477;
Ga. 590, 45 S. E. 486, 98 S. E. 133; Winn v. Rutland, 52 Vt. 481; Whip-
Jacksonville V. Lambert, 62 111. 519; pie v. Fair Haven, 63 Vt. 221,21 Atl.
Valparaiso v. Keyes, 30 Ind. App. 533; Colby v. Village of LaGrange,
447, 66 N. E. 175; LouisviUe v. Nor- 65 Fed. 554. But there is no lia-
142
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 108
discharge the same into a private race-way or canal,^* or mill
pond,^^ or even into tide waters so as to impede access to a pri-
vate wharf or pier,^® nor so as to create a nuisance in the neigh-
borhood of private property.^^ But the contrary is held in New
Jersey with respect to tide waters. The city of Newark under
legislative authority, discharged a sewer into a tide water river
within twenty-five feet of the plaintiff's premises, and thereby
created an offensive nuisance in the vicinity of his property.
The court of errors and appeals held that the plaintiff was with-
out remedy.^* Where the plaintiff had an oyster bed, held
under a grant from the State and the same was destroyed by
sewerage discharged into the water some three hundred feet
away, it was held that there was a taking of the plaintiff's
property and that he was entitled to compensation.^" A city
is not liable for not providing sufficient sewerage or sewers of
sufficient size,^" nor for an injudicious plan of sewerage,*^ but
will of course be liable for any damages caused by negligence
bility if the sewer is laid with the
plaintiff's consent. Searing v. Sara-
toga Springs, 39 Hun 307.
24Boston Rolling Mills v. Cam-
bridge, 117 Mass. 396; Elgin Hy-
draulic Co. V. Elgin, 74 111. 433 ; Au-
gusta V. Marks, 124 Ga. 365, 52 N.
E. 539. ■
2 6Mill3 V. Nashua, 63 N. H. 42.
2 6 Sleight V. Kingston, 11 Hun
594; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108
Mass. 208; Bray ton v. FallEiver, 113
Mass. 218, 18 Am. Rep. 470; Breed
V. Lynn, 126 Mass. 367; Constitu-
tion Wharf Co. v. City of Boston,
150 Mass. 397, 30 N. E. 1134;
Butchers' Ice & C. Co. v. Philadel-
phia, 156 Pa. St. 54, 27 Atl. 376.
Nor so as to destroy an oyster bed.
Huffmire v. Brooklyn, 22 App. Div.
N. Y. 406. And see Atwood v. Ban-
gor, 83 Me. 582, 22 Atl. 466.
2 7 Scott V. Nevada, 56 Mo. App.
189; Bloomington v. Murnin, 36 111.
App. 647; Dierks v. Comrs. of High-
ways, 142 111. 197, 31 N. E. 496;
Stewart v. Rutland, 58 Vt. 12;
Champaign v. Forrester, 29 111. App.
117.
zsSayre v. Newark, 60 N. J. Eq.
361, 45 Atl. 985, 83 Am. St. Rep.
629, 48 L.R.A. 722, reversing S. C.
58 N. J. Eq. 136, 42 Atl. 1068.
2 9HuflFmire v. Brooklyn, 162 N. Y.
584, 57 N. B. 176, 48 L.R.A. 421.
soCarr v. Northern Liberties, 35
Pa. St. 324, 78 Am. Dec. 342
Wright V. Wilmington, 92 N. C. 156
Kozell V. Anderson, 91 Ind. 591
Rice V. Evansville, 108 Ind. 7, 58
Am. Rep. 22; St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.
V. Duluth, 56 Minn. 494, 58 N. W.
Rep. 159.
siChicago v. Seben, 165 111. 371,
46 N. E. 244, 56 Am. St. Rep. 245;
Seymour v. Cummins, 119 Ind. 148,
24 N. E. 549, 5 L.R.A. 126; Child v.
Boston, 4 Allen, 41, 81 Am. Dec.
680; Stock v. Boston, 149 Mass. 410,
21 N. E. 871, 14 Am. St. Rep. 430;
Buckley v. New Bedford, 155 Mass.
64, 29 N. E. 201 ; Mills v. Brooklyn,
32 N. Y. 489; Johnston v. District
of Columbia, 118 U. S. 19. But see
North Vernon v. Voegler, 103 Ind.
314, 2 N. E. 821; Louisville v. Nor-
ris. 111 Ky. 903, 64 S. W. 958, 98
Am. St. Rep. 437. "Where the plan
§ 109
WATEES,
143
in their construction or management.^^ Damages arising from
changing, obstructing or otherwise interfering with the flow
of surface water by means of sewers, drains and culverts are
considered in subsequent sections.^*
§ 109 (87). Discharging water upon land; injury by
seeping, saturating, etc. An early and important decision
as to what constitutes a taking was made in Connecticut. De-
fendant was incorporated for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining a canal from New Haven to ISTorthhampton. The
canal was built and water escaped from the canal by a waste
wier, and after passing over the land of intermediate proprie-
tors, washed and gullied the plaintiff's land. In a suit for the
damages, it was held that any injury to the land which deprived
the owner of the ordinary use and enjoyment of it was equiva-
adopted by the municipality must
necessarily cause an injury to pri-
vate property equivalent to some
appropriation of the enjoyment
thereof to which the owner is en-
titled, then the municipality is lia-
ble ; but where the fault found is with
the wisdom of the measure, or its
sufficiency or adaptability to carry
out or accomplish the purpose in-
tended, and where its construction
according to the plan adopted in-
vades no private rights, then the
municipality is not liable." Defer
V. City of Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 34
N. W. 680.
3 2Arnd v. Cullman, 132 Ala. 540,
31 So. 478, 90 Am. St. Rep. 922;
Spangler v. San Francisco, 84 Cal.
12, 23 Pac. 1091, 18 Am. St. Eep.
158; Denver v. Rhodes, 9 Colo. 554;
Judd V. Hartford, 72 Conn. 350, 44
Atl. 510, 77 Am. St. Rep. 312; Dis-
trict of Columbia v. Gray, 6 App. D.
C. 314; Reid v. Atlanta, 73 Ga. 523;
Logansport v. Wright, 25 Ind. 512;
Indianapolis v. Huffer, 30 Ind. 235;
Terre Haute etc. R. R. Co. v. McCoy,
113 Ind. 498; Murphy v. Indianapo-
lis, 158 Ind. 238, 63 N. E. 469; City
of Peru V. Brown, 10 Ind. App. 597 ;
Simpson v. Keokuk, 34 la. 568;
Frostburg v. Dufty, 70 Md. 47, 16
Atl. 642; Frostburg v. Hutchins
Bros., 70 Md. 56, 16 Atl. 380; Child
V. Boston, 4 Allen, 41 ; Barry v. Low-
ell, 8 Allen, 127; Staunchfeld v.
City of Newton, 142 Mass. 110;
Bates V. Westborough, 151 Mass.
174, 23 N. E. 1070, 7 L.R.A. 156;
Allen V. Boston, 159 Mass. 324, 34
N. E. 519; Ashley v. Port Huron,
35 Mich. 296, 20 Am. Rep. 629; De-
fer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 34 N. W.
680; Taylor v. Austin, 32 Minn.
247; Haney v. Kansas City, 94 Mo.
334, 7 S. W. 417; City of Bea-
trice V. Leary, 45 Neb. 149, 63
N. W. 370, 50 Am. St. Rep.
546; Gilman v. Laconia, 55 N.
PI. 130, 20 Am. Rep. 175; New
York V. Furze, 3 Hill, 612; Paine
V. Delhi, 116 N. Y. 224, 22 N. E.
405, 5 L.R.A. 797; Lewenthal v.
New York, 5 Lans. 532 ; Vanderslice
V. Philadelphia, 103 Pa. St. 102;
King V. Granger, 21 R. I. 93, 79 Am.
St. Rep. 779; Gross v. City of Lamp-
sacus, 74 Tex-. 195, 11 S. W. 1086;
Kiesel v. Ogden City, 8 Utah, 237,
30 Pac. 758; and see generally on
this subject 2 Dill. Munic. Corp.
§§ 1046-1052.
33;See post §§ 112, 113, 141.
144
EMINEH'T DOMAIN.
§ 109
lent to a taking, and that the plaintiff should recover.^* Caus-
ing water to flow upon land is a clear violation of the right of
exclusive occupation and enjoyment, which cannot be taken or
interfered with without compensation, l^umerous cases sup-
port this conclusion.^ ^ So damage to land caused by percola-
tion and seeping from a mill-pond, canal or reservoir, may be
recovered.*® A railroad company which permitted the waste
water from a tank to run upon private property, where it caused
damage by freezing and otherwise, was held liable for the dam-
3<Hooker v. New Haven & North-
ampton Co., 14 Conn. 146, 36 Am.
Dee. 477, affirmed in Same v. Same,
15 Conn. 312.
3 5How V. Chesapeake & Delaware
Canal Co., 5 Harr. Del. 245; Foot
V. New Haven & N. Co., 23 Conn.
214; Phinizy v. City Council of Au-
gusta, 47 Ga. 260; East St. Louis &
G. R. E. Co. V. Elsentraut, 134 111.
90, 24 N. E. 760; City of Elgin v.
Hoag, 25 111. App. 650; Sanitary
District v. Conroy, 109 111. App.
367; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v.
Lockard, 112 111. App. 423; Sanitary
District v. Alderman, 113 111. App.
23; Wells v. New Haven etc. R. R.
Co., 151 Mass. 46, 23 N. E. 724, 1
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 708; State
v. Isanti Co. Comrs., 98 Minn. 89,
107 N. W. 730; George v. Wabash
Western R. R. Co. 40 Mo. App. 433;
Koch V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 54
N. J. L. 401, 24 Atl. 442; Stone v.
State, 138 N. Y. 124, 33 N. E. 733;
Wright V. byracuse etc. R. R. Co.,
49 Hun 445, 23 N. Y. St. 78, 3 N.
Y. Supp. 480; S. C. affirmed, 124 N.
Y. 638; Selden v. Delaware & H.
Canal Co., 24 Barb. 362; Mattuson
V. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 36 Pa.
Super. Ct. 66; Wendel v. Spokane
County, 27 Wash. 121, 67 Pac. 576;
Arimond v. Same, 31 Wis. 316;
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall.
166; United States v. Lynch, 188 U.
S. 445, 23 S. C. 349; Contra: West
Branch & Susquehanna Canal Co. v.
Mulliner, 68 Pa. St. 357. And see
Noble V. St. Albans, 56 Vt. 522.
3 6 Consolidated Home Supply
Ditch & R. R. Co. v. Hamlin, 6 Colo.
App. 341, 40 Pac. 582; Ellington v.
Bennett, 59 Ga. 286; Young v. Ex-
tension Ditch Co., 13 Ida. 174, 89
Pac. 296; Wilson v. New Bedford,
108 Mass. 261 ; Griffin v. Lawrence,
135 Mass. 365; Aid worth v. City of
Lynn, 153 Mass. 53, 26 N. E. 229, 25
Am. St. Rep. 608, 10 L.R.A. 210
Righter v. Jersey City Water Sup
ply Co., 73 N. J. L. 208, 03 Atl. 6
Reed v. State, 108 N. Y. 407, 15 N
E. 735; Sayre v. State, 123 N. Y
291, 25 N. E. 163; Southard v
Brooklyn, 1 App. Div. N. Y. 175
37 N. Y. Supp. 136; Schwarzenbach
v. Electric W. P. Co., 101 App. Div.
345, 92 N. Y. S. 187; S. C. affirmed,
184 N. Y. 546, 76 N. E. 1108; Spil-
man v. Roanoke Navigation Co., 74
N. C. 675; Welliver v. Pa. Canal
Co., 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 79; Townes v.
City Council, 46 S. C. 15; Texas etc.
Ry. Co. V. O'Mahoney, 24 Tex. Civ.
App. 631, 60 S. W. 902; Turpen v.
Turlock Irr. Dist. 141 Cal. 1, 74
Pac. 295; Fleming v. Lockwood, 36
Mont. 384, 92 Pac. 962. In Idaho
Springs v. Woodward, 10 Colo. 104,
the defendant town was held not lia-
ble, for that it granted leave to a
company to build a flume in a street,
the water of which leaked upon
plaintiff's premises ana caused dam-
age.
§ no
WATERS.
145
ages resulting therefrom.^^ Where a railroad company filled
its land and built a retaining wall against plaintiff's house wall,
through which the moisture oozed into plaintiff's house, it was
held to be an unreasonable use of the company's land.^^ Where
water percolated from a catch-basin into plaintiff's cellar, the
town was held not liable.''®
§ 110 (88). Rights respecting surface water. Ee-
specting surface water which accumulates from rains and melt-
ing snows and seeks a lower level, by force of gravity, without
flowing in any defined channel, the rights of an owner of land
are very different from those respecting running streams.
There is considerable confiict in the decisions upon this subject,
but we think it may be laid down as the better and more ap-
proved doctrine, that an owner of land has a right to have the
surface water flow off from his land by the courses and channels
in which it is naturally accustomed to flow, and that the lower
proprietor has no right to prevent or hinder such flow by erect-
ing barriers or otherwise.*" The owner of land also has a right
3 7Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co. v.
Hoag, 90 111. 339. To same effect,
Kankakee Water Co. v. Reeves, i!^
111. App. 285; Norman v. Ince, 8
Okl. 412, 58 Pac. 632.
ssHurdman v. North Eastern R.
R. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. D. 168. To
same effect, Hartman v. Pitts-
burg Inclined Plane R. R. Co. 159
Pa. St. 442, 28 Atl. Rep. 145.
39Kennison v. Beverly, 146 Mass.
467.
loHughes V. Anderson, 68 Ala.
280, 44 Am. Rep. 147; Alabama Gr.
So. R. R. Co. V. Prouty, 149 Ala. 7,
43 So. 352; Ogburn v. Conner, 46
Cal. 346, 13 Am. Dec. 213; Sanguin-
ette V. Peck, 136 Cal. 466, 69 Pac.
98, 89 Am. St. Rep. 169; Adams v.
Walker, 34 Conn. 466; Laney v.
Jasper, 39 111. 46; Totel v. Bonne-
foy, 123 111. 653, 5 Am. St. Rep. 570;
Dayton v. Drainage Comrs., 128 111.
271, 21 N. E. 198; Livingston v.
McDonald, 21 la. 160, 89 Am. Dec.
563; Pickerill v. Louisville, 125 Ky.
213; Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co. v.
Davis, 68 Md. 281, 11 Atl. 822; Da-
Em. D. — 10.
vis v. Londgreen, 8 Neb. 43; Boyn-
ton V. Langley, 19 Nev. 169, 6 Pac.
437, 3 Am. St. Rep. 781; Earle v.
DeHart, 12 N. J. L. 280; Porter v.
Durham, 74 N. C. 767; Briscoe v.
Parker, 145 N. C. 14; Toote v. Clif-
ton, 22 Ohio St. 247 ; Butler v. Peck,
16 Ohio St. 334, 88 Am. Dec. 452;
Charlton v. Allegheny City, 1 Grant's
Cases, 208; Martin v. Riddle, 26 Pa.
St. 415; Davidheiser v. Rhodes, 133
Pa. St. 226, 19 Atl. 400; Gray v.
Knoxville, 85 Tenn. 99; Beard v.
Murphy, 37 Vt. 99, 86 Am. Dec. 493 ;
Wood on Nuisances, (lat ed. ) § 386;
Washburn on Easements, pp. 427,
429, (2d ed.) The latter author
says: "The owner of the upper
field, in such case, has a, natural
easement, as it is called, to have
the vpater which falls upon his own
land flow ott the same upon the field
below, which is charged with a cor-
responding servitude, in the nature
of dominant and servient tene-
ments." p. 429. Gould oa Waters,
chap. ix.
146
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ no
that the proprietor of lands higher than his own shall not, hy
artificial means, materially increase the flow of such surface
water or discharge it upon him in new or unusual channels.*^
This is the rule of the civil law and, in addition to the cases
cited is supported by many others referred to in the following
sections.*^ Any proprietor may, of course, consume all the
surface water which he finds upon his premises, no matter
whence its source, and divert the same whither he pleases, pro-
vided he does not injure others by turning it upon them. In
other words, the lower estate has no right to the continued or
uninterrupted flow of such water.*^ These rights are subject
to the paramount right of every proprietor to make a reasonable
use of his own land. In agricultural districts one may plough
41 Adams v. Walker, 34 Conn. 466;
Livingston v. McDonald, 21 la. 160,
89 Am. Dec. 563; Gregory v. Bush,
64 Mich. 37, 31 N. W. 90, 8 Am. St.
Rep. 797 ; Chapel v. Smith, 80 Mich.
100, 45 N. W. 69 ; Kelly v. Dunning,
39 N. J. Eq. 482; Field v. West
Orange, 46 N. J. Eq. 183; Porter v.
Durham, 74 N. C. 767; Staton v.
Norfolk & C. R. R. Co., 109 N. C.
337, 13 S. E. 933; Staton v. Norfolk
& C. R. R. Co., Ill N. C. 278, 16 S.
B. 181, 17 L.R.A. 838; Kauffman v.
Greismer, 26 Pa. St. 407; Hays v.
Hinkleman, 68 Pa. St. 324; Dav-
idheiser v. Rhodes, 133 Pa. St.
226, 19 Atl. Rep. 400; Wood
on Nuisances, (1st ed.) § 386;
Martin v. Riddle, 26 Pa. St. 415.
In the latter case the court
say: "When two fields adjoin, and
one is lower than the other, the
lower must necessarily be subject to
all the natural flow of water from
the upper one. Th6 inconvenience
arises from its position, and is usu-
ally more than compensated by
other circumstances. Hence the
owner of the lower ground has no
rigut to erect embankments where-
by the natural flow of the water
from the upper ground shall be
stopped; nor has the owner of the
upper ground a right to make any
excavations or drains by which the
flow of the water is diverted from
its natural channel, and a new chan-
nel made on the lower ground; nor
can he collect into one channel wa-
ters usually flowing oflf into his
neighbor's field by several channels,
and thus increase the wash upon the
lower fields.'' See Manteufel v.
Wetzel, 133 Wis. 619.
i^See Wood v. Moulton, 146 Cal.
317, 80 Pac. 92; Chorman v. Queen
Anne's R. R. Co., 3 Penn. Del. 407,
54 Atl. 687; Pinkstaflf v. StefTy, 210
111. 406, 75 ». E. 163; Chicago etc.
Ry. Co. V. Reuter, 223 111. 387, 79
N. E. 166; Cranson v. Snyder, 137
Mich. 340, 100 N. W. 674; Laun-
stein V. launstein, 150 Mich. 524,
114 N. W. 383; Mizell v. McGowan,
120 N. C. 134, 26 S. E. 783; Same v.
Same, 125 N. C. 439, 34 S. E. 538;
Garland v. Aurin, 103 Tenn. 555,
53 S. W. 940, 76 Am. St. Rep. 699,
48 L.R.A. 862; Riverside Cotton
Mills V. Lanier, 102 Va. 148, 45 S.
E. 875.
4 3Bufrum V. Harris, 5 R. I. 243
Cott V. Lewiston, 30 N. Y. 214, 217
Curtiss V. Ayrault, 47 N. Y. 73
Broadbent v. Ramsbotham, II Exch.
602; Angell on Watercourses, § 108
r; Washburn on Easements, p. 435.
110
WATERS.
147
and cultivate his land, thougli such use may in some degree
change the quantity or direction of the flow of surface water
upon a lower proprietor, or may in some degree obstruct the
flow of such water onto his premises from higher land.**
In determining the question of reasonable use, says the court in
one of the cases cited, all the circumstances of the case would
have to be taken into consideration, "and among them the nature
and importance of the improvements sought to be made, the
extent of the interference with the water, and the amount of
injury done to the other land owners as compared with the value
of such improvements, and also whether such injury could
or could not have been reasonably foreseen." *^
These views in respect to surface water are in conflict with
decisions in several of the States.*" The courts of these States
4 4Swett V. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439,
446, 9 Am. Eep. 276; Gregory v.
Bush, 64 Mich. 37, 31 N. W. 90;
Peck V. Goodberlett, 109 N. Y. 180,
16 N. E. 350; Rindge v. Sargent, 64
N. H. 294. In the last case it is held
that the reasonableness of the use
of land, which obstructs the flow of
surface water, is determined by its
operation upon the interests of all
parties affected by it.
4 5Swett V. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439,
446, 9 Am. Rep. 276. See Broadwell
Dr. Dist. V. Lawrence, 231 111. 86,
83 N. E. 104; Of telle v. Hammond,
78 Minn. 275, 80 N. W. 1123; Bald-
win V. Ohio Tp., 70 Kan. 102, 78 Pac
424, 109 Am. St. Rep. 414, 67 L.R.A.
()42; Mizell v. McGowan, 129 N. C,
C3, 39 S. E. 729, 85 Am. St. Rep
705.
4 6 Clay V. Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co.,
164 Ind. 439, 73 N. E. 904; Drake v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 70 la. 59;
Kansas City & Emporia R. R. Co.
V. Riley, 33 Kan. 374; Chicago etc.
R. R. Co. V. Steck, 51 Kan. 737, 33
Pac. 601; Mo. Pac. R. R. Co. v.
Renfro, 52 Kan. 237, 34 Pac. 802, 39
Am. St. Rep. 344; Baldwin v. Ohio
Tp., 70 Kan. 102, 78 Pac. 424, 109
Am. St. Rep. 414, 67 L.R.A. 042;
Bryant v. Merritt, 71 Kan. 272, 80
Pac. 600; Hovey v. Mayo, 43 Me.
322; Bangor v. Lansil, 51 Me. 521;
Greeley v. Maine Central R. R. Co.,
53 Me. 200; Morrison v. Bucksport
& Bangor R. R. Co., 67 Me. 353;
Gannon v. Hargadon, 10 Allen 106,
87 Am. Dec. 625; Inhabitants of
Franklin v. Eisk, 13 Allen 211;
Parks V. Newburyport, 10 Gray 28,
90 Am. Dec. 194; Luther v. Win-
nisimmet Co., 9 Cush. 171 ; Ashley
V. Wolcott, 11 Cush. 192; Sprague
V. Worcester, 13 Gray 193; Flagg
V. Same, Id. 601; Illinois Cent. R.
R. Co. V. Miller, 68 Miss. 760, 10 So.
61 ; Cox V. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co.,
174 Mo. 588, 74 S. W. 854; Martin v.
Benoist, 20 Mo. App. 262; Field v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 21 Mo. App.
600; Burke v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co.,
29 Mo. App. 370; St. Louis etc. R.
R. Co. V. Schneider, 30 Mo. App.
620; Collier v. Chicago & A. R. R.
Co., 48 Mo. App. 398; Kenney v.
Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 69 Mo.
App. 569; De Lappe v. Kansas City
etc. R. R. Co., 69 Mo. App. 572;
Graves v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., 69 Mo. App. 574; Kearney v.
Themanson, 48 Neb. 74, 66 N. W.
996; Churchill v. Beethe, 48 Neb. 87,
148
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 110
hold that the owner of land may use or improve it without any
regard to the surface water which comes upon or flows over it,
that he may erect a barrier so as to prevent its flow on to his
land, and may discharge it in new channels or in augmented
quantities upon the land below. This is known as the "common
law rule," or as the "old common law rule." This has b.een so
far modified by the later decisions that it is held by many courts
adhering generally to the common law rule, that surface water
flowing in a ravine, draw, swale or well defined natural depres-
66 N. W. 992, 35 L.R.A. 442; Town
V. Missouri Pac. E,. R. Co., 50 Neb.
768; Egerer v. New York etc. E. K.
Co., 3 App. Div. 157, 38 N. Y. S.
319; Edwards v. Charlotte etc. K.
R. Co., 39 S. C. 472, 18 S. E. 58, 39
Am. St. Rep. 746, 22 L.R.A. 246;
Baltzege v. Carolina-Midland R. R.
Co., 54 S. C. 242, 32 S. E. 358, 71
Am. St. Rep. 789; Lawton v. South
Bound R. R. Co. 61 S. C. 548, 39 S.
E. 752; Barnett v. Matagorda R. &
I. Co., 98 Tex. 355, 83 S. W. 801, 107
Am. St. Rep. 636; Norfolk etc. R.
R. Co. V. Carter, 91 Va. 587, 22 S.
E. 517; Cass v. Dicks, 14 Wash. 75,
53 Am. St. Rep. 859; Jordan v.
Benwood, 42 W. Va. 312, 26 S. E.
266, 57 Am. St. Rep. 859, 36 L.R.A.
519; Neal v. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co.,
47 W. Va. 316, 34 S. E. 914; Hoyt
V. Hudson, 27 Wis. 656; Heth v.
Kond du Lac, 63 Wis. 228, 53 Am.
Rep. 279; Waters v. Bay View, 61
Wis. 642; Johnson v. Chicago etc.
R. R. Co., 80 Wis. 641, 50 N. W.
771, 27 Am. St. Rep. 76, 14 L.R.A.
495 ; Champion v. Crandon, 84 Wis.
405, 54 N. W. 775, 19 L.R.A. 856;
Crawson v. Grand Trunli R. R. Co.,
27 U. C. Q. B. 68; Ostrom v. Sills,
24 Ont. 526.
In Minnesota the common law rule
as to surface water has been gen-
erally adopted.
Rowe V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
41 Minn. 384, 43 N. W. 76, 16 Am.
St. Rep. 700; Jordan v. St. Paul etc.
R. R. Co., 42 Minn. 172, 43 N. W.
849, 6 L.R.A. 573; Eollman v. City
of Mankato, 45 Minn. 457, 48 N. W.
192; Brown v. Winona etc. R. R.
Co., 53 Minn. 259, 55 N. W. 123, 39
Am. St. Rep. 603; Werner v. Papf,
94 Minn. 118, 102 N. W. 366. In the
case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn.
436, 61 N. W. 462, 26 L.R.A. 632,
the court, to some extent, criticises
and disapproves former cases, and
sums up the rule of the court as
follows: "1. The old common law
rule that surface water is » common
enemy, which each owner may get
rid of as best he can, is in force in
this state, except that it is modified
by the rule that he must so use his
own as not unnecessarily or unreason-
ably to injure his neighbor. Under
this rule, it is the duty of an owner
draining his own land to deposit the
surface water in some natural drain,
if one is reasonably accessible; and
he is entitled to deposit the same in
sucli natural drain, though it is
thereby conveyed upon the land of
his neighbor, if it does not thereby
unreasonably injure him. 2. A cir-
cumstance to be considered in deter-
mining what is a reasonable use of
one's own land, under this rule, is
the amount of benefit to his estate
thus drained, as compared with
the amount of injury to his neigh-
bor's estate by reason of casting the
burden of the surface water upon it.
3. Subject to these limitations, and
§ 110
WATEES.
149
sion, may not be obstructed to the material injury of the upper
estate. ■'^ Also that surface water may not be collected and
poured in a stream upon the lower proprietor.*^ The common
law rule is still further modified, indirectly, by introducing the
doctrine of negligence, whereby any injurious interference with
the flow of surface water in the construction of works for public
use, is made actionable upon that ground.*^ But negligence
implies a corresponding duty, and every duty implies a corres-
ponding right. To hold that a certain manner of construction
which interferes with the flow of surface water is negligent is
to hold that the corporation owes a duty not to make such inter-
ference; and this again is to hold that the party injured has a
right to have the waters flow without such interference. Every
one of these cases based upon negligence, in reality affirms that
proprietors have rights respecting the flow of surface water, and
the rule that he must in all cases
do what is reasonable to dispose of
the surface water to the least injury
to his neighbors, such owner has a
right to drain his own land for some
proper use and cast the water upon
theirs, whether such drainage is the
direct and sole purpose of the im-
provement, or only results incident-
ally therefrom." See Oftelie v.
Hammond, 78 Minn. 275, 80 N. W.
1123.
The Nebraska court, while adopt-
ing the common law rule, adopts al-
so substantially the same modifica-
tions of it. Lincoln etc. R. R. Co.
V. Sutherland, 44 Neb. 526, 62 N.
W. 859; City of Beatrice v. Leary,
45 Neb. 149, 63 N. W. 370; Todd v.
York Co., 72 Neb. 207, 100 N. W.
299, 66 L.R.A. 561.
47St. Louis etc. E. R. Co. v. And-
erson, 62 Ark. 360, 35 S. W. 791;
Wharton v." Stevens, 84 la. 107, 50
N. W. 562, 35 Am. St. Rep. 296,
15 L.R.A. 630; Canton etc. R. R. Co.
V. Paine (Miss.) 19 So. 199; Lin-
coln etc. R. R. Co. V. Sutherland, 44
Neb. 526, 62 N. W. 869; City of
Beatrice v. Leary, 45 Neb. 149, 63 N.
W. 370; Town v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co.,
50 Neb. 768; Norfolk & W. R. R. Co.
v. Carter, 91 Va. 587, 22 S. E. 517;
Henry v. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 40
W. Va. 234, 21 S. E. 803. And see
Sullivan v. Browning, 67 N. J. Eq.
391, 58 Atl. 302, and cases cited in
§ 89.
^sHolmes v. Calhoun County, 97
la. 360, 66 N. W. 145; FoUman v.
City of Mankato, 45 Minn. 457, 48
N. W. 192; Illinois Central R. R
Co. V. Miller, 68 Miss. 760, 10 So
61 ; Cannon v. St. Joseph, 67 Mo
App. 367; Lincoln St. R. R. Co. v
Adams, 41 Neb. 737, 60 N. W. 83.
Bunderson v. Burlington etc. R. R
Co., 43 Neb. 545, 61 N. W. 721,
Fremont etc. R. R. Co. v. Harlin, 50
Neb. 698; Clark v. Rochester, 43
Hun 367; McCarthy v. Far Rock-
away, 3 App. Div. 379, 38 N. Y. S.
989; Bidell v. Sea Cliff, 18 App. Div.
N. Y. 261 ; Johnson v. White 26 R.
I. 207, 58 Atl. 658, 65 L.R.A. U50;
post, § 112, n. 55.
■iSiS'ee § 112 and cases cited; Kear-
ney V. Themanson, 48 Neb. 74, 66
N. W. 996.
150 EMINENT DOMAIN. § HI
are, therefore, in effect, innovations upon the old common la"w
rule.
The conflicting decisions in regard to surface water illus-
trate the fact that property in land differs in the different
States. It is not the same in Illinois that it is in the adjoining
State of Wisconsin. In the former State it includes certain
rights in respect to surface water, which are not included in the
latter. The subject of this section will be found very fully
discussed in Gould on Waters, chapter ix.
§ 111 (88a), What constitutes surface water. — Flood
waters of stream. As a general rule, there is not much
question as to what constitutes surface water and what does not.
In those States which recognize no rights, or substantially none,
in respect to surface water, it is often made a nice question
whether the waters flowing in a ravine, channel or natural de-
pression constitute a stream, which cannot be interfered with
without liability, or mere surface water, which may be treated
as a common enemy. It is also a mooted question whether the
flood waters of a stream, which spread out over the lowlands in
times of high water, are a part of the stream or only surface
water. Without entering upon a discussion of these questions,
we refer to some of the authorities where they are discussed.^"
BO As to whether the course by a continuous body with the water
which surface water finds its way to flowing in the ordinary channel, or
lower levels, is a water course or if it departs from such channel
not, see Morrisey v. Chicago etc. K. animo revertendi, presently to re-
R. Co., 38 Neb. 406, 56 N. W. 946; turn, as by the recession of the wa-
Bunderson v. Burlington etc. E. E. ters, it is to be regarded as still a
Co., 43 Neb. 545, 61 N. W. 721; part of the stream. The identity
Chicago etc. E. E. Co. v. Stack, 51 of the river does not depend upon
Kan. 737, 33 Pac. 601 ; Gregory v. the volume of water which may hap-
Bush, 64 Mich. 37, 31 N. W. 90, 8 pen to flow down its course at any
Am. St. Eep. 797; Neal v. Ohio Eiv. particular season. The authorities
E. E. Co., 47 W. Va. 316, 34 S. E. hold that a stream may be wholly
914. dry at times without losing the
As to the flood waters of a stream, character of a water course. So, on
it is said by the court, in O'Connell the other hand, it may have a
V. East Tenn. V. & G. E. E. Co., 87 'flood channel' to retain the surplus
Ga. 246, 13 S. E. 489, 27 Am. St. waters until they can be discharged
Rep. 246, 13 L.E.A. 394: "If the by the natural flow." To same ef-
flood water becomes severed from feet Sullens v. Chicago etc. R. R.
the main current, or leaves the Co., 74 la. 659, 38 N. W. 545, 7 Am.
stream never to return, and spreads St. Rep. 501 ; Noe v. C. B. & Q. R. R.
out over the low ground, it has be- Co., 76 la. 360, 41 N. W. 42; Byrne
come surface water; but if it forms v. Minn. & St. L. E. E. Co., 38 Minn.
§ 112
WATEES.
151
A body of water twenty-five hundred acres in extent, formed
solely from rains and snows, varying in depth, from three to
six feet, filled with swampy vegetation and the land under which
had been surveyed and sold to individuals, was held to be like
a temporary body of surface water and the owners of the land
under the water and around it were held to have no riparian
rights.^^
§ 112 (89). What interference with surface water is a
taking. An interference with any right respecting surface
water in the exercise of the eminent domain power is a taking.
If a railroad company so coiistructs its road as to obstruct the
flow of surface water and dam it back upon private property,
it will be liable therefor."^ The same rule applies to a munici-
212, 36 N. W. 339, 8 Am. St. Rep.
668; Morrissey v. C. B. & Q. R. R.
Co., 38 Neb. 406, 56 N. W. 946; Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co. V. Emmert, 53
Neb. 237, 73 N. W. 540; Sparks Mfg.
Co. V. Newton, 57 N. J. Eq. 367;
Clarke v. Patapsco Guano Co., 144
N. C. 64, 56 S. E. 858, 119 Am. St.
Rep. 931 ; Grande Ronde Elee. Co. v.
Drake, 46 Ore. 243, 78 Pac. 1031;
Cook V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.,
107 Va. 32; Uhl v. Ohio Riv. R. R.
Co., 56 W. Va. 494, 49 S. E. 378,
107 Am. St. Rep. 968, 68 L.R.A. 138;
Richards v. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 56
W. Va. 592, 49 S. E. 385; Caiiro etc.
R. R. Co. V. Brevoort, 62 Fed. 129.
For the contrary view see New
York etc. R. R. Co. v. Si)eelman, 12
Ind. App. 372, 40 N. E. 541; Mis-
souri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Keys, 55
Kan. 205, 40 Pac. 275, 49 Am. St.
Rep. 249; City etc. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 72 Miss. 677, 17 So. 78, 48
Am. St. Rep. 579, 27 L.R.A. 762;
Scimeider v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 29
Mo. App. 68; Johnson v. Grays
Point Terminal Ry. Co., Ill Mo.
App. 378, 85 S. W. 941. And see
Yazoo etc. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 73
Miss. 678, 19 So. 487, 32 L.R.A. 262;
Casa v. Dicks, 14 Wash. 75, 44 Pac.
113, 53 Am. St. Rep. 859.
BiApplegate v. Franklin, 109 111.
App. 293. It was held that one
owner could drain off the water
without liability to other owners.
5 2Savannah etc. R. R. Co. v. Bu-
ford, 106 Ala. 303, 17 So. 395; Sho-
han V. Alabama Great Southern Ry.
Co., 115 Ala. 181 ; Alabama Gt. So.
R. R. Co. V. Prouty, 149 Ala. 7, 43
So. 352; Bentonville R. R. Co. v.
Baker, 45 Ark. 252; St. Louis etc.
R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 62 Ark. 360,
35 S. W. 791; Little Rock, etc. Ry.
Co. V. Wallis, 82 Ark. 447, 102 S. W.
390; Southern Ry. Co. v. Cook, 106
Ga. 450, 32 S. E. 585; Southern
Ry. Co. V. Cook, 117 Ga. 286, 43 S.
E. 697; Gillham v. Madison County
R. R. Co., 49 111. 484; Illinois & St.
Louis R. R. Co. V. Fehringer, 82
111. 129; Chicago Rock Island & Pa-
cific R. R. Co. V. Casey, 90 111. 514;
Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Henne-
berry, 153 111. 354, 38 N. E. 1043;
Tetherington v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 226 111. 129, 80 N. E. 697; St.
Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal
Ry. Ass. V. Schultz, 226 111. 409, 80
N. E. 879; Kankakee etc. R. R. Co.
V. Horan, 22 111. App. 145; Same v.
Same, 23 111. App. 259; Chicago &
A. R. R. Co. V. Henneberry, 28 111.
App. 110; Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v.
152
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 112
Eamey," 39 111. App. 409 ; Chicago &
A. E. R. Co. V. Henneberry, 42 111.
App. 126; Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v.
Thillman, 43 111. App. 78; Ohio &
M.'r. R. Co. v. Combs, 43 111. App.
119; Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Neutzel,
43 111. App. 108; Wabash R. R. Co.
V. Sanders, 47 111. App. 436; Miller
V. Chicago & E. R. R. Co., 60 111.
App. 51; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v.
Heisner, 93 111. App. 469; S. C.
affirmed, 192 111. 571; Cincinnati
etc. Ry. Co. v. Ward, 120 111. App.
212; Tetherington v. St. Louis etc.
R. R. Co., 128 111. App. 139; Chi-
cago, etc. R. R. Co. V. Stroud, 129
111. App. 348; Atterbury v. Chicago
etc. R. R. Co., 134 111. App. 330;
Indiana etc. ily. Co. v. Eberle, 110
Ind. 542, 59 Am. Rep. 225; Balti-
more etc. R. R. Co. V. Quillen, 34
Ind. App. 330, 72 N. E. 661, 107 Am.
St. Rep. 183; Brake v. Chicago, R.
I. & P. Ry. Co., 63 la. 302, 50 Am.
Rep. 746; Stith v. Louisville etc.
R. R. Co. 109 Ky. 168, 58 S. W. 600;
Payne v. Morgan's La. & Tex. R. R.
etc. Co., 38 La. An. 164, 58 Am. Rep.
174; Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co. v.
Davis, 68 Md. 281, 11 Atl. 822, 6
Am. St. Rep. 440; Baltimore etc. R.
R. Co. V. Hackett, 87 Md. 224; Jung-
blum V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
70 Minn. 153, 72 N. W. 971; Sinai
V. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 71 Miss.
547, 14 So. 87 ; Canton etc. R. R. Co.
v. Paine (Miss.), 19 So. 199; Tucker
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 66 Mo.
App. 141; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v.
Shaw, 63 Neb. 3S0, 88 N. W. 508,
56 L.R.A. 341; Fletcher v. Auburn,
25 Wend. 462; Raleigh & Augusta
Air Line R. R. Co. v. Wicher, 74 N.
C. 220; Nichols v. Norfolk etc. R.
R. Co. 120 N. C. 495; Dale v. South-
ern Ry. Co., 132 N. C. 705, 44 S. E.
399; Fick v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
157 Pa. St. 622, 27 Atl. 783; Gulf,
Col. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Helsley, C2
Tex. 593; Sabine & East Tenn. R. R.
Co. V Johnson, 65 Tex. 389; Gulf,
Col. & Santa Fe E. R. Co. v. Holli-
day, 65 Tex. 512; Owens v. Missouri
Pacific Ry. Co. 67 Tex. 679; Texas
Central Ry. Co. v. Clifton, 2 Tex.
App. Civil Cas. 433; Texas & P. K.
R. Co. V. Snyder, 18 S. W. 559;
Gulf etc. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 3 Tex.
Ct. of App. J. 41, § 22; S. A. & A.
R. R. Co. V. Gwynn, 4 Tex. Ct. of
App. J. 338, § 219; Bonner v. Worth,
5 Tex. Civ. App. 560, 24 S. W. 306;
Texas etc. Ry. Co. y. Maddox, 26
Tex. Civ. App. 297, 63 S. W. 134;
Texarkana etc. Ry. Co. v. Spencer,
28 Tex. Civ. App. 251, 67 S. W. 196;
Gulf etc. Ry. Co. v. Steele, 29 Tex.
Civ. App. 328, 69 S. W. 171 ; San An-
tonio etc. Ry. Co. v. Gurley, 37 Tex.
Civ. App. 283, 83 S. W. 842; Texas
Cent Ry. Co. v. Brown, 38 Tex. Civ.
App. 610, 86 S. W. 659; Barstow
Irr. Co. V. Black, 39 Tex. Civ. App.
80, 86 S. W. 1036 ; International etc.
R, E. Co. V. Slusher, 42 Tex. Civ.
App. 631, 95 S. W. 717; Missouri
etc. Ry. Co. v. Crow, 43 Tex. Civ.
App. 280, 95 S. W. 743; Missouri,
etc. Ry. Co. v. Green, 44 Tex. Civ.
App. 247, 99 S. W. 573; Baugh v.
Gulf etc. Ry. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App.
443, 100 S. W. 958; Houston etc. Ry.
Co. V. Barr, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 57, 99
S. W. 437; McGehee v. Tidewater
Ry. Co., 108 Va. 508; Henry v. Ohio
Riv. E. E. Co., 40 W. Va. 234, 21
S. E. 863. In Shane v. Kansas City
etc. E. E. Co., 71 Mo. 237, 36 Am.
Dec. 480, the Supreme Court of Mis-
souri holds in accordance with the
text in an elaborate opinion, which
overrules prior cases. Compare
Munkers v. Same, 72 Mo. 514; S. C.
60 Mo. 334, and Hosher v. Same, 60
Mo. 329. But Shane's case is in
turn overruled in Abbot v. Kansas
City & St. Joseph E. E. Co., 83 Mo.
271, 53 Am. Eep. 581, and Jones v.
St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 84 Mo. 151.
Where a railroad embankment ob-
§ 11^
WATERS.
153
pal corporation executing a public work.'^^ A railroad com-
pany constructed an embankment which formed a barrier to the
natural flow of surface water and caused the same to collect in
a ditch beside the road, in which it ran for a long distance and
was then discharged through a culvert upon the plaintiff's land,
where it had not been accustomed to flow before. The company
was held liable on the ground of its being a taking.''* And,
structed surface water and created
a, stagnant pool, injurious to health,
the company was held liable.
Georgia etc. Ry. Co. v. Jerni-
gan, 128 Ga. 501, 57 S. E.
791; Southern Ry. Co. v. Harde-
man, 130 Ga. 222, 60 S. E. 539 ; Cane
Belt R. R. Co. V. Ridgeway, 38 Tex.
Civ. App. 108, 85 S. W. 496; McFad-
den V. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 41 Tex.
Civ. App. 350, 92 S. W. 989. See
Sabetto v. New York Cent. etc. R.
R. Co., 127 App. Div. 832.
BSConniff v. San Francisco, 67
Cal. 45; Los Angeles Cem. Ass. v.
Los Angeles, 103 Cal. 461, 37 Pac.
375; Maguire v. Centerville, 76 Ga.
84; Lake v. Bok, 31 111. App. 45;
Pickerill v. Louisville, 125 Ky. 213,
100 S. W. 873; Bowman v. New Or-
leans, 27 La. Ann. 501 ; Rice v. City
of Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 34 N. W.
719; Peters v. Fergus Falls, 35
Minn. 549; Ham v. Levee Comrs., 83
Miss. 534, 35 So. 943; City of Bea-
trice V. Leary, 45 Neb. 149, 63 N. W.
370, 50 Am. St. Rep. 546; Clark v.
Rochester, 43 Hun 271 ; Acker v.
Town of New Castle, 48 Hun 312,
15 N. Y. St. 894, 1 N. Y. Supp. 223;
Pmnix V. Lake Druramond Canal
Co., 132 N. C. 124, 43 S. E. 578;
Cooper V. City of Dallas, 83 Tex.
239, 18 S. W. 565, 29 Am. St. Rep.
645; Nussbaum v. Bell Co., 97 Tex.
86, 76 S. W. 97. See Darlington v.
Cloud Co., 75 Kan. 810, 88 Pac. 529 ;
Kent Co. v. Goodwin, 98 Md. 84, 56
Atl. 478; Galbraith v. Yates, 79
Minn. 436, 82 N. W. 683; Franklin
V. Durgee, 71 N. H. 186, 51 Atl. 911,
58 L.R.A. 112; Carroll v. Rye Tp.,
13 N. D. 458, 101 N. W. 894.
6 4T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Morrison,
71 111. 616; Illinois Central R. R.
Co. V. Heisner, 192 HI. 571, 61 N. E.
656; Albright v. Cedar Rapids etc.
Ry. & Lt. Co., 133 la. 644, 110 N. W.
1052; Fossum v. Chicago etc. Ry.
Co., 80 Minn. 9, 82 N. W. 979; Ben-
son V. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co.,
78 Mo. 504; Hogenson v. St. Paul,
Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co., 31
Minn. 224. In Chicago & Alton R.
R. Co. V. Glenney, 118 111. 487, where
damages were claimed in a similar
case, it was held that the company
was not liable for damages caused
by water brought into its ditch by
artificial channels connected with
the ditch without its consent. And
see Curtis v. Eastern R. R. Co., 14
Allen 55; Moses v. St. Louis. Iron
Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., 85
Mo. 86 ; Mitchell v. New York, Lake
Erie & Western R. R. Co., 36 Hun
177;Rathke v. Gardner, 134 Mass. 14.
It is no defense that the rail-
road is properly constructed so far
as its use for railroad purposes is
concerned. "A railroad company
must construct its road not only
with reference to the safety of the
traveling public, but also with ref-
erence to the rights of adjacent
landowners." McCleneghan v. Oma-
ha R. R. Co., 25 Neb. 523, 13 Am.
St. Rep. 508 ; Clauson v. Chicago etc.
Ry. Co., 100 Wis. 308, 82 N. W. 146
is a similar case in which the
154
EMmENT DOMAIN.
§ 11^
generally, it is a taking to collect surface water into a channel
and turn it in a body upon the land of another, whether the
water would have found its way there hy nature or not.^^ The
decisions are substantially unanimous as to the liability in such
cases, but the ground of liability is usually that of improper
company was held not liable on
the ground that it was the duty of
the company to protect its road
from surface water and that inci-
dental injuries to property in so
doing was damnum absque injuria.
BBTroy V. Coleman, 5S Ala. 570;
Enfaula v. Simmons, 86 Ala. 515;
Springfield etc. R. K. Co. v. Henry,
44 Ark. 360; Cloverdale v. Smith,
128 Cal. 230, 60 Pac. 851; Ruduyai
V. Harwinton, 79 Conn. 91, 63 Atl.
948; Chorman v. Queen Anne's R.
R. Co., 3 Penn. Del. 407, 54 Atl. 687 ;
Frisbie v. Cowen, 18 App. Cas. D. C.
381 ; Atkinson v. Atlanta, 81 Ga.
625, 7 S. E. 692; Georgia etc. Co.
V. Baker, 88 Ga. 28, 13 S. E. 831;
City of Albany v. Sikes, 94 Ga. 30,
20 S. E. 257, 26 L.R.A. 653; Elgin
V. Kimball, 90 111. 356; Jackson-
ville R. R. Co. etc. V. Cox, 91 111.
500; Aurora v. Love, 93 III. 521;
Young V. Comrs., 134 111. 569, 25 N.
E. 689; Graham v. Keene, 143 111.
425, 32 N. E. 180; Jewett v. Swett,
178 111. "96, affirming S. C. 71 111.
App. 641; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co.
V. Heisner, 192 111. 571, 61 N. E.
656; Chicago etc. E. R. Co. v. Con-
nors, 25 111. App. 561 ; Chicago & A.
R. R. Co. T. Riley, 25 111. App. 569;
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Hurst, 25
111. App. 98; S. C. 14 111. App. 419;
Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Glenney,
28 111. App. 364; Allen v. Michel, 38
111. App. 313; Illinois Central R. R.
Co. V. Heisner, 45 111. App. 143; Ef-
fingham V. Surrells, 77 111. App. 460 ;
Commissioners of Highways v.
Sweet, 77 111. App. 641 ; Crawfords-
ville V. Bond, 96 Ind. 236; Patoka
Tp. V. Hopkins, 131 Ind. 142, 30 N.
E. 896; Valparaiso v. Spaeth, 166
Ind. 14, 76 N. E. 514; Lake Erie &
W. R. R. Co. V. Hilfiker, 12 Ind.
App. 280, 40 N. B. 80; Baltimore,
etc. R. R. Co. V. Quillon, 34 Ind.
App. 330, 72 N. E. 661, 107 Am. St.
Rep. 183; Cromer v. Logansport, 38
Ind. App. 661, 78 N. E. 1045;
Holmes v. Calhoun County, 97 la.
360, 66 N. W. 145; Schofield v.
Cooper, 126 la. 334, 102 N. W. 110;
Baldwin v. Ohio Tp., 70 Kan. 102,
78 Pac. 424, 109 Am. St. Rep. 414,
67 L.R.A. 642; Dennis v. Osborn,
75 Kan. 557, 89 Pac. 925; Louisville
etc. R. R. Co. V. Brinton, 109 Ky.
180, 58 S. W. 604; Louisville etc.
R. R. Co. V. Cornelius, 111 Ky. 752,
64 S. W. 732; Robertson v. Daviess
Gravel Road Co., 116 Ky. 913, 77
S. W. 189; Thoman v. Covington,
23 Ky. L. R. 117, 62 S. W. 721; Hit-
chins V. Frostburg, 68 Md. 100, 11
Atl. 826, 6 Am. St. Rep. 422; Frost-
burg V. Hitchins, 70 Md. 56, 16 Atl.
380; Frostburg v. Dufty, 70 Md.
47, 16 Atl. 642; Guest v. Church
Hill, 90 Md. 689, 45 Atl. 882; Cahill
V. Baltimore, 93 Md. 233, 48 Atl.
705; New York etc. R. R. Co. v.
Jones, 94 Md. 24, 50 Atl. 423; Daley
V. Watertown, 192 Mass. 116, 78 N.
E. 143; Cubit v. O'Dett, 51 Mich.
347; Gregory v. Bush, 64 Mich. 37,
31 N. W. 90, 8 Am. St. Rep. 797;
Page V. Huckins, 150 Mich. 103, 113
N. W. 577; Blakeley v. Devine, 36
Minn. 53 ; Pye v. Mankato, 36 Minn.
373 ; Olson v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
38 Minn. 419, 37 N. W. 953; Foil-
man V. City of Mankato, 45 Minn.
457, 48 N. W. 192; Robbins v. Will-
mon, 71 Minn. 403, 73 N. W. 1097;
§ 112
WATEES.
155
construction. But all the cases recognize the right of a pro-
prietor not to be injured by having the water poured upon his
land in a stream, and if this right is interfered "with by a
permanent maintenance of the works causing the injury, there
Gunnerus v. Spring Prairie, 91
Minn. 473, 98 N. W. 340, 974; Illi-
nois Cent. R. E. Co. v. Miller, 68
Miss. 760, 10 So. Gl ; McCormick v.
Kansas Citj-, St. Joe & C. B. R. R.
Co., 70 Mo. 359; Pychliclce v. City
of St. Louis, 98 Mo. 497, 11 S. W.
1001 ; Carson v. City of Springfield,
53 Mo. App. 289; Cannon v. St. Jos-
eph, 67 Mo. App. 367; Ready v. Mo.
Pac. Ry. Co., 98 Mo. App. 467, 72 S.
W. 707; Fremont etc. R. R. Co. v.
Morley, 25 ISeb. 138, 40 N. W. 948;
State V. Fillmore County, 32 Neb.
870, 49 N. W. 769 ; Lincoln St. R. R.
Co. V. Adams, 41 Neb. 737, 60 N. W.
83; Bunderson v. Burlington etc. R.
R. Co., 43 >Jeb. 545, 61 N. W. 721;
Fremont etc. R. R. Co. v. Harlin, 50
Neb. 698, 61 Am. St. Rep. 578, 36
L.R.A. 417; Roe v. Howard Co., 75
Neb. 448, 106 N. W. 587; Andrews
V. Steele City, 2 Neb. (Unof.) 676,
89 N. W. 739 ; West Orange v. Field,
37 N. J. Eq. 600; Field v. West
Orange, 46 N. J. Eq. 183; Soule v.
City of Passaic, 47 N. J. Eq. 28, 20
Atl. 346; Fuller v. Belleville, 67 N.
J. Eq. 468, 58 Atl. 176; Seifert y.
Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 136, 54 Am.
Rep. 664; Clark v. Rochester, 43
Hun 271 ; McCarthy v. Far Rocka-
way, 3 App. Div. 379, 38 N. Y. Supp.
989; Bedell v. Sea Cliff, 18 App.
Div. 261; Chase v. New York Cent.
R. R. Co., 24 Barb. 273; Moran v.
McClarus, 63 Barb. 185; Wiekham
v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co. 85 App.
Div. 182, 83 N. Y. S. 146; Branson
V. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
Ill App. Div. 737, 97 N. Y. S. 788;
Staton V. Norfolk etc. R. C. Co., 109
N. C. 337, 13 S. E. 933; Staton v.
Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., Ill N. C.
278, 16 S. E. 181, 17 L.R.A. 838;
Parker v. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 119
N. C. 676; Bench v. Wilmington &
W. R. R. Co., 120 N. C. 498; Parker
V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 123 N. C.
71, 31 S. E. 381 ; Noble v. Aasen, 8
N. D. 77, 76 N. W. 990; Meyers v.
Vermillion, 7 Ohio N. P. (N. S.)
90; Huddlestun v. Borough of West *
Bellvue, HI Pa. St. 110; Gordon v.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. (Pa.), 6 Rep.
727; Elliott v. Oil City, 129 Pa. St.
570, 18 Atl. 553; Torrey v. City of
Scranton, 133 Pa. St. 173, 19 Atl.
351 ; Weir v. Borough of Plymouth,
148 Pa. St. 566, 24 Atl. 94; Bolian
V. Borough of Avooa, 154 Pa. St.
404, 26 Atl. 604; Magee v. Pa.
Scnuylkill Val. R. R. Co., 13 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 187 ; Eohrer v. Harrisburg,
20 Pa. Supr. Ct. 543 ; Toole v. Dela-
ware etc. R. R. Co., 27 Pa. Supr. Ct.
577 ; Johnson v. White, 26 R. I. 207,
58 Atl. 658, 65 L.R.A. 250; StiUman
V. Pendleton, 26 R. I. 585, 60 Atl.
234; Cain v. South Bound R. R.
Co. 62 S. C. 25, 39 S. E. 792; Tyrus
v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 114
Tenn. 579, 86 S. W. 1074; Gulf etc.
Ry. Co. v. Donahue, 59 Tex. 128;
G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Tait, 63
Tex. 223; Austin etc. R. R. Co. v.
Anderson, 79 Tex. 427, 15 S. W. 484,
23 Am. St. Rep. 350; Texas & P. R.
R. Co. V.Dunn (Tex.), 17 S. W. 822;
City of Houston v. Bryan, 2 Tex.
Civ. App. 553, 22 S. W. 231; Fort
Worth & Denver City Ry. Co. v.
Scott, 2 Tex. App. Civil Cas. p. 137 ;
Houston V. Hutcheson, 39 Tex. Civ.
App. 337, 81 S. W. 96; Norfolk etc.
R. R. Co. V. Carter, 91 Va. 587, 22 S.
E. 517 ; Peters v. Lewis, 28 Wash. 366,
68 Pac. 869 ; Clay v. St. Albans, 43 W.
Va. 539, 27 S. E. 368, 64 Am. St.
Rep. 883; McCray v. Fairmont, 46
156
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 112
is a taking within the constitution.^® "No one has a right to
collect surface water in any considerable quantity upon his own
premises and then turn the same in a concentrated form upon
the premises of his neighbor in such a manner as to cause him
damage. * * * And the law doubtless is that a city has no
greater power over its streets, in the matter of disposing of sur-
face water which accumulates thereon, than a private individual
has in disposing of the surface water which falls or collects upon
his own land."^'' And this language will apply to all corpora-
tions constructing public works under the power of eminent
domain. A railroad company cut through a ridge whereby
surface water was brought upon the plaintiff's land, which be-
fore had flowed off in other directions. The company was held
liable for the damage.'^ And as a general rule when, in the
execution of public works, the course of surface water is changed
and caused to flow upon land where it had not been accustomed
to flow, the owner may recover for the damage.^* Where a
railroad company diverted surface water upon the land of a
third party with his consent whence it flowed upon the plain-
tiff's land to his damage, the company was held liable.®" So
W. Va. 442, 33 S. E. 245 ; Traeewell
V. Wood Co., 58 W. Va. 283, 52 S. E.
185; Am V. City of Kansas, 4 Mc-
Crary, 558; Whalley v. Lancashire
& Yorkshire Ey. Co., 13 L. R. Q, B.
131; S. C. affirmed 16 Same, 227;
Northwood v. Raleigh, 3 Ontario
347; Stalker v. Dunwick, 15 Ontario
342; Miner v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co.,
9 U. C. C. P. 280; Rowe v. Roches-
ter, 22 U. C. C. P. 319; Rowe v.
Rochester, 29 U. C. Q. B. 590.
6 6T. W. & W. R. R. Co. V. Morri-
son, 71 111. 616; Kankakee etc. R. R.
Co. V. Horan, 22 111. App. 145; New
York etc. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 94 Md.
24, 50 Atl. 423; Miller v. Morris-
town, 47 N. J. Eq. 62, 2 Atl. 61;
Wickham v. Lehigh Val. E. R. Co.
85 App. Div. 182, 83 N. Y. S. 146;
Staton V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., Ill
N. C. 278, 16 S. E. 181; Tyrus v.
Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 114
Tenn. 579, 86 S. W. 1074; Norfolk &
W. R. R. Co. V. Carter, 91 Va. 587,
22 S. E. 517.
5 7 Johnson V. White, 20 R. I. 207,
208, 209, 58 Atl. 658, 65 L.R.A. 250.
BSBloek V. Gt. Northern Ry. Co.,
101 Minn. 183, 112 N. W. 03. It wag
held to be a question of fact whether
it was reasonable for the company
to set loose this water and not make
provision to take care of it.
6 9 Central of Ga. Ey. Co. v. Wind-
ham, 126 Ala. 552, 28 So. 392; Bar-
fleld V. Macon Co., 109 Ga. 386, 34
S. E. 596; Elser v. Gross Point, 223
111. 230, 79 N. E. 27, 114 Am. St.
Rep. 326; Waukegan v. Weale, 118
111. App. 460; Schrope v. Pioneer
Tp., Ill la. 113, 82 N. W. 466; Hoff-
man V. Muscatine, 113 la. 332, 85 N.
W. 17 ; Lassiter v. Norfolk etc. R.
R. Co., 126 N. C. 509, 38 S. E. 48;
Rice V. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co., 130
N. C. 375, 41 S. E. 1031. See Parks
V. Southern Ry. Co., 143 N. C. 289,
55 S. E. 701 ; Jordan v. Benwood, 42
W. Va. 312, 26 S. E. 266, 57 Am. St.
Rep. 859, 30 L.R.A. 519.
eoDennison v. Somerset etc. R. R.
§ 112
WATEES.
157
where a railroad in laying its track in a street, diverted surface
water onto the plaintiff.''^ But in such case the municipality
is not liable."^
In those States which hold the common law doctrine as to
surface water, decisions will be found contrary to the foregoing
statements of the law.®^ In Nebraska where the common law
rule prevails, if a railroad company obstructs a draw or depres-
sion which forms a natural outlet for surface water it will be
Co., 21 Pa. Supr. Ct. 248; Toole v.
Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 27 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 577. To same effect, Ca-
hill V. Baltimore, 93 Md. 233, 48
Atl. 705; Daley v. Watertown, 192
Mass. 116, 78 N. E. 143.
siMonarch Mfg. Co. v. Omaha
etc. Ry. Co., 127 la. 511, 103 N. W.
493.
62Hewett V. Canton, 182 Mass.
220, 65 N. B. 42.
esUyrne v. Town of Farmington,
64 Conn. 367, 30 Atl. 138; Hannaker
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 5 Dak. 1 ;
Herring v. District of Columbia, 3
Mackey 572; New Albany & Salem
R. R. Co. V. Higman, 18 Ind. 77;
Cairo & Vincennes R. R. Co. v.
Stevens, 73 Ind. 278, 38 Am. Rep.
139; Hill V. Cincinnati etc. R. R.
Co., 109 Ind. 511; Clay v. Pittsburg
etc. Ry. Co., 104 Ind. 439, 73 N. E.
904; Pohlman v. Chicago etc. Ry.
Co., 131 la. 89, 107 N. W. 1025, 6
L.R.A.(N.S.) 146; Atchison etc. R.
R. Co. V. Hammer, 22 Kan. 763, 31
Am. Rep. 216; Chicago etc. R. R. Co.
V. Steck, 51 Kan. 737, 33 Pac. 601;
Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Renfro,
52 Kan. 237, 34 Pac. 802, 39 Am. St.
Rep. 344; Parish of Concordia v.
Natchez etc. R. R. Co., 44 La. An.
613, 10 So. 809 ; Greeley v. Me. Cent.
R. R. Co. 53 Me. 200; Morrison v.
Bucksport etc. R. R. Co. 67 Me. 353 ;
Gardiner v. Camden, 86 Me. 377, 30
Atl. 13; Cassidy v. Old Colony R. R.
Co., 141 Mass. 174; Tyler v. Revere,
183 Mass. 98, 06 N. E. 597 ; Rowe v.
St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 41 Minn.
384, 43 N. W. 70, 16 Am. St. Rep.
706, (disapproved in Sheehan v.
Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 61 N. W. 462,
26 L.K.A. 632) ; Jordan v. St. Paul
etc. R. R. Co., 42 Minn. 172, 43 N.
W. 849, 6 L.R.A. 573, (criticised in
Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 61
N. W. 462, 26 L.R.A. 632) ; Brown
V. Winona etc. R. R. Co., 53 Minn.
259, 55 N. W. 123, 39 Am. St. Rep.
603; Clark v. Hannibal & St. Joe
R. R. Co., 36 Mo. 202; Rose v. St.
Charles, 49 Mo. 509; Hosher v. K. C.
St. J. & C. B. R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 329;
Munkres v. Same, 60 Mo. 334; Same
V. Same, 72 Mo. 514 ; Payne v. Kan-
sas City etc. R. R. Co., 112 Mo. 6,
20 S. W. 322, 17 L.R.A. 628; Jones
V. Wabash etc. R. R. Co., 18 Mo.
App. 251 ; St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.
V. Schneider, 30 Mo. App. 620; Col-
lier V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 48 Mo.
App. 398; Kenney v. Kansas City
etc. R. R. Co., 69 Mo. App.
569; De Lapp v. Kansas City etc.
R. R. Co., 69 Mo. App. 572;
Graves v. Kansas City etc. R.
R. Co., 69 Mo. App 574; Morrissey
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 38
Neb. 406, 56 N. W. 946; Town
V. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 50 Neb.
768; Todd v. York Co., 72 Neb. 207,
100 N. W. 299, 66 L.R.A. 561 ; Wag-
ner V. Long Island R. R. Co., 2 Hun
633; Anchor Brewing Co. v. Village
of Dobbs Ferry, 84 Hun 274, 32 N.
Y. Supp. 371 ; Willey v. Norfolk So.
R. R. Co., 98 N. C. 263; Jenkins
V. Wilmington & W. R. R. Co., 110
N. C. 438, i5 S. E. 193; Fleming v.
Wilmington & W. R. R. Co., 115 N.
158
EMITiTENT DOMAIN.
§ 112
liable.®* In addition to the cases already referred to, there
are numerous others which are more particularly grounded upon
negligence in constructing and maintaining insufficient cul-
verts or ditches, or in allowing the same to become filled up
and out of repair.®^ Cases in respect to damages from surface
C. 676, 20 S. E. 714; Edwards v.
Charlotte etc. R. E. Co., 39 S. C.
472, 18 S. E. 58, 39 Am. St. Eep.
746, 22 L.R.A. 246; Lawton v. South
Bound R. R. Co., 61 S. C. 548, 39
S. E. 752; Texas Trunk R. R. Co. v.
Elam, 1 Tex. App. Civ. 201; O'Con-
nor v. Fond du Lac, A. & P. Ry. Co.,
52 Wis. 526, 38 Am. Rep. 754; John-
sou V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 80
Wis. 641, 50 N. W. 771, 27 Am. St.
Rep. 76, 14 L.R.A. 495; Wallace v.
Grank Trunk R. R. Co., 16 U. C.
Q. B. 551 ; Vanhorn v. Grand Trunk
R. R. Co., 18 U. C. Q. B. 356; Crew-
son V. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 27
U. C. Q. B. 68. It has been held in
Massachusetts that such damages
may be taken into consideration in
assessing compensation under the
statute. Walker v. Old Colony &
Newport R. R. Co., 103 Mass. 10,
4 Am. Rep. 509.
6 4 Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Shaw, 63
Neb. 380, 88 N. W. 508, 56 L.R.A.
341; St. Joseph etc. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Carty 3 Neb. (Unof.) 626, 92 N. W.
750.
65St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Mor-
ris, 35 Ark. 622; St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co. V. Yarborough, 56 Ark. 612, 20
S. W. 515; Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co. V. Cook, 57 Ark. 387, 21 S. W.
1066; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Cutchen, 80 Ark. 235, 96 S. W. 1054;
Macon v. Dannenberg, 113 Ga. 1111,
39 S. E. 448; Chicago etc. Ry. Co.
V. Renter, 223 111. 387, 79 N. E. 166;
Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Dooley, 32
III. App. 228; Indiana etc. R. R.
Co. V. Patchett, 59 111. App. 251;
Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Sparks,
12 Ind. App. 410, 40 N. E. 546; Ger-
man Theological School v. Dubuque,
64 la. 736; Willits v. Chicago etc.
R. R. Co., 80 la. 531, 45 N. W. 516;
Htint V. Iowa Central R. R. Co., 86
la. 15, 52 N. W. 668, 41 Am. St. Rep.
473; Willits V. Chicago etc. R. R.
Co., 88 la. 281, 55 N. W. 313, 21 Am.
St. Rep. 608; Harvey v. Mason City
etc. R. R. Co. 129 la. 465, 105 N. W.
958, 113 Am. St. Rep. 483, 3 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 973; Mississippi Central R.
R. Co. V. Caruth, 51 Miss. 77 ; Same
v. Mason, 51 Miss. 234; Lincoln etc.
R. R. Co. V. Sutherland, 44 Neb.
526, 62 N. W. 859; Kearney v.
Themanson, 48 Neb. 74, 66 N. W.
996; Johnson v. Atlantic & St. Law-
rence R. R. Co., 35 N. H. 569; Wa-
ters V. Greenleaf Johnson Lumber
Co., 115 N. C. 648, 20 S. E. 718;
Waldrop v. Greenwood etc. R. R.
Co., 28 S. C. 157, 5 S. E. 471 ; Gen-
try V. Richmond & D. R. R. Co.,
38 S. C. 284, 16 S. E. 893; Carriger
V. R. R. Co., 7 Lea, 388; Sabine etc.
R. R. Co. V. Brousard, 69 Tex. 617,
7 S. W. 374; Green v. Taylor etc.
R. R. Co., 79 Tex. 604, 15 S. W. 685 ;
Brousard v. Sabine etc. R. R. Co.,
80 Tex. 329, 16 S. W. 30; Gulf etc.
R. R. Co. V. Frederickson (Tex.) 19
S. W. 124; Galveston etc. R. R. Co.,
V. Ryan, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 545, 21 S.
W. 1011; Texas etc. Ry. Co. v.
Whitaker, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 571, 82
S. W. 1051; Taylor v. San Antonio
etc. Ry. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 658,
83 S. W. 738 ; Waterman v. C. & P.
R. R. Co., 30 Vt. 610; Neal v. Ohio
Riv. R. R. Co., 47 W. Va. 316, 34
S. E. 914; Alton v. Hamilton etc.
R. R. Co., 13 U. C. Q. B. 595;
L'Esperance v. Great Western R. R.
§ 113
WATERS.
159
water, resulting from tte grading and improvement of streets
are referred to in the next chapter.*®
§ 113 (89a). Miscellaneous cases in regard to surface
water. Where the damages are due solely to a fall of rain
so extraordinary as to amount to an act of God, there is no lia-
bility."^ A railroad company is not liable for water which
comes upon the plaintiff's land from its road-way, but which is
caused to accumulate or flow upon the right of way by the acts
of others.*^ And where the accumulation of water causing
the damage is due in part to the acts of others than the defend-
ant, the defendant is not excused for its own part and it is held
to be the province of the jury to determine what this is as best
they can.®' Where a borough turned surface water upon a
township road and the township got rid of it by turning it upon
plaintiff, it was held the latter had no cause of action against
the borough.'''* Where a railroad company causes water to ac-
cumulate and form a stagnant pool, injurious to health, it will
be liable.''^ Where a city conducted water into a hole in an
Co., 14 U. C. Q. B. 187; Carrou v.
Great Western E. R. Co., 14 U. C.
Q. B. 192; see Hopper v. Douglas
Co., 75 Neb. 329, 106 N. W. 330.
eepost, § 141, and see Huntsville
V. Ewing, 116 Ala. 576, 22 So. 984;
Downs V. Ansonia, 73 Conn. 33, 46
Atl. 243; Torrlngton v. Messenger,
74 Conn. 321, 50 Atl. 873 ; Holmes v.
Atlanta, 113 Ga. 961, 39 S. E. 458;
Holbrook v. Norcross, 121 Ga. 319,
48 S. E. 922; Cleveland etc. R. S.
Co. V. Huddleston, 21 Ind. App. 621 ;
Morley v. Buchanan, 124 Mich. 128,
82 N. W. 802; Dudley v. Buflfalo, 73
Minn. 347, 74 N. W. 44; Schuett v.
Stillwater, 80 Minn. 287, 83 N. W.
180; Harrelson v. Kansas City etc.
R. R. Co., 151 Mo. 482; Flanders v.
Franklin, 70 N. H. 168, 47 Atl. 88;
McClosky V. Atlantic City R. R. Co.,
70 N. J. L. 20, 56 Atl. 669; Sharp
V. Cincinnati, 4 Ohio C. C. (N. S.)
19; O'Donnell v. White, 24 R. I. 483,
53 Atl. 633; Baltzeger v. Carolina
Midland R. R. Co., 54 S. C. 242, 32
S. E. 358, 71 Am. St. Rep. 789;
Borchsenius v. Chicago etc. R. R.
Co., 96 Wis. 448.
6 7PhiIadelphia etc. R. R. Co. v.
Davis, 68 Md. 281, 11 Atl. 822; Sa-
bine etc. R. R. Co. V. Brousard, 69
Tex. 617, 7 S. W. 374; and see Fiok
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 157 Pa.
St. 622, 27 Atl. 783; Sentman v. B.
& 0. R. R. Co., 78 Md. 222, 27 Atl.
1074.
6 8Brimberry v. Savannah etc.
R. R. Co., 78 Ga. 641; Burke v.
Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 29 Mo. App.
370; and see Felt v. Vicksburg etc.
R. R. Co., 46 La. An. 549, 15 So.
177.
6 9 Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Combs,
43 111. App. 119; Illinois Central
R. R. Co. V. Heisner, 45 111. App.
143.
'OWest Bellevue Bor. v. Huddles-
ton, 1 Monaghan (Pa. Supm.) 129.
7iLockett V. Ft. Worth etc. R. R.
Co., 78 Tex. 211, 14 S. W. 564; and
see Atlanta etc. R. R. Co. v. Kim-
berly, 87 Ga. 161, 13 S. E. 277.
160 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 114
alley, whence it overflowed plaintiff, it was held liable.''^ Where
a railroad intersected ditches, which took the water from the
railroad ditches, to the damage of land either above or below, it
was held not liable.'^* The fact that a ditch is built along a
railroad right of way, which carries the water from adjoining
lands to a stream, does not require the company to keep it open
and no action will lie for allowing it to become obstructed.''* It
has been held that one who has stood by and seen a railroad
embankment constructed without a culvert is estopped to com-
plain of such defect.^^ One has no legal ground of complaint
that there is caused to flow upon his land such surface water
as would come thereon by nature, though it has been temporarily
deflected from his land by non-natural causes.''®
In Missouri it is provided by statute that every railroad,
within three months after its completion, shall "cause to be con-
structed and maintained suitable ditches and drains along each
side of the road-bed of such railroad, to connect with ditches,
drains or water courses, so as to afford sufficient outlet to drain
and carry off the water along such railroad wherever the drain-
ing of such water has been obstructed or rendered necessary by
the construction of such railroad." ''' A failure to comply with
the statute, affords a cause of action to one damnified by such
failure.''* But the statute does not apply unless there are
ditches, drains or water courses with which to connect.''^ There
are similar statutes in other States.*"
§ 114 (90). Subterranean waters, In regard to water
7 2 City of New Albany v. Ray, 3 kuk etc. R. R. Co., 47 Mo. App. 383;
Ind. App. 321, 29 N. E. 611. Clark v. Dyer, 81 Tex. 339, 16 S. W.
73Bell V. Norfolk So. R. R. Co. 1061.
101 N. C. 21, 7 8. E. 467; Willey v. 'sCox v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co.,
Norfolk So. R. R. Co., 98 N. C. 203. 174 Mo. 588, 74 S. W. 854; Byrne
TiLouisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mc- v. Keokuk etc. R. R. Co., 47 Mo.
Afee, 30 Ind. 291. App. 383; Williamson v. Missouri
TBPayne v. Morgan's R. R. Co., 43 etc. Ry. Co., 115 Mo. App. 72, 90 S.
La. An. 981, 10 So. 10. W. 401; Gebhardt v. St. Louis etc.
76Avery v. Police Jury, 12 La. An. R. R. Co., 122 Mo. App. 503, 99 S.
554; Whitney v. Willamette Bridge W. 773; Cooper v. St. Louis etc. R.
R. R. Co., 23 Or. 188, 31 Pac, 472; R. Co., 123 Mo. App. 141, 100 S. W.
Felt V. Vicksburg etc. R. R. Co., 46 494.
La. An. 549, 15 So. 177; Inhabitants 7 9Field v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
of Hamilton v. Wainwright, 52 N. 21 Mo. App. 600.
J. Eq. 419, 29 Atl. 200; King v. soSee Clark v. Dyer, 81 Tex. 339,
C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 71 la. 696. 16 S. W. Rep. 1061.
77Mo. R. S. § 810; Byrne v, Keo-
§ 114
■WATEES.
161
which permeates the soil but is not collected in any stream under
ground, the prevailing doctrine is that the owner of the soil may
use or divert it as he sees proper, provided, of course, that he
does not turn it upon others in an unreasonable manner, to their
injury.*^ Accordingly, where the construction of a railroad
resulted in draining off a tract of low, marshy ground which had
served as a sort of reservoir for the plaintiff's mill, so that in
dry times the supply was insufficient and in times of rain too
great, it was held that the plaintiff had no cause of action.^^
And where a railroad company has appropriated a stream of
water fed by a spring on another's land, it cannot prevent the
owner of such land from digging trenches for the improvement
of his own land, though the effect will be to divert the percolat-
ing waters which supply the spring.^^ Where a well, dug by
a railroad on its own land, destroyed a spring on the plaintiff's
land, it was held there was no liability.®* So where a spring
was destroyed by the construction of a sewer in a public street f^
also where plaintiff's well was drained by a tunnel built by a
railroad on its right of way.®®
siActon V. Blundell, 12 M. & W.
324; Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L.
Cas. 349 ; 5 H. & N. 982 ; 2 H. & N.
168; Rawston v. Taylor, 11 Exch.
367; Bradford v. Pickle, (1895) A.
C. 587; Gould v. Eaton, 111 Cal. 639,
44 Pac. 319, 52 Am. St. Rep. 201;
Roath V. DriscoU, 20 Conn. 533;
Tampa W. W. Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla.
586, 20 So. 780, 53 Am. St. Rep. 262,
33 L.R.A. 376; Edwards v. Haeger,
180 111. 99; Greenleaf v. Francis, 18
Pick. 117; Ocean Grove Camp Meet-
ing Association v. Asbury Park, 40
N. J. Eq. 447; Elster v. City of
Springfield, 49 Ohio St. 82, 30 N. E.
274; Metcalf v. Nelson, 8 S. D. 87,
65 N. W. 911, 59 Am. St. Rep. 746;
Deadwood Cent. R. R. Co. v. Barker,
14 S. D. 558, 86 N. W. 619; Willow
Creek Irr. Co. v. Michaelson, 21
Utah, 248, 60 Pac. 943, 81 Am. St.
Rep. 687, 51 L.R.A. 280; Harriraan
Irr. Co. «. Keel, 25 Utah, 96, 69
Pac. 719; Miller v. Black Rock
Springs Imp. Co., 99 Va. 747, 40 S.
E. 27, 86 Am. St. Rep. 924; Meyer v.
Em. D.— 11.
Tacoma L. & W. Co., 8 Wash. 144,
35 Pac. 601; Wood on Nuisances
(1st ed.) § 383; Washburn on Ease-
ments, pp. 452-457; Gould on Wa-
ters, § 280.
8 2 Waffle V. New York Central R.
R. Co., 58 Barb. 413; S. C. affirmed
53 N. Y. 11 ; Regina v. Metropolitan
Board of Worlcs, 3 B. & S. 710;
Thayer v. Brooks, 17 Ohio 489, 49
Am. Dec. 474.
8 3 Southern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Du-
four, 95 Cal. 615, 30 Pac. 783.
s4Hougan v. Milwaukee & St.
Paul Ry. Co., 35 la. 558, 14 Am.
Rep. 502; Aldrich v. Cheshire R. R.
Co., 21 N. H. 359, 53 Am. Dec. 212;
and see Lybe's Appeal, 106 Pa. St.
626, 51 Am. Rep. 542 and Roath v.
Driscoll, 20 Conn. 532; Ocean Grove
Camp Meeting Association v. As-
bury Park, 40 N. J. Eq. 447.
ssElster v. City of Springfield, 49
Ohio St. 82, 30 N. E. 274; Stanton
V. Metropolitan B'd of Works, 26 L.
J. Ch. 300.
8 6Galgay v. Great Southern R. R.
162 EMIITENT DOMAIN. § 114
Many of the cases referred to assert the absolute ownership
of the proprietor of the soil in the waters percolating therein
and the absolute right of such proprietor to dispose of such
waters or to make any use of his land, regardless of the effect
upon the subterranean waters in his neighbor's land.^'' But
this rule is undergoing modification and the doctrine of reason-
able use or of correlative rights and duties, is being applied with
respect to such waters. In Pennsylvania it has been held that
the reason of the rule of nonliability for drawing off or inter-
fering with subterranean waters, is that the damage could not
be foreseen or avoided and that when the reason fails the rule
does not apply. Thus a natural gas company in boring a well
encoimtered salt water in one of the lower strata, which rose
in the well, found its way through the upper rock formation
and destroyed the neighboring wells. The existence of the salt
water in the lower stratum, the geological formation in the
vicinity which permitted the spread of the salt water and the
probable consequences were all well known and the damage
could have been prevented by a small outlay. The company
was held liable. ^^ And many cases now support the doctrine
that one proprietor may not unreasonably interfere with sub-
terranean waters to the damage of his neighbor and, accord-
ingly, that he may not wantonly or maliciously waste the water
or merchandise it to the detriment of other proprietors.^^
Co., 4 I. C. L. E. 456. To same ef- Same v. Same, 139 Pa. St. Ill, 21
feet, Deadwood Cent. R. E. Co. v. Atl. 147.
Barker, 14 S. D. 558, 86 N. W. 619; ssKatz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal.
Harriman Irr. Co. v. Keel, 25 Utah 116, 70 Pac. 663, 99 Am. St. Eep. 35,
96, 69 Pac. 719. But in Sheldon v. 64 L.R.A. 236; Verdugo Canon Wa-
Boston etc. R. R. Co., 172 Mass. ter Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 93
ISO, 57 N. E. 1078, where a railroad Pac. 1021 ; Ex parte Elam, 6 Cal.
in making a, deep cut on its own App. 233; Gagnon v. French Lick
land drained the plaintiff's well, it Springs Hotel Co., 163 Ind. 687, 72
was held liable. N. E. 849; Barclay v. Abraham, 121
S71n addition to cases already la. 619, 96 N. W. 108, 100 Am. St.
cited see Houston etc. R. R. Co. v. Rep. 365, 64 L.R.A. 285; Aberdeen
East, 98 Tex. 146, 81 S. W. 279, 107 v. Bradford, 94 Md. 670, 51 Atl. 614;
Am. St. Rep. 620, 66 L.R.A. 738; Stillwater Water Co. v. Farmer, 89
Huber v Merkel, 117 Wis. 355, 94 Minn. 58, 93 N. W. 907, 99 Am. St.
N. W. 354, 98 Am. St. Rep. 933, 62 Rep. 541, 66 L.R.A. 875; Erickson
L.R.A. 589. V. Crookston W. W. P. & L. Co., 100
ssCollins T. Chartiers Valley Gas Minn. 481, 111 N. W. 391, 8 L.R.A.
Co., 131 Pa. St. 143, 18 Atl. 1012, (N.S.) 1250; S. C. 105 Minn. 182,
}7 Am. St. Rep. 791, 6 L.R,A, 280; 117 IS. W. 435; Springfield W. W.
§ 114
WATEES.
163
Where a city obtained a part of its water supply from wells
upon its own land, to which a powerful suction was applied by
means of pumps and machinery, and the effect was to destroy
a stream and spring on the plaintiff's land half a mile away,
the city was held liable."" So where the plaintiff's land was
rendered valueless for agricultural purposes by the withdrawal
of the underground water in the same manner and for the same
purpose.®^ And where a city obtained its water supply from
artesian wells by pumping and thereby the water level in many
other artesian wells was lowered beyond the point where they
could be pumped by hand, the doctrine of correlative rights was
applied, and the liability of the water company was held to
depend upon whether its use was reasonable in view of all the
conditions and this was held to be a question of fact to be deter-
mined from the evidence.®^ But in Texas, where a railroad
company dug a well upon lots which it owned in fee simple and
Co. V. Jenkins, 62 Mo. App. 74;
Smith V. Brooklyn, 160 N. Y. 357,
54 N. E. 787, 45 L.E.A. 664; Forbell
V. New York, 164 N. Y. 522, 58 N.
E. 644, 79 Am. St. Rep. 666, 51
L.E.A. 695; Reisert v. New York,
174 N. Y. 196, 66 N. E. 731, revers-
ing S. C. 69 App. Div. 302, 74 N. Y.
S. 673; Westphal V. New York, 177
N. Y. 140, 69 N. E. 369; Hathorn
V. Strong's S. S. Sanitarium, 55
Misc. 445, 106 N. Y. S. 553; Miller
V. Black Rock etc. Co., 99 Va. 747,
40 S. E. 27,
In Katz V. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal.
116, 70 Pac. 663, 99 Am. St. Rep. 35,
64 L.R.A. 236, it is said that the
right of each proprietor is limited
"to such amount of water as may
be necessary for some useful pur-
pose in connection with the land from
which it is taken."
9 0 Smith V. Brooklyn, 160 N. Y.
357, 54 N. E. 787, 45 L.R.A. 684,
affirming S. C. 32 App. Div. 257;
Smith V. Brooklyn, 18 App. Div.
340 ; and see Hollingsworth & V. Co.
V. Foxborough Water Supply Dist.,
165 Mass. 186, 42 N. E. Rep. 574;
Merrick Water Co, v, Brooklyn, 33
App. Div. N. Y. 454; Forbell v. New
York, 27 N. Y. Misc. 12.
siKorbell v. New York, 164 N. Y.
522, 58 N. E. 644, 79 Am. St. Rep.
666, 51 L.R.A. 695; Reisert v. New
York, 174 N. Y. 196, 66 N. E. 731,
reversing S. C. 69 App. Div. 302, 74
N. Y. S. 673; Westphal v. New
York, 177 N. Y. 140, 69 N. E. 369,
affirming S. C. 75 App. Div. 252, 78
N. Y. S. 56.
9 2ErJckson v. Crookston W. W. P.
& L. Co., 100 Minn. 481, 111 N. W.
391, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1250; S. C.
105 Minn. 182, 117 N. W. 435. To
same effect, Aberdeen v. Bradford,
94 Md. 670, 51 Atl. 614. In the first
case the court says: —
"The English rule was of neces-
sity based upon the geological con-
ditions affecting water supply as
they existed in England. The rea-
sons for the rule lay in deductions
from essentially absolute private
rights in land, and also largely in
the conception of a sound public pol-
icy applicable to these conditions.
It was thought that the recognition
of correlative rights in subterranean
watere would work mischievous re-
164
EMIH'EJS'T DOMAIW.
114
by a steam pump took therefrom twenty-five thousand gallons
daily to supply its engines and shops, and thereby drained the
plaintiff's well, it was held there was no liability and the old
rule as to subterranean waters was fully recognized.®^
Where an act of Congress for the construction of a tunnel
to supply the city of Washington with water provided for com-
pensation to any person injured in any property right thereby,
it was held that a claim for damages by the draining of a well
five hundred feet away was within the act.®* Where the waters
of a stream sink into the ground and become percolating water,
the same rule applies thereto as to other percolating waters,
and the owner of the soil may divert them without liability.®^
But percolating waters adjacent to a stream and moving in the
same direction may constitute a part of the stream.®^ In regard
suits in curtailing improvements
upon land, would burden its use
with liabilities which would render
the exercise of legal rights extreme-
ly hazardous, and would result in a
rule which would be too indefinite
in itself and which the landowner
would not be able to satisfactorily
enforce. * * * Nothing is better
settled than that the fundamental
principles of right and justice on
which the common law is founded,
and which its administration is in-
tended to promote, require that a
diflferent rule should be adopted
whenever it is found that, owing to
the physical features and character
of a. state, and the peculiarities of
its climate, soil, products and water
supply, the application of a common
law rule tends constantly to cause
injustice and wrong, rather than the
administration of justice and right."
p. 484. In Clarke Co. v. Miss. Lum-
ber Co., 80 Miss. 535, 31 So. 905,
the lumber company pumped arte-
sian wells on its own land to form
a basin for the storage of logs for
its mill. The effect was to lower
other artesian wells in the vicinity
and greatly to impair their value.
It was held that the company liad
a right to so use the water upon
the land from which it was taken,
in the business there carried on by
the owner. See Mead v. Melitte, 18
S. D. 523, 101 N. W. 355.
ssHouston etc. R. R. Co. v. East,
98 Tex. 146, 81 S. W. 279, 107 Am.
St. Rep. 620, 66 L.R.A. 738. A stat-
ute making it a penal offense to
waste natural gas was held valid
in Indiana. Townsend v. State, 147
Ind. 624, 47 N. E. 19; State v. Ohio
Oil Co. 150 Ind. 21, 49 N. E. 809;
Ohio Oil Co. V. Indiana, 177 U. ,S.
190, 22 S. C. 576. But a similar
statute as to wasting water from ar-
tesian wells was held void in Wis-
consin. Huber v. Merkel, 117 Wis.
355, 94 N. W. 354, 98 Am. St. Rep.
933, 62 L.R.A. 589.
94United States v. Alexander, 148
U. S. 186, 13 S. C. 527. So under a
statute rendering a city liable for
"damages occasioned by the laying,
making or maintaining" of a sewer,
it was held liable for draining a
well on adjoining land. Trowbridge
V. Brookline, 144 Mass. 139.
9 6Meyer v. Tacoma L. & W. Co.,
8 Wash. 144, 35 Pac. 601.
siiLos Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124
Cal. 597, 57 Pac. 585,
§ 114
■WATEES.
165
to subterranean streams, there is much confusion among the au-
thorities as to the rights of the owner of the soil. The better
opinion, perhaps, is, that the same rules apply to them as to
percolating waters.^'' Some confusion exists in regard to the
pollution of water coursing in subterranean streams or percolat-
ing through the ground.^* It seems to us, however, that the
better doctrine is, that one has no more right to send impurities
into the soil below the surface than he has into the air above
the surface. One who creates or permits noxious and offensive
substances upon his premises ought to take care that they do
not escape either in a fluid or gaseous form into or upon his
neighbor's land.®^ The owner of land has a right not to be
3 7Lybe'3 Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 626;
Smith V. Adams, 6 Paige 435 ;
Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 528;
Dickinson v. Grand Junction Canal
Co., 7 Excli. 282; Acton v. Blundell,
12 M. & W. 324; Eoath y. DriscoU,
20 Conn. 532; Brown v. Illius, 25
Conn. 583; Hale v. McLea, 53 Cal.
578; Haldeman v. Bruckhart, 45 Pa.
St. 514, 84 Am. Deo. 511; Angell on
Watercourses, pp. 150-159; Wash-
burn on Easements, pp. 441-448;
Gould on Waters, § 281. In a. re-
cent case the Supreme Court of
Florida in its syllabus states the
law as follows : "The owner of land
through which subsurface water,
without any distinct, definite, and
known channel, percolates or filters
through the soil to that of an ad-
joining owner, is not prohibited
from digging into his own soil, and
appropriating water found there to
any legitimate purposes of his own,
though, by so doing, the water may
be entirely diverted from the land to
which it would otherwise naturally
have passed; but, if subterranean
water has assumed the proportions
of a stream flowing in a well-defined
channel, the owner of the land
through which it flows will not be
authorized to divert it, pollute it,
or improperly use it, any more than
if the stream ran upon the surface
in a well-defined course." Tampa
Water Works Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla.
586, 20 So. 780, 53 Am. St. Rep. 262;
33 L.R.A. 376. And see Willis v.
Perry, 92 la. 297, 60 N. W. 727;
Washington Co. Water Co. v. Car-
ver, 91 Md. 398, 46 Atl. 979. Any
interference with rights in subter-
ranean streams by authority of law
for public use would be a taking.
ssHodgkinson v. Ennor, 4 B. &
S. 229; Womersley v. Church, 17
L. T. Rep. N. S. 190; Brown v. Il-
lius, 25 Conn. 583 ; Greencastle v.
Hazelett, 23 Ind. 180; Sherman v.
Fall River Iron Works Co., 5 Allen
213. In Greencastle v. Hazelett, a
bill was filed to enjoin the City of
Greencastle from establishing a cem-
etery on a certain lot, on tne
ground that it would corrupt the
waters of a valuable spring on plain-
tiff's land. The court held the city
was the owner of the subterranean
streams of its own land and would
not be liable for any damages re-
sulting in the manner alleged in the
bill. But a different view was taken
by the court in a similar case in
Clark V. Lawrence, 6 Jones Eq. 83,
78 Am. Dec. 241.
ssBallard v. Tomlinson, L. R. 29
Ch. Div. 115, reversing S. C. 20 L.
R. Ch. Div. 194; Snow v. Whitehead,
27 L. R. Ch. Div. 588; Sherman v.
166
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 115
injured in this manner, and an interference with this right
would be a taking, if done under the power of eminent domain.-'
§ 115 (91). Interference with natural barriers against
water. The owner of land has a right to the protection af-
forded by natural barriers against the overflow of stream| and
ponds or the action of waves and tides.^ When this right is
violated in the exercise of' the right of eminent domain, and
damage ensues, the owner is entitled to compensation. The
leading case upon this question is Eaton v. B. M. & C. R. E.
Co., 51 ]Sr. H. 504, which has already been given at length in
the preceding chapter.* Similar decisions have been made in
Fall Eiver Iron Works, 5 Allen 213;
Brown V. Illius, 25 Conn. 583; Ot-
tawa Gas Light Co. v. Graham, 28
111. 73, 81 Am. Dec. 263; Pensacola
Gas Co. V. Pebley, 25 Fla. 381, 5 So.
593; Pottstown Gas Co. v. Murphy,
39 Pa. St. 257; Beatrice Gas Co. v.
Thomas, 41 Neb. 662, 59 N. W. 925;
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass. v.
Peterson, 41 Neb. 893, 60 N. W. 375.
iThe City of Boston, in order to
remove a nuisance, caused by the
discharge of a, sewer into a, pond,
was authorized to construct such
canals, basins, tanks, etc., as were
necessary to cleanse the pond and
water flowing in the sewer, and to
take land therefor. The city took
land and constructed works which
injured the plaintiff's wells by per-
colation. It was held that the act
did not authorize the nuisance and
that the city was liable in tort for
the injury. Bacon v. Boston, 154
Mass. 100, 28 N. E. 9. It would
follow that if the legislature had au-
thorized the works, as constructed,
the damage would have been a tak-
ing. Davis V. Fry, 14 Okl. 340, 78
Pac. 180, 69 L.R.A. 460; Branden-
berg V. Zeigler, 62 S. C. 18, 39 S. E.
790, 89 Am. St. Rep. 887, 55 L.R.A.
414; Attorney General v. Tomline,
12 L. R. Ch. Div. 214, 48 L. J. Ch.
Div. 593; S. C. on appeal, 14 L. R.
Ch. Div. 58, 49 L. J. Ch. Div. 377.
In the latter case Cotton L. J.
states the case as follows (14 L. E.
Ch. Div. p. 68) : "The plaintift's
land is situated a, short distance
from the sea, and the only land in-
tervening between the plaintiff's
land and the sea is the land of the
defendant, and the complaint is that
the defendant is so dealing with
that land, by removing the . shingle
which constitutes the whole of the
surface of that land, that the sea
will at a time which cannot posi-
tively be stated, but within a rea-
sonable time, undermine and de-
stroy the land and the building of
the plaintiff upon his land. * * ♦
Then the question which we
have to consider is this, whether
or no that prospective or ap-
prehended injury to the land of
the plaintiff is one, which, if done,
would be actionable, and one which
the court ought to restrain by in-
junction. I am of opinion that it
is." And the case was so deter-
mined in both courts. Compare Ald-
ritt v. Fleischauer, 74 Neb. 66, 103
N. W. 1084; Shaw v. Ward, 131
Wis. 646, HI N. W. 671.
2Eaton V. Railroad Co., 51 N.
H. 504, 12 Am. Rep. 147 ; Murray v.
Pannaci, 64 N. J. Eq. 147, 53 Atl.
695; Robinson v. New York etc. R.
R. Co., 27 Barb. 512.
SAnte, § 67.
§ 115 WATEES. 167
New York,* and Illinois.^ A railroad company cut a channel
through the watershed between two streams, whereby the water
from one flowed into the other and caused the latter to over-
flow its banks, and flood the plaintiff's land. The company
was held liable.^ In another case a county laid out a road
across a lake and, instead of bridging the lake, cut through its
banks and drained off the water which found its way to the
plaintiff's land seven miles away and flooded and impaired its
value. It was held that the plaintiff's property was taken and
the county liable.^ But there is no right to the maintenance
of an artificial barrier, such as a railroad embankment, and par-
ties who are protected by such an embankment, have no legal
ground of complaint, because openings are made therein which
let in the tide.^
In this connection we call attention to an important case
which arose in Milwaukee, and which seems to us to have been
wrongly decided.^ The plaintiff owned lots on the Milwaukee
River, near Lake Michigan, upon which he had valuable im-
provements. The city, under authority of a special act of the
legislature, made an artificial channel, 260 feet wide and twelve
or fourteen feet deep, from a point near the plaintiff's property
to the lake. In consequence of this opening, when the winds
Avere from the east, the waters of the lake were driven in upon
the plaintiff's property, producing very serious loss and damage.
A recovery was denied, on the ground that a municipal corpora-
tion, making a great public improvement, solely for the public
benefit, in the precise way authorized by the legislature and in
^Brown v. Cayuga & Susquehanna eGroham v. Keene, 143 111. 425,
R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 486; Robinson 32 N. E. 180; Baker v. Leka, 48 111.
I'. N. Y. & E. R. R. Co., 27 Barb. App. 353; Dierks v. Conjrs. of High-
512. In the latter case the court ways, 142 111. 197, 31 N. E. 496;
say: "The excavation and removal Hotz v. Hoyt, 34 111. App. 488; and
of the banks of the stream left the see Gulf etc. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 63
water to flow out of the natural Tex. 524; Hoeutt v. Wilmington etc.
channel of the creek and to over- R. R. Co., 124 N. C. 214.
flow the plaintifi^'s premises. And 6 Craft v. Norfolk etc. R. R. Co.,
this overflow the jury have found 136 N. C. 49, 48 S. E. 519.
would not have happened but for 'Wendel v. Spokane Co., 27 Wash,
such alteration and excavation of 121, 67 Pac. 576.
the natural banks of the stream. sKoch v. Del. L. & W. R. R. Co.,
For the damages resulting from 53 N. J. L. 256, 21 Atl. 284.
such alteration and excavation, I sAlexander v. Milwaukee, 16 Wis.
think this action clearly maintain- 247.
able."
168 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 116
a careful and discreet manner, was not liable for consequential
damages resulting to private property therefrom. A distinction
was taken betwSen a public corporation acting for the public
benefit and a private corporation executing a public work for
the sake of private emolument. It was virtually conceded that
if the cut had been made by an individual upon his private prop-
erty for his own use, he would have been liable. But on what
grounds would he have been liable ? Clearly on the ground
that the plaintiff had a right to have the natural barrier between
his property and the lake remain in the condition in which na-
ture had placed it. The legislature could not authorize this
right to be taken from him by a public or private corporation,
for any purpose, without compensation.^"
§ 116 (91a). Miscellaneous cases as to waters. A rail-
road company constructed its road along the banks of a stream.
The soil washed into the stream from the embankment and was
carried down and filled up plaintiff's mill pond. Held that the
company was not liable.^^ Where a natural stream was di-
verted into a highway by the plaintiff, acting as overseer of high-
ways, where it ran for a number of years, and was then turned
back into its old channel, it was held the plaintiff had no ground
of complaint. -"^^ Under the guise of removing obstructions from
a small non-navigable stream, a city cannot widen the stream
and take the property of the riparian owner without compensa-
tion.-'^ If a railroad company, without authority, removes a
levee and builds a new one, which gives way, it will be liable for
the resulting damages.-'* Where commissioners authorized to
widen, straighten and deepen a stream, through a city for drain-
age purposes, adopt a culvert put in by the city, which proves
insufficient to vent the increased flow, the city will not be liable
lOThe correctness of this decision 149 Mass. 103, 21 N. E. 230, 14 Am.
has been questioned. See Pumpelly St. Rep. 402; Miller v. Ne-w Yorlc
V. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 180; etc. E. E. Co., 125 N. Y. 118, 26
Arimond v. Green Bay Co., 31 Wis. N. E. 35; Caldwell v. East Broad
316. Top R. E. Co, 169 Pa. St. 99, 32
iiTrinity etc. E. E. Co. v. Mead- Atl. 85.
ows, 73 Tex. 32, 11 S. W. 145. It i2Kellogg v. Thompson, 66 N. Y.
seems to be implied in Salisbury v. 88.
Western N. C. E. E. Co., 91 N. 0. is City of Schenectady v. Furman,
490, which was a similar case, that 61 Hun 171, 39 N. Y. St. 975.
the plaintiff could recover. See KHotard v. Texas & P. E. E. Co.,
also Middlesex County v. McCue, 36 La. An. 450.
§ 116 WATEES. 169
for damages to property flooded thereby. ^^ Where a town
bridge was destroyed by a dam, it was held that the town could
maintain an action for the damage.-"' Where the outlet to a
lake was deepened and the flow increased and so continued for
twenty-four years it was held that it should be regarded the
same as though the condition and flow were natural and that
the same could not be interfered with for public use without
compensation.^^ A city has no right to change the course of a
natural stream and cause it to run in a public street and thereby
interfere with access to abutting property.-'* Where a railroad
company created a stagnant pool upon its right of way it was
held liable for the nuisance.-'^ When a railroad embankment
was built across a depression in the bank of a river which
prevented flood waters from reaching plaintiff, it was held there
was no liability.^"
The United States may prevent such interference by a State
with the sources or tributaries of a navigable stream as will
impair or destroy its navigability.^^ Riparian rights in a
stream are not affected by State lines. ^^ And where the diversion
or obstructioin of a stream in one State affects lands or riparian
rights in another State, the parties injured may have the appro-
priate remedies.^^ It is held that one State cannot authorize
an injury to lands or riparian rights in another State.^* One
State may prevent the diversion of water to another State,^^ and
may sue in the federal supreme court to prevent the unreason-
i5Cochrane v. City of Maiden, 152 zogingleton v. Atchison etc. Ey.
Mass. 365, 25 N. E. 620. See also Co., 67 Kan. 284, 72 Pac. 786.
Kansas City v. Brady, 52 Kan. 297, ziUnited States v. Rio Grande
34 Pac. 884, 39 Am. St. Kep. 349. Dam & Irr. Co., 174 U. S. 690.
isHooksett V. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 22Hoge v. Eaton, 135 Fed. 441.
44 N. H. 105. 23Vyse v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
i7Lakeside Paper Co. v. State, 15 126 la. 90, 101 N. W. 730; Pine v.
App. Div. N. Y. 169. See also Stro- Ne-w York, 103 Fed. 337; S. C. af-
bel V. Bor. of Ephrota, 178 Pa. St. firmed, Pine v. New York, 112 Fed.
50, 35 Atl. 713. 98, 50 C. C. A. 145; New York v.
isGuerkink v. Petaluma, 112 Cal. Pine, 185 U. S. 93, 22 S. C. 592;
306, 44 Pac. 570. See Thibodaux v. Hoge v. Eaton, 135 Fed. 441.
Town of Thibodaux, 46 La. An. 1528, z^Same; Octoraro Water Co.'s Pe-
16 So. 450. tition, 15 Pa. Dist. Ct. 767.
19 Savannah etc. Ry. Co. v. Pay- 2 6McCarter v. Hudson Co. Water
ish, 117 Ga. 893, 45 S. E. 280. Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 595, 65 Atl. 489,
170 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 116
able diversion or pollution of an inter-state stream under the
laws of another State.^'^
118 Am. St. Rep. 754, affirming S. 125, 22 S. C. 552; Same v. Same,
C. 70 N. J. Eq. 525, 61 Atl. 710; 20G U. S. 46, 27 S. C. 655; Missouri
Henderson Co. Water Co. v. Mo- v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 21 S. C.
Carter, 209 U. S. 349. 418; Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S.
2 6Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 496, 26 S. C. 263.
CHAPTER Y.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A TAKING: ROADS AND STREETS.
I. — General Questions. — Eights of Abutting Owners.
§ 117 (91b). Nomenclature of public ways. It is the
design of the present chapter to consider what injury or damage
to abutting property by the use or improvement of the public
way on which it abuts amounts to a taking witliin the meaning
of the constitution. Under "roads and streets" all sorts of
public ways by land are intended to be included, whether desig-
nated as a highway, road, street, alley, lane, place or boulevard.
The word "street" is ordinarily applied to a public way in a
city, town or village,^ and the word "road" to a free public way
in the country.^ The word "highway" is often used as synony-
mous with either, though it has a much more comprehensive
meaning, being applied to rivers, canals, lakes and railroads, as
well as to roads and streets.^ But the word "street" is fre-
quently applied to a public way in the country and the word
"road" to a public way in a city or village, and we shall use
the words road, street, and highway, as substantially synony-
mous. None of the terms applied to public ways, indicate any-
thing definite as to the rights of either the abutting owner or
the public.
§ 118 (91c). Distinctions between rural highways and
urban streets as to the extent of the public right or ease-
ment. Many cases assert a broad distinction between the ex-
lElliott, Roads and Streets, p. 12; 3"The term highway," says Bou-
State V. Comra. of Putnam Co., 23 vier, "is the generic name for all
Fla. 632, 3 So. 164; Commissioners kinds of public ways, whether they
V. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196, be carriage-ways, bridle-ways, foot-
18 So. 339. ways, bridges, turnpike roads, rail-
2Elliott, Roads and Streets, pp. 4, roads, canals, ferries or navigable
5. In Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Mont- rivers." Bouvier's Diet., Tit. high-
gomery Co. Pass. R. R. Co., 14 Pa. way. So also Elliott, Roads and
Co. Ct. 88, street and road are said Streets, p. 1.
to be synonymous. So as to street
and highway. Case of Road etc., 4
8. & R. 106.
171
172
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 11«
tent of the public right or easement in city streets and its extent
in country highways.* In one of the cases cited, it is said that
"there is a wide distinction between a highway in the country
and a street in a city or village as to the mode and extent of the
enjoyment, and, as a sequence, in the extent of the servitude in
the land upon which they are located. The country highway
is needed only for the purpose of passing and repassing, and, as
a general rule, to which there are a few needed exceptions, the
right of the public and of the authorities in charge is confined
to the use of the surface, with such rights incidental thereto as
are essential to such use. In the case of streets in a city there
are other and further uses, such as the construction of sewers
and drains, laying of gas and water pipes, erection of telegraph
and telephone wires, and a variety of other improvements, be-
neath, upon and above the surface, to which in modern times
urban streets have been subjected. These urban servitudes are
essential to the enjoyment of streets in cities, and to the comfort
iThis distinction is particularly
discussed or emphasized in the fol-
lowing cases: Western R. R. of Ala.
V. Ala. G. T. R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272,
11 So. 483, 17 L.R.A. 474; Mont-
gomery V. Santa Ana & W. R. R.
Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786, 43
Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654; 10
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 25; Kin-
caid V. Indianapolis Nat'l Gas Co.,
124 Ind. 577, 24 N. E. 1066, 19 Am.
St. Rep. 113, 8 L.R.A. 602, 3 Am.
E. R. & Corp. Rep. 1; Lostutter v.
City of Aurora, 126 Ind. 436, 26 N.
E. 184, 12 L.R.A. 259; Chesapeake
& 0. Tel. Co. V. Mackenzie, 74 Md.
36, 21 Atl. 690, 28 Am. St. Rep. 219;
Baltimore Co. W. & Elee. Co. v.
Baltimore Co., 105 Md. 154, 66 Atl.
34; Baltimore Co. W. & Elec. Co.
V. Dubreuil, 105 Md. 424, 66 Atl.
439; Van Brunt v. Town of Flat-
bush, 128 N. Y. 50, 27 N. E. 973;
S. C. 59 Hun 192, 37 N. Y. St. 200,
13 N. Y. Supp. 645; Eels v. Am.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 143 N. Y. 133, 38
N. E. 202, 25 L.R.A. 640, 10 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 69; Witcher v. Hol-
land W. W. Co., 66 Hun 619, 20 N.
Y. Supp. 560; Iiockhart v. Railway
Co., 139 Pa. St. 319, 21 Atl. 26;
Wood v. McGrath, 150 Pa. St. 451,
24 Atl. 682, 16 L.R.A. 715; McDevitt
V. Peoples' Nat'l Gas Co., 160 Pa.
St. 367, 28 Atl. 948; Pennsylvania
R. R. Co. V. Montgomery Co. Pass.
R. R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 62, 31 Atl. 468,
46 Am. St. Rep. 659, 27 L.R.A. 766,
reversing S. C. 14 Pa. Co. Ct. 88,
3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 5«; Elliott, Roads,
and Streets, 299 et seq.; Zehren v.
Milwaukee Elec. R. & L. Co., 99
Wis. 83, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844. Other
cases cited in support of the dis-
tinction are the following: Bloom-
field etc. Gas Co. v. Calkins, 62
N. Y. 386; Gas Light Co. v. Rich-
ardson, 63 Barb. 437; Sterling's Ap-
peal, 111 Pa. St. 35, 2 Atl. 105;
Sampfs Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 33, 8
Atl. 865; Long v. Wilson, 119 la.
267, 93 N. W. 282, 97 Am. St. Rep.
315, 60 L.R.A. 720 ; Farmer v. Myles,
106 La. 333, 30 So. 858; Murray v.
Gibson, 21 111. App. 488; Indianapo-
lis etc. R. R. Co. V. Hartley, 67 111.
§ 118
EOADS AND STEEETS.
173
of citizens in their more densely populated limits." ^ Similar
views are expressed in the other cases. But it may be doubted
whether the public right or easement is any different in its
legal essence, though there may be a difference in its practical
exercise. The legitimate use of a public way is necessarily
much greater in the city than in the country, but what consti-
tutes a legitimate use would seem to present the same question
whether it concerns a city street or a country road. There are
now many city streets which were once country roads, but there
does not seem to be any doubt but what they are subject to the
same uses and servitudes as streets newly established.® Accord-
ing to Mr. Elliott the moment a country road is brought within
the jurisdiction of a town or city, the public easement forth-
with becomes enlarged and extended by operation of law.'^ If
this is so, then something has been subtracted from the private
property of the abutting owner and added to the public ease-
439 ; Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Bar-
nett, 107 111. 507, 47 Am. Rep. 453.
BMontgomery v. Santa Ana & W.
E. K. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. Rep.
786, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A.
654, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 25.
6 In Town of Palatine v. Kreuger,
121 111. 72, the defendant was prose-
cuted under an ordinance which for-
bade the removal of dirt or earth
from any of the streets of the town.
The defendant removed the earth
under the direction of the owner of
the fee and relied upon the rights
of such owner as a defense. The
street in question was laid out by
road commissioners before the town
was incorporated, that is, while the
town was a rural community. The
town was incorporated by a special
charter which gave it the usual
powers of a city or village over its
streets. The court held that upon
the incorporation of the town the
public at once acquired the right to
the enlarged use and control of
streets, usually accorded to cities
and villages, and that the town had
the same power over the street as
though it had been laid out after
incorporation. The court
"Smith street, as appears from the
stipulation, was originally a, public
highway laid out by the road com-
missioners of the town of Palatine,
but when the town was incorporated
the highway became a street of the
incorporated town, and it is to be
treated in the same way as a, street
laid out by the authorities of the
incorporated town, and the rights
and obligations of the defendant, and
.the rights of the public in reference
to the street, are the same as if it
had been so laid out by the town
after it became incorporated." p. 72.
In Heiple v. East Portland, 13 Or.
97, it is intimated that the legisla-
ture could change a, country road to
a city street with all the usual inci-
dents by a simple enactment. See
also Smith v. Goldsboro, 121 N. C.
350; Baltimore Co. W. & Elec. Co. v.
Dubreuil, 105 Md. 424, 66 Atl. 439.
'"There is some conflict in the
cases as to whether the erection of
a municipal corporation does of it-
self oust the jurisdiction of the
county or township officers over ex-
isting highways. Our opinion is that
174
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 118
ment, without compensation. This is clearly contrary to the
constitution and, therefore, cannot be the correct view. The
public can no more take, without compensation, an easement for
the urban uses of highways, than it can take, without compen-
sation, an easement for the rural uses of highways. It follows,
either that the public must have a very limited control and ease-
ment in country roads after they become city streets, or else that
the easement is the same in both cases, and that the same prin-
ciples are to be applied to both in determining what is a legiti-
mate use. The latter seems to us the correct view, and the pub-
lic easement may be defined as the right to use and improve the
way for highway purposes as the public needs demand.® The
as soon as a town or city is incor-
porated, the public ways, that is,
ways belonging to the public and not
owned by private corporations, come
within the jurisdiction and control
of the new public corporation, unless
the statute expressly or impliedly
continues the authority of the
county or township officers. It is
apparent that the ways must of
necessity change character and the
servitude be much extended. This
extension carries with it wider
duties and greater liabilities, thus
requiring an essentially different
control and care." Elliott, Roads and
Streets, pp. 312, 313. And again:
"The change which takes place in
the extent of a servitude in a public
way is not effected by the act of the
donee nor after acceptance by the
act of the donor, but by operation
of law, and in order to meet the de-
mands of the public welfare and nec-
essity.'' Same, p. 316.
sThis is implied in the opinion of
Peckham, J. in Eels v. Am. Tel. &
Tel. Co., 143 N. Y. 133, 38 N. E.
202, 25 L.E.A. 640, 10 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 69, wherein he says :
"While concurring in the view that
the easement in a public street in a
city or village may well be greater
as the actual necessities of the case
are greater for sewers and gas and
water pipes, yet in this case, as we
have to deal with the easement in a
purely country highway, it is not im-
portant to discuss how the easement
became greater in the one case than
in the other, or as to the time when
the right to the enlarged use of the
highway or street attaches, or the
method or means by which the right
to such enlarged use was attained.
Density of population creates pub-
lic necessities for water, light, drain-
age and other conveniences which do
not exist in purely rural districts,
and along a. purely rural liighway.
Yet the same land might alter from
a country highway to a city street,
and it might be determined that
there was an implied dedication of
the country highway at the time the
land was taken to the uses which the
future village or city street might
require." Mr. Pierce, in speaking of
the distinction between city and
country highways, says : "But as
both the highway and the street are
appropriated for the same general
purposes, and a highway in a dis-
trict sparsely inhabitated at one
time may, by the growth of popula-
tion, become a street in a city, this
distinction does not appear to rest
upon a sound basis." Pierce Rail-
ways, p. 232. This doctrine has now
become fully est?ibliahed in New
§ 118
EOADS AND STEEETS.
175
public needs "will demand a larger use in the city than in the
country. But "whatever the public needs demand, in the way of
legitimate highway uses, that the public have a right to enjoy.
Whether a particular use or improvement is within the public
right, does not depend, therefore, upon whether the highway is
in the city or country, but upon the nature of the use or improve-
ment, that is, whether it is or is not within the leigtimate pur-
poses of a highway. In an Oregon case, where the limits of a
city were extended to include a country road, which was located
and established as a city street, it was expressly held that the
abutting o"wner, having the fee, was not entitled to any addi-
tional compensation.^
Nor do the authorities afford much but dicta in support of the
distinction asserted between urban and rural highways. In one
class of cases certain uses of a country road were held not to be
within the purpose for which such roads are established, but
the same courts have not held that the same uses of a city street
were legitimate.^" In another class of cases certain uses of city
streets are declared to be legitimate,-^^ but this is quite different
York by the recent case of Palmer
V. Ia,rchmont Electric Co., 158 N.
Y. 231, 52 N. E. Rep. 1092, wherein
the court says: "But the owner of
the fee in a country highway, taken,
opened and dedicated for a public
use, is entitled to no further com-
pensation after the territory has be-
come thickly settled and the high-
way has become a street of an in-
corporated city. This was recog-
nized in the Eels case, and it is,
therefore, apparent that, at the time
the land "was taken for a highway,
it was impliedly dedicated to the
uses which the public might in the
future require." p. 236.
9Hiiddleston v. Eugene, 34 Ore.
343, 55 Pac. 868, 43 L.R.A. 444. To
same effect, Lake Shore etc. Ey. Co.
V. Whiting, 161 Ind. 76, 67 N. E.
933; DeKalb Co. Tel. Co. v. Dutton,
228 111. 178, 81 N. E. 838, 10 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 1057; Callen v. Columbus
Edison Elec. Lt. Co., 66 Ohio St,
166, 64 N. E. 141, 58 L.R.A. 782,
10 Western R. R. Co. v. Ala. G.
T. R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 11 So.
483, 17 L.R.A. 474; Board of Trade
Tel. Co. V. Barnett, 107 111. 507, 47
Am. Rep. 453; Eels v. Am. Tel. &
Tel. Co. 143 N. Y. 133, 38 N. E.
202, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 69,
25 L.R.A. 640.
iiMontgomery v. Santa Ana &
W. R. R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac.
786, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A.
654, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 25;
Lostutter v. City of Aurora, 126
Ind. 436, 26 N. E. 184, 12 L.R.A.
259; Witcher v. Holland W. W. Co.,
66 Hun 619, 20 N. Y. Supp. 560;
Lockhart v. Craig St. R. R. Co., 139
Pa. St. 319, 21 Atl. 26; Wood v.
McGrath, 150 Pa. St. 451, 24 Atl.
682, 16 L.R.A. 715; McDevitt v.
People's Nat. Gas Co., 160 Pa. St.
3b/, 28 Atl. 948. In Chesapeake &
P. Tel. Co. V. Mackenzie, 74 Md.
36, 21 Atl. 690, 28 Am. St. Rep. 219,
which contains dicta to the effect
that city streets may be used for
176 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 118
from holding that the same or similar uses of country roads
would not be legitimate. The eases most relied upon are those
which hold that country highways cannot be used for laying
down gas pipes for the conveying of natural gas.-^* But when
these cases are examined it is found that the pipes were proposed
to be laid, not for lighting the highway in question, or of furnish-
ing gas to the occupiers of abutting property, but of conveying
it past their premises to a distant city. It is not probable that
the same use would be permitted of a city street. The reason
of the rule that permits the use of streets for gas and water pipes
would not apply to such a case.-'* So it was held in Van Brunt
V. Town of Flatbush,^* that a sewer could not be laid through a
rural highway in a town, the fee of which was in the abutting
owners, for the purpose of conveying the sewerage of an ad-
joining town to the ocean. But it was plainly intimated that
the authorities of the town in which the highway was situated
might have laid a sewer therein for the use of abutters and the
local community. In a Maryland case it was held that a water
main could not be laid in a country road for the purpose of
conveying water past the abutting premises to towns and villages
beyond.-'^ But the court recognizes that country roads may be-
come city streets and be subjected to urban servitudes without
additional compensation to the owner of the fee.-'* These cases
purposes for -which country roads iBBaltimore Co. W. & Elect. Co.
may not, it was held that a tele- v. Dubreuil, 105 Md. 424, 66 Atl.
phone line was not a legitimate use 439.
of a city street. isThe court holds that it is a,
i2Bloonifield Gas Co. v. Calkins, question of fact in each case
62 N. y. 386; Calkins v. Bloomfield whether the new use is within the
Gas Light Co., 1 N. Y. Supm. 541 ; scope of the original easement and
Gas Light Co. v. Richardson, 63 says: "The tribunal whose duty it
Barb. 437; Sterling's Appeal, 111 Pa. is to determine the question is not
St. 35, 2 Atl. Eep. 105; Stumpf's to be governed alone by the mode of
Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 33, 8 Atl. 865; user first adopted or by the condi-
Webb V. Fuel Co., 16 Wkly. L. B. tions existing at the time the high-
121; Kincaid v. Indianapolis Natu- way is acquired by the public. For
ral Gas Co., 124 Ind. 577, 24 N. E. example, if the easement when ac-
1066, 19 Am. St. Rep. 113, 8 L.R.A. quired be over land which is in the
602, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 1. open country, but is so situated that
isfifee Cone v. City of Hartford, it will probably be built upon, like
28 Conn. 363. a street of a city or town, and is
14128 N. y. 50, 27 N. E. 973, afterwards so built upon, it would
reversing S. C. 59 Hun 192, 37 N. be wholly unreasonable to hold that
y. St. 200, 13 N. Y. Supp. 545. the public must again compensate
§ 120
ROADS AND STEEETS.
177
afford very little support for the contention that city streets
may be used for purposes which would not be legitimate in the
case of country roads. The only court in which it has been un-
equivocally adjudicated that a certain use was legitimate in
the case of city streets and not legitimate in the case of country
highways, is that of Pennsylvania, in which it has been held that
an electric passenger railway is a legitimate use of a city or vil-
lage street, ^^ but not of a country road.-'^
§ 119 (9 Id). What is meant by abutting owners.
The ISFew York court of appeals has defined an "abutting own-
er," as one who owns land upon a street and whose title termi-
nates at the street line.-'" "While, strictly speaking, a lot, the
title to which extends to the middle of the street, may not be
said to abut upon the street, yet we believe the phrase "abutting
owners," has been applied indifferently to all owners of lots or
lands upon or along a street or highway, whether their title ex-
tended to the center of the street or stopped at the street line,
and we shall so use the words in this treatise.^"
§ 120 (91e). Rights of abutting owners. — Light, air
and access. As we have already seen, to constitute a taking,
when no title or interest passes, a private right must be impaired
or destroyed.^ ^ Therefore, to determine whether certain dam-
the owner of the fee before it can
make such use of the highway as its
then condition requires and justifies,
provided of course, they be within
the scope of the original easement.
Indeed we have many instances in
this State of such changed conditions
— where the highway when acquired
by the public was in the open coun-
try, but subsequently become a
street of a town. , It could not be
successfully contended that water
and gas pipes could not be laid in
such street without additional com-
pensation to the owner of the fee,
merely because the land was origin-
ally taken for a rural highway."
Baltimore Co. W. & Elec. Co. v.
Dubreuil, 105 Md. 424, 6G Atl. 439.
I'Lockhart v. Craig St. R. R. Co.,
139 Pa. St. 319, 21 Atl. 26; RaflFej-ty
V. Central Traction Co., 147 Pa. St.
579, 23 Atl. 884, 30 Am. St. Rep.
763, 6 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 287.
Em. D.— 12.
isPennsylvania R. R. Co. v.
Montgomery Co. Pass. R. R. Co., 167
Pa. St. 62, 31 Atl. 468, 46 Am. St.
Rep. 659, 27 L.R.A. 766.
i9In Hughes v. Metropolitan El.
R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 14, 28 N. I"
765, the court defines an "abuttiii
lot" as follows: "It denotes a h,
bounded on the side of a public
street, in the bed or soil of which
the owner of the lot has no title,
estate, interest or private rights ex-
cept such as are incident to a lot
so situated." See also Abendroth >
Manhattan R. R. Co., 122 N. Y. 1
25 N. E. 496, 19 Am. St. Rep. 461,
11 L.R.A. 634, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 309, 312.
2 0Elliott Roads and Streets, pp.
519, et seq.; Dillon Munic. Corp.,
Title "Abutter."
ii-Ante, § 65.
1V8 EMINEJSTT DOMAIN. § 120
ages, resulting to abutting property frona the use or improve-
ment of a street, amount to a taking, we must inquire whether
any private, right has been interfered with. If yes, and the
damages result from such interference, then there has been a
taking, and the right to compensation follows. It thus becomes
necessary to inquire what private rights, if any, an abutting
owner has in, or in respect to, the street in front of his property.
As these questions arise almost wholly with respect to urban
property, we shall, in this discussi©n, have regard mainly to the
conditions of urban life. While highways are established in
the country largely for the accommodation of the general public
in traveling from place to place, streets are laid out in cities
and villages, either partly or wholly, for the purpose of afford-
ing access, light and air to the property throvigh which they
pass. As the country road of the present may become the city
street of the future, it seems evident that the same rules must ap-
ply to both.^^ It having been always one of the recognized uses
and purposes of establishing streets, to afford access, light and
air to the property through which they pass, we think that with
the establishment of a street there attach to the adjacent prop-
erty, as appurtenant to and parcel of it, the private rights of
access and of light and air.^* jSTumerous cases, decided since
22i.Ji*e, § 120. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146; Lakr v. Met.
23Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo. 113; El. K. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 268; Craw-
Chicago V. Union Building Ass., 102 ford v. Delaware, 7 Ohio St. 459;
111. 379, 397, 40 Am. Rep. 598; Jackson v. Jackson, 16 Ohio St. 163;
Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; Tate Anderson v. Turbeville, 6 Coldw.
V. Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co., 7 Ind. 150. In Indiana, Bloomington &
479; Rennslaer v. Leopold, 106 Ind. Western Ry. Co. v. Eberle, 110 Ind.
29 ; Indiana, Bloomington & Western 542, 545, 59 Am. Rep. 225, the court
Ry. Co. V. Eberle, 110 Ind. 542, 59 say: "Whatever may be the rule of
Am. Rep. 225; Lexington etc. R. R. decision elsewhere, nothing is better
Co. V. Applegate, 8 Dana 289, 33 settled in this State, than that the
Am. Dec. 497; Transylvania Univer- owners of lots abutting on a street
sity V. Lexington, 3 B. Mon. 25, 27, may have a peculiar and distinct in-
38 Am. Rep. 173; Elizabethtown etc. terest in the easement in the street
R. R. Co. V. Coombs, 10 Bush 382; in front of their lots. This interest
Lackland v. North Mo. R. R. Co., includes the right to have the street
31 Mo. 180; Thurston v. St. Joseph, kept open and free from any obstruc-
51 Mo. 510; Burlington & Mo. R. tion which prevents or materially in-
R. Co. V. Reinhackle, 15 Neb. 279, terferes with the ordinary means of
48 Am. Rep. 342; People v. Kerr, 27 ingress to and egress from the lots.
N. y. 188, 215; Kellinger v. 42d St. It is distinguished from the interest
R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206; Story v. of the general public, in that it be-
New York El. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. comes a right appendant, and legal-
§ 120
EOADS AND STREETS.
179
the first edition of this work, establish beyond question the ex-
istence of these rights, or easements, of light, air and access, as
appurtenant to abutting lots, and that they are as much property
as the lots themselves.^* But as all streets are established
ly adhering to, the contiguoua
grounds and the improvements
thereon, as the owner may have
adapted them to the street. To the
extent that the street is a necessary
and convenient means of access to
the lot, it is as much a valuable
property right as the lot itself. It
cannot, therefore, be perverted from
the uses to which it was originally
dedicated, or devoted to uses incon-
sistent with street purposes, with-
out the abutting lot-owner's consent,
until due compensation be first made
according to law for any injury and
damage which may directly result
from such interference; nor can a
street be invaded so as to inflict
special and peculiar damage or in-
jury upon the adjacent lot-owner's
property, without rendering the
wrongdoer liable for such dam-
age. » * * The interest in the
street which is peculiar and per-
sonal to the abutting lot-owner,
which is distinct and diff'erent from
that of the general public, is the
right to have free access over it to
his lot and buildings, substantially
in the manner he would have en-
joyed the right in case there had
been no interference with the street.
Tlie right of access by way of the
street is an incident to the owner-
ship of the lot, which cannot be
taken away or materially impaired
without liability to the owner to the
extent of the damage actually in-
curred. In this respect, and in this
only, is the interest of the abutting
property-owner different in the
street in front of, and beyond the
line of, his lot, from that of the pub-
lic." Similar views will be found
expressed in nearly all the cases
cited in this note, and in many of
the cases cited in the next note.
2 4Eachu3 V. Los Angeles Consol.
El. R. R. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 37 Pac.
750, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149; Bigelow
V. Ballesino, 111 Cal. 559, 44 Pac.
307; Williams v. Los Angeles, 150
Cal. 592, 89 Pac. 330; Cushing- Wet-
more Co. V. Gray, 152 Cal. 118, 92
Pac. 70; Coats v. Atchison etc. Ry.
Co., 1 Cal. App. 441, 82 Pac. 040;
Selden v. City of Jacksonville, 28
Fla. 558, 10 So. 457, 29 Am. St. Rep.
278, 14 L.R.A. 370; Bowden v. Jack-
sonville, 52 Fla. 216, 42 So. 394;
Harvey v. Georgia Southern etc. R.
R. Co., 90 Ga. 66, 15 S. E. 783;
Macon v. Wing, 113 Ga. 90, 38 S. E.
392; Barrows v. City of Sycamore,
150 III. 588, 37 N. E. 1096, 41 Am.
St. Rep. 40O, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 62; Decker v. Evansville Sub-
urban etc. K. R. Co., 133 Ind. 493,
33 N. E. 349; Dantzer v. Indianapo-
lis Union R. R. Co., 141 Ind. 604,
39 N. E. 223, 50 Am. St. Rep. 343, 34
L.R.A. 769, 11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
249; Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co. v.
Noftsger, 148 Ind. 101, 47 N. E. 332;
Pennsylvania Co. v. Stanley, 10 Ind.
App. 421, 37 N. E. 288, 38 N. E. 421 ;
Long V. Wilson, 119 la. 207, 93 N.
W. 282, 97 Am. St. Rep. 315, 60
L.R.A. 720; Leavenworth etc. R. R.
Co. V. Curtan, 51 Kan. 432, 33 Pac.
297; Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Da-
vidson, 52 Kans. 739, 35 Pac. 787;
Fulton V. Short Route R. R. Trans.
Co., 85 Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Am.
St. Rep. 619; Ball v. Maysville etc.
R. R. Co., 102 Ky. 486, 43 S. W. 731,
80 Am. St. Rep. 362; Ferguson v.
Covington etc. Bridge Co., 108 Ky.
180
EMINENT DOMAIN.
120
primarily for tlie public use and general good, the right of the
public is paramount to the right of the individual. And so the
private rights of access, light and air are held and enjoyed sub-
ject to the paramount right of the public to use and improve the
662, 57 S. W. 460; Ky. Cent. E. R.
Co. V. Clark, 5 Ky. L. R. 184; Hept-
ing V. New Orleans Pac. R. R. Co.,
36 La. An. 898; Chesapeake & P.
Tel. Co. V. Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36,
21 Atl. 690; Townsend v. Epstein,
93 Md. 537, 49 Atl. 629, 86 Am. St.
Rep. 441, 52 L.R.A. 408; Adams v.
C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286,
39 N. W. 629, 12 Am. St. Rep. 644,
1 L.R.A. 493; Gustafson v Hamm,
56 Minn. 334, 57 N. W. 1054, 22
L.R.A. 565; Theobold v. Louisville,
N. 0. & T. R. R. Co., 66 Miss. 279,
6 So. 230, 14 Am. St. Rep. 564, 4
L.R.A. 735; Hazelhurst v. Mayes, 84
Miss. 7, 36 So. 33, 64 L.R.A. 805;
Henry Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co. v. St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co., 113 Mo. 308,
20 S. W. 658, 18 L.R.A. 339, 7 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 235; Spencer v.
Metropolitan St. R. E. Co., 120 Mo.
154, 23 S. W. 126, 22 L.R.A. 668;
Sherlock v. Kansas City Belt R. R.
Co., 142 Mo. 172, 64 Am. St. Rep.
551 ; Corby v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
150 Mo. 457; DeGeofroy v. Mer-
chants Bridge Terminal Ry. Co., 179
Mo. 698, 79 S. W. 386, 101 Am. St.
Rep. 524, 64 L.R.A. 959; St. Louis
V. Terminal R. E. Ass., 211 Mo. 364,
109 S. W. 041; Martin v. Chicago
etc. E. R. Co., 47 Mo. App. 452;
Wallace v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., 47 Mo. App. 491 ; Stephenson v.
Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 68 Mo. App. 642;
Davies v. St. Joseph, 98 Mo. App.
611, 73 S. W. 723; Jaynes v. Omaha
St. R. E. Co., 53 Neb. 631, 74 N.
W. 67, 39 L.R.A. 751 ; Dill v. School
Board, 47 N. J. Eq. 421, 20 Atl.
739; Newman v. Metropolitan El. E.
E. Co., 118 N. Y. 618, 23 N. E. 901,
7 L.R.A. 289, 2 Am. E. R. & Corp.
Rep. 318; Abendroth v. Manhattan
R. R. Co., 122 N. Y. 1, 25 N. E. 496,
19 Am. St. Rep. 461, 11 L.R.A. 634,
3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 309 ; Kane
V. New York El. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y.
164, 26 N. E. 278, 11 L.R.A. 640;
S. C. Sub. Nom. Duyckinck v. New
York El. E. E. Co., 3 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 744; Reining v. New
York etc. R. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 157,
28 N. E. 640, 14 L.R.A. 133, 5 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 476; Bohm v.
Metropolitan El. R. E. Co., 129 N.
Y. 576, 29 N. E. 802, 14 L.E.A. 344,
5 Am. E. R. & Corp. Rep. 416;
Hughes V. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 130 N. Y. 14, 28 N. E. 765;
Egerer v. New York Central etc.
R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 108, 29 N. E.
95, 5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 241;
Bischoff V. New York El. R. R. Co.,
138 N. Y. 257, 33 N. E. 1073; Hol-
loway V. Southmayd, 139 N. Y. 390,
34 N. E. 1047; Mortimer v. New
York El. R. R. Co., 57 N. Y. Supr.
Ct. 244, 6 N. Y. Supp. 898; Hine v.
New York El. R. R. Co., 54 Hun 425,
27 N. Y. St. 303, 7 N. Y. Supp. 464;
Wormser v. Brown, 72 Hun 93, 25
N. Y. Supp. 553; Beekman v. ThirQ
Ave. R. R. Co., 13 App. Div. 279, 43
N. Y. Supp. 174; Schmitz v. Brook-
lyn Union El. E. E. Co. Ill App.
Div. 308, 97 N. Y. S. 791 ; White v.
Northwestern N. C. E. E. Co., 113
N. C. 610, 18 S. E. 330, 37 Am. St.
Eep. 639, 22 L.E.A. 627, 9 Am. E.
E. & Corp. Eep. 103; Staton v. Atl.
Coast Line E. E. Co., 147 N. C. 428 ;
McNulta v. . Eolston, 5 Ohio C. C.
330; McQuaid v. Portland & V. R.
R. Co., 18 Ore. 237, 22 Pac. 899, 1
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 34; Willam-
ette Iron Works v. Oregon R. & N.
§ 121
EOADS AND STEEETS.
181
street for the purposes of a highway.^" And as these private
rights are thus subject to the right of the public to use and im-
prove as a highway, it follows that, when such uses or improve-
ments are made, no private right is interfered with and conse-
quently no private property is taken. It follows also that, as
these private rights are subject only to the use and improve-
ment of the street by the public for the purpose of a highway,
an interference with these rights by the use or improvement of
the street for any other purpose or by any other agency, under
legislative authority, is a taking of private property to the extent
of such interference.^^ The rights of a railroad company as an
owner of abutting property are the same and no greater than the
Co., 26 Ore. 224, 37 Pac. 1016; In re
Melon St. 182 Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl.
482, 28 L.R.A. 275; Johnsen v. Old
Colony R. E. Co., 18 R. I. 642, 29
Atl. 594; Edmison v. Lowry, 3 S.
D. 77, 52 N. W. 583, 44 Am. St. Rep.
774, 17 L.R.A. 275; South Bound R.
R. Co. V. Burton, 67 S. C. 515, 46
S. E. 340; Prater v. Hamilton Co.,
90 Tenn. 661, 19 S. W. 233; Hamil-
ton County V. Rape, 101 Tenn. 222,
47 S. W. 416; Dooley Block v. Salt
Lake Rapid Transit Co., 9 Utah 31,
33 Pac. 229, 8 Am. E. R. & Corp.
Rep. 327; State v. Superior Court,
30 Wash. 219, 70 Pac. 484; Lund v.
Idaho etc. R. R. Co., 50 Wash. 574,
97 Pac. 665; Hart v. Buckner, 54
Fed. 925, 5 C. C. A. 1; Muhlker v.
New York etc. R. E. Co., 197 U. S.
544, 25 S. C. 522. In the last case
the statement of the text is held to
express the correct doctrine and the
court adds that "it is impossible for
us to conceive of a city without
streets, or any benefit in streets, if
the property abutting on them has
not attached to it as an essential
and inviolable part easements of
light and air as well as of access."
p. 563.
2BSeIden v. City of Jacksonville,
28 Fla. 558, 10 So. 457; Bowden v.
Jacksonville, 52 Fla. 216, 42 So. 394;
Adams v. C. B. & Q. E. E. Co., 39
Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629; Gustafson
V. Hamm, 56 Minn. 334, 57 N. W.
1054; Henry Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co.
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 113 Mo.
308', 20 S. W. 658, 18 L.R.A. 339, 7
Am. R. R. & Corp. Eep. 235; Halsey
V. Rapid Transit St. R. R. Co., 47
N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859; Kane
T. New York El. R. E. Co., 125 N.
Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278, 11 L.E.A. 640;
S. C Sub Nom. Duyckinck v. New
York El. E. E. Co., 3 Am. E. E. &
Corp. Eep. 744; Reining v. New
York etc. R. E. Co., 128 N. Y. 157,
28 N. E. 640, 5 Am. E. E. & Corp.
Rep. 476; Eauenstein v. New York
etc. R. E. Co., 136 N. Y. 528, 32 N.
E. 1047, 18 L.R.A. 768, 7 Am. E. E.
& Corp. Eep. 520; Sauer v. New
York, 180 N. Y. 27, 72 N. E. 579,
70 L.E.A. 717, affirming, 90 App.
Div. 36, 85 N. Y. S. 636.
2 6Macon v. Wing, 113 Ga. 90, 38
S. E. 392; Shawneetown v. Mason,
82 111. 337, 25 Am. Eep. 321; Long
V. Wilson, 119 la. 267, 93 N. W. 282,
97 Am. St. Eep. 315, 60 L.R.A. 720;
Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537, 49
Atl. 629, 86 Am. St. Eep. 441, 52
L.E.A. 409; Adams v. C. B. & Q. E.
R. Co., 39 Minn. 280, 39 N. W. 629;
Kane v. New York El. R. R. Co., 125
N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278; S. C. Sub.
Nom. Duyckinck v. New York El. E.
R. Co., 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
182
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 121
rights of an individual owner.^^ The rights or easements of
light, air and access so long as they exist are indissolubly an-
nexed to the abutting property. They may be released or ex-
tinguished, in whole or in part, but they cannot be reserved or
conveyed, or exist separate from the property to which they
pertain, so that the property shall be owned by one and the ease-
ments by another.^^
§ 121 (9 If). Origin and basis of the rights or ease-
ments of access, light and air. The existence of this pri-
vate right in all cases may be reasoned out as follows: When
the owner of a tract of land lays the same out into lots and
streets, and sells the lots, the purchasers of such lots acquire
as appurtenant thereto a private right of way and access over
the streets.^® This private right arises without any express
744, Reining v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 128 N. Y. 157, 28 N. B. 640, 5
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 476; Wil-
lamette Iron Works v. Oregon R. &
N. Co., 26 Ore. 224, 37 Pac.
1016, 46 Am. St. Rep. 620,
29 L.R.A. 88; Winchester v. Stevens
Point, 58 Wis. 350; Buchner v. Chi-
cago etc. Ry. Co., 60 Wis. 264. And
see post, §§ 149 et seq.
2 7 Appeal of Philadelphia etc. R.
R. Co., 2 Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. 291,
affirming 1 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 129.
2spegram v. New York El. R. R.
Co., 147 N. Y. 135, 41 N. B. 424;
Kernochan v. New York El. R. R.
Co., 128 N. Y. 559, 29 N. E. 65; Pap-
penheim v. Railway Company, 128
N. Y. 436, 28 N. B. 518, 26 iim. St.
Rep. 486, 13 L.R.A. 401; McKenna
V. Brooklyn Union El. R. R. Co.,
184 N. Y. 391, 77 N. E. 615, revers-
ing S. C. 95 App. Div. 226, 88 N. Y.
S. 762; Schomaker v. Michaels, 189
N. Y. 61, 81 N. E. 555. In the Ker-
nochan Case the court says ; "The
easements of an abutting owner, in-
vaded, are appurtenant to his prem-
ises, and, in the nature of things,
they are indissolubly annexed there-
to, until extinguished by release or
otherwise. They are incapable of a
distinct and separate ownership.''
Where the deed reserved the right to
damages to the premises, past, pres-
ent and future, by reason of the con-
struction and operation of the road,
it was held that while the right of
action was in the grantee, yet that
he was a trustee for the grantor
with respect thereto and that the
damages belonged to the latter who
could recover them from the grantee,
or those claiming under him. Shep-
ard V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 169 N.
Y. 160, 62 N. E. 151, affirming S. C.
48 App. Div. 452, 62 N. Y. S. 977;
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Shepard,
169 N. Y. 170, 62 N. B. 154, 58 L.R.A.
115, reversing S. C. 49 App. Div.
345, 63 N. Y. S. 435.
23Prescott V. Edwards, 117 Cal.
298, 49 Pac. 178, 59 Am. St. Rep.
186; McLean v. Llewellyn Iron
Works, 2 Cal. App. 346, 83 Pac. 1082,
1085; Newell v. Sass, 142 111. 104,
31 N. E. 176; Corning v. Woolner,
206 111. 190, 69 N. E. 53; Indianapo-
lis V. Croas, 7 Ind. 9; Indianapolis
V. Kingsbury, 101 Ind. 200, 51 Am.
Rep. 749; Dubuque v. Malony, 9 la.
450; Highbarger v. Milford, 71 Kan.
331, 80 Pac. 633; Schneider v. Jacob,
86 Ky. 101, 5 S. W. 350; Dorman v.
§ 121
EOADS AND STEEETS.
183
grant, and in the absence of any statute.^" The law presumes
that the parties had in mind the advantages to be derived from
the use of the proposed streets, and implies a right to such use
as a part of the grant. This position is not open to controversy,
and is as good sense as it is good law. If several persons, ovvmers
of distinct parts of a tract, should join in laying the same out
into streets and lots, the result would be the same. The law
would imply the grant of mutual easements of way and access,
appurtenant to the respective lots, and this, as before, in the
absence of any statute or express mention of such easements.
These private rights or easements are the presumed, as well as
the real, consideration for the grant or dedication of a part of
the tract to public use. These private rights remain the same
whether the streets are accepted by the public or not.^^ If,
instead of making a gift of the streets to the public, the pro-
Bates Mfg. Co., 82 Me. 438, 19 Atl.
915; White v. Flannigan, 1 Md. 542;
54 Am. Dec. 668; Pearson v. Allen,
151 Mass. 79; Cole v. Hadley, 162
Mass. 579, 39 N. E. 279; Thurston
V. St. Joseph, 51 Mo. 510; McLemon
V. McNeley, 56 Mo. App. 556; Dill
V. School Board, 47 N. J. Eq. 421,
20 Atl. 739 ; Matter of Lewis Street,
2 Wend. 472; Livingston v. Mayor
etc. of New York, 8 Wend. 85; Story
V. New Vork El. E. R. Co., 90 N. Y.
122, 165, 43 Am. Dec. 146; Pratt v.
Buffalo City Ry. Co., 19 Hun 30;
In re St. Nicholas Terrace, 143 N.
Y. 621, 37 N. E. 635; Matter of
Ethel St., 3 Miscl. 403, 24 N. Y.
Supp. 689; Moore v. Carson, 104 N.
C. 43, 10 S. E. 689, Shields v. Titus,
46 Ohio St. 528, 22 N. E. 717;
Ferguson's App. 117 Pa.' St. 426,
11 Atl. 885; Dobson v. Hohena-
del, 148 Pa. St. 367, 23 Atl. 1128;
Hobson V. City of Philadelphia, 150
Pa. St. 595, 24 Atl. 1048; Garvey v.
Harbison-Walker Refractories' Co.,
213 Pa. St. 177,. 62 Atl. 778; South
State Normal School's Case, 213 Pa.
St. 244, 62 Atl. 908 ; Smith v. Union
S. & T. Co., 17 Pa. Supr. Ct. 444;
Carroll v. Aabury, 28 Pa. Supr. Ct.
354; Clark v. Providence, 10 E. I.
437 ; Thaxter v. Turner, 17 E. I. 799,
24 Atl. 829; Johnsen v. Old Colony
E. E. Co., 18 R. I. 642, 29 Atl. 594;
Wolf V. Brass, 72 Tex. 133, 12 S. W.
159; Cook V. Totten, 49 W. Va. 177,
38 S. E. 491, 87 Am. St. Rep. 792;
Barbour v. Lyddy, 49 Fed. 896 ; Fitz-
gerald V. Barbour, 55 Fed. 440, 5 C.
C. A. 180; Eainey v. Herbert, 55
Fed. 443, 5 C. C. A. 183; Bennett
V. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 73 Fed.
696 ; United States v. Certain Lands,
140 Fed. 463.
3 0 Story V. New York El. R. R.
Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 145, 43 Am. Rep.
146; Kane v. New York El. R.
R. Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N.
E. 278, 11 L.R.A. 640, 3 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 744; Hughes
V. Met. El. R. R. Co. 130 N.
Y. 14, 28 N. E. 765; Long v.
Wilson, 119 la. 267, 93 N. W. 282,
97 Am. St. Rep. 315, 60 L.R.A. 720.
31 Carroll v. Asbury, 28 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 354; Johnsen v. Old Colony R.
R. Co., 18 R. I. 642, 29 Atl. 594;
Clark V. Providence, 10 R. I. 437;
Cook V. Totten, 49 W. Va. 177, 38
S. E. 491, 87 Am. St. Rep. 792.
184: EMINENT DOMAIN. § 121
prietors should voluntarily grant the streets for a consideration
agreed upon and paid by the public, it would still be true in
fact, and therefore presumed by law, that, in fixing the con-
sideration to be paid, the parties had in mind the advantages to
be derived from the use of the streets. That is, the considera-
tion to each proprietor would be the right to make use of the
streets in connection with his lots, and a certain sum of money
paid. The first part of this consideration would be utterly fal-
lacious, unless the right in question is protected by the law of
the land the same as any other right. To make the right a part
consideration of the grant, and then to allow the public to invade
or destroy it at pleasure, would be a fraud which the law will
neither impute nor allow. ^^ Therefore, in the case of such a
grant, there arises by operation of law a private right to use
the streets in connection with the lots of each proprietor, which
is as inviolable as any other right of property. If the streets,
instead of being established by dedication or voluntary grant,
are acquired by forced sale or condemnation, how is the matter
changed ? The price to be paid, instead of being agreed upon,
is ascertained in some mode provided by law. The transfer
of title is accomplished by legal proceedings, instead of a deed
of the parties. In fixing the price to be paid to each proprietor,
the advantages to be derived from the use of the street or streets
are taken into consideration.^* Generally, he actually pays a
3 2 "The claim made that the owner are not only valuable to him for
of property taken for a street, ob- sanitary purposes, but are indis-
tains, through the award of the com- pensable to the proper and beneficial
missioners, full compensation for his enjoyment of his property, and are
property, is unfounded, unless the legitimate subjects of estimate by
benefits for which he is assessed are the public authorities, in raising the
inviolably secured to him by such fund necessary to defray the cost of
proceedings. Any other construction constructing the street. He is there-
of the statute would render it an ef- fore compelled to pay for them at
iicient engine of fraud and injustice. their full value, and if in the next
An abutting owner necessarily en- instant they may by legislative au-
joys certain advantages from the ex- thority be taken away and diverted
istence of an open street adjoining to inconsistent uses, a system has
his property, which belong to him by been inaugurated which resembles
reason of its location, and are not more nearly legalized robbery than
enjoyed by the general public, such any other form of, acquiring prop-
as the right of free access to his erty." Lahr v. Met. El. R. R. Co.,
premises, and the free admission and 104 N. Y. 268, 290, 291.
circulation of light and air to and 3 3"The benefits to be received by
through his property. These rights a person whose land is taken by the
§ 121
EOADS AND STREETS.
185
fixed price for these advantages, in the form of an assessment
of benefits upon his remaining property.^* Now, it would be
the grossest inequity to compel a man to pay for advantages,
whether in the form of deductions from the price to be paid
or of an assessment of benefits, unless those advantages are se-
cured to him by a clear title. The result of every such proceed-
ing, therefore, is that there is created and attached to the lot
or tract of each proprietor through which the street runs, a
private right, independent of the public easement, to use the
street for the purposes of access to the lot and of outlet to the
general system of highways. The proceedings have precisely
the same effect as a voluntary grant by the several proprietors,
and, in case of a voluntary grant, the law will imply a transfer
public for a road are a part of the
consideration for the release of the
land, or its condemnation for a road,
and when once vested in him, or he
becomes entitled thereto, they are
as much his property as the land
itself, and neither the State nor any
of its subordinate agencies can de-
prive him of them, except in the
manner pointed out by the constitu-
tion, and that has not been done in
this case." Pearsall v. Board of Su-
pervisors, 74 Mich. 558, 42 N. W.
77.
3 4In Wormser v. Brown, 72 Hun
93, 25 N. Y. Supp. 553, it is held
that an assessment of benefits must
be regarded as a payment for the
privileges of light, air and access af-
forded by the street. A different
view is taken by the Supreme Court
of New Jersey in State v. City of
Elizabeth, 54 N. J. L. 402, 24 Atl.
495, wherein the court says: "It is
assumed by counsel for prosecutrix
that, because the prosecutrix was
assessed for a benefit resulting from
the opening of this street, peculiar
to herself, she got a vested right
in the continued existence of the
street, of which she could not be
stripped without compensation. But
this, I think, is more plausible than
substantial. While the right she
got may have been of peculiar bene-
fit to her property, yet it was a,
right which she shared with the
public. The privilege of using the
street was shared by each member
of the community. It may not have
been of the same value to each mem-
ber of the community, but the right
to use the street was in each citizen
the same. It was exclusively a pub-
lic right, put under the control of
the representatives of the public. It
was subject to alteration or aboli-
tion, when, in the judgment of those
to whom the public interests were
confided, those interests demanded
such action. The assessment of
benefits is presumed to be based upon
the recognized power of the State
and its agencies to modify or de-
stroy the improvement. The atti-
tude of those who have been as-
sessed for peculiar benefits differs in
no respect from that of any other
citizen in regard to this control' of
the public over a public right." The
case was affirmed in the court of er-
rors and appeals, but without af-
firming these views. 55 N. J. L.
337, 26 Atl. 939.
186 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 121
of mutual easements of way and access appurtenant to the sev-
eral lots.^^
The right to light and air from over the space occupied by
the street arises in the same way and stands upon the same
footing as the right of access. The reasoning advanced and au-
thorities cited in this section fully establish the proposition that,
when a highway is established, and irrespective of the mode by
which it is established, or of the interest acquired by the public
in the soil, there is attached to the abutting property a right
to receive light and air from the space above the surface of
the street. The New York Court of Appeals, in speaking of
the origin of these easements of light, air and access, says:
"The plaintiff's easements, or rights in the nature of easements,
are not created by grant or covenant. They arise, we think,
from the situation, the course of legislation, the trust created
by statute, the acting upon the faith of public pledges, and upon
a contract between the public and the property owner implied,
from all the circumstances, that the street shall be kept open as
a public street, and shall not be diverted to other and incon-
sistent uses. There is some analogy, we think, between the
rights of abutting owners as against the public, and those ac-
quired by the public against private persons, in streets or high-
ways by dedication. The public acquires, upon acceptance of
a dedication by the owner of land of a highway over the same
a perpetual easement therein for a highway, although there
may be no deed or writing or covenant, and no formalities at-
tending the transaction, such as is required for the creation of
an easement at common law. Here the State has dedicated the
streets in the city of New York to be public streets. The abut-
ting owners have acted upon the dedication, and upon the pledge
of the public faith that they shall continue to be open public
streets forever. It would be gross injustice to deprive them of
the advantages intended, without compensation. The dedica-
3 6 "The proceedings by which land the statute which authorizes the ac-
is acquired by the exercise of the quisition constitutes the contract be-
right of eminent domain amount to tweeu the citizen and the public, and
a statutory conveyance of the same where the interest has once been ac-
to the public or the corporation, and quired it cannot be changed or en-
there is no distinction between such larged without further compensa-
a conveyance and a, voluntary con- tion." Story v. New York El. R. K.
veyance made for public use. Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 172, 43 Am. Rep.
Where property is acquired for pub- 146.
lie use by proceedings in invitum.
§ 121
EOADS ANL STREETS.
187
tion ought to be, and we think is, irrevocable." ^® The existence
of these private rights and easements is, therefore, entirely in-
dependent of the mode in which the highway is established, or
of the estate or interest which the public acquires in the soil of
the street, whether a fee or less.^^ These views are fully sus-
tained by the opinion in Story v. ISTew York El. K. E. Co.^^
3 6Kane v. New York El. E,. E.
Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E.
278, 11 L.E.A. 640, 3 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 744, 753, 754.
And in Hughes v. Met. El. E. R. Co.,
130 N. Y. 14, 28 N. E. 765, the same
court says: "These street rights of
an abutting owner are not originat-
ed by grant, in terms, of such in-
cidental rights, and their existence
need not be established by convey-
ances in specific terms, conveying
such right, for there are none; nor
by adverse possession by an abut-
ting owner, for the right is incapa-
ble of such possession as against the
city. The private rights appurte-
nant to abutting lots arise by opera-
tion of law from contiguity, like
rights for the adjacent and subja-
cent support of land, and their ex-
istence is presumed." The views of
the text are also sustained by the
reasoning in In re Melon Street, 182
Pa. St. 397, 402, 403, 38 Atl. 482, 28
L.R.A. 275.
3 7"What are the rights of a lot-
holder in reference to the adjacent
streets and alleys ? The owner in fee
of a tract of land may have it sur-
veyed into town lots, streets and al-
leys, and without selling any of the
lots or acknowledging the plat, he
may destroy the survey and vacate
the streets and alleys. But if he
convey away any of the lots, the
right of the free use of the adjacent
streets will pass to the grantees as
appurtenant to their lots; and such
grantees will not only have a servi-
tude or easement in the adjacent
streets and alleys as appurtenant to
the lots, but the conveyance itself
would be a dedication of the streets
and alleys to the public as well as
to the private use of the lots. This
would be the result without any
statutory dedication by acknowledg-
ing and filing the plat with the
county recorder. The effect of a
statutory dedication, however, is
precisely the same. It vests in the
adjacent lot-holder the right to the
use of the streets as appurtenant to
his lot, and this easement is as
much property as the lot itself. It
is a property interest, independent
of the right of the public highways,
and the lot-holder is as much en-
titled to protection in the enjoyment
of this appurtenant easement as he
is in the enjoyment of the lot itself.
Hence, whatever injures or destroys
this easement, is to that extent a
damage to the lot. So if in grading
a street it be raised so high as to
throw the surface water back upon
the lot, or prevent a free access to
the street; or if the street be ex-
cavated so low as to render the ease-
ment of no use to the lot, the lot-
holder is thereby damaged to the ex-
tent of the loss of such easement."
Thurston v. City of St. Joseph, 51
Mo. 510. And see post, § 127.
3 890 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146.
Also by numerous cases decided by
the same court since the first edi-
tion. See especially Kane v. New
York El. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 104, 20
N. E. 278, 11 L.R.A. 640; S. C. Sub.
Nom. Duyckinck v. New York El.
R. R. Co., 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
744; Hughes v. Met. El. R. R. Co.,
188 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 122
§ 122 (91g). Further as to the right to light and air.
The existence and nature of this right are very ably expounded
in an opinion of the Court of Errors and Appeals of 'Ne^
Jersey, which is worthy of special attention.^ ^ Complainant
owned land abutting on the Morris Canal, and had erected a
building with windows overlooking the canal. The fee of the
right of way occupied by the canal was vested in the Canal Com-
pany for public use as a canal. The Canal Company authorized
the defendant to erect a building .over the canal and adjacent
to complainant's lot, the effect of which would be to close up
the windows in complainant's building and completely cut him
off from light, air or access over the canal. The court held,
fourteen judges concurring, that, though the canal was a public
highway and the fee was vested in the company, yet the
complainant had a right to light and air which, though subordi-
nate to the use of the land as a public highway, was paramount
to any other use, and that, as the building was not for the im-
provement of the canal as a highway, its erection should be
enjoined. The court says :
"There are, it appears to me, two classes of rights, originat-
ing in necessity and in the exigencies of human affairs, spring-
ing up coeval with every public highway, and which are recog-
nized and enforced by the common law of all civilized nations.
The first relates to the public passage; the second, subordinate
to the first, but equally perfect and scarcely less important, re-
lates to the adjoining owners. Among the latter is that of re-
ceiving from the public highway light and air.
"In the first place, has not the adjacent owner upon the
'alta regia via,' the ordinary public highway, of common right
the privilege of receiving from it light and air ? Universal
usage is common law. What has this been ? Men do not first
build cities, and then lay out roads through them, but they
first lay out roads, and then cities spring up along their lines.
As a matter of fact and history, have not all villages, towns
130 N. Y. 14, 28 N. E. 765; and casea and Theobald v. Louisville etc. R. E.
cited in § 120, note 24. The reason- Co., 66 Miss. 279, 6 So. 230, 14 Am.
ing and conclusions of this section St. Eep. 564, 4 L.E.A. 735. See also
have been fully adopted and ap- Adams v. C. B. & Q. E. E. Co., 39
proved in White v. Northwestern N. Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629, 12 Am. St.
C. E. E. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 18 S. E. Eep. 644, 1 L.E.A. 493.
330, 37 Am. St. Eep. 639, 22 L.E.A. 3 9Barnett v. Johnson, 15 N. J. Eq.
627, 9 Am. R. E. & Corp. Eep. 103, 481, 487.
§ 122 EOADS AND STEEETS. 189
and cities in tliis country and in all others, now and at all times
past, been built upon this assumed right of adjacency? Is not
every "window and every door in every house in every city,
town and village the assertion and maintenance of this right?
"When people build upon the public highway, do they inquire
or care who owns the fee of the road-bed ? Do they act or rely
upon any other consideration, except that it is a public highway
and they the adjacent owners ? Is not this a right of universal
exercise and acknowledgment in all times and in all countries,
a right of necessity, without which cities could not have been
built, and without the enforcement of which they would soon
become tenantless ? It is a right essential to the very existence
of dense communities. What must be the consequence, to per-
mit the accidental owner of a part or the whole of the road-bed
to wall up or throw a thin curtain in front of the adjacent
buildings or by any other contrivance shut out from them the
light and air ? Suppose the owner of the fee should try the
experiment to the east of the complainant's house, and wall up
Broad street, would it be tolerated for a moment, or, if enforced,
would it not soon turn our streets into tunnels, and seal up cities
in darkness ?
"If it be said that there are no cases sustaining this right,
so there are none establishing this right, to light and air at all,
or to the right of passage. It is a right founded in such an ur-
gent necessity that all laws and legal proceedings take it for
granted. A right so strong that it protects itself, so urgent that,
upon any attempt to annul or infringe it, it would set at defiance
all legislative enactment and all judicial decisions. It is the
mode by which the sovereign power, in the exercise of its emi-
nent domain, since land has become the object of private owner-
ship, ab imo usque ad ccelum, at the same time that it creates
a right of passage, opens up and reserves to all, as the increasing
density of the population demands it, the use of the common
elements of light and air. We cannot conclude otherwise than
that a right so essential, so universal in its exercise in all time
and among all nations, exists, not, as was said in the case of
Gough V. Bell, 2 Zab. 441, by a common law local to ISTew Jer-
sey, but by a law common to the whole civilized world."
This case anticipates the principle upon which compensa-
tion was at last secured in the elevated railway cases in New
York.
190
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 123
§ 123 (91h). To how much of the street the rights or
easements of light, air and access extend. It -would seem
just that these rights or easements should extend to so much of
the street as is necessary for their reasonable enjoyment. They
undoubtedly extend to the full width of the street, at least, as
respects light and air.*" Some cases would limit the easements
of light and air to the space in front of the property in ques-
tion,*-"^ but it may be doubted whether these easements do not
extend so far on either side of a lot as is necessary to prevent
any erection or use which will obstruct the access of light and
air to the lot.*^ The extent and limits of the right of access
cannot well be defined. But, in general, it includes the right
to use the street as an outlet from the abutting property to a
connecting highway, by any mode of travel or conveyance ap-
propriate to a highway ; also, the right to use the street in front
of the property, in connection with the use and enjoyment of
the property, in such manner as is customary or reasonable.*''
■lOMetropolitan W. S. El. R. R.
Co. V. Springer, 171 111. 170, 49 N. E.
416; Adams v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629, 12 Am.
St. Rep. 644, 1 L.R.A. 493; Gustaf-
son V. Hamm, 56 Minn. 334, 57 N.
W. 1054, 22 L.R.A. 565; White v.
Northwestern N. C. R. R. Co., 113
N. C. 610, 18 S. E. 330, 9 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 103, 37 Am. St. Rep.
639, 22 L.R.A. 627; Madden v. Jr-a.
R. R. Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 73; Willa-
mette Iron Works v. Oregon R. &
N. Co., 26 Or. 224, 37 Pac. 1016.
41 Adams v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co.,
39 Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629, 12 Am.
St. Rep. 644, 1 L.R.A. 493.
4 2In Wilson v. New York El. R.
R. Co., 9 Miscl. 657, 30 N. Y. Supp.
547, it is held that the easements are
not confined to the space immediate-
ly in front of the lot. And see First
Nat. Bank v. Tyson, 133 Ala. 459, 32
So. 144, 91 Am. St. Rep. 46, 59
L.R.A. 379; Field v. Barling, 149
III. 556, 37 N. E. 850, 41 Am. St.
Rep. 311, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
707; Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md.
537, 49 Atl. 629, 86 Am. St. Rep.
481, 52 L.R.A. 409.
4 3Cushing-Wetmore Co. v. Gray,
152 Cal. 118, 92 Pac. 70; Har-
vey V. Georgia Southern etc. R. R.
Co., 90 Ga. 66, 15 S. E. 783; Dant-
zer V. Indianapolis Union R. R. Co.,
141 Ind. 604, 39 N. E. 223, 11 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 249, 50 Am. St.
Rep. 343, 34 L.R.A. 769; O'Brien v.
Central I. & S. Co., 158 Ind. 218, 63
N. E. 302, 92 Am. St. Rep. 305, 57
L.R.A. 508; Pennsylvania Co. v.
Stanley, 10 Ind. App. 421, 37 N. E.
288, 38 N. E. 421 ; Highbarger v. Mil-
ford, 71 Kan. 331, 80 Pac. 633; Haw-
ley V. Baltimore, 33 Md. 270, 280;
Baltimore v. Frick, 82 Md. 77; Re-
gan V. Boston Gas Lt. Co., 137 Mass.
37; Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Boer-
ner, 34 Neb. 240, 51 N. W. 842, 33
Am. St. Rep. 637; Matter of Twen-
ty-ninth St., 1 Hill, 189; Reis v.
New York, 188 N. Y. 58, 80 N. E.
573, affirming S. C. 113 App. Div.
464, 99 N. Y. S. 291; Collins v.
Asheville Land Co., 128 N. C. 563, 39
S. E. 21, 83 Am. St. Rep. 720; Mc-
§ 124 EOADS AND STREETS. 191
In one of the cases cited it is said : "We think we may safely
assert, however, that the obstruction of the easement of access
need not always be upon the front of the lot whose owner is af-
fected, but that if the obstruction, though remote, renders ac-
cess to such lot impossible, or impairs it in a substantial man-
ner, at the point where it abuts upon the street, the property
right of the lot owner is invaded, and he may recover. To
illustrate this proposition, if a street were fully obstructed on
either side of one's lot, so that the lines of the lot could not
be reached, access would be denied to the lot owner, though the
street in front of his lot had upon it no obstruction. The prop-
erty rights of the lot owner, as against the public, are cotermin-
ous with the lines of his lot, but that property right may be ob-
structed, and its uses defeated, by cutting off ingress and egress
to and from such lines from points upon the street beyond such
lines. In such case there should be, and is, a remedy." **
§ 124 (91i). Other rights of abutting owners; ease-
ment of view, etc. Recent cases support the right of the abut-
ter to an unobstructed view, or right of prospect, as it is some-
times called, which would include both an unobstructed view
from the premises and an unobstructed view of the premises
from any part of the street.*^ In one of the cases cited it is
Quigg V. Cullens, 56 Ohio St. 649, etc. E. R. Co., 18 Okl. 308, 88 Pao.
47 N. E. 595; Beatty v. Kinnear, 21 1048, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 496.
Ohio C. C. 384; In re Melon St., 182 n'Da.ntzeT v. Indianapolis Union
Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl. 482, 28 L.R.A. E. R. Co., 141 Ind. 604, 39 N. B. 223,
275; Johnsen v. Old Colony R. R. 11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 249, 50
Co., 18 R. I. 642, 29 Atl. 594; State Am. St. Rep. 343, 34 L.R.A. 769.
V. Hamilton, 109 Tenn. 276, 70 S. W. 45First Nat. Bank v. Tyson, 133
619; Wilkins ^. Chicago etc. R. R. Ala. 459, 32 So. 144, 91 Am. St.
Co., 110 Tenn. 442, 75 S. W. 1026; Rep. 46, 59 L.R.A. 399; First Nat.
Cook V. Totten, 49 W. Va. 177, 38 Bank v. Tyson, 144 Ala. 457, 39 So.
S. E. 491, 87 Am. St. Rep. 792; Tilly 560; Williams v. Los Angeles Ry.
V. Mitchell & Lewis Co., 121 Wis. 1, Co., 150 Cal. 592, 89 Pac. 330; Cod-
98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. St. Rep. man v. Evans, 5 Allen 308; Jaynes
1007; post, §§ 191, 196-212. Com- v. Omaha St. R. R. Co., 53 Neb. 631,
pare Newton v. New York etc. R. R. 74 N. W. 67, 39 L.R.A. 751 ; Dill v.
Co., 72 Conn. 421, 44 Atl. 813; Rob- School Board, 47 N. J. Eq. 421, 20
inson v. Brown, 182 Mass. 266, 65 Atl. 739. Judge Dillon says : "There
N. E. 377; Putnam v. Boston etc. seems to be no good reason why
R. R. Co., 182 Mass. 351, 65 N. E. such easement should not include
790; Shehan v. Fall River, 187 also the right (within reasonable
Mass. 356, 73 N. E. 544; Cheney v. limits) to an unobstructed view;
Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 198 and hence the right to insist on the
Mass. 356; Scrutchfield v. Choctaw removal of an obstruction in the
192 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 124
said: "It is difficult to understand, wliy an easement of view,
from every part of a public street, is not, like light and air, a
valuable right, of Avhich the owner of a building on the street,
ought not to be deprived by an encroachment on the highway
by a coterminous or adjacent proprietor. The right of view, or
prospect, is one implied, like other rights, from the dedication
of the street to public uses. As was well said by the learned
judge below in respect to this right : 'It seems to be a valuable
right appurtenant to the ownership of land abutting on the
highway, and to stand upon the same footing, as to reason, with
the easement of motion, light and air, and to be inferior to them
only in point of convenience and necessity, and that an inter-
ference with it is inconsistent with the public right acquired
by dedication. The opportunity of attracting customers by a
display of goods and signs is valuable, as I have no doubt the
streets of any city in the world will demonstrate.' " *® And in
a recent 'New York case, in speaking of the easement of the
abutter, it is said: "The easement extends to all parts of the
street which enlarge the use and increase the value of the ad-
jacent lot. It is not limited to light, air and access, but includes
all the advantages which spring from the situation of the
abutter's land upon the space of the open street." *'' This lan-
guage would clearly embrace the right of view, though the right
of view was not in question in the case. The suit was brought
by an abutting owner to recover for the negligent destruction of
shade trees in front of his property, where the fee of the street
was in the public. The court sustained the right of recovery
and, in an elaborate opinion, holds that the abutting owner
has other rights than those of light, air and access.*^ This right
street which interferes materially Ala. 459, 32 So. 144, 91 Am. St. Rep.
and in an unusual manner with the 46, 59 L.K.A. 399.
abutter's prospect, even though i^Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co.,
light, air and travel be not mate- 181 N. Y. 313, 73 N. E. 1108, 106
rially interfered with by such ob- Am. St. Eep. 549, 70 L.R.A. 761.
struction." 2 Dill. Munic. Corp., ^sThe court says: "The easement
p. 889, note 2. In Codman v. Evans, (of the abutter in the street), as for
5 Allen 308, 311, the court says that convenience it may be called, con-
an abutter is entitled "to have the sists in the right to have the street
whole space occupied by a street kept open and includes all the inci-
open from the soil upwards for the dental privileges which may fairly
free admission of light and air and be implied from that right. • It is
the prospect unobstructed from any the proximity of the street, the sit-
point." nation of the abutting land with
46First Nat Bank v. Tyson, 133 reference to an open street, which
§ 325
EOADS AND STEEETS.
193
is subject of course to all legitimate street uses, but it cannot
be interfered with for private purposes with or without com-
pensation nor by structures placed in the street for public pur-
poses which are not legitimate street uses, unless compensation
is made.*^ An abutter has no greater right to use the street
in front of his property than any other member of the public,
except in connection with his abutting property.^"
§ 125, Rights of abutting owners a matter of State law.
It will be quite manifest from this chapter that the rights of
abutting owners differ in different States. What they are is a
matter of State law to be declared by the legislature or deter-
mined by the courts of the State. Upon this point the supreme
court of the United States says : "The same law which declares
gives to the abutting owner the
special right to the enjoyment and
use of whatever is permitted or
maintained by the public authorities
as a part of the street. These ease-
ments are created by operation of
law when streets are opened and they
are presumed to be paid for by tak-
ing the benefits into account when
land is procured for the purpose.
Such benefits are 'coej^tensive with
the use' to which the street may by
law be devoted They frequently in-
duce owners of land to donate or
dedicate a part thereof for the pur-
pose of a street. If the street is im-
proved so as to be more useful, or
ornamented so as to be more beau-
tiful, the public is benefited general-
ly and the abutter is benefited spe-
cially. So long as a, hitching post
or a shade tree is physically and
legally a part of the street, he is en-
titled to all the special benefits
which flow therefrom to his lot, free
from interference by a wrongdoer,
but subject to removal by the mu-
nicipal government. The easement
extends to all parts of the street
which enlarge the use and increase
the value of the adjacent lot. It is
not limited to light, air and access,
but includes all the advantages
Em. D.— 13.
which spring from the situation of
the abutter's land upon the open
space of the street. These rights ex-
ist whether he owns the fee of the
street or not. As they are depend-
ent upon the street and cannot exist
without it, they are a part of it and
become 'an integral part of the es-
tate' of the abutting owner, subject
to interference by no one except the
representatives of the public.'' Don-
ahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 181 N. Y.
313, 319, 320, 73 N. E. 1108, 106 Am.
St. Rep. 549, 70 L.R.A. 761.
"See cases already cited in this
section. It has been held in New
York that in estimating the just
compensation to be made for injury
to the abutter's rights by an ele-
vated railroad, nothing could be al-
lowed for noise, loss of privacy, or
obstructing the view of the prem-
ises from the opposite side of the
street. Messenger v. Manhattan R.
R. Co., 129 N. Y. 502, 29 N. E. 955;
Bischoff V. New York El. R. II. Co.,
138 N. Y. 257, 33 N. E. 1073; Sea-
side & B. B. R. R. Co. V. South Re-
formed Dutch Church, 83 Hun U3,
31 N. Y. Supp. 630.
"Montgomery v. Parker, 114 Ala.
118, 62 Am. S\ Rep. 95.
194: EMINENT DOMAIN. § 126
the easements defines, qualifies and limits them. Surely such
questions must be for the final determination of the State
court. It has authority to declare that the abutting land owner
has no easement of any kind over the abutting street; it may
determine that he has a limited easement, or it may determine
that he has an absolute and unqualified easement. The right of
an owner of land abutting on public highways has been a fruit-
ful source of litigation in the courts of all the States, and the
decisions have been conflicting, and often in the same State
irreconcilable in principle. The courts have modified or over-
ruled their own decisions, and each State has in the end fixed
and limited, by legislation or judicial decision, the rights of
abutting owners in accordance with its own view of the law
and public policy." ^^
§ 126 (91 j). Rights of abutting owners as adjoining
proprietors. The public, as owner of the street, is in fact an
adjoining proprietor, whether it owns the fee or only an ease-
ment. Has the public any greater right than an individual pro-
prietor, or does it hold the street subject to the same limitations
and conditions that attach to private ownership ? We think the
latter. In the use of the street the public is subject to the same
limitations that an individual would be who held the street as
his private property.^^ The abutting owner has the same rights
with respect to the use of the street that he has with respect to
the use of any other adjacent property. Consequently, he has a
right to the support of the soil by that of the street, a right to
the exclusive possession of his inclosure as against encroach-
ments from the street, a right not to be injured by any in-
terference with the flow of surface water or running streams
"Sauer v. New York, 206 U. S. inflict damage beyond that which a
536, 27 S. C. 686. private owner might have inflicted
°^"In the control and improvement without liability did not exist."
of its thoroughfares for public use Hunger v. City of St. Paul, 57 Minn,
the city has the same rights and 9, 58 N. W. 601. To same effect,
powers as a private owner has over Steam's Exrs. v. City of Richmond,
his own land and is subject to the 88 Va. 992, 14 S. B. 847, 6 Am. R. R.
same liabilities. It would be liable & Corp. Rep. 247 ; Rice v. City of
for damages caused to plaintiff's Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 34 N. W. 719;
property by grading the avenue and Nichols v. City of Duluth, 40 Minn,
street, just as a private owner of the 389, 42 N. W. 84; City of New West-
soil over which they were laid would minster v. Brighouse, 20 Duvall 520;
have been liable when improving it and many cases cited in the follow-
for his own use; and the right to ing sections.
§ 126 EOADS AND STEEETS. 195
caused by the use of the street which would be actionable if made
by an individual, and, generally, a right not to be injured by any
unreasonable use of the land which forms the street.^^ These
rights, unlike those of access and frontage, are absolute and par-
amount in the individual, and the public must so use and im-
prove the streets as not to interfere with such rights, or else
make "just compensation" for the damages occasioned by such
interference.^*
It is evident that these rights exist in the abutting owner,
unless they are taken or acquired by the public when the street
is established. They always exist with respect to adjoining
property, unless they have been expressly reserved or granted
in favor of other property. These rights are never expressly
granted, released or condemned when a street is established.
The land alone is taken, or granted, or dedicated, as the case
may be. But land is always understood to have attached to it
these universal rights and obligations relating to its use and
enjoyment. When the public take land for a street in invitum,
why should they be held to have acquired by implication some-
thing which they did not ask for ? Why should a grant or dedi-
cation of land to the public, for a particular use, be held to have
vested in the public more than a grant of the same land, for
the same use, to an individual, would vest in him ? The use of
the land for a street does not necessarily require that these
rights of support, etc., should be in the public. It is always
possible and practicable to improve a street without interfering
Avith such rights. It is vastly more for the public interest that
the public should occasionally incur increased expense in mak-
ing improvements, to avoid interfering with such rights, than
that the public should in all cases be compelled to pay for the
loss of such rights when a street is established. It has been said,
in some cases, that a jury or other tribunal for assessing dam-
age, when a street is laid out, take into consideration the possi-
bility of future damage by improving the street, and increase
S3Post, §§ 139-142, 234. "The 5 4 Same; and §§ 234, 852. In Nich-
rights of the public in property are ols v. City of Duluth, 40 Minn. 389,
to be governed by the same rules of 42 N. W. 84, the court, in speaking
law as the rights of individuals, and of one of these rights, says: "This
the maxim sic utero tuo ut alienuni right of the lateral support of the
non laedas, applies with equal force adjoining soil, being a natural one,
in the one case as in the other." is absolute, and independent of any
Stone V. Augusta, 46 Me. 127. question of negligence."
196 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 127
their allowance accordingly.'^ We think the fact is otherwise,
but the impossibility of forming an accurate or even approxi-
mate estimate of such damages is sufficient to rebut any presump-
tion of their having been included in the assessment. Who can
estimate what the needs of the public will require, or the whims
of public officers suggest ? To attempt to include such damages
is to send the jury into the realm of pure speculation. The
more reasonable, the more practicable and the juster view is
that such damages are not the subject of assessment in such
cases.^^ While these views as to the rights of abutting owners do
not accord with all the decided cases — no views can do that —
they are supported, if not by the more numerous, at least by
the later and better-reasoned cases.''' We shall go more fully
into the decisions in the following sections in the treatment of
the separate rights to which we have referred in this section.
§ 127 (91k). Whether the public have a fee or an
easement in the street, the title is in trust for street uses
only. Though the fee of a street is in the public, yet it is not
an absolute, but only a qualified or conditional fee.'^ The pub-
lie, whether represented by city. State or county, holds the fee
in trust for public use as a street, and for no other purpose,®^
and when the use ceases the fee reverts to him from whom it was
5 5,Sfee authorities cited post, § 134, The city cannot sell or convey it,
note 98. or encumber it in any way, or con-
'"Post, chap. xxiv. sent that it shall be encumbered. It
"This section is quoted and ap- cannot build upon it, or permit
proved in Stearns' Ex'r v. City of others to do so. The land could
Richmond, 88 Va. 992, 14 S. E. 847, not be sold for the debts of the city,
6 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 247. for its estate is only a trust estate.
"'Leadville v. Bohn Min. Co., 37 The act provides what the city can
Colo. 248, 86 Pac. 1038, 8 L.R.A. do with the fee, and that is to keep
(N.S.) 422; People v. Kerr, 27 N. it open as a, public street, and that
Y. 188; Kimball v. Kenosha, 4 Wis. is all the city can do with it and
321 ; Goodall V. Milwaukee, S Wis. is all the right the public has taken
32 iand see Abendroth v. Manhattan away from the original owner. The
Ry. Co., 52 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 274 and whole duty, power and trust of the
cases cited in next note. In Mat- city, in the fee, is to keep it open,
ter of Gilbert Elevated Ry. Co., 38 the fee being taken because the city
Hun 437, 448, 452-3, the court ap- can thereby better perform its duty
prove the following language from and its trust in that regard than if
the commissioners' report: "The any other quality of estate were
city takes the fee in terms, but only taken."
for one specified purpose, viz., in ™HaskelI v. Denver Tramway Co.,
trust to keep the land open as a 23 Colo. 60, 46 Pac. 121 ; Leadville
public street. The fee is not an ab- v. Bohn Min. Co., 37 Colo. 248, 80
solute, unqualified, unconditional fee. ' Pac. 1038, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 422; Im-
§ 127
EOADS AND STREETS.
197
lay V. Railroad Co., 26 Conn. 256, 68
Am. Dec. 392; Carter v. Chicago,
57 III. 283; Chicago v. Wright, 69
111. 318; Kreigh v. Chicago, 86 111.
407; City of Morrison v. Hinkson,
87 111. 587, 589, 29 Am. Rep. 77;
Smith V. McDowell, 148 111. 51, 35
N. E. 141, 22 L.R.A. 393; Field v.
Barling, 149 111. 556, 37 N. E. 850,
41 Am. St. Rep. 311, 24 L.R.A.
406, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 707 ;
Barrows v. City of Sycamore, 150
111. 588, 37 N. E. 1096, 10 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 62, 41 Am. St. Rep.
400; Chicago Tel. Co. v. N. W. Tel.
Co., 199 111. 324, 05 N. E. 329; Penn-
sylvania Co. V. Bond, 202 111. 95, 66
N. E. 941 ; People v. Harris, 203 111.
272, 67 N. E. 785, 96 Am. St. Rep.
304; People v. Atchison etc. Ry.
Co., 217 111. 594, 75 N. E. 573; Chi-
cago etc. Ry. Co.' v. People, 222 111.
427, 78 N. E. 790 ; Weage v. Chicago
etc. N. R. Co., 227 111. 421, 81 N. E.
424, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 589; Gregsten
V. Chicago, 40 111. App. 607 ; Hibbard
V. Chicago, 59 111. App. 470; Chicago
General R. R. Co. v. Chicago City
R. R. Co., 62 111. App. 502; Chicago
V. Verdon, 119 111. App. 494; Stanley
V. Davenport, 54 la. 463 ; Gilchrist
Co. V. Des Moines, 128 la. 49, 102
N. W. 831; Bateman v. City of
Covington, 90 Ky. 390, 14 S. W. 361,
3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 508; Lab-
ry v. Gilmour, 121 Ky. 367, 89 S.
W. 231 ; New Orleans etc. R. R. Co.
V. City of New Orleans, 44 La. Ann.
748, 11 So. 77; Pool v. Falls Road
Elec. R. R. Co., 88 Md. 533, 41 Atl.
1069; Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md.
537, 49 Atl. 629, 86 Am. St. Rep.
441, 52 L.R.A. 409; Schurmeier v.
St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co., 10 Minn.
82, 88 Am. Dec. 59 ; St. Paul v. Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co., 63 Minn. 330,
63 N. W. 267, 34 L.R.A. 184, 65 N.
W. Rep. 649, 68 N. W. Rep. 458;
Sanborn v. Van Duyne, 90 Minn.
215, 96 N. W. 41 ; Theobold v. Louis-
ville etc. R. R. Co., 66 Miss. 279,
14 Am. St. Rep. 504, 4 L.R.A. 735;
Jaynes v. Omaha St. R. R. Co., 53
Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67, 39 L.R.A.
751 ; Burlington v. Penn. R. R. Co.,
56 N. J. Eq. 259, 38 Atl. 849; Duyne
V. Knox Hat Mfg. Co., 71 N. J. Eq.
375; People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188;
Story V. New York El. R. R. Co.,
90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146; Lahr
V. Met. El. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 268;
Kane v. New York El. R. R. Co., 125
N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278, 3 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 744, 11 L.R.A. 640;
Matter of New York, 174 N. Y. 26,
66 N. E. 584, affirming S. C. 74 App.
Div. 197, 77 N. Y. S. 737 ; Ackerman
V. True, 175 N. Y. 353, 67 N. E. 629,
reversing S. C. 71 App. Div. 143, 75
N. Y. S. 695 ; Lawrence v. New York,
2 Barb. 577; Rhinehart v. Redfield,
93 App. Div. 410, 87 N. Y. S. 789;
Callen v. Columbus Edison Elec. Lt.
Co., 66 Ohio St. 166, 64 N. E. 141, 58
L.R.A. 782; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co.
V. Elyria, 69 Ohio St. 414, 69 N. E,
738; Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co. v.
Elyria, 14 Ohio C. C. 48; Strader v.
Cincinnati, 1 Handy, 446; Coalville
Pass. R. R. Co. V. Wilkes-Barre
Southside R. R. Co. 5 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 340; Humer v. Mayer, 1
Humph. 403; Mayor v. Brown, 9
Heisk. 1 ; Smith v. Railroad Co., 87
Tenn. 626, 630; State v. Taylor, 107
Tenn. 455, 64 S. W. 766; Cereghino
V. Ore. Short-Line R. R. Co., 26 Utah
467, 73 Pac. 634, 90 Am. St. Rep.
843; Kimball v. City of Kenosha, 4
Wis. 321, 330; Goodall v. Milwaukee,
5 Wis. 32. "The grant is expressly
upon trust (though dedicated or con-
fiscated), for a public purpose, that
the lands may be appropriated and
used forever as public streets. • * *
The city has neither the right nor
the power to apply any such prop-
erty to other than public uses, and
those included within the objects of
the grant. Whatever may be the
quantity or the quality of the estate
of the city of New York in it>
198 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 127
acquired, unless otherwise provided by statute.^" If the public
has only an easement there is no question about its being held
in trust for street uses only."^ In one of the cases cited, which
related to a platted street where the statute provided that the
effect of the plat should be to vest the fee of the streets in the
municipality, the court says: "It seems plain that the effect
of the provision is not to vest in the municipality a fee simple
absolute in the streets, but only a determinable and a qualified
fee, and that what is granted to the city is to be held in trust
for the uses intended, viz : for street uses, and street uses
only." ^^ It was further held in the same case that this limita-
tion upon the public title necessarily implied that there was a
substantial interest in the street not conveyed by the plat and
that this interest remained in the abutting owners and was in
the nature of an incorporeal hereditament. It has sometimes
been supposed that the public might have such an absolute fee
as would authorize it to make any use of the street it saw fit
irrespective of the abutting owners.®^ But we know of no in-
stance of such a fee, nor do we see how it would be possible.
However absolute the fee of the public may have once been,
its devotion of the land to street uses and the express or implied
invitation to abutters to improve their property with reference
to the street, would give rise to mutual rights and obligations
which could not be abrogated at the will of either party. By
acting upon the invitation to use the land as a street, the abut-
ters would acquire a right to have the space kept open as a
street and to enjoy light, air and access therefrom.''* It follows
that a municipality has no power to grant the use of streets
streets, that estate is essentially "See cases in last two notes,
public and not private property and 62Callen v. Columbus Edison Elec.
the city, in holding i+, is the agent Lt. Co., 66 Ohio St. 166, 64 N. E. 141,
and trustee of the public and not a 58 L.R.A. 782. Where the city had
private owner for profit or emolu- the fee it was held to own the
ment." People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, mineral, underneath the surface.
197. Leadville v. Coronado Min. Co., 29
eoGebhart v. Reeves, 75 111. 301; Colo. 17, 67 Pac. 289; Leadville v.
Helen v. Webster, 85 111. 116; Unit- St. Louis S. & M. Co., 29 Colo. 40,
ed States v. Harris, 1 Sumner 21. 67 Pac. 1126.
But in Kansas it is held that the fee "'/See 2 Dill. Munic. Corp. § 704.
reverts to the abutting owner. Sho- "Kane v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
waiter v. So. Kan. R. R. Co., 49 Kan. 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278, 3 Am. R.
421, 32 Pac. 92. See generMij El- R. & Corp. Rep. 744, 11 L.R.A. 640.
liott, Roads & Streets, pp. 670, 671.
§ 128
EOADS AND STREETS.
199
for private purposes and that abutting owners who suffer special
damages by reason thereof may have the appropriate remedies
to prevent or recover damages therefor.^"
§ 128 (911). Ownership of the fee of streets and dis-
tinctions based thereon. There is great confusion and con-
flict in the authorities arising out of considerations based upon
the fee of streets. Thus the ISTew York decisions hold that the
abutting owner is entitled to compensation when an elevated
railroad is constructed in front of his property, whether he owns
the fee of the street or not,^'' but as to surface railroads of all
kinds, award him compensation if he owns the fee and deny
"°Beebe v. Little Kock, 68 Ark. 39,
56 S. W. 791 ; Laing v. Americus, 86
Ga. 758, 13 S. E. 107, 4 Am. R. R.
6 Corp. Rep. 228; Smith v. McDow-
ell, 148 111. 51, 35 N. E. 141, 22
L.R.A. 393 ; Hibbard v. Chicago, 173
111. 91, 50 N. E. 256, 40 L.R.A. 621 ;
Snyder v. Mt. Pulaski, 176 111. 397,
52 N. E. 62, 44 L.R.A. 407 ; Penn. R.
R. Co. V. Chicago, 181 111. 289, 54 N.
E. 825; People v. Harris, 203 111. 272,
07 X. E. 785, 96 Am. St. Rep. 304;
People V. Clean St. Co., 225 111. 470,
80 X. E. 298, 116 Am. St. Rep. 156, 9
L.R.A. (X.S.) 455; Hibbard v. Chi-
cago, 59 111. App. 470; Chicago v.
Pooley, 112 111. App. 343; Chicago v.
Verdon, 119 111. App. 494; Chicago
Cold Storage Warehouse Co. v. Peo-
ple, 127 111. App. 179; State v. Ber-
ditta, 73 Ind. 185, 38 Am. Rep. 117;
Labry v. Gilmour, 121 Ky. 307, 89
S. W. 231 ; Townsend v. Epstein, 93
Md. 537, 49 Atl. 629, 86 Am. St. Rep.
441, 52 L.R.A. 409; Brauer v. Balti-
more Refrigerating etc. Co. 99 Md.
367, 58 Atl. 21, 105 Am. St. Rep.
304, 66 L.R.A. 403 ; St. Paul v. Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co., 63 Minn. 330, 63
N. W. 267, 65 N. W. 049, 68 N. W.
458, 34 L.R.A. 184; Schopp v. St.
Louis, 117 Mo. 131, 22 S. W. 898, 8
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 391, 20
L.R.A. 783; State v. St. Louis, 161
Mo. 371, 61 S. W. 658; Beecher v.
Newark, 65 N. J. L. 307, 47 Atl.
466, affirming S. C. 64 N. J. L. 475,
46 Atl. 166; Swift v. Delaware etc.
R. R. Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 34, 57 Atl.
456; Ackerman v. True, 175 N. Y.
353, 67 N. E. 629, reversing S. C. 71
App. Div. 143, 75 N. Y. S. 695; Mc-
Millan V. Klaw & Erlanger Con. Co.,
107 App. Div. 407, 95 N. Y. S. 365;
Herrick v. Cleveland, 7 Ohio C. C.
470; Cereghino v. Ore. Short-Line R.
R. Co., 26 Utah 467, 73 Pac. 634, 90
Am. St. Ry. 843. Compare Rothschild
V. Chicago, 227 111. 205, 81 N. E. 407;
State V. Stoner, 39 Ind. App. 104, 79
N. E. 399.
A different rule prevails in Iowa
where it is held that the city takes
an absolute fee which it may dis-
pose of for private uses. Barr v.
Oskaloosa, 45 la. 275; Marshalltown
V. Forney, 61 la. 578, 16 N. W. 740;
Dempsey v. Burlington, 66 la. 387,
24 N. W. 508 ; Williams v. Carey, 73
la. 194, 34 N. W. 813; Spitzer v.
Eunyan, 113 la. 619, 85 N. W. 782;
Harrington v. la. Cent. Ry. Co., 126
la. 388, 102 N. W. 139.
"Story V. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 90
N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146 ; Lahr v.
Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y.
268; Kane v. New York El. R. R.
Co., 125 N. Y. 104, 26 N. E. 278, 11
L.R.A. 640; S. C. Sub. Nom.
Duyckinck v. New York El. R. R.
Co., 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 744.
200
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 128
him compensation if he does not.''' Commercial railroads and
even horse railroads are held in this State not to be legitimate
street uses, but if the abutter does not happen to own the fee,
he can get no compensation, however much he may be damaged.
In the elevated railroad cases he gets compensation, because his
easements are interfered with by a use foreign to the purposes
of a highway. But in case of the commercial railroad he can-
not get compensation though the same easements are interfered
with by a use also inconsistent with street purposes and differ-
ing only as to the structure placed in the street. It has accord-
ingly been held in New York that, in a proceeding to condemn
the fee of a street, the abutter is entitled to substantial dam-
ages.^* So in Tennessee it is held that the abutting owner may
recover compensation for a steam dummy railroad in the street
in front of his property if he owns the fee, but otherwise if the
fee is in the public.®' Similar distinctions are made in other
States.'^''
On the other hand, many recent cases question or repudiate
distinctions based upon the ownership of the fee, as respects
the uses which the public may make of the soil or the right of
the abutter to compensation.^^ The opinions of the text writers
"Fobes V. Rome etc. R. R. Co., 121
N. y. 505, 24 N. E. 919, 3 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 182, 8 L.R.A. 453;
Williams v. New York Cent. R. R.
Co., 16 N. Y. 97, 69 Am. Dec. 632;
Craig V. Railroad Co., 39 N. Y. 404;
Kellinger v. Railroad Co., 50 N. Y.
206.
«'City of Buffalo v. Pratt, 131 N.
Y. 293, 30 "N. E. 233, 6 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 499, 27 Am. St. Rep.
592, 15 L.R.A. 413.
6 9East End St. R. R. Co. v. Doyle,
88 Tenn. 747, 13 S. W. 936, 9 L.R.A.
100, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 747;
Smith V. Railroad Co., 87 Tenn. 626,
11 S. W. 709; Iron Mt. R. R. Co. v.
Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 11 S. W.
705, 4 L.R.A. 622.
"Florida So. R. R. Co. v. Brown,
23 Fla. 104; Moses v. Pittsburgh etc.
R. R. Co., 21 111. 516; Murphy v.
Chicago, 29 111. 279, 81 Am. Dec.
307; Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v.
Hartley, 67 111. 439; Cox v. Louis-
ville etc. R. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178;
Kineaid v. Indianapolis Natural
Gas. Co., 124 Ind. 577, 24 N. E. 1086,
19 Am. St. Rep. 113, 8 L.R.A. 602;
Milburn v. Cedar Rapids, 12 Iowa,
246; Kucherman v. C. C. & D. R. R.
Co., 46 Iowa, 366; Phipps v. West
Maryland R. R. Co., 66 Md. 319;
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Williams,
86 Va. 696, 11 S. E. 106, 19 Am.
St. Rep. 908; post, §§ 153, 154.
TiFulton V. Short Route R. R.
Trans. Co., 85 Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 332,
7 Am. St. Rep. 619; Hepting v. New
Orleans Pac. R. R. Co., 36 La. Ann.
898; Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v.
Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, 21 Atl. 690,
28 Am. St. Rep. 219; Schurmeier v.
St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 10 Minn. 82,
88 Am. Dec. 59; Adams v. C. B. &
Q. R. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286, 39 N. W.
629, 12 Am. St. Rep. 644, 1 L.R.A.
493; Lamm v. Chicago etc. R. R.
§ 128
EOAI>S AND STEEETS.
201
also incline in the same direction.''^ "It is difficult to imagine,"
says the supreme court of South Carolina, "a right more empty
and theoretical than private ownership of the fee in the street
Co., 45 Minn. 71, 47 N. W. 455, 10
L.R.A. 268; Theobold v. Louisville
etc. R. R. Co., 66 Miss. 279, 6 So.
230, 14 Am. St. Rep. 564, 4 L.R.A.
735; Bronson v. Albion Telephone
Co., 67 Neb. Ill, 93 N. W. 201, 60
L.R.A. 426; Improvement Co. v. Ho-
boken, 36 N. J. L. 540; Van Home
V. New York Pass. R. R. Co., 48
N. J. Eq. 332; Halsey v. Rapid
Transit R. R. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 380;
Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 181
N. Y. 313, 73 N. E. 1108, 106 Am.
St. Rep. 549, 70 L.R.A. 761, affirm-
ing S. C. 90 App. Div. 388, 85 N. Y.
S. 478; White v. Northwestern N.
C. R. R. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 18 S.
E. 630, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
103, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 22 L.R.A.
627; Blackwell etc. Ry. Co. v. Gist,
18 Okla. 516, 90 Pac. 889;
McQuade v. Portland etc. R. R.
Co., 18 Ore. 237, 22 Pac. 899, 1 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 34; Willamette
Iron Works v. Oregon R. & N. Co.,
26 Ore. 224, 37 Pac. 1016, 46 Am. St.
Rep. 620, 29 L.R.A. 88; South
Bound R. R. Co. v. Burton, 67 S.
C. 515, 46 S. E. 340; Dooley Block
V. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co., 9
Utah 31, 33 Pac. Rep. 229, 8 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 327 ; Stewart v.
Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 38 W. Va. 438,
18 S. E. Rep. 604 ; Barney v. Keokuk,
94 U. S. 324. In McQuade v. Port-
land etc. R. R. Co., 18 Ore. 237, 22
Pac. 899, Thayer, C. J., speaking for
the court, says: "Too much im-
portance, it seems to me, has been
attached to the question of owner-
ship of the fee in the street. • • ♦
The use of the land as a street in-
cludes practically its entire bene-
ficial interest. There is no estate of
a private character left in the dedi-
cator, if the fee does remain in him.
which he can utilize, and if it vests
in the lot owner by virtue of his
deed to the lot, it confers no rights
which are not secured to him by the
implied covenant, arising out of the
conveyance, that he shall have a
right of way over the street, and
egress and ingress to and from liis
premises by means thereof. The lot
owner's rights in the street are just
as sacred, so far as I can see, in the
one case as in the other." In a re-
cent Mississippi "case it is said : "A
distinction is made by some of the
authorities in cases where the fee
in the soil of the street is in the
public — the State, county, or city —
and where it remains in the abut-
ting owner; and in the first case,
the right of the abutting owner to
compensation is denied, and in the
latter, it is recognized and allowed.
We perceive no well-founded differ-
ence in principle in such distinction.
If the fee is in the public, it is
held in trust, expressly or im-
pliedly, that the land shall be used
as a street, and it cannot be applied
to any other purpose without a
breach of trust. It is only where
the fee is in the public, free from
any trust or duty, that it may be
disposed of for any purpose that the
public may deem proper. Whether
the abutting owner has simply an
easement in the street, while the fee
is in the public or in some other
owner, or whether he has both the
fee and the easement, he is equally
entitled to require that nothing
shall be done in derogation of his
rights." Theobold v. Louisville etc.
R. R. Co., 66 Miss. 279, 6 So. 230,
14 Am. St. Rep. 564, 4 L.R.A. 735.
'-Cooley Const. Lim., p. 682, note
3 (6th Ed.) ; 2 Dill. Munic. Corp.
202 EMINENT BOMAIN. § 128
of an established city. The possibility of regaining possession
of the property by abandonment of the street is so remote that
it may ordinarily be regarded as a negligible factor. The adja-
cent owner has no present beneficial use differing in the slightest
degree from that -which is acquired by a purchaser, for himself
and his assigns, who buys a lot abutting on a street laid out by
the State or the city on its own land. In the one case, in his
dedi'cation he retains, and in the other, by the state's or city's
dedication he acquires, certain street privileges which constitute
property." ''^
The cases which have contributed more than any others to
break down the distinction made in the earlier cases, as to the
ownership of the fee of streets, are the New York Elevated
railroad decisions.'* The authority of these cases is somewhat
shaken by the fact that the same court has, since the earlier
decisions, reaffirmed the old distinction in the case of surface
railroads.'^ The inconsistency of the two positions seems mani-
fest, and, doubtless, if the court had not been embarrassed by
prior decisions, the result in Fobes v. Home etc., E. R. Co.
would have been different. Courts of other States will be more
likely to follow the logic and good sense of the elevated railroad
cases and reject the fine distinctions attempted in the case of
surface railroads.''^
In transactions between man and man concerning property,
we are not aware of any instance in which the ownership of
the fee of the street has cut any figure in fixing the price of
the property or influencing the parties. The width of the street,
the manner in which it is improved, the condition of the pave-
§§ 704, 704a; Keasby on Electric 10 L.R.A. 268, it is said: "If the
Wires, pp. 61-68. abutting owner, independently of
'^South Bound R. R. Co. v. Bur- the ownership of the fee of the
ton, 67 S. C. 515, 46 S. E. 340. street, has an easement in the street
"Story V. New York El. R. R. Co., in front of his lot to the full width
90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146; of it for the purpose of access, light
Lahr v. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., and air, which is property, and
104 N. Y. 268; Kane v. New York cannot be taken from him without
El. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N. compensation, it is difficult for us
E. 278, 11 L.R.A. 640, 3 Am. R. R. to see what difference it makes
& Corp. Rep. 744. whether the easement is taken
'"Fobes V. Rome etc. R. R. Co., 121 away or its enjoyment interfered
N. Y. 505, 24 N. E. 919, 8 L.R.A. with by a, railroad constructed and
453, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 182. operated on the surface of the
'"Thus in Lamm v. Chicago etc. ground, or at an elevation above
R. R. Co., 45 Minn. 71, 47 N. W. 455, it."
§ 128
KOADS AND StEEEl'S.
203
ment, the question of sewers, water, gas, etc., are factors of more
or less importance. But whether the title extended to the cen-
ter of the street or stopped at the street line, we never knew to be
the subject of inquiry. "The right of adjacency, the advantage
of having your land upon the highway with right of access and
light and air, this is what the people understand and value.
Who owns the fee they do not know nor care." '''' So in case
of any use of the street prejudicial to the abutting property,
as by a railroad, the amount of damage actually done to the
property would not vary one iota, whether the abutter owned
the fee or not. The damage to the technical fee is nothing.
The whole appreciable injury is sustained by the property
beyond the street line, and arises from the interference with
the easements of light, air and access and the annoyances occa-
sioned by the particular use of the street, whatever it may be.
So the uses which the public may make of a street do not
depend upon the ownership of the fee.''^ If the fee is in the
abutting owner, it is subject to all legitimate street uses. If
it is in the public, it is in trust for street uses, and is subject to
certain rights or easements in the abutting owner which cannot
"Keasby on Electric Wires, pp.
66, 67.
""Distinctions based upon the
legal ownership of the fee in respect
to the rights of the abutting pro-
prietor have produced much con-
fusion, resulting in many conflicting
decisions; but the true principle,
which has been slowly but surely
evolved from protracted discussion
and experience, is that in respect to
the use of the soil for the purposes
of a street (and apart from those
reversionary or other rights pecu-
liar to legal ownership) it is wholly
immaterial where the legal title re-
sides. The very power to take pri-
vate property for public use, as well
as the capacity ot a municipal cor-
poration to acquire it in any way,
necessarily implies that it is to be
held in trust for public purposes;
and in the case of land acquired for
the purposes of a street there is
something in the nature of a con-
tract, under which two co-existent
and inviolable rights are created
— one belonging to the public to use
and improve the street for the ordi-
nary purposes of a street; the other,
to the abutting owner to have ac-
cess to and from his property, and
to enjoy such use of the street as is
customary and reasonable. If the
owner voluntarily dedicates or
grants a strip of land to a city for a
street it must be presumed that he
does so in consideration of the con-
templated benefits accruing to his
adjoining property by reason of the
strip being used for the legitimate
purposes of a street only. If the
grant be made upon a pecuniary
consideration, it is also fair to as-
sume that in estimating the amount
to be paid the value of the benefits
above mentioned were likewise con-
sidered." White v. Northwestern N.
C. R. R. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 18 S. E.
330, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 103,
204 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 128
be impaired by any diversion of the street to other uses.^*
Whether, therefore, the public has an easement only or the fee,
it has nothing more than a perpetual right to use the land for
street or highway purposes. The street cannot be devoted to
other uses without violating the rights of the abutting owners.
What are legitimate street uses, is a question which in no way
depends upon the fee. It necessarily follows from what has
already been said, that the abutting owner's right to compen-
sation, in case of any particular use of the street, depends upon
whether the use is within the purposes for which highways
and streets exist and are established. If it is, then the abutting
owners' rights are subject to that use and he has no legal cause
for complaint. If not, then the use is a perversion of the
street, a violation of the trust and authority vested in the public,
and an unlawful interference with the property rights of the
abutting owner, for which he may have the appropriate rem-
edies.
Undoubtedly the ownership of the fee would make a differ-
ence in the remedies open to the abutter in case of an improper
use of the street.^" But the right to compensation and the
measure of damages should, in equity and good conscience, be the
same whether the fee is in the abutter or in the public, and this
result may be worked out, not only without violence to legal prin-
ciples, but in harmony with them. When part of a tract or prop-
erty is taken, just compensation is the difference in value before
and after the taking, excluding general benefits.*^ Where the
abutter owns the fee of a street and it is used for some purpose
which is not a legitimate street use, he is entitled to compensa-
tion the same as in any case of partial taking.*^ Where the
fee is in the public, the abutter has easements of light, air and
access which are property. To take or impair these is to take
a part of the property in the abutting lot, as much so as to take
the right of exclusion. Logically, there is a partial taking of
the lot, as much as if one corner of it was cut off, and the same
rule of compensation may be applied, as in the former case.*^
37 Am. St. Eep. 639, 22 L.R.A. 627. 8 ogee chap, xxviii.
To the same eflfect Eels v. Am. Tel. Si-Fost, § 693.
& Tel. Co., 143 N. Y. 133, 38 N. E. szpost, § 735.
202, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 69, s^Post, § 503,
25 L.R.A. 640.
"See the preceding sections, §§
119-126.
§ 129 EOADS AND STEEETS. 205
It seems every way desirable that a distinction, which is
never made in the every day dealings between man and man,
touching abutting property, should be abandoned by the courts.
There is no substantial distinction between a perpetual ease-
ment for street uses and a fee for street uses. There is a man-
ifest injustice in awarding compensation to one man for a rail-
road in a street or other similar use, and denying it to another,
solely on a distinction which is so purely technical and unsub-
stantial. And so of any distinction in the elements or measure
of damages.
11. — Steeet Geade Oases.
§ 129 (92). Early English cases. The earliest case to
recover for a change of grade is that of Leader v. Moxon, ^*
decided in 1773, in the English Court of Common Pleas. Cer-
tain commissioners were authorized by act of parliament "to
pave, repair, sink or alter certain streets in such manner as they
should think fit." Defendants, acting under these commission-
ers, raised the grade of a street some six feet in front of plain-
tiff's house, intercepting the light and preventing access there-
to. The plaintiff brought suit for the damages so occasioned to
his premises, and the action was sustained. The case is badly
reported and the ground of the decision is hard to make out.
But Gould, J., is reported as saying: "Every man of common
sense must understand that this act of parliament ought to be
carried into execution without doing such enormous injury to
individuals as hath been manifestly done to the plaintiff in this
case. Whenever a trust is put in commissioners by act of parlia-
ment, if they misdemean themselves in that trust, they are an-
swerable criminally in the King's Bench ; if they aggrieve and
damnify the subject, as they have done in the present case, they
are answerable in this court, civiliter in damages to the party in-
jured.*" Blackstone, J., says: "I am of the same opinion.
* * * I think the commissioners have acted arbitrarily and
tyrannically, and that the damages are too small." This case,
instead of becoming an authority, was speedily overruled and
explained away. Twenty years later Lord Kenyon laid down
the law in the case of The Governor and Company of the British
843 Wils. 461, 2 Bl. 924. "3 Wils. 467.
206 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 130
Cast Plate Manufacturers v. Meredith,*® whicli has ever since
been a leading case, both in England and America. Certain
commissioners, acting under and in accordance with an act of
parliament, raised the street in front of the land of the plaintiff
"who brought suit for damages. Lord Kenyon says: "If this
action could be maintained, every turnpike act, paving act, and
navigation act, would give rise to an infinity of actions. If
the legislature think it necessary, as they do in many cases,
they enable the commissioners to award satisfaction to the indi-
viduals who happen to suffer; but if there be no such power,
the parties are without remedy, provided the commissioners
do not exceed their jurisdiction. * * * Some individuals
suffer an inconvenience under all these acts of parliament; but
the interests of the individual must give way to the accommo-
dation of the public." His Lordship questioned the correct-
ness of the report of Leader v. Moxon, and explained it on the
ground that the commissioners in that case had abused their
authority and acted in an arbitrary and abusive manner.*'^
The principle of this decision is that no action will lie for the
doing of that which is authorized by an act of parliament;
and the reason is that an act of parliament is, in England, the
supreme law of the land. The same principle has been reiter-
ated in numerous cases.®*
§ 130 (93). Value of English precedent in constitu-
tional questions. The English cases to which we have re-
ferred have been much cited in America to show that the owner
"4 T. R. 794, 1792. authority in raising the pavement so
"Leader v. Moxon has been simi- as to obstruct the plaintiff's win-
larly explained in other cases. In dows." So Littledale to the same
Sutton V. Clark, 6 Taunton, 28, 1815, effect.
the court, referring to it, says: **Sutton v. Clark, 6 Taunton, 28;
"The court thought that they (the 1 E. C. L. R. 493; Jones v. Bird, 5
commissioners in that case) were B. & Aid. 837; 7 E. C. L. R. 455;
acting in a most tyrannical and op- Hall v. Smith, 2 Bing. 156; 9 E. C.
pressive manner, and that, though L. 524; Boulton v. Crowther, 2 B.
they had a right to pave, and per- & C. 703; 9 E. C. L. R. 306; The
haps to raise, the street, they had King v. The Bristol Dock Co., 6 B.
acted so arbitrarily, that they were & C. 181. In Boulton v. Crowther,
answerable." Also in Boulton v. the act provided for compensation
Crowther, 2 B. & C. 703, 708, 1824; S. for property taken, and it was insist-
C. 9 E. C. L. R. 306, Bailey, J., said: ed that to diminish its value by cut-
"In Leader v. Moxon the decision ting off access, etc., was a taking
proceeded upon the ground that the within the act, but it was held
commissioners had exceeded their otherwise.
130
EOADS AND STEEETS.
207
of property damaged by works of a public nature, such as a
change of grade, cannot recover compensation for such dam-
age. But it is evident that they have no proper application in
such eases. In England, as we have said, an act of parliament
is the supreme law of the land. Courts cannot declare that
wrong which an act of parliament has made lawful. In all
cases of damage from the execution of public works, the Eng-
lish courts have simply to inquire whether the works were au-
thorized by law and whether they have been executed with care
and skill. If so, there can be no recovery unless a remedy is
provided by the act. But in the United States an act of the
legislature may be no justification whatever. The legislature
is powerless to do that which the constitution prohibits. And,
in case of damages caused by public works, it is necessary in this
country to inquire, not only whether the works are authorized
by law and have been carefully executed, but also whether
the damage amounts to a taking of property within the meaning
of the constitution. In solving this last question the English
cases afford us no aid, or practically none. This distinction
is frequently lost sight of, and we wish to insist upon it here,
once for all.^®
"This distinction is pointed out
by the Supreme Court of Ohio in
Crawford v. Village of Delaware, 7
Ohio St. 459, 466, 1857, from which
we quote as follows : "The power of
the English parliament is supreme.
It would be quite as absurd for Eng-
lish courts to pronounce an act of
parliament, adopted by the three
Estates of the Realm, unconstitu-
tional, or unauthorized, as for this
court to pronounce a provision of
the Constitution of the United
States unconstitutional and void.
'What the parliament doeth, no au-
thority on earth can undo.' An au-
thority, therefore, derived from the
supreme power of the State, or, in
other words, operations undertaken
and conducted by virtue of an act of
parliament, cannot be deemed unau-
thorized in view of the English law,
or lay any foundation for a common
law action for damages. If, indeed,
the supreme power of a State
authorizes and directs an act to be
done, who has the power to pro-
nounce that act unlawful? No co-
ordinate power exists to control it.
The grantee of a franchise or a pub-
lic agent, so long as he does not
transcend the authority conferred
upon him by act of parliament, in
the exercise even of eminent domain
or its incidents, represents the su-
preme power of the State; and just
so far as the same supreme power
has provided the mode and means
of compensation for the violation of
the rights of private property, in
the exercise of eminent domain or
its incidents, there is a remedy; but
no further. It is true, that it is the
duty of parliament, and one which
is in general scrupulously per-
formed, to provide compensation to
individuals who are deprived of
their property, for the public use, or
208 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 131
§ 131 (94). Leading cases in the United States. Cal-
lendar v. Marsh. The leading case in this country is that
of Callendar v. Marsh, decided in ISaS."" The defendant,
acting as highway surveyor for the city of Boston, cut down tlie
street in front of plaintiffs house so as to lay hare its walls and
endanger its falling, to remedy which he was obliged to incur
large expense. The court having determined that the work was
authorized by legislative enactment, proceeded to consider
whether the plaintiff's property was taJcen within the meaning
of the constitution, and whether he could recover upon any
ground. This question they solved in the negative. The court
held this provision applied only to property actually taken and
appropriated by the government, and not to consequential dam-
ages; that when the highway was established, whether by con-
demnation or otherwise, the public acquired not only the right
to pass over the surface in the state it was in when first made a
street, but also the right to repair and amend the street in such
manner as the public needs might from time to time require ;
that the liability to damages by such alterations was a proper
subject for the inquiry of those who laid out the road, or, if the
title was acquired by purchase, the proprietor might claim com-
pensation not only for the land taken, but for such damages, and
that persons purchasing upon a street after the lay-out, were
supposed to indemnify themselves against loss by reason of
further improvements or to take the chance of such improve-
ments. The court also says that the same principle applied as
in case of adjoining proprietors.®^ This case has had an im-
portant influence in moulding the law of this country.
§ 132 (95). Other early cases. A few years after the
decision in Callendar v. Marsh, the same question arose in Ten-
nessee and Kentucky, and was decided in the same way, though
without reference to the case from Massachusetts. In both
who are injuriously affected by the for damages occasioned by the con-
erection of public works. But there struction of a public work, any fur-
is no power over parliament to en- ther than is specially provided for
force this duty, or to create a liabil- by the law itself, do not simply de-
ity, beyond what parliament specifi- cide a principle of municipal law,
cally recognizes and provides. Hence but announce a constitutional prin-
the English courts, in holding that ciple, inseparable from a recognition
an action against commissioners of of the fiat of the supreme power of
streets or municipal officers or their State."
agents, acting under the authority soi Pick. 417, 430.
of an act of parliament, will not lie "On this point the court says:
§ 132
EOADS AND STREETS.
209
the former States, the law applicable to adjoining proprietors
was made the basis of the rule laid down.®^ The question was
disposed of in a summary way in an early case in Pennsylvania
by a reference to the English cases, and a sweeping assertion
that the defendant corporation had the power and could not be
made responsible for mere consequential injury.®^
The question was elaborately considered by the New York
Court of Appeals in Eadcliff's Executors v. Mayor, etc., of
Brooklyn, in 1850.^* The street was cut down in front of
plaintiff's premises so that his soil, shrubbery, fences, etc., fell
into the street, and he was put to great expense in restoring his
premises and adapting them to the new grade. The case was
said "to fall within the principle that a man may enjoy his
land in the way such property is usually enjoyed, without being
answerable for the indirect or consequential damages which
"The streets on which the plaintiflF's
house stands had become public
property by the act of laying them
out conformably to law, and the
value of the land taken must have
been either paid for, or given to the
public, at the time, or the street
could not have been legally estab-
lished. Being legally established,
although the right or title in the
soil remained in him from whom the
use was taken, yet the public
acquired the right, not only to pass
over the surface in the state it was
in when iirst made a street, but the
right also to repair and amend the
street, and, for this purpose, to dig
down and remove the soil sufficie itly
to make the passage safe and con-
venient. Those who purchase house
lots bordering upon streets are sup-
posed to calculate the chance of such
elevations and reductions as the in-
creasing population of the city may
require, in order to render the pas-
sage to and from the several parts
of it safe and convenient, and, as
their purchase is always voluntary,
they may indemnify themselves in
the price of the lot which they buy,
or take the chance of future im-
Em. D.—U.
provements, as they shall see fit.
The standing laws of the land giving
to surveyors the power to make
these improvements, every one who
purchases a lot upon the summit or
on the decline of a hill, is presumed
to foresee the changes which public
necessity or convenience may re-
quire, and may avoid or provide
against a loss." And again, "We can
perceive no difference in the prin-
_ ciple on which this action is found-
ed, and that which was involved in
the case of Thurston v. Hancock, 12
Mass. 220." The latter is a leading
case as to the rights of adjoining
proprietors, in which the rule is laid
down that if a man does what he
has a right to do on his own land,
without trespassing upon any law,
custom, title or possession, he is not
liable for injurious consequences
which may result, unless he acts ma-
liciously.
"Keasy v. City of Louisville, 4
Dana, Ky. 154, 29 Am. Dec. 395,
1836; Humes v. Mayor etc. of Knox-
ville, 1 Humph. 403, 1839.
"Green v. Borough of Reading, 9
Watts, 382.
"i N. Y. 195, 203, 53 Am. Deo. 357.
210 EMINEI^T DOMAIIT. § 133
may be sustained by an adjoining land owner." "In leveling
and grading the street," says the court, "they (the defendants)
were at work on their own land, doing a lawful act for a lawful
purpose." The conclusion follows that they could not be liable,
for no person is responsible for the consequences of a lawful act
done upon his own property. It was also held upon authority
and upon principle that the damages complained of were not
a taking within the constitution, and consequently that the laws
authorizing the acts which produced the injuries were valid and
a complete justification. "If the statute under which the de-
fendants acted is constitutional, it is settled that they are not
answerable to third persons, whatever damage they may have
suffered. Indeed, it is absurd to say, that public officers may
be liable to an action for what they have done under lawful
authority, and in a proper manner." "^
This case, with that of Callendar v. Marsh, ante, may be con-
sidered as having settled the law of this country as respects
claims for damages caused by elevating or depressing the grade
of streets. Many cases in other States have been disposed of
by a simple reference to these two authorities.
§ 133 (95). The general doctrine. In conformity with
the foregoing cases, it has been held in nearly every State in
the Union, that there can be no recovery for damages to abutting
property resulting from a mere change of grade in the street
in front of it, there being no physical injury to the property
itself, and the change being authorized by law.^"
"The same court, in Cogswell v. 10 So. 457, 29 Am. St. Rep. 278, 14
New York, New Haven & Hartford L.R.A. 370; Bowdeu v. Jacksonville,
R. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 10, 57 Am. Rep. 52 Fla. 216, 42 So. 394; Markham v.
701, in reference to Radcliff's case, Atlanta, 23 Ga. 402; Mayor etc. of
says: "The case carries to the Macon v. Hill, 58 Ga. 595; Fuller v.
utmost limit the right of the legis- Atlanta, 66 Ga. 80; Roberts v. Chi-
lature, for public reasons, to inter- cago, 26 111. 249 ; Murphy v. Chicago,
fere with private property to the in- 29 111. 279, 81 Am. Dec. 307 ; City of
jury of the owner without making Quincy v. Jones, 76 111. 231 ; Snyder
compensation." v. Rockport, 6 Ind. 237 ; La Fayette
''Simmons v. City of Camden, 26 v. Spencer, 14 Ind. 399; Macy v. In-
Ark. 276; Burritt v. New Haven, 42 dianapolis, 17 Ind. 267; La Fayette
Conn. 174; Durand v. Ansonia, 57 v. Spencer, 19 Ind. 326; Columbus v.
Conn. 70, 17 Atl. 283; District of Storey, 33 Ind. 195; Terre Haute v.
Columbia v. Atchison, 31 App. Cas. Turner, 36 Ind. 522; Kokomo v. Ma-
D. C. 250; Dorman v. Jacksonville, han, 100 Ind. 242; North Vernon v.
13 Fla. 538, 7 Am. Rep. 253; Selden Voegler, 103 Ind. 314; Rensselaer v.
V. City of Jacksonville, 28 Fla. 558, Leopold, 106 Ind. 29; Valparaiso v.
§ 134
BOADS AliTD STEEETS.
211
§ 134 (97). Ratio decidendi of these cases. An exam-
ination of the cases cited in the last section shows that, so far
as the courts have attempted to reason out their decisions, their
conclusions have been made to rest upon one or more of the
following grounds :
First. That, when a street or highway is laid out, compen-
sation is given once for all, not only for the land taken, but
Spaeth, 166 Ind. 14, 76 N. E. 514;
Baker v. Shoals, 6 Ind. App. 319, 33
N. E. 664; Creal v. Keokuk, 4 G.
Greene (la.), 47; Freeland v. City
of Muscatine, 9 la. 461 ; Cole v.
Same, 14 la. 296 ; Ellis v. Iowa City,
29 la. 229; Russell v. City of Bur-
lington, 30 la. 262; City of Burling-
ton V. Gilbert, 31 la. 356 ; Reilly v.
Ft. Dodge, 118 la. 633, 92 N. W. 887;
Wilbur T. Ft. Dodge, 120 la. 555, 95
N. W. 186; Mathodist Episcopal
Church V. Wyandotte, 31 Kan. 721;
Interstate Consol. R. R. Co. v. Early,
46 Kan. 197, 26 Pac. 422; Atchison
etc. R. R. Co. V. Arnold, 52 Kan. 729,
35 Pac. 780; Keasy v. City of
Louisville, 4 Dana (Ky.) 154, 29
Am. Dec. 395; Newport & Cincinnati
Bridge Co. v. Foote, 9 Bush (Ky.)
264; Reynolds v. Shreveport, 13 La.
An. 426; Briggs v. Lewiston & Au-
burn Horse R. R. Co., 79 Me. 363, 1
Am. St. Rep. 316; Peddicord v. Bal-
timore etc. H. R. R. Co., 34 Md. 463 ;
Guest V. Church Hill, 90 Md. 689, 45
Atl. 882; De Lander v. Baltimore
Co., 94 Md. 1, 50 Atl. 427; Callendar
V. Marsh, 1 Pick. 418; Underwood v.
Worcester, 177 Mass. 173, 58 N. E.
589 ; Hyde v. Boston etc. St. Ry Co.,
194 Mass. 80, 80 N. E. 517; Pontiac
V. Carter, 32 Mich. 164; Schneider v.
Detroit, 72 Mich. 240, 40 N. W. 329,
2 L.R.A. 54; Cummings v. Dixon, 139
Mich. 269, 102 N. W. 751; Lee v.
City of Minneapolis, 22 Minn. 13;
Henderson v. Minneapolis, 32 Minn.
319; Genois v. St. Paul, 35 Minn.
330; Rakowsky v. City of Duluth, 44
Minn. 188, 46 N. W. 338; Robinson
V. Great Northern R. R. Co., 48
Minn. 445, 51 N. W. 384; Yanish v.
City of St. Paul, 50 Minn. 518, 52
N. W. 925; St. Louis v. Gurno, 12
Mo. 414; Taylor v. St. Louis, 14 Mo.
20, 55 Am. Dec. 89; Hoffman v. St.
Louis, 15 Mo. 051; Shattner v. City
of Kansas, 53 Mo. 162; Nebraska
City V. Lampkin, 6 Neb. 27, 1877;
Burden v. Nashua, 17 N. H. 477,
1845 ; Healey v. New Haven, 47 N. H.
305; Plum v. Morris Canal Co., 10
N. J. Eq. 256; Fish v. Mayor etc. of
Rochester, 6 Paige 268; Graves v.
Otis, 2 Hill 466; Waddell v. Mayor
etc. of New York, 8 Barb. 95; Rad-
cliflf's Executors v. Mayor etc. of
Brooldyn, 4 N. Y. 195; Conklin v.
New York etc. Ry. Co., 102 N. Y.
107; Sauer v. New York, 180 N. Y.
27, 72 N. E. 579, 70 L.R.A. 717, af-
firming S. C. 90 App. Div. 36, 85 N.
Y. S. 636; Smith v. Boston etc. R. R.
Co., 181 N. Y. 132, 73 N. E. 679, af-
firming S. C. 99 App. Div. 94, 91 N.
Y. S. 412; Hosmer v. Gloversville, 27
Misc. 669; McCarthy v. Far Rock-
away, 3 App. Div. 379, 38 N. Y.
Supp. 989 ; Smith v. White Plains, 67
Hun 81, 22 N. Y. Supp. 450; Wolfe
V. Pieraon, 114 N. G. 627, 19 S. E.
264; Brand v. Multnomah Co., 38
Ore. 79, 60 Pac. 390, 62 Pac. 209, 84
Am. St. Rep. 772, 50 L.R.A. 389;
Green v. Borough of Reading, 9
Watts, 382; Henry v. Pittsburgh &
Allegheny Bridge Co., 8 W. & S. 85;
O'Connor v. Pittsburgh, 18 Pa. St.
187; In re Ridge Street, 29 Pa. St.
391 ; City of Reading v. Keppleman,61
Pa. St. 233 ; Smith v. Chiltenham, 35
212
EMINENT DOMAIIT.
§ 134
for damages •which may at any time be occasioned hy adapting
the surface of the street to the public needs. ^'^
Second. That the public, as proprietors of the street, stand
in the same relation to the abutting lot owners as an individual
would who owned the strip of land constituting the street, and
that their rights, duties and liabilities are determined by the
same rules as apply to adjoining proprietors of land.®*
Pa. Supr. Ct. 507; Rounds v. Mum-
ford, 2 R. I. 154; Gerhard v. See-
konk Riv. Bridge, 15 R. I. 334, 5 Atl.
199; Sullivan V. Webster, 16R. I. 33,
11 Atl. 771; O'Donnell v. White, 24
R. I. 483, 53 Atl. 633; Garraux v.
Greenville, 53 S. C. 575, 31 S. E. 597;
Braralett v. Laurens, 58 S. C. 60, 36
S. E. 444; Kendall v. Columbia, 74
S. C. 539, 54 S. E. 777; Humes v.
Mayor etc. of Knoxville, 1 Humph.
(Tenn.) 403; Penniman v. St. Johns-
bury, 54 Vt. 306; Smith v. City
Council of Alexandria, 33 Gratt.
208; Kehrer v. Richmond City, 81
Va. 745; Home Bldg. Co. v. City of
Roanoke, 91 Va. 52, 20 S. E. 895, 27
L.R.A. 551 ; Harrisburg v. Roller, 97
Va. 582, 34 S. E. 523 ; Brown v. City
of Seattle, 5 Wash. 35, 31 Pac. 313,
7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 64 ; Smith
V. Eau Claire, 78 Wis. 487, 47 N. W.
830; Walsh v. Milwaukee, 95 Wis.
16; McCuUough v. Campbellsport,
123 Wis. 334, 101 N. W. 709; Gosz-
ler v. Georgetown, 6 Wheat. 593,
1821 ; Smith v. Corporation of Wash-
ington, 20 How. 135, 1857; Transpor-
tation Co. V. Chicago, 99 U. S. 035;
Regina v. Perth, 14 L. R. Q. B. 15/3.
"'Callendar v. Marsh, 1 Pick. 418 ;
Skinner v. Hartford Bridge Co., 29
Conn. 523; Rounds v. Mumford, 2
R. I. 154; Fellows v. City of New
Haven, 44 Conn. 240, 26 Am. Rep.
447; City of Pontiac v. Carter, 32
Mich. 164,' 172. In the latter case
the court, per Cooley, J., says: "The
injury in all these cases is incidental
to an exercise of public authority,
which in itself must be assumed to
be proper, because it is had by a
public body acting within its juris-
diction, and not charged with malice
or 'want of good faith. It must,
therefore, be regarded as an injury
that every citizen must contemplate
as one that, with more or less likeli-
hood, might happen. When the land
was taken for a street, if damages
were assessed, they would cover this
possible injury, and it could never be
known subsequently that the jury, in
estimating them, did not calculate
upon a change in the grade of the
proposed street as probable, and at-
tach considerable importance to it in
their estimate. It is matter of com-
mon observation, that much beyond
the value of land taken is sometimes
given in these cases; not because of
any present injury, but because con-
tingencies cannot be fully foreseen.
And the rule in such cases is, that
all possible damages are covered by
the award, except such as may re-
sult from an improper or negligent
construction of the public work, or
from an excess of authority in con-
structing it. In other words, the
award covers all damages resulting
from the doing in a, proper manner
whatever the public authorities have
the right to do ; but it does not cover
injuries from negligence or from
trespasses. And one who gives his
land for the purpose of a public way
is supposed to contemplate all the
same contingencies, and to make the
gift on the supposition that the in-
cidental benefits will equal or exceed
all possible incidental injuries."
"'Callendar v. Marsh, 1 Pick. 418;
Radcliff V. Mayor etc. of Brooklyn,
§ 135 STREETS AND EOADS. 213
Third. That this species of damages is not a taking within
the meaning of the constitution, and, consequently, if the works
occasioning the damage are authorized by law, no action will
lie.^® We shall advert to these principles further on.^
§ 135 (98). The Ohio cases. The decisions in Ohio are
exceptional. The first cases went up on a demurrer to the
declaration. In Goodloe v. Cincinnati,^ the suit was for dam-
ages caused to plaintiff's property by cutting down a street, and
the declaration alleged that it was done illegally and maliciously.
In Smith v. Cincinnati,^ the facts were the same, except that the
acts were only charged to have been done illegally. In both
cases a demurrer to the declaration was overruled, and in both
cases there were afterwards trials and judgments for the plain-
tiff in the court below upon the general issue. These demurrers
would not have been decided differently, probably, in any other
State.* In Scovil v. Geddings," the defendants, by authority
of the trustees of Cleveland, lowered the street in front of plain-
tiff's property, and the suit was for damages thereby occasioned.
The court held that such damages were not a taking within the
constitution, and that the action would not lie. The leading
case of Callendar v. Marsh was cited with approval. This case
is explained or reconciled in the later decisions by distinguishing
between the corporate authorities and their agents, holding that
the latter would not in any event be i^ersonally liable for doing
that, as agents 'of the corporation, which the corporation had
power to do.® This, however, would be contrary to the general
rule that in actions ex delicto agents and principals are alike
responsible.
The question of the liability of the corporation was presented
to the court in a case which went up shortly after from the
4 N. Y. 195; Quiney v. Jones, 76 Ills. Radeliflf v. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195;
231; Waddell v. Mayor etc. of New Wilson v. New York, 1 Denio 595;
York, 8 Barb. 95; Humes v. Mayor Reynolds v. Shreeveport, 13 La. An.
etc. of Knoxville, 1 Humph. 403; 426; City of Pontiac v. Carter, 32
Simmons v. City of Camden, 26 Ark. Mich. 164.
276; Smith v. Corporation of Wash- lAnie, §§ 120-128.
ington, 20 How. 135. The analogy 24 Ohio 500, 1831, 22 Am. Dec. 764.
is expressly denied in some cases: 84 Ohio 515, 1831.
Fellows V. New Haven, 44 Conn. 240, iPost, § 143.
253; Goodall v. Milwaukee, 5 Wis. ' 7 Ohio, Pt. 2, 211, 1836.
32. 'See Crawford v. Village of Dela-
"Callendar v. Marsh, 1 Pick. 418; ware, 7 Ohio St. 459.
Maoy V. Indianapolis, 17 Ind. 267;
214: EMINENT DOMAIN. § 135
same city/ and It was again held that such, damages did not
constitute a taking or give any right of action, and Callendar
y. Marsh and Seovil v. Geddings are cited with approbation.
In both these cases in the Yth and 8th Ohio it appears that a
statute gave a remedy in such cases, but the decisions, unless
possibly the latter, are not put upon the ground that the statu-
tory remedy was exclusive. It remained for the court to dis-
cover, in a later case, that this was the ground of decision in
those cases. ^
In Rhodes v. Cleveland,® it appeared that the city cut ditches
and water courses along the streets in such a manner as to cause
water to flow upon and wash away the plaintiff's land. The
defendant was held liable, but not upon any very tangible
grounds. The decision was not based upon constitutional right,
but rather upon natural equity and the maxim sic utere tuo ut
alienum non lcBdas.^° This case is the starting point of the
peculiar doctrine of the Ohio court, but it is to be observed that
it was not for damages caused by a change of grade, but by a
physical invasion of the property, and belongs to a class in which
a recovery has been allowed in many other States. ■'^'^ The next
case is that of McGomb v. Town of Akron, ^^ which was twice in
'Hickox V. Cleveland, 8 Ohio 543, other, the same principle of ethics
1838. demands of them to repair it and
siO Ohio 159, 1840. no reason occurs to the court, why
910 Ohio 159, 1840. the same remedy should not be ap-
"The court says: "Upon the plied, to compel justice from them."
whole, then, we believe that justice The fault with this reasoning is,
and good morals require that a cor- first, that courts do not administer
poration should repair a, consequen- law upon ethical principles, and, sec-
tial injury, which ensues from the ond, that individuals cannot com-
exercise of its functions, and that if mit injuries in the proper exercise
we go further than adjudicated of their lawful powers. An injury
cases have yet gone, we do not is the violation of a legal right, and
transcend the line, to which we are lawful power in one to violate the
conducted by acknowledged princi- legal right of another is an absurd-
pies. * * » That the rights of ity, a contradiction in terms. Of
one should be so used, as not to ira- course a person may exercise law-
pair the rights of another, is a prin- ful powers with negligence and so
ciple of morals, which from very re- render himself liable, but then the
mote ages has been recognized as a liability is based upon the negli-
maxim of law. If an individual, ex- gence and not on the exercise of the
ercising his lawful powers, commit powers,
an injury, the action on the case is ''^''-Post, § 141.
the familiar remedy; if a corpora- 1215 Ohio 474, 1846; Town of Ak-
tion, acting within the scope of its ron v. McComb, 18 Ohio 229, 51 Am.
authority, should work wrong to an- Dec. 453, 1849.
§ 135 EOADS AND STREETS. 215
the Supreme Court. McCorab had erected a store upon his lot
and adjusted it to the grade of Howard street, upon which his
lot abutted. There was at this time, however, no established
grade. Afterwards the town lowered the grade, in consequence
of which the value of the plaintiil's property was greatly depre-
ciated, though it was not otherwise damaged. The corporation
was held liable "to the extent of the real and substantial injury
done to the plaintiff's property by its act of leveling the street."
The decision appears to rest upon the broad ground of natural
right and justice. Thus the court say: "If a municipal cor-
poration, for the good of all within its limits, see proper to cut
down a street, it is nothing more than right that an injury there
done to a single individual should be shared by all." ^* In
all these cases the question whether a corporation can be made
liable in an action of tort is much discussed, with an implication
that if that question is answered in the affirmative its liability
in this class of cases would necessarily follow.''*
The unsatisfactory nature of these decisions seems to have
impressed itself upon the Ohio court, and, when the question
next comes up for decision, we find them making a careful
review of all the prior cases; and, although their results are
approved and adhered to, the loose grounds upon which they
rest are tacitly abandoned and their doctrine established upon a
new basis. The case referred to is that of Crawford v. Village
of Delaware. ■'^ In that case, the plaintiff had built a house
upon his lot, with reference to the grade of the adjacent street
as it then existed. Afterwards the defendant established a
grade for the street some six feet below the natural surface, and
"15 Ohio, p. 480. would not have been liable, the de-
"Bronson, C. J., of the New York cision is entitled to no respect what-
Court of Appeals, referring to Mo- ever. If the court intended to hold.
Comb V. Akron, 15 Ohio 474, says: that persons, whether artificial or
"If the case goes on the ground that natural, were answerable for the
the corporation, thougli it had am- damages which might result to an
pie authority to grade the street, did adjoining landowner from the grad-
it in an illegal and improper man- ing of the street, though the act was
ner, and thereby caused an injury to done under ample authority, and in
the plaintiff's property, the decision a proper manner, the case is in con-
is well enough. But if the doctrine fiict with many decisions, and can-
of the case be, that the corporation not be law beyond the State of
was answerable, because it was a Ohio." Radcliff v. Mayor etc. of
corporation, and when a natural per- Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195, 205, 1850.
son, acting under the like authority, "7 Ohio St. 459, 1857.
216 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 135
made the necessary excavation opposite the plaintiff's premises.
The court instructed the jury, among other things, "that when
such corporation neglects to fix any grade, and none is estab-
lished for a street, and the owner of a lot builds upon and im-
proves his lot in reference to the then existing state of the road
or street used in front of his lot, and uses ordinary discretion
and judgment in making his improvements, having reference
to the probable future improvements of the town, and with
reference also to the right possessed by the corporate authorities
to make a reasonable and proper grade of such street, and he is
afterwards injured by the making of such grade, he is entitled
to recover for actual damages he may sustain, even though the
grade so afterward made may be a reasonable and proper one.
But if he so locates his house without such reasonable reference
to future reasonable and proper improvements of the streets
adjoining his lot, and without such exercise of discretion and
judgment, and the town afterwards makes such reasonable and
proper grade, and he is thereby injured, he cannot recover for
such injury. That in ascertaining whether such act of the de-
fendant in making the improvement, was a just and reasonable
exercise of its authority to improve the street, the jury are
authorized to take into consideration any evidence showing that
it was the first improvement and the first grading of the street,
also showing the inequality of the ground, and that the plain-
tiff's property was so situated in relation to it, as that the grade
and improvements should have been reasonably anticipated by
the plaintiff; and where such grade and improvements could
have been thus anticipated by the exercise of ordinary discretion
and judgment, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages for the
making of such reasonable and proper grade and improvement."
There was conflicting evidence upon the points submitted by the
instructions; the jury appear to have found for the defendant,
and judgment on the verdict was afiirmed.-^® The right to
recover at all in such cases is based upon the ground that an
abutting owner's right to the use of a street is itself property
which cannot be taken without compensation.-''' The court
then go on to lay down the following propositions :
"We say "appear to have found favor which he sought to have set
for the defendant," because it is a aside.
matter of inference only. The "Thus the court: "Distinct from
plaintiff toolc the case up. It may be the right of the public to use a
the jury found a small verditet in his street, is the right and interests of
§ 135 EOADS AND STEEETS. 217
First. That the owner of an unimproved lot cannot recover
for filling, ditching or cutting down a street, for he is presumed
to purchase the lot with a view to the future improvement of
the street in such reasonable manner as the public authorities
may deem expedient.
Second. That the owner of a lot upon a street, the grade of
which has not been established, must use reasonable care and
judgment in making his improvements, with reference to the
right possessed by the corporation to make a reasonable and
proper grade.
Third. That when the owner of a lot makes improvements
with reasonable care and judgment, in view of the right of the
corporation to make a reasonable and proper grade, or makes
improvements with reference to a grade already established, and
a change is afterwards made in the street which interferes with
the access to his improvements from the street, he is entitled to
recover damages.
"It is," says the court, "as positive and substantial an injury
to private property, and as direct an invasion of private right,
incident to a lot, as if the erections upon the lot were taken for
public use. It comes not within the letter, but manifestly with-
in the spirit, of the constitution, which requires compensation
for property taken for public use."
In Jackson v. Jackson,-'* the ground of recovery in such cases
is still more explicitly stated. A township road ran through
the plaintiff's farm, connecting with a county road. This was
altered up to, but not upon, his farm. This suit was brought
to recover damages alleged to have been occasioned to his farm
by such alteration. A recovery was denied, on the ground that
the damages were too remote. In commenting upon prior cases,
it was held that compensation had been given in highway cases,
in obedience to the constitution, as for private property
taken for public use, and that the cases only went to the extent
the owners of lots adjacent. The ties and franchises, assured to them
latter have a peculiar interest in the by contracts and by law, and with-
street, which neither the local nor out which their property would be
the general public can pretend to comparatively of little value. This
claim: a private right of the nature easement, appurtenant to the lots,
of an incorporeal hereditament, unlike any right of one lot owner in
legally attached to their contiguous the lot of another, is as much prop-
grounds, and the erections thereon ; erty as the lot itself." p. 469.
an incidental title to certain facili- "16 Ohio St. 163, 168, 1865.
218 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 135
of holding that the adjacent owner, "has a private right of access
to and from the street or highway ; and, when he has made im-
provements on his land, with direct reference to the adjoining
highway as then established, and with reasonable reference
to its prospective improvement and enjoyment by the public,
he has a private right of way, or passage, to and from the
highway as it then exists; and any substantial change in the
highway, to the injury of such passage or way, is an invasion
of his private property; and this private right extends so far
as the reasonable and convenient enjoyment of such improve-
ments requires the use of the adjacent highway; but, beyond
such necessary use thereof, the private right is merged in that of
the public;" that, as the plaintiff had not been deprived of any
such private right in this case, no property of his had been
taken, and he could not recover.
In Cincinnati v. Penny^^ all the cases were again reviewed
and the same doctrines affirmed. Penny sued for damages to
a building occasioned by excavating for a sewer. His recovery
was defeated on the ground that he did not exercise reasonable
prudence in the erection of his building, in view of the right
of the city to appropriate the alley to such uses in the future.
"We have no disposition," says the court, "to depart from the
line of decisions formerly made by this court upon this subject.
* * * Yfe believe the principles established by our former
cases to be most just and equitable."
In Youngstown v. Moore,^" the same principles were fully
approved, and a judgment for damages caused by lowering the
grade of a street was affirmed.
'Next comes the case of Akron v. The Chamberlain Com-
pany,^^ decided in 1878. In 1842 the Chamberlain Company
built a flouring mill upon the lot in question. At that time
no grade had been established for the street in front. In
1876 the grade of the street was raised fourteen feet in front of
the mill, and the company brought this suit for the damages
thereby occasioned, and recovered a verdict and judgment for
$9,600.
The court "adhere, with entire satisfaction, to the doctrines
enunciated, in Cincinnati v. Penny," but explain that it never
had been decided, and that the court had never intended to de-
"21 Ohio St. 499, 504, 1871, 8 Am. ''34 Ohio St. 328, 1878, 32 Am.
Rep. 73. Rep. 367.
"30 Ohio St. 133, .1876.
§ 135 EOADS AND STREETS. 219
cide, that if an owner used reasonable care and judgment in
making improvements and was afterwards injured by the estab-
lishment of a grade, he could recover though the grade was a
reasonable and proper one. "We are now unanimously of opin-
ion," says the court, "that if the subsequent grade, in such case,
be reasonable, or, in other words, if it be established in the rea-
sonable exercise of the authority conferred on the municipality,
at the time it is made, then such grade should have been antici-
pated by the owner of the adjacent lot, and his improvements
should have been made with reference thereto."
The right of recovery is limited to three cases: (1) where
one builds to an established grade and it is changed to his dam-
age ; (2) where one builds before a grade is established, but suc-
ceeds in anticipating the grade which is afterwards established,
and the grade after being so established is changed; (3) where
one builds before a grade is established and afterwards an un-
reasonable grade is established. The court holds that a grade
may be established in the sense here intended, not only by an
ordinance or resolution for that purpose, but also by any im-
provement of the street indicating permanency.^^
In the recent case of Akron v. Huber,^^ the court affirms the
doctrine of Akron v. The Chamberlain Co., but refuses to extend
the liability of municipalities for a change of grade, and a re-
covery was denied on the ground that the grade established, was
a reasonable one and should have been anticipated by the plain-
tiff when he built.
'^The court says: "While we rec- subsequent changes. And it would
ognize the general rule to be, that seem to follow, as a logical sequence,
no liability on the part of a munici- that if, before a permanent grade is
pality for injury to abutting prop- thus established, the owner of an
erty, by reason of improvement of a abutting lot improves the same with
street, exists where such improve- reference to a reasonable grade to be
ment is properly made, yet this rule established in the future and his an-
is subject, as we have seen, to the ticipations are realized in the sub-
exception that where abutting prop- sequent establishmenr of the grade,
erty is improved with reference to he should thereafter, in respect to
an existing street, so graded or such improvement, be entitled to en-
improved under the authority joy the same right in the grade of
of the public agents having the con- the street which was thus fairly and
trol thereof, as to indicate fairly reasonably anticipated, as if he had
and reasonably, permanency in the improved his lot after the grade had
character of the street improvement, been so established."
a liability is cast upon the city or ==78 Ohio St. 372, 85 N. E. 583.
village for injury resulting from
220 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 135
The right of recovery is in all cases limited to the property
in front of which the change is made. Where the grade of a
street on which the plaintiff abutted was raised on a part near
but not in front of plaintiff, it was held he could not recover,
although his property was damaged.^*
Upon a review of all -the Ohio cases, therefore, it appears
that no recovery can be had in any ease for damages to unim-
proved property by reason of a change of grade, that where
property is improved and the improvements are adjusted to an
established grade, whether built before or after its establishment,
a recovery may be had for any damages occasioned by a change
of grade, and finally that, if improved property is damaged by
an unreasonable grade or by an unreasonable exercise of the
power to grade, then there may be a recovery. ^^ Where a grade
was lowered two feet but the convenience of access was not im-
paired nor the property depreciated in value, it was held that
there was no taking and no liability.^*
In all the later cases the right of recovery is based upon the
constitutional guaranty that private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation. The private prop-
erty which is taken in such cases is spoken of as the right of
access. ^^ But the right of access exists the same, whether the
property is improved or unimproved, and whether a grade has
been. established or not. If to interfere with it in one case is
a taking, then such interference should be a taking in every
case. 'No good ground exists for a distinction. That there
ought to be compensation in some cases and not in others is a
consideration which addresses itself to the legislature and not
to the courts. The uncertain, rambling and contradictory condi-
tion of the Ohio cases on this subject is itself evidence that they
are not founded upon a logical basis.
^*Eagle White Lead Company v. ledo, 9 Ohio C. C. 462; Cheseldine v.
Cincinnati, 1 Cinn. Supr. Ct. 154, Comrs., 6 Ohio C. C. 450; Pitton v.
1871; Smith v. Board of Comrs., 50 City of Cincinnati, 3 Ohio C. C. 593;
Ohio St. 628, 35 N. E. 796. Nolte v. City of Cincinnati, 3 Ohio
^Since the first edition was writ- C. C. 503. Cutting down the mar-
ten tliere have been no decisions gin of a street to the established
which change the rule of the prior grade of the driveway, held not a,
cases, or which afford any new illus- change of grade. Cincinnati v.
trations of its application. See City Roth, 20 Ohio C. C. 317.
of Cincinnati v. Whetstone, 47 Ohio ^Lotzee v. Cincinnati, 61 Ohio St.
St. 196, 24 N. E. 409; Smith v. 272, 55 N. E. 828.
Board of Comrs., 50 Ohio St. 628, 35 ^Crawford v. Village of Delaware,
N. E. 796; Neubert v. City of To- 7 Ohio St. 469.
§ 136 EOADS AND STEBBTS. 221
§ 136 (99). The law of Kentucky. It appears from
cases already cited^^ that the earlier decisions in Kentucky
accord with the prevailing doctrine, but in a somewhat recent
case the court of that State has taken an intermediate ground. ^^
The plaintiff, a rolling-mill company in the city of Louisville,
owned an entire block of ground upon which it had erected
extensive works at a cost of some two hundred thousand dollars.
The premises and adjacent streets were subject to an annual
overflow from the Ohio River. The works were constructed in
such manner that their only outlet was onto and over Brook
street. The city passed an ordinance for raising the grade of
Brook street so that, at the point of the company's gateway,
which was their only means of ingress and egress, the street
would be twelve feet above the company's lot. The ordinance
also required the company either to fill up their lot or build a
retaining wall for the protection of the street, and provided that,
in default of the company doing so, the city might construct
the same at the company's expense. It appeared that the result
of this improvement would be to render the property of the
company almost worthless, and besides, if the ordinance was
carried out as to the retaining wall, it would compel the coiu-
pany to incur a large expense to accomplish the destruction of
its own property. It was one of the "hard cases" so proverbial
for "bad law." The court seem to have been appalled by the
magnitude of the loss with which the company was threatened,
and granted an injunction restraining the work until compensa-
tion should be made to the company. The decision, which is
by a majority of the court, seems to be based upon the ground
that the case was an extraordinary one, in which all the ordinary
principles and presumptions failed; that, while lot-owners may
be taxed specially for local improvements, yet such right rests
upon the fact that special benefits are conferred and that when
the foundation of the right fails, as in this case, the right is
gone, and that, while such lot-owners may be presumed to have
purchased in contemplation of the right of the public to make
such improvements as are ordinary and usual, yet, that this was
of such an extraordinary and unusual character that the law
would not presume that it was assented to by the plaintiff when
2Uw*e, § 132.
=»Louisville v. Rolling Mill Co., 3
Bush. 416, 1807.
222 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 137
it purchased the property. It does not seem to us that this
decision, as put by the court, is either logical or sound. It is
treated in the opinion as the case of raising the grade of a street
for its improvement. In this view there is nothing extraordi-
nary or unusual about the improvement. It is not unusual for
a street to be raised or lowered ten feet. The only extraordinary
and unusual feature presented by the case is the very large
amount of damage accruing to the complainant. Had it not
been for this feature of the case, that is, the extreme hardship
of it, the bill would undoubtedly have been summarily dismissed.
The only possible ground which we can see for justifying the
decision is that it was proposed to raise the grade of the street,
not for the purpose of improving the street for use as a high-
way, but to form a dike or levee against the river. But even
this view would not warrant the injunction, but only an action
for damages. There is no logical ground for a distinction be-
tween usual and slight changes and great and unusual changes
in the grade of a street. There is no reason why compensation
should be given for the large damage caused by raising the grade
ten feet, and none for the small damage by raising the grade one
foot. The damages are the same in kind in all cases where the
grade of a street is changed, and logically there should be a
right to recover in all cases or in none.^° A recent case in Ten-
nessee also holds that where access to abutting property is im-
paired or destroyed by a change of grade there is a taking.^ "^
§ 137 (100a). Interfering with access, light and air by
change of grade not a taking. It has already been shown
that the private rights of access, light and air are subject to the
right of the public to use and improve the street for highway
purposes.^^ As these rights are subject to the right of the public
to improve, it follows that when such improvements are made
no private right is interfered with and consequently that no
private property is taken. This is the ground upon which the
prevailing doctrine as to change of grade must rest. If the
rights of access, light and air are subject to the right of the pub-
lie to improve, then when access is rendered less convenient by
'"/See comments of Judge Dillon on So. 457, 29 Am. St. Rep. 278, 14
this case in his work on Municipal L.E.A. 370.
Corporations, § 784, note. See ulso "Hamilton County v. Rape, 101
remarks of the court in Selden v. Tenn. 222, 47 S. W. 416.
City of Jacksonville, 28 Fla. 558, 10 32Ante, § 120.
§ 138 ROADS AND STEEETS. 223
the exercise of that right by the public, or the light and air are
obstructed thereby, the owner has no legal ground -of complaint.
§ 138 (100b). Peculiar and extraordinary changes of
grade, and changes for some ulterior purpose other than
the improvement of the street. The doctrine that the
rights of abutting owners are subbject to the right of the public
to grade and improve streets, is one which has often resulted in
great hardship to individuals. This is a reason why the doctrine
should be restricted, so far as is consistent with sound legal prin-
ciples. The doctrine is founded upon the theory that when a
street is established there is taken into consideration the fact
that future improvements of the street may necessitate a change
in the surface and the land is supposed to be given, or compen-
sation made, with this in view.^^ But it is manifest that only
ordinary changes of grade can be thus anticipated, that is, such
changes as may be necessary to secure a uniform, even surface
for the purpose of facilitating traffic on the street. The rule
should cease to apply when the reason of it fails. Consequently
the rule should not apply where the grade is changed for some
ulterior purpose not connected with the improvement of the
street, or when it is made necessary by artificial conditions, such
as a railroad, canal or bridge.^* This reasoning is sustained by
33 Ante, §§ 120-128, 134. ment in part of a street if, in its
"In Reining v. New York etc. R. judgment, this will promote the pub-
R. Co., 128 N. Y. 157, 168, 28 N. E. lie convenience and the purposes of
640, 14 L.R.A. 133, the court, in the street as a highway. But we
spealcing of the power to establish thinlc it cannot under the guise of
and change grades, says: "The pri- exercising the power, appropriate a
mary object of this power contained part of the street to the exclusive,
in municipal charters, is to enable or practically to the exclusive, use
the municipal authorities to render of a railroad company, so as to cut
a street more safe and convenient for off abutting owners from the use of
public travel, to afford drainage, in any part of the street in the accus-
short, to adapt it more perfectly to tomed way, without making compen-
the purposes of a public way. It is sation for the injury sustained."
claimed that the city under this The city had permitted a railroad
power could lawfully authorize an to construct a, sloping causeway
embankment in part of the street, twenty-four feet wide in the middle
leaving the other part on a lower of the street and had approved the
level. We are not called upon to grade upon which it was built. The
say whether there is any limit to railroad company was held liable to
the exercise of municipal authority the abutting owner for the damages
or that the city cannot in exercising to his property. In Kentucky where
the power to establish and alter the a, street was depressed to go under
grade of streets, raise an embank- a railroad it was held that the cost
224 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 138
some of the authorities, but not by all. It has been held that if
the grade is raised, not for the purpose of improving the street,
but for the purpose of forming a dike, the abutting owner may
recover for the damage to his property.^' So where the change
was made for the purpose of procuring material to be used else-
where.^® Where a street was on a side hill it was held that a
different grade could be established for the two halves of the
street, with a retaining wall in the center, without liability to
the abutters,^'' but it might reasonably be held that such an
improvement was an ordinary one, in view of the contour of
the surface. It has been held that a tunnel beneath the surface
of the street,^^ or the open approach to a tunnel in the center
of the street,^* do not entitle the abutting owner to compensa-
tion. In bridging streams it frequently becomes necessary to
place the bridge above the grade of the adjacent shores and
to build elevated approaches to it upon the connecting streets.
Whether the damage to private property by such approaches is
a taking is a question upon which the authorities disagree. The
weight of authority is that where the bridge is exclusively for
street traffic, the approaches thereto are to be treated
as mere changes of grade for which no recovery can
be had.*" In an Oregon case the defendant was au-
thorized to build a bridge across the Willamette river
of the improvement, in so far as it "Chicago v. Rumsey, 87 Ills. 348.
was made necessary by the railroad But see Coyne v. Memphis, 118 Tenn.
could not be made a charge upon 651, 102 S. W. 355.
abutting property. Louisville Steam ^ONewport v. Cinn. Bridge Co., 9
Forge Co. v. Mehler, 112 Ky. 438, 64 Bush. 264; Willis v. Winona, 59
S. W. 396, 652. Minn. 27, 60 N. W. 814; Willets
''Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 111. Mfg. Co. v. Mercer Co., 62 N. J. L.
337, 25 Am. Rep. 321; Winchester v. 95, 40 Atl. 782; Brand v. Multno-
Stevens Point, 58 Wis. 350; City of mah Co., 38 Ore. 79, 60 Pao. 390, 62
JefFersonville v. Myers, 2 Ind. App. Pac. 209, 84 Am. St. Rep. 772, 50
532, 28 N. E. 999. L.R.A. 389; Sullivan v. Webster, 16
^'Mayor etc. of Macon v. Hill, 58 R. I. 33, 11 Atl. 771; Walsh v. Mil-
Ga. 595. waukee, 95 Wis. 16. In Frater v.
='Yanish v. City of St. Paul, 50 Hamilton Co., 90 Tenn. 661, 19 S. W.
Minn. 518, 52 N. W. 925; Munger v. 233, it was held there could be re-
City of St. Paul, 57 Minn. 9, 58 N. covery in case of a county bridge.
W. 601. See Read v. Camden, 53 N. See also Martin v. Chicago etc. R. R.
J. L. 322, 21 Atl. 565 ; S. C. reversed Co., 47 Mo. App. 452 ; Wallace v.
54 N. J. L. 347, 24 Atl. 549. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. 47 Mo.
"Hodgkinson v. Long Island R. R. App. 491.
Co., 4 Edwards Ch. 411; Adams v.
Saratoga & Washington R. R. Co.,
11 Barb. 414.
§ 138 EOADS AND STREETS. 225
between the cities of Portland and East Portland, "for
the purpose of travel and commerce, as a railroad, wagon
road and passenger bridge, and to charge and collect tolls and
fares thereon." In pursuance of such authority it constructed
a double-decked steel bridge, the upper deck being for ordinary
street traffic and the lower for railroad traffic. An approach
was constructed to the upper deck, starting upon Third street
at G street and extending along the middle of Third street until
near H street, and thence reaching the bridge by a curve. The
approach was thirty feet wide, and rose from the grade of G
street to a height of thirteen and one-half feet at H street.
Though built of timbers, it was, practically, a solid structure.
The plaintiff's property abutted on Third street and extended
from G street to H street. At G street and for most of the dis-
tance there was eighteen feet between the approach and the lot
line and eight feet between it and the sidewalk. The inference
is that plaintiff did not own the fee of the street. The court
held that the structure was not to be treated as a mere change of
grade but was an exclusive appropriation of a part of the street
to the use of a private corporation, subversive of and repugnant
to its use as a public thoroughfare, which could not be made
without compensation to the plaintiff.*^ So where a bridge was
"Willamette Iron Works v. Ore- street; and, while such permission
gon Ry. & Nav. Co., 26 Ore. 224, 37 included as a consequence the con-
Pac. 1016, 46 Am. St. Rep. 620, 29 struction of a solid roadway above
L.R.A. 88. To the point that the and over the street surface, it does
approach was a mere change of not follow that what was done was
grade the court says: "The argu- in exercise of the power to alter or
ment that the building of the ap- change the grade of a street. The
proach was a mere change of street grade remained the same after
the grade of the street, authorized the approach was built as before,
by proper municipal authority, is and this approach is no part of the
clearly untenable. The city of Port- street, but i^ foreign thereto, and
land has undoubted plenary power as useless for general street pur-
to alter or change the grade of a poses as any of the structures re-
public street by proper proceedings fcrred to in the cases cited. We do
under its charter, but the act of the not think a public street, or any
municipal authorities in granting portion thereof, can lawfully be ap-
defendant permission to occupy the propriated to the exclusive and per-
street did not purport to be an ex- manent use of a private corporation
ercise of such power. It was sim- under the guise of an exercise of the
ply conferring upon the defendant, power to alter or change the grade,
so far as the city was able, the The primary object of this grant of
right to the exclusive and perma- power is to enable the municipality
nent use of a portion of the public to make the streets safe and eon-
Em. D. — 15.
226
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 138
built over a private canal or raceway and was put at a high grade
to accommodate the owner and not to improve the street for pur-
poses of travel, it was held that abutters could recover for dam-
ages by the approach.*^ Where streets are carried over rail-
roads by means of a bridge or viaduct or under them by de-
pressing the street with approaches in front of abutting prop-
erty, which impair or destroy access, or interfere with light and
air, the viaducts and their approaches have been put by the
courts upon the same footing as an ordinary change of grade and,
consequently, are held not to be any additional servitude upon
the street or taking of the property rights of abutting owners.*'
There may be a recovery in Ohio, under the peculiar doctrines
of that State,** and some States give a remedy in such cases
by statute.*'' So the abutter may recover in such cases where
the constitution guarantees compensation for property damaged,
injured or destroyed.®" In Michigan it is held that a city can-
venient for public travel, and not
to divert them from legitimate street
purposes to the exclusive use of some
private corporation. Conceding,
therefore, that defendant occupies
this street by lawful authority, and
hence its structure is not a nuisance,
yet it invades the legal rights of an
abutting owner, and is an appro-
priation of the property of such
owner without compensation, which
is beyond the power of the legisla-
ture or municipality, or both, con-
stitutionally, to authorize or sanc-
tion."
^'Eanson v. Sault Ste Marie, 143
Mich. 661, 107 N. W. 439; Morris
V. Sault Ste. Marie, 143 Mich. 672,
107 N. W. 443. See Bartels v. Hous-
ton, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 389, 74 S. W.
326; Sandpoint v. Doyle, 14 Ida.
749, 95 Pac. 945.
"Seldeu v. City of Jacksonville,
28 Fla. 558, 10 So. 457, 29 Am. St.
Rep. 278, 14 L.K.A. 370; Eowden v.
Jacksonville, 52 Fla. 216, 42 So. 394;
Hart v. Atlanta, 100 Ga. 274; Hyde
V. Boston etc. St. Ry. Co., 194 Mass.
80, 80 N. E. 517; Schneider v. City
pf Detroit, 72 Mich. 240. 40 N. W.
329, 2 L.R.A. 54; Robinson v. Great
Northern R. R. Co., 48 Minn. 445,
51 N. W. 384; Conklin v. New York
etc. R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 107, 6 N.
E. 663; Ottenot v. New York etc. R.
R. Co., 119 N. Y. 603, 23 N. E. 169;
Home Bldg. etc. Co. v. City of Roan-
oke, 91 Va. 52, 20 S. E. 895, 27
L.R.A. 551 ; Colclough v. Milwaukee,
92 Wis. 182, 65 N. W. 1039.
**Cohen v. Cleveland, 43 Ohio St.
190; Leonard v. Cassidy, 8 Ohio C.
C. 529; Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co.
v. Brown, 16 Ohio C. C. 269; ante,
§ 135.
''Nicks v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
84 la. 27, 50 N. W. 222; Parker v.
Boston & M. R. R. Co., 3 Cush. 107,
50 Am. Dee. 709; Kelly v. City of
Minneapolis, 57 Minn. 294, 59 N. W.
304, 47 Am. St. Rep. 605, 26 L.R.A.
92 ; Read v. City of Camden, 54 X. J.
L. 347, 24 Atl. 549, reversing 53 N.
J. L. 322, 21 Atl. 565.
""Bentley v. City of Atlanta, 92
Ga. 623, 18 S. E. 1013; Chicago v.
Lonergan, 196 HI. 518, 63 N. E.
1018; Beaver v. City of Harrisburg,
156 Pa. St. 547, 27 Atl. 4; Cass v.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 159 Pa. St.
§ 138 EOADS AND STREETS. 227
not build such a viaduct and approaches under the general pow-
er to establish grades and that, when built without other authori-
ty it is an illegal structure and that the city is liable for the
damages thereby sustained by abutting owners.^' In Tennes-
see where the center of a street was depressed in order to make
a subway under a railroad, thereby interfering with access to
abutting property, such interference was held to be a taking
for which compensation must be made.''^ Changes of grade in
connection with railroads upon or across streets, are consid-
ered in subsequent sections.^^
It has been held in New York that the legislature may au-
thorize the construction of a viaduct in a street, so as to create
a second street surface, without providing for compensation to
abutting property owners. The plaintiff, in the case referred to,
owned a building and property in New York city at the corner
of 155th street and Eighth avenue. One Hundred
and Fifty Fifth street is intersected by a bluff sev-
enty feet high. The viaduct connected with the top
of the bluff and was supported by iron columns in the street
and occupied its full width. At the plaintiff's premises it was
fifty feet high. It impaired the easements of access, light and
air and annoyed the occupants of the property by the dirt, dust
and noise occasioned by the structure and its use. The suit
was to enjoin the use of the viaduct, and compel its removal,
or in the alternative for the recovery of just compensation for
taking the easements and in either case for the recovery of past
damages. The court held that the viaduct was a proper street
use and a decree dismissing the bill was affirmed. The court
says : "It is devoted to ordinary traffic by teams, vehicles and
pedestrians. It is prohibited for railroad purposes. It is one
of the uses to which public highways were primarily opened
and devoted. It was constructed under legislative authority in
the exercise of governmental powers for a public purpose. It is
not, therefore, a nuisance and the plaintiff is not entitled to
have its maintenance enjoined or to recover in this action the
consequential damages sustained." ®* The decision was affirmed
273, 28 Atl. 161; Walters v. St. 240, 40 N. W. 329 ; Phelps v. Detroit,
Louis, 132 Mo. 1, 33 S. W. 441 ; Fred 120 Mich. 447, 79 N. W. 640.
V. Kansas City Cable R. R. Co., 65 ''"Coyne v. Memphis, 118 Tenn. 651,
Mo. App. 121 ; Omaha v. McGavock, 102 S. W. 355.
47 Neb. 313, 66 N. W. 415; post, § Bspost, §§ 174, 178.
349. "Sauer v. New York, 180 N. Y.
"Schneider v. Detroit, 72 Mich, 37, 33, 72 N. E, 579, 70 L.R.A. 717,
228 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 138
by the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that
the rights of abutting owners was a matter of State law and, the
highest court of the State having held that the plaintiff had no
easements of light, air and access as against a structure erected
by the public and devoted to street traffic, its decision was con-
clusive of the matter.^^
It seems to the writer that this decision is erroneous, that
the viaduct was not a change of grade, since the old grade re-
mained exactly as before, that it was an improvement of a
most extraordinary character which could not have been contem-
plated when the street was established and was not within the
public right acquired, and, consequently, that it was such an
improvement as could not be made without compensation to the
abutting owners. It was in effect the establishment of a new
street over the existing one, which could not be done without
compensation for property taken. We think the true view is
expressed by Vann, J., in his dissenting opinion who says : "I
dissent upon the ground that the construction by a municipal
corporation of a new and independent street in the form of a
bridge, fifty feet high and sixty-three feet wide, extending
lengthwise through block after block of an existing street, which,
graded and paved for years, is left undisturbed except by the
huge columns supporting the elevated structure, is neither the
improvement of the street as a street, nor a proper street use
sanctioned by precedent, or coming within the reasonable con-
templation of the parties when the fee of the surface street was
acquired from the abutting owner, who has no access to the aerial
street from his premises, and when this is done without compen-
sation, it is a taking of private property for public use in direct
violation of the constitution." ^*
affirming 90 App. Div. 36, 85 N. Y. tiflF's easement was a taking of his
S. 636, which in turn affirmed Saner property for which he was entitled
V. New York, 40 Misc. 585, 83 N. to compensation under the constitu-
Y. S. 27. In Sauer v. New York, tion.
44 App. Div. 305, 60 N. Y. S. 648, the ssSauer v. New York, 206 U. S.
same plaintiff brought suit for dam- 536, 27 S. C. 686. Justices McKenna
ages to his business and recovered and Day dissent,
a, judgment for $30,000 which was 5 6Sauer v. New York, 180 N. Y.
reversed for error in the admission 27, 34, 72 N. E. 579, 70 L.R.A. 717.
of evidence, the court holding that Bartlett J. concurring with Vann
the viaduct was not a change of J. adds: "Under the judgment
grade nor a proper street use, and, about to be made the city could
that the interference with the plain- bridge Fifth Avenue, from 110th
§ 139
EOADS AND STREETS.
229
§ 139 (101). Lowering grade. — Interfering with sup-
port of soil. We have stated in a previous section the reasons
in support of the position that the abutting owner has a right
to the support of his soil in that of the street.^'' It follows that
an interference with this right, by cutting down a street and re-
moving the support of the adjacent soil, is a taking for which
compensation must be made. But the older cases are against
this position.^® The older cases make no distinction between the
different kinds of damages which may be occasioned to abutting
property by the improvement of the streets. All such damages
are treated as consequential and remediless. Yet, in some of
these cases, and in others by the same courts, the rights and lia-
bilities of the public with respect to the adjoining owner are
held to be governed by the law of adjoining proprietors. But ad-
joining proprietors have mutual rights of support, and, if the
analogy is carried out, it must be held that the adjacent owner
has a right to the support of his soil in that of the street. This
seems to us the juster view, and the more recent cases have so
adjudicated.^* In such cases recovery may be had for injury
Street to Washington Square, at a
level above the heights of the ad-
joining structures, thereby impairing
the light, air and access of every
residence and business building, and
under the plea of a street use escape
all liability for damages. If this
can be done it simply amounts to
confiscation." p. 34. Where the via-
duct interfered with the station of
an elevated railroad the city was
held liable. Manhattan R. R. Co.
V. New York, 89 Hun 429, 35 N.
y. S. 505. In Seattle Transfer Co.
V. Seattle, 27 Wash. 520, 08 Pac.
90, the construction of an elevated
roadway twenty feet wide in the
center of a street was held to entitle
the abutters to damages, but the
constitution of that State requires
compensation to be made for prop-
erty damaged as well as for prop-
erty taken.
6'! Ante, § 126; post, § 234.
58Fellows V. New Haven, 44 Conn.
240, 26 Am. Rep. 447; Rome v.
Omberg, 28 Ga. 46; Mitchell v.
Rome, 49 Ga. 19; Quiney v. Jones,
76.111. 231; Taylor v. St. Louis, 14
Mo. 20, 55 Am. Dee. 89 ; Callendar v.
Marsh, 1 Pick. 418; Radcliffe v.
Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195; Mears v.
Comrs. of Wilmington, 9 Ired. L. 73,
49 Am. Dec. 412; Cheever v. Shedd,
13 Blateh. 258.
ssDelphi v. Evans, 36 Ind.
90, 10 Am. Rep. 12; Aurora
V. Fox, 78 Ind. 1; Dyer v.
St. Paul, 27 Minn. 457; Arm-
strong v. St. Paul, 30 Minn. 299;
Nichols v. City of Duluth, 40 Minn.
389, 42 N. W. 84; Kuaehke v. St.
Paul, 45 Minn. 225, 47 N. W. 780,
Farrell v. St. Paul, 62 Minn. 271, 64
N. W. 809; Keating v. Cincinnati,
38 Ohio St. 141; Columbus v. Wil-
lard, 7 Ohio C. C. 113; Stearns
Ex'r V. City of Richmond, 88 Va.
992, 14 S. E. 847, 6 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 247; Parke v. City of
Seattle, 5 Wash. 1, 31 Pao. Rep. 310,
32 Pac. 82, 34 Am. St. Rep. 839, 20
L.R.A. 68; Jones v. Seattle, 23 Wash.
753, 63 Pac. 553; McCuUough v.
Campbellsport, 123 Wis. 334, 101 N,
230
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 140
to improvements where their weight did not cause, the slide.®"
Where the excavation of a street causes a slide which reaches
property not abutting on the street, the right to compensation
would seem to be clear since it cannot be presumed that the own-
er wa.« compensated thefefor when the street was established."^
In Washington, where a city cut down the grade of a street
so that it would be seventy-seven feet below the plaintiff's lot
and proposed to cut a slope upon the plaintiff's lot extending
back seventy-seven feet, it was held that there was a damaging
but not a talcing of the plaintiff's property, within the consti-
tution.82
§ 140 (102). Raising grade. — Encroachment of the
filling. The right of exclusion, or the right of complete posses-
sion and enjoyment, is one of the essential elements of property
in land. If any one has a right to encroach upon my land in
any way, then I have not complete control of it, nor a full and
absolute property in it. The public have no right, in raising
the grade of a street, to allow the filling to slide or encroach
upon the adjoining land. Such an occupation of or encroach-
ment upon adjacent property is actionable.®* Such a direct
W. 709; Damkoehler v. Milwaukee,
124 Wis. 144, 101 N. W. 706; Dahl-
man v. Milwaukee, 131 Wis. 427, 110
N. W. 479, 111 N. W. 675 ; New West-
minster V. Brighouse, 20 Duvall 520.
See Moore v. Albany, 98 N. Y. 396. In
Nichols V. Duluth, 40 Minn. 389, 42
N. W. 84, the court says: "Every
person has a right ex jurw natures
to the lateral support of the adjoin-
ing soil, and is entitled to damages
for its removal. A municipal cor-
poration has no greater rights or
powers in that regard over the soil
of the streets than a private owner
has over his own land, and will be
liable in damages for removing this
lateral support the same as would
a private owner if improving his
property for his own use. It is no
defense that the excavation was
necessary for the purpose of grad-
ing the street. If the city desires
greater rights than those possessed
by private owners it must acquire
them by the exercise of eminent do-
main. It must either do this, or
else itself substitute other lateral
support in place of the soil which
it removes. The liability of the city
in these cases does not depend, as
appellant assumes, upon its negli-
gence in making the excavation.
This right of the lateral sup-
port of the adjoining soil, being a
natural one, is absolute, and inde-
pendent of any question of negli-
gence."
Talcott Bros. v. Des Moines, 134
la. 113, 109 N. W. 311, 120 Am. St.
Hep. 419, is the only case decided to
the contrary since the first edition
was published.
eoKeating v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio
St. 141.
siKeating v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio
St. 142; Damkoehler v. Milwaukee,
124 Wis. 144, 101 N. W. 706.
6 2Compton V. Seattle, 38 Wash.
514, 80 Pac. 757.
6 3Hendershott v. Ottumwa, 46 la.
658, 26 Am. Rep. 182; West Cov-
§ 140
EOADS AND STEEETS.
^31
invasion of one's property is without right and might undoubted-
ly be enjoined. It is the duty of the public in such a case
to support the filling by a retaining wall in the street itself.
But if this is not done and an action is brought for damages
and a recovery had, the public thereby acquire a right of lateral
support for the causeway in the street."* If the property is va-
cant, the damages could hardly exceed the cost of a retaining
wall and of removing the filling which had fallen upon the lot.
If the property is improved, any injury to the improvements
would be included.^^ In Nelson v. West Duluth,*"' it is held that
the measure of damages is the diminution in the value of the
property by reason of the earth being imposed upon it, and that
the cost of removing the earth and building a retaining wall
cannot be recovered, if it is more than such diminution. So in
ington V. Schultz, 30 S. W. 410, 16
Ky. L. R. 831 ; Ludlow v. Froste, 20
Ky. L. R. 216, 45 S. W. 661; Lud-
low V. Detwiler, 20 Ky. L. R. 894,
47 S. W. 881; Vanderlip v. Grand
Rapids, 73 Mich. 522, 41 N. W. 677,
3 L.R.A. 247; Schneider v. Brown,
142 Mich. 45, 105 N. W. 13; Over-
man V. St. Paul, 39 Minn. 120, 39
N. W. 66; Nelson v. West Duluth,
55 Minn. 497, 57 N. W. 149; Brad-
well V. City of Kansas, 75 Mo. 213;
Tegeler v. Kansas City, 95 Mo. App.
162, 68 S. W. 953; Dodson v. Cin-
cinnati, 34 Ohio St. 276; Davis v.
Silverton, 47 Ore. 171, 82 Pac. 16;
O'Donnell v. White, 23 R. I. 318, 50
Atl. 333; Koch v. Sackman-Phillips
Inv. Co., 9 Wash. 405, 37 Pac. 703;
Bunker v. Hudson, 122 Wis. 43,
99 N. W. 448 ; MeCulIough v. Camp-
bellsport, 123 Wis. 334, 101 N. W.
709. In Broadwell v. City of Kan-
sas, 75 Mo. 213, the defendant raised
the grade of a street about even with
the top of plaintiff's house, and the
filling encroached upon his lot to
such an extent as to crush and ruin
his house. The court says: "More-
over, section 16 article 1 of the Con-
stitution of 1865, provided that: 'no
private property ought to be taken
or applied to public use, without
just compensation.' Here the city
and its servant took the property
of plaintiffs within the meaning of
that section. The taking of property
within that prohibition may be
either total or absolute, or' a taking
pro tanto. Any injury to the prop-
erty of an individual which deprives
the owner of the ordinary use of it, is
equivalent to a taking and entitles
him to compensation. So a partial
destruction or diminution of value
of property by an act of government
which directly and not merely inci-
dentally affects it, is to that extent
an appropriation." See Fuller v.
Grand Rapids, 105 Mich. 529, 63 N.
W. 530; Harley v. Jones, 165 Pa. St.
34, 30 Atl. 499.
To the contrary: Fellows v. City
of New Haven, 44 Conn. 240, 26
L.R.A. 447; Shaw v. Crocker, 42 Cal.
435; Mayo v. Springfield, 136 Mass.
10; Mayo v. Same, 138 Mass. 70;
and see Moore v. Albany, 98 N. Y.
396; Carll v. Northport, 11 App. Div.
120, 42 N. Y. Supp. 576.
6 4 Dodson V. Cincinnati, 34 Ohio
St. 276; Bunker v. Hudson, 122 Wis.
43, 99 N. W. 448.
esBradwell v. City of Kansas, 75
Mo. 213.
6 655 Minn. 497, 55 N. W. 149.
232
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 141
Wisconsin where it is held that as between the cost of a retain-
ing wall and the removal of the earth on the one hand and the
diminution in value of the estate on the other, the verdict should
be for the less sum.®^ If the owner consents in advance that
the city may deposit earth upon his lot to support the filling of
the street, he dedicates an easement of support to the public
use and will be estopped to claim damages or compel a removal
of the earth.®*
§ 141 (103). Damages from surface water. ISTevins v.
City of Peoria,"^ is a leading case upon this question. The city
of Peoria graded its streets in such a manner as to cause a
stream of water and mud to flow on to the plaintiff's property
in times of rain, and also to cause a pond to accumulate upon
adjacent property, which, by becoming stagnant, diffused un-
wholesome vapors over the plaintiff's premises. The city was
held liable, on the ground that the damages complained of were
a taking, within the meaning of the constitution.'^'' It was held
sTBunker v. Hudson, 122 Wis. 43,
99 N. W. 448. The court says:
"The recovery of depreciated value,
limited as it vpas to the cost of a
retaining wall and removal of the
earth, clearly contemplates that one
or the other of those situations is
going to be permanent. If plaintiffs
recovered for the diminished value
of their premises resulting from this
wall of earth serving to support the
grade of the street to its full width,
then they would have received pay-
ment for the privilege of keeping
the earth there. In other words,
they would have in practical effect,
sold to the city an easement to that
extent. Hence they would have no
right to remove that earth so as to
jeopardize the street or cause it to
cave or wash away. Doubtless, by
limiting their damages to the cost
of a retaining wall and of the re-
moval of the earth, they would have
the right, after the collection of this
judgment, to exercise their choice to
do such acts at their own expense,
but must then at their peril so con-
struct the wall as to furnish safe
and perfect support for the street
at its established grade to the ut-
most of its legal limits." p. 56.
6 8 Williams v. Hudson, 130 Wis.
297, 110 N. W. 239.
6 941 111. 502, 50S, 89 Am. Dec.
392.
TOThe court says: "The city is the
owner of the streets, and the legis-
lature has given it power to grade
them. But it has no more power
over them than a, private individual
has over his own land, and it cannot,
under the specious plea of public
convenience, be permitted to exercise
that dominion to the injury of an-
other's property in a mode that
would render a private individual re-
sponsible in damages without being
responsible itself. Neither State nor
municipal government can take pri-
vate property for public use with-
out due compensation and this be-
nign provision of our constitution is
to be applied by the courts whenever
the property of the citizen is in-
vaded, and without reference to the
degree." This case has been fol-
lowed and approved in the follow-
§ 141
EOADS AND STEEETS.
233
that the city had no greater power over its streets than a private
individual had over his own land, and that the law of adjoining
proprietors was applicable. This is the true rule to be applied
it all such cases. In any given case, the test is : If an individ-
ual owned the streets in question, and had made the same works,
would he be liable for the damages complained of? It is now
almost uniformly held that, if a city so grades or otherwise im-
proves its streets as to collect surface water in a stream and pour
it directly upon private property, it will be liable for the ensuing-
damages.' "■ This is a direct and entirely unauthorized invasion
of property rights. There is, however, considerable dissent from
ing subsequent decisions in the same
State: City of Aurora v. Gillett, 56
111. 132; City of Aurora v. Reed,
57 111. 29, 11 Am. Rep. 1; City of
Dixon V. Baker, 65 111. 518, 16 Am.
Rep. 591; Tearney v. Smith, 86 111.
391. In Aurora v. Reed the street
in question was improved while the
plaintiff's lot was vacant. He after-
wards built upon his lot, and the
water ran into his basement. It was
held that this circumstance made no
difference, that he had a right to
improve his lot and enjoy it free
from any such invasion or annoy-
ance.
7iTroy V. Coleman, 58 Ala. 570;
Union Springs v. Jones, 58 Ala. 654;
Holmes v. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 961, 39
S. E. 458; Elgin v. Kimball, 90 111.
356; Elgin v. Welch, 16 111. App.
483; S. C. 23 111. App. 185; Indian-
apolis v. Lawyer, 38 Ind. 348; Weis
<i. Madison, 75 Ind. 241, 39 Am. Rep.
135; Evansville v. Decker, 84 Ind.
325, 43 Am. Rep. 86 ; North Vernon
V. Voegler, 89 Ind. 77; Crawfords-
ville V. Bond, 90 Ind. 236; Sullivan
V. Phillips, 110 Ind. 320; Valparaiso
V. Spaeth, 166 Ind. 14, 76 N. E. 514;
Guest v. Church Hill, 90 Md. 689,
45 Atl. 882; Manning v. Lowell, 130
Mass. 21; Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8
Mich. 296; Ashley v. Port Huron,
35 Mich. 296, 24 Am. Rep. 552;
Cubit V. O'Dett, 51 Mich. 347; Mor-
ley V. Buchanan, 124 Mich. 128, 82
N. W. 802; Kobs v. Minneapolis, 22
Minn. 159; O'Brien v. St. Paul, 25
Minn. 331 ; Thurston v. St. Joseph,
51 Mo. 510; Field v. West Orange,
36 N. J. Eq. 118; West Orange v.
Field, 37 N. J. L. 600; Byrnes v.
Cohoes, 67 N. Y. 204; Bastable v.
Syracuse, 8 Hun 587 ; Noonan v. Al-
bany, 79 N. Y. 470, 35 Am. Rep. 540 ;
Seifert v. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 136,
54 Am. Rep. 664; Rhodes v. Cleve-
land, 10 Ohio 159; Limerick etc.
Turnpike Co.'s Appeal, -80 Pa. St.
425; Huddleston v. West Bellevue,
111 Pa. St. 110; Torrey v. City of
Scranton, 133 Pa. St. 173, 19 Atl.
351; Inmann v. Tripp, 11 R. I. 520,
23 Am. Rep. 520; Johnson v. White,
26 R. L 207, 58 Atl. 658, 65 L.R.A.
250; Houston v. Hutcheson, 39 Tex.
Civ. App. 337, 81 S. W. 96 ; Gillison
V. Charleston, 16 W. Va. 282, 37 Am.
Rep. 763; Jordan v. Benwood, 42
W. Va. 312, 26 S. E. 266, 57 Am.
St. Rep. 859, 36 L.R.A. 519; Mc-
Crary v. Fairmount, 46 W. Va. 442,
33 S. E. 245; Pettigrew v. Evans-
ville, 25 Wis. 223; Rowe v. Roch-
ester, 29 U. C. Q. B. 590; ante, § 112.
And see Stamford v. San Francisco,
111 Cal. 198, 43 Pac. 605; Commis-
sioners V. Whitsett, 15 111. App. 318;
Palmer v. O'Donnell, 15 111. App.
324; Wilbur v. Ft. Dodge 120 la,
555, 95 N. W. 186; McCarthy v.
234
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 141
this view, especially in the earlier cases.''* Where a natural out-
let for surface water is obstructed by raising the grade of a
street, and the water is thus caused to accumulate and stand on
private property, the corporation will be liable.''^ And so in
some States where the water is obstructed and caused to accumu-
late on the plaintiff's property, though no defined channel or
marked depression is interfered with.'^* But where the law of
the State is that every owner of land may improve his lot as he
pleases, without liability on account of surface water, there
will, of course, be no liability on the part of municipal corpo-
rations for any interference with the flow of surface water
whereby it is dammed back or turned upon private property. '^^
Far Rockaway, 3 App. Div. 379, 38
N. Y. Supp. 989; Carll v. Northport,
11 App. Div. 120, 42 N. Y. Supp. 576.
'2Bronson v. Wallingford, 54
Conn. 513; Downs v. Anaonia, 73
Conn. 33, 46 Atl. 243; Roll v. Au-
gusta, 34 Ga. 326; Conwell v. Em-
rie, 4 Ind. 209; Vincennes v. Rich-
ards, 23 Ind. 381; Platter v. Sey-
mour, 86 Ind. 323; Cummings v.
Seymour, 79 Ind. 491 ; Cumberland
V. Willison, 50 Md. 138; Flagg v.
Worcester, 13 Gray 601 ; Turner v.
Dartmouth, 13 Allen 291; Alden v.
Minneapolis, 24 Minn. 254; St. Louis
V. Gurno, 12 Mo. 414; Taylor v. City
of St. Louis, 14 Mo. 20, 55 Am. Dec.
89; Hoffman v. St. Louis, 15 Mo.
651 ; (Last three cases overruled in
Thurston v. St. Joseph, 51 Mo. 510) ;
Steinmeyer v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App.
256; Foster v. St. Louis, 4 Mo. App.
564; Same v. Same, 71 Mo. 157;
Stewart v. Clinton, 79 Mo. 603;
Durkee v. Town of Union, 38 N. J. L.
21; Kavanaugh v. Brooklyn, 38
Barb. 232; Mills v. Brooklyn, 32 N.
Y. 489; Lynch v. Mayor etc. of New
York, 76 N. Y. 60; Wright v. Wil-
mington, 92 N. C. 156; Wakefield v.
Newell, 12 R. I. 75; Allen v. Chip-
pewa Falls, 52 Wis. 430, 38 Am.
Rep. 748; Waters v. Bay View, 61
Wis. 642; Heth v. Fond du Lac, 63
Wis. 228; see also the following
cases where the lots were below
grade: Freyburg v. Davenport, 63
la. 119; Gilfeather v. Council BhiiTs,
69 la. 310; Morris v. Council BlufTs,
67 la. 343, 56 Am. Rep. 343; Mes-
sing V. District of Columbia, 3
Maekey, 572; Gilluly v. Madison, 63
Wis. 518, 52 Am. Rep. 299; HirtU
V. Indianapolis, 18 Ind. App. 673;
Hart V. Baraboo, 101 Wis. 368;
Yager v. Fairmount, 43 W. Va. 259 ;
Sharp V. Cincinnati, 4 Ohio C. 0.
(N. S.) 19.
7 3Kemper v. Louisville, 14 Bush
(Ky.) 87; McClure v. City of Red
Wing, 28 Minn. 186. A similar case
was differently decided in Hoyt v.
Hudson, 27 Wis. 656, where it was
held that the defendant was not lia-
ble for obstructing a ravine which
formed the natural outlet of sur-
face water.
liSee ante, §§ 112, 113; North Jud-
son V. Lighteap, 41 Ind. App. 565.
'5 Herring v. District of Columbia,
3 Maekey 572; Davis v. City of
Crawfordsville, 119 Ind. 1, 21 N. E.
449; Valparaiso v. Spaeth, 166 Ind.
14, 76 N. E. 514; Walter v. County
•Comrs., 35 Md. 385 ; Sprague v. Wor-
cester, 13 Gray 193; Dickinson y.
Worcester, 7 Allen 19; Rose v. St.
Charles, 49 Mo. 509 ; Imler v. Spring-
field, 55 Mo. 119; Wilson v. Mayer
etc. of New Y'ork, 1 Denio 595; Mills
§ 142
EOADS AND STREETS.
235
In Iowa it is held that, where the injury to adjoining property
could be foreseen, and it was practicable and reasonable to pre-
vent it by the construction of sewers and culverts, it is the duty
of the corporation to do so, and that for neglect of this duty it
will be liable.'" The liability is put upon the ground of a want
of care and skill in the construction of the works.'' Where sur-
face water is caused to accumulate in a pond which, by becoming
stagnant, diffuses unwholesome vapors over the neighborhood,
the corporation will be liable, provided the accumulation is due
to its wrongful act as by obstructing a natural outlet for such
water.'* The subject of surface water, and liability for inter-
ference with the flow of the same, are treated in a former chap-
ter.'»
§ 142 (104). Interfering with natural streams. Where
a municipal corporation, in improving its streets dr in building
or repairing a bridge, interferes with the flow of a natural
stream, it will be liable for any damage resulting to private
V. City of Brooklyn, 32 N. Y. 489;
Gould V. Booth, 66 N. Y. 62; Wat-
son V. City of Kingston, 114 N. Y.
88, 21 N. E. 102'; Acker v. Town of
New Castle, 48 Hun 312, 15 N. Y.
St. 894, 1 N. Y. Supp. 223; Anchor
Brewing Co. v. Village of Dobbs
Ferry, 84 Hun 274, 32 N. Y. Supp.
371; Bush v. City of Portland, 19
Or. 45, 23 Pac. 667, 20 Am. St. Rep.
789; Lafferty v. Girardville, 1 Mon-
aghan (Pa. Supm.) 513; Hoyt v.
Hudson, 27 Wis. 656; and see Lan-
der V. City of Bath, 85 Me. 141, 26
Atl. Hep. 1091; Almy v. Coggeshall,
19 R. I. 549. So held also where a
natural watercourse was intercept-
ed; Mayor etc. of Philadelphia v.
Randolph, 4 W. & S. 514.
7 6Cotes V. Davenport, 9 la. 227;
Templin v. Iowa City, 14 la. 59, 81
Am. Dec. 455; Ellis v. Same, 29 la.
229; Damour v. Lyons City, 44 la.
276; Russell v. Burlington, 30 la.
262; Ross v. Clinton, 46 la. 606, 26
Am. Rep. 169; Powers v. Council
Bluffs, 50 la. 197 ; see Commissioners
of Kensington v. Wood, 10 Pa. St.
93; Rowe v. Addison, 34 N. H. 308;
Parker v. Nashua, 59 N. H. 402;
Clark V. Rochester, 43 Hun 271.
TTSee also Los Angeles Cemetery
Ass. V. Los Angeles, 103 Cal. 461, 37
Pac. Rep. 375; Princeton v. Gieske,
93 Ind. 102 ; Benson v. Wilmington, 9
Houston 359; Schuett v. Stillwater,
80 Minn. 287, 83 N. W. 180; Haney
V. City of Kansas, 94 Mo. 334, 7 S.
W. 417; Flanders v. Franklin, 70
N. H. 168, 47 Atl. 88; Rutherford v.
HoUey, 105 N. Y. 632.
7 8Nevins v. Peoria, 41 111. 502, 89
Am. Dec. 392; Weeks v. Milwaukee,
10 Wis. 242; Smith v. Milwaukee,
18 Wis. 63; Clark v. Rochester, 43
Hun 271;an(i:seea»*e§§108,112,113.
Contra: Clark v. Wilmington, 5
Harr. (Del.) 243; Taylor v. St.
Louis, 14 Mo. 20, 55 Am. Dec. 89;
Russell V. Burlington, 30 la. 262;
Allen V. City of Paris, 1 Tex. App.
Civil Cas. p. 506; and see Corcoran
V. City of Benicia, 96 Cal. 1, 30 Pac.
Rep. 798; Watson v. Kingston, 43
Hun 367.
TSAnte, §§ 110-113.
236
EMIITENT rvOMAIIT.
§ 143
jDroperty.^" If a city substitutes a drain or sewer of insufficient
capacity for a natural watercourse, and the water is set back
upon private property, it will be liable.*^ And, generally, a
city interferes with a stream of water at its peril.*^
§ 143 (105). Unlawful change of grade. A recovery
may be had in all cases where the change of grade is unlawful,**
as when the statute requires the consent of a certain proportion
of the property holders, and the change is made without such
consent,** or provides that the woi'k shall not be done until after
an assessment of benefits to defray the expense has been con-
firmed, and such provision is disregarded,*^ or requires a two-
soMayor etc. of Helena v. Thomp-
son, 29 Ark. 569 ; Larrabee v. Clover-
dale, 131 Cal. 96, 63 Pac. 143; Mc-
Cord V. High, 24 la. 336; Lawrence
V. Inhabitants of Fairhaven, 5 Gray
110; Perry v. Worcester, 6 Gray 544;
Stone V. Augusta, 46 Me. 127; iut
see Mayor etc. of Philadelphia v.
Randolph, 4 W. & S. 514; Ely v.
Rochester, 26 Barb. 133.
siMayor etc. of Helena v. Thomp-
son, 29 Ark. 569. A similar case
was differently and it seems to us
wrongly decided in Collins v. Phila-
delphia, 93 Pa. St. 272.
8 2In McMahon v. Council Bluffs,
12 la. 268, it was held that a bill
would not lie to prevent a city
changing the bed of a stream so as
to cause the same to flow in the
street in front of the plaintiff's
property. On the subject of inter-
fering with the flow of streams see
the last chapter.
ssRoberts v. Chicago, 26 111. 249;
Lafayette v. Nagle, 113 Ind. 425;
Freeland v. Muscatine, 9 la. 461 ;
Richardson v. Webster City, 111 la.
427, 82 N. W. 920; Brown v. Web-
ster City, 115 la. 511, 88 N. W.
1070; Richardson v. Sioux City, 136
la. 436, 113 N. W. 928; Topeka
V. Sells, 48 Kan. 520, 29 Pac. 604;
Schneider v. Detroit, 72 Mich. 240,
40 N. W. 329, 2 L.R.A. 54; Phelps
V. Detroit, 120 Mich. 447, 79 N. W.
640; Rakowslcy v. Duluth, 44 Minn.
188, 46 N. W. 338; Hill v. St. Louis,
59 Mo. 412; Themanson v. City of
Kearney, 35 Neb. 881, 53 N. W. 1009;
Fuller V. Mt. Vernon, 171 N. Y. 247,
63 N. E. 984, affirming S. C. 64 App.
Div. 621 ; Leman v. New York, 5
Bos. 414; Triest v. New York, 55
Misc. 459, 105 N. Y. S. 571 ; Meinzer
V. Racine, 68 Wis. 241 ; Drummond
V. City of Eau Claire, 85 Wis. 556,
55 N. W. 1028; Ayres v. Windsor,
14 Ont. 682; West v. Parkdale, 15
Ont. 319. But see West v. Parkdale,
12 U. C. App. 393. The power to
establish grades must be strictly
pursued. State v. City of Bayonne,
54 N. J. L. 293, 23 Atl. 648; State
V. Borough of Rutherford, 55 N. J.
L. 450, 26 Atl. 933; Farrell v. St.
Paul, 62 Minn. 271, 64 N. W. 809,
54 Am. St. Rep. 641; Feuerstein v.
Jackson, 8 Ohio C. C. 396; Fisher
v. Naysmith, 106 Mich. 71, 64 N.
W. 19; Blanden v. Ft. Dodge, 102 la.
441; Paine v. Lettsville, 103 la. 481;
Sweet V. Conley, 20 R. I. 381, 39 Atl.
326.
s^Crossett v. Janesville, 28 Wis.
420; Mott V. New York, 2 Hilton,
358 ; Fohnsbee v. City of Amsterdam,
142 N. Y. 118, 36 N. E. 821, affirming
S. C. 66 Hun 214, 21 N. Y. Supp. 42.
SBDore v. Milwaukee, 42 Wis. 108;
Friedrich v. Milwaukee, 114 Wis.
304, 90 N. W. 174.
§ 144
EOADS AND STREETS.
237
thirds vote of the city council which is not obtained,^® or when
the change is made by a railroad company or individuals without
authority.^'' A city was held liable where the grade of a street
was changed, not for the purpose of improving the street, but
to get material to be used in other parts of the city.^^ An un-
authorized change of grade may be made valid by ratification,**^
or by act of the legislature.®" In such case it has been held that
a party injured can only recover the damages sustained between
the making of the change and the ratification or confirmation.*"^
It is held that an imauthorized change of grade may be en-
joined.^^ Where a city could only change a grade by ordinance,
and a change was made without an ordinance, it was held the
city was not liable, though the persons executing the work would
be.«3
§ 144 (106). When the work is negligently done.
Damages which result from negligence or unskillfulness in doing
the work are actionable.^* In such cases the question of a taking
86Trustees of P. E. Church v. Ana-
mosa, 76 la. 538, 41 N. W. 313; Cald-
well V. Nashua, 122 la. 179, 97 N.
W. 1000; Markham v. Anamosa, 122
la. 689, 98 N. W. 493.
8 7Karst V. St. Paul S. & T. F.
R. R. Co., 22 Minn. 118; Same v.
Same, 23 Minn. 401 ; Price v. Knott,
8 Oreg. 438; Schaufele v. Doyle, 86
Cal. 107, 24 Pac. 834; Larned v.
Briscoe, 62 Mich. 393, 29 N. W.
22; Gebling v. City of St. Joseph, 49
Mo. App. 430.
ssMayor etc. of Macon v. Hill, 58
Ga. 595.
ssAppeal of McCormick, 165 Pa. St.
386, 30 Atl. 986; Deer v. Sheraden,
220 Pa. St. 307, 69 Atl. 814; Wolfe
V. Pearson, 114 N. C. 627, 19 S. E.
264.
soHimmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal.
213; Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50
Cal. 265.
siWolfe V. Pearson, 114 N. C. 627,
19 S. E. 264.
9 2Schaufele v. Doyle, 86 Cal. 107,
24 Pac. 834 ; Koeffler v. City of Mil-
waukee, 85 Wis. 397, 55 N. W. 400;
and see Mayor etc. of Baltimore v.
Porter, 18 Md. 284.
9 3 Reed v. Peck, 163 Mo. 333, 63
S. W. 734 ; Gebling v. St. Joseph, 49
Mo. App. 430; Beatty v. St. Joseph,
57 Mo. App. 251; Hall v. Trenton,
86 Mo. App. 326; Kroffe v.
Springfield, 86 Mo. App. 530; Koep-
pen V. Sedalia, 89 Mo. App. 648;
Gardner v. St. Joseph, 96 Mo. App.
657, 71 S. W. 63. And so where the
grade was raised above the estab-
lished grade by mistake of the city
engineer in giving the grades. Sie-
vers V. San Francisco, 115 Cal. 648,
47 Pac. 687, 56 Am. St. Rep. 153.
siDistrict of Columbia v. Atchi-
son, 31 App. Cas. D. C. 250; North
Vernon v. Voegler, 103 Ind. 314
Paris V. Current, 15 Ky. L. R. 126
Wegmann v. Jeflferson, 61 Mo. 55
Thompson v. Booneville, 61 Mo. 282
Werth v. Springfield, 78 Mo. 107
Mears v. Wilmington, 9 Ired. L. 73
49 Am. Dec. 412; Smith v. Alexan
dria, 33 Gratt. 208; Harrisburg v,
Roller, 97 Va. 582, 34 S. E. 523.
238 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 145
does not arise. The gist of the action is negligence, and the
recovery is limited to such damages as result from that cause.
§ 145 (107). Power to establish grades a continuing
one. It is immaterial whether the damages complained of are
caused by bringing the natural surface of the street into conform-
ity with the first established 'grade, or by changing a grade al-
ready established. The power to improve and graduate streets
is a continuing power, which municipal corporations or public
authorities possess for the public benefit, and which is not ex-
hausted by the first exercise nor capable of being bargained
away. This question first arose in a very early case in the
Supreme Court of the United States.®^ The corporation of
Georgetown, having power to graduate and level streets, passed
an ordinance to fix the grade of certain streets, and provided that
the grade so established should forever thereafter be considered
as the true graduation of the streets so graduated and be binding
upon the corporation and all other persons whatever, and be
forever thereafter regarded in making improvements on said
streets. The plaintiff improved his lot with reference to the
grade so established, and the corporation afterwards passed an
ordinance changing the grade. The suit was to enjoin the
change. The court held that the plaintiff had no remedy, that
the power in question was a continuing one, and that the corpo-
ration could not, by contract or otherwise, abridge or annul its
legislative functions. All the authorities are in accord with this
decision.^®
§ 146 (108). Power of city to make compensation.
The justice of the claim for compensation in such cases is so
plain, that any public corporation would undoubtedly be sus-
95Goszler v. Georgetown, 6 Wheat. 162; Waddell v. Mayor etc. of New
593. York, 8 Barb. 95; Rounds v. Mum-
9 6Macey v. Indianapolis, 17 Ind. ford, 2 R. I. 154; Matter of Furman
267; Kokomo v. Malion, 100 Ind. Street, 17 Wend. 649; City of Tren-
242; Creal v. Keokuk, 4 G. Greene, ton v. McQuade, 52 N. J. Eq. 669,
la. 47; Russell v. Burlington, 30 la. 29 Atl. 354; Columbus Gas Light etc.
262 ; Methodist Episcopal Church v. Co. v. City of Columbus, 50 Ohio St.
Wyandotte, 31 Kan. 721; Keasy v. 65, 33 N. E. 292, 40 Am. St. Rep.
Louisville, 4 Dana 154, 29 Am. Dec. 648, 19 L.R.A. 510; Wabash v.
395; Reynolds v. Shreveport, 13 La. Defiance, 52 Ohio St. 262, 40
Ann. 426; Peddicord v. Baltimore N. E. 89; Grant v. Hyde Park, 67
etc. H. R. R. Co., 34 Md. 463; City Ohio St. 166, 175, 65 N. E. 891;
of Pontiac v. Carter, 32 Mich. 104; Roanoke Gas Co. v. Roanoke, 88 Va.
Hoffman v. St. Louis, 15 Mo. 051; 810, 14 S. E. 665; Mead v. Portland,
Schattner v. City of Kansas, 53 Mo. 200 U. S. 148, 26 S, C. 171.
i 14:8 BOADS AND STEEETS. 239
tained by the courts in the voluntary discharge of such a claim.
And where a city, by ordinances, establishes a grade and pledges
its faith that such grade shall not thereafter be changed to the
injury of any individual without full compensation, the city
will be compelled to live up to its pledge.®'
§ 147 (109). Miscellaneous cases. A city is not liable
for inconvenience occasioned by a ditch along a street which is
constructed under proper authority, even though it becomes en-
larged by erosion so as greatly to impair access to adjoining prop-
erty.^* Where a turnpike company takes a highway, it will have
the same right to repair and improve it as the highway commis-
sioners, and will not be liable for consequential damages for
which the commissioners are not liable. ®® Wo recovery can be
had for damage to business during the progress of improvements
on a street.^ Where the charter of a city provided that the
council should establish the general grade of its streets as soon
as practicable, and that the city should pay for damages caused
by any change of such grades, in a case arising under the charter
it was held that the court could not determine when it was prac-
ticable for the city to establish general grades, and consequently
could not cast the city in damages on the ground of neglect to
comply with the law.^ Where it was shown that a proposed
change of grade would render the street impassable, and be no
benefit but a detriment to the public, it was held that a bill
would lie to enjoin the change.*
§ 148 (109a). Right to compensation for change of
grade under statutes and recent constitutions. The right
to compensation for a change of grade under statutes specially
providing therefor, and under recent constitutions giving com-
pensation for property damaged or injured, as well as for prop-
erty taken, is treated of in a subsequent chapter.*
s'Goodall V. Milwaukee, 5 Wis. iPlant v. Long Island K. R. Co.,
32; and see Fisk v. Springfield, 116 10 Barb. 26. See Munn v. Boston,
Mass. 88. 183 Mass. 421, 67 N. E. 312.
ssLambar v. St. Louis, 15 Mo. 2gchattner v. City of Kansas, 53
610; Benjamin v. Wheeler, 8 Gray Mo. 162.
409; lut see Carondelet Canal & 3Armstrong v. St. Louis, 3 Mo.
Nav. Co. V. New Orleans, 38 La. App. 151.
An. 308. ifost, chap. viii.
99Dexter v. Broat, 16 Barb. 337.
240 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 149
III. — ^Eaileoads in Streets.
§ 149 (110). In general. It is common all over the coun-
try for railroads to be laid down upon the streets of cities and
\fillages. The loss which has been occasioned to individuals by
this means is very great; the suits which have been instituted
to recover for such loss are very numerous ; the decisions which
have been rendered therein by the different courts, and even by
the same courts at different times, are conflicting and irreconcil-
able.^ "Few questions," says the New York Court of Appeals,
"have come before the courts in this generation of greater prac-
tical importance, or involving larger pecuniary interests, than
those growing out of the construction of railways in city
streets." ^
§ 150 (110a). Classification of railroads. Eailroads
now exist in great variety as regards motors and motive power,
the size and style of cars and coaches, the nature of their traffic
and methods of operation and construction. It is probable that
these variations will be multiplied in the coming years. It is
doubtful whether any permanent and satisfactory classification
can now be made. There has been a general concurrence, how-
ever, in embracing all railroads in two divisions or classes; (1)
commercial railroads, and (2) street railroads.^^ Commercial
railroads embrace all railroads for general freight and passenger
traffic between one town and another, or between one place and
another.'^ So far they have not been successfully operated, to
any extent at least, except by steam. They are usually not
constructed upon the public streets or highways except for short
6This was said in the first edition "Railroads for general traffic'' by
and has been greatly emphasized Caldwell, J., in Williams v. City
by the litigation since that time. Electric Street R. R. Co., 41 Fed.
6Kane v. New York El. R. R. Co., Rep. 556. They are also called
125 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278, 11 L.R.A. "Commercial railroads" as in Newell
640; S. C. Sub. Norn. Duycknick v. v. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 35
New York El. R. R. Co., 3 Am. R. R. Minn. 112, 119, 59 Am. Rep. 303;
& Corp. Rep. 744. East End St. R. R. Co. v. Doyle,
eaWilder v. Aurora etc. Elec. 88 Tenn. 747, 9 L.R.A. 100, 2 Am.
Traction Co., 216 111. 493, 75 N. E. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 747, and Nichols
194. V. Ann Arbor etc. R. R. Co., 87 Mich.
TThis class of railroads is most 361, 49 N. W. 538, 16 L.R.A. 371.
generally referred to as the "ordi- The phrase "Commercial railroads"
nary steam railroad." See 2 Dill. is employed in many other cases
Munic. Corp., § 725. They are called cited in the following sections.
§ 151 EOADS AND STKEETS. 241
distances. Street railroads embrace all such as are constructed
and operated in the public streets for the purpose of conveying
passengers with their ordinary hand luggage from one point
to another on the street.* Street passenger railroads exist in
great variety as regards their modes of construction and opera-
tion and may be classified as follows: (1) Horse railroads.
(2) Elevated railroads. (3) Cable roads. (4) Steam motor
railroads. (5) Electric railroads. (6) Under ground rail-
roads. As different conclusions have been reached by the same
courts regarding the use of streets for these different sorts of
roads, we shall consider them separately.
There is now a kind of railroads known as interurhan roads,
which connect different towns and generally resemble both the
commercial railroad and the street railroad. Eor convenience
they may be regarded as a third and distinct class of railroads
and, as respects the use of streets, they will be considered in a
separate section.®
§ 151 (111). Is a commercial railroad a legitimate use
of a street or highway? To us it seems so clear that a com-
mercial railroad is foreign to the legitimate uses of a highway,
that we never have been able to understand how a court could
reach a contrary conclusion. Highways are established to ac-
commodate the public in traveling from place to place. From
time immemorial, prior to the discovery of steam, they were for
the common use of every citizen, by any means of locomotion
sHarvey v. Aurora etc. R. R. Co., way is, that it is built upon and
174 III. 295, 51 N. B. 163; Aurora passes along streets and avenues for
V. Elgin etc. Traction Co., 227 111. the convenience of those moving
485, 81 N. E. 544, 118 Am. St. Rep. from place to place thereon. Its
284; Gillette v. Aurora Rys. Co., 228 fundamental purpose is to accommo-
III. 261, 81 N. E. 1005; Diebold v. date street travel, and not travel to
Ky. Traction Co., 117 Ky. 146, 77 iS. or from points beyond the city lines.
W. 674, 63 L.R.A. 637; Nichols v. Commercial railroads embrace all
Ann Arbor etc. R. R. Co., 87 Mich. railroads for general freight and pas-
361, 49 N. W. 538, 541, 16 L.R.A. senger traffic betvpeen one town and
371; Rafferty v. Central Traction another, and street railways em-
Co., 147 Pa. St. 579, 23 Atl. 884, 30 brace all such as are constructed
Am. St. Rep. 763, 6 Am. R. R. & and operated in the public streets
Corp. Rep. 287; Williams v. City for the purpose of carrying passen-
Elec. St. R. R. Co., 41 Fed. 556. In gers with their ordinary luggage
Aurora v. Elgin etc. Traction Co., from one point to another on the
227 111. 485, 81 N. E. 544, 118 Am. street." p. 496.
St. Rep. 284, the court says: "The ^Post, § 258.
chief characteristic of a street rail-
Em. D.— 16.
242 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 151
he ctose to select. They were not used by one person in any
way which was not open to all. No One had a private right or
any exclusive privilege therein. It was free to all upon like
conditions. Such being the character of the public highway, it
was subject to use by any new means of locomotion which could
be employed by all the public, and was not destructive of the
old methods of travel. A carriage propelled upon the ordinary
surface of the road by steam or electricity would be just as
legitimate as a carriage drawn by horses. Such use would be
equally open to every citizen. The railroad does not fall within
the scope of such uses. It requires a permanent structure in the
street, the use of which is private and exclusive, so far as its
peculiar traffic is concerned, (it gives to an individual or corpo-
ration a franchise and easement in the street,^" inconsistent with
the public right. To hold that a commercial railroad is one of
the proper and legitimate uses of a street leads to the absurd
consequence that a street might be filled with parallel tracks
which would practically exclude all ordinary travel and still be
devoted to the ordinary uses of a highway, t The law ought not
to tolerate such a consequence. We shall not review the au-
thorities or attempt to reconcile them. They will be found in
the note.^^
The question first arose in this country in case of Philadel-
lONew Orkans, Spanish Fort & Brancli R. R. Co., 26 Conn. 249, 68
Lake R. R. Co. v. Delamore, 114 U. Am. Dee. 392; South Carolina R. R.
S. 501. Co. V. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546; Athens
11 We shall cite in this note only Terminal Co. v. Athens F. & M.
cases in which the particular point Works, 129 Ga. 393, 58 S. E. 891 ;
is discussed. The same point is in- Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Hart-
volved in other cases subsequently ley, 67 111. 439; O'Connell v. Chicago
cited. etc. R. R. Co., 184 111. 308, 56 N. E.
First, cases holding commercial 353; Spalding v. Macomb etc. Ry.
railroads not to be one of the legiti- Co., 225 111. 585, 80 N. E. 327; Cox
mate users of a street: Western Ry. v. Louisville R. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178;
of Ala. V. Ala. G. T. R. R. Co., 96 Kucheman v. C. C. & D. Ry. Co.,
Ala. 272, 11 So. 483, 17 L.R.A. 474; 46 la. 366; Phipps v. West Mary-
Reichert v. St. Louis R. R. Co., 51 land R. R. Co., 66 Md. 319; Spring-
Ark. 491, 5 L.R.A. 183; Southern field v. Connecticut Riv. R. R. Co.,
Pacific R. R. Co. v. Reed, 41 Cal. 4 Gush. 63, 71 ; Grand Rapids & In-
256; (6m* see Montgomery v. Santa diana R. R. Co. v. Heisel, 47 Mich.
Ana & W. R. R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 393; Ecorse Tp. v. Jackson etc. Ry.
Pac. 786, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. Co., 153 Mich. 393 ; Harrington v. St.
25, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. Paul & Sioux City R. R. Co., 17
654) ; Denver etc. R. R. Co. v. Domke, Minn. 215; Adams v. C. B. & Q. R.
11 Colo. 247; Imlay v. Union R. Co., 39 Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629,
§ 151
ROADS AND STEEETS.
243
phia & Trenton E. R. Co., decided in 1840.^^ The case was
certiorari to review proceedings for the location of the road. The
location had been made upon certain streets in pursuance of the
charter of the company which authorized such use of the streets
without providing for any compensation to the abutting owners.
It was contended that the charter was invalid' because it took
the property of the abutters without compensation and because
such use of the streets was "in derogation of the public and pri-
vate uses to which they had been applied." The proceedings
were affirmed and the most absolute control of the State over
the streets asserted. The court says : "What is the dominion of
the public over such a street ? In England a highway is the prop-
erty of the king as parens patriae, or universal trustee ; in Penn-
sylvania, it is the property of the people, not of a particular
12 Am. St. Rep. 644, 1 L.R.A. 493;
Theobald v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
66 Miss. 279, 6 So. 230, 14 Am. St.
Rep. 564, 4 L.R.A. 735; Hastings &
Grand Island R. R. Co. v. Ingalls,
15 Neb. 123; Chamberlain v. Eliza-
bethport Steam Cordage Co., 41 N
J. Eq. 43; Burlington v. Penn. R
R. Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 259, 38 Atl. 849
Williams v. New York Central R. R
Co., 16 N. Y. 97, 69 Am. Dec. 632
Fanning v. Osborn & Co., 34 Hun 121
Fobes V. Rome etc. R. R. Co., 121
N. Y. 505, 24 N. E. 919, 8 L.R.A
453, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 182
Syracuse Solar Salt Co. v. Rome etc
R. R. Co., 67 Hun 153, 22 N. Y
Supp. 321 ; White v. Northwestern
N. C. R. R. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 18
S. E. 330, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
103, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 22 L,R.A.
627; Railroad Co. v. Williams, 35
Ohio St. 168; Lawrence R. R. Co.
V. O'Hara, 48 Ohio St. 343, 28 N.
E. 175; South Bound R. R. Co. v.
Burton, 67 S. C. 515, 46 S. E. 340;
Iron Mt. R. R. Co. v. Bingham, 87
Tenn. 522, 11 S. W. 705, 4 L.R.A.
622; Hodges v. Seaboard etc. R. R.
Co., 88 Va. 653, 14 S. E. 380; Ford
V. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 14
Wis. 609, 80 Am. Dec. 791; Carl v.
Sheboygan & Fond du Lac R. R. Co.,
46 Wis. 625; Chicago etc. R. R. Co.
V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 95 Wis.
561, 70 N. W. 678, 60 Am. St. Rep.
136, 37 L.R.A. 856.
Second, eases holding the con-
trary: Montgomery v. Santa Ana
& W. R. R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac.
786, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 25,
43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654;
Garnett v. Jacksonville etc. R. R.
Co., 20 Fla. 889 ; Moses v. Pittsburgh
etc. R. R. Co., 21 111. 516; Murphy v.
Chicago, 29 111. 279, 81 Am. Dec.
307; (These cases are also overruled
by 67 111. 439, ante. But see City of
Olney v. Wharf, 115 111. 519, 56 Am.
Rep. 178) ; Milburn v. Cedar Rapids,
12 la. 246; Cook v. Burlington, 36
la. 357; (These cases are over-
ruled by 46 la. 366, ante) ; Fulton
v. Short Route R. R. Trans. Co., 85
Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Am. St. Rep.
619; Werges v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 35 La. An. 641 ; Hepting v. New
Orleans Pac. R. R. Co., 36 La. An.
898; Porter v. North Missouri R. R.
Co., 33 Mo. 128; Morris & Essex
R. R. Co. V. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq.
352; Chapman v. Albany & Schnec-
tady R. R. Co., 10 Barb. 360; Faust
V. Passenger Ry. Co., 3 Phil. R. 164.
126 Wharton, 25, 36 Am. Dec. 202.
244 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 151
district, but of the whole State ; who, constituting as they do the
legitimate sovereign, may dispose of it by their representatives,
and at their pleasure. /Highways, therefore, being universally
the property of the State, are subject to its absolute direction
and control."
The question arose almost simultaneously in the State of New
York, in Fletcher v. The Auburn & Syracuse K. K. Co.^^ The
defendant constructed its road across a highway near plaintifE's
premises, on an embankment four feet high, in such manner
as to impede access thereto and to cause them to be frequently
inundated with vpater. The defendants were duly authorized
by the legislature, but the court say that this authority was only
intended to protect the company from indictment for a public
nuisance, and not against claims for private damages arising
from consequential injury to adjacent owners, and, further, that
if, by a fair construction of the grant, the power conferred was
broad enough to protect the company against consequential dam-
ages to private interests, the grant, to that extent, would be void,
since it would be a violation of the fundamental law of the land.
The right to recover was based upon the constitution and treated
as a matter beyond doubt. This doctrine was affirmed in a sim-
ilar case which arose a year later in the same court. ^* In the
latter case it was urged that the use of the highway by the de-
fendant was only in accordance with the original design for
which the way was laid out, viz., the accommodation of the pub-
lic, and that for this compensation had been made. But the
court held that the railroad was a new and distinct user, differ-
ent from the original design, and constituted an additional bur-
den or easement on the land.'^ /following these cases are a num-
ber of decisions in the Supreme Court in which the doctrine is
maintained that a railroad, upon a public street, is a use in ac-
cordance with the legitimate purposes of a street, being simply
a new and improved mode of public travel./" The law of the
1325 Wend. 462, 1841. Co., 10 Barb. 26, 1850; Chapman v.
i^Trustees etc. v. The Auburn & Albany & Schenectady E. R. Co., 10
Rochester R. R. Co., 3 Hill 567, Barb. 360, 1851 ; Adams v. Saratoga
1842. & Washington R. R. Co., 11 Barb.
iBSee also Mahon v. Utiea & 414, 1851; Hentz v. Long Island R.
Schenectady R. R. Co., Hill & Denio's R. Co., 13 Barb. 646, 1852; Milhau
Supplement, 156, 1843. v. Sharp, 15 Barb. 193, 1853; Wil-
isThese cases are Drake v. Hud- liams v. New York Central R. R.
son River R. R. Co., 7 Barb. 508, Co., 18 Barb. 222, 1854; Covey v.
1849; Plant v. Long Island R. R. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 482,
§ 152
EOADS AND STKEETS.
245
State was, however, finally established by the Court of Appeals
in favor of the earlier cases, in Williams v. New York Central
E. E. Co."
§ 152 (112). Commercial railroad in street. — Right to
compensation generally. If it be conceded that a railroad is
one of the uses for which a street was originally designed, it of
course follows that the abutting o^vner is not entitled to com-
pensation when a railroad is laid in front of his property. In
such case the establishment of a railroad on a street does not dif-
fer in principle from the establishment of a stage line along
the same street or the introduction of some new kind of vehicle.
Accordingly, all courts which maintain this doctrine, hold that
there is no right to compensation.-'* The doctrine itself is prac-
1856. In these decisions the cases of
Fletcher v. Auburn & Syracuse K.
E. Co. and Trustees etc. v. Auburn
& Rochester R. R. Co., ante, are re-
garded as distinguishable or as over-
ruled by Eadcliff v. Mayor etc. of
Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195.
1716 N. Y. 97, 108, 69 Am. Dee.
632. The court says: "If the only
difference consisted in the introduc-
tion of a new motive power, it would
not be material. But is there no
distinction between the common
right of every man to use upon the
road a conveyance of his own at will,"
and the right of a corporation to use
its conveyances to the exclusion of
all others; between the right of a
man to travel in his own carriage
without pay, and the right to travel
in the car of a railroad company
on paying their price ?" Again: "The
right of the public in a highway is
an easement, and one that is vested
in the whole public. Is not the
right of a railroad company, if it has
a right to construct its track upon
the road, also an easement? This
cannot be denied, nor that the lat-
ter easement is enjoyed, not by the
public at large, but by a corpora-
tion; because it will not be pre-
tended thstt every man would have
a right to go and lay down his tim-
bers, and his iron rails, and make
a railroad upon a highway. Here,
then, are two easements; one vested
in the public, the other in the rail-
road company. These easements are
property, and that of the railroad
company is valuable. How was it
acquired? It has cost the company
nothing. The theory must be that
it is carved out and is a part of the
public easement, and is therefore
the gift of the public. This would
do if it was given solely at the ex-
pense of the public. But it is mani-
fest that it is at the joint -expense
of the public and the owner of the
fee. Ought not the latter, then, to
have been consulted?"
iSjSee § 151, note 11, part second;
also Huges v. Miss. & Mo. R. R.
Co., 12 la. 261 ; Louisville & Frank-
fort R. R. Co. V. Brown, 17 B. Mon.
763; Elizabethtown & Paducah R.
R. Co., 79 Ky. 52; Fulton v. Short
Route Transf. Co., 85 Ky. 640, 4 S.
W. 332, 7 Am. St. Rep. 619; Faust
V. Passenger Ry. Co., 3 Phil. 164;
Montgomery v. Santa Ana & W. R.
R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786, 43
Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654, 10
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 25; Werges
v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 35 La. An.
641 ; Hepting v. New Orleans Pac. R.
R. Co., 36 La. An. 898; Neitsey v.
246
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 153
tically obsolete, having been overruled in nearly every State that
formerly adopted it.
§ 153 (113). Right to compensation when fee of street
in abutting owner. With respect to the interest of the abut-
ting ovyner, highways may be divided into two classes: First,
those in which the public have an easement only ; second, those
in which the public have the fee.^^ In respect to the first class,
the abutting owner is entitled to every right and advantage, in
that part of the street of which he'owns the fee, not required by
the public. He has the entire right and property in the soil,
subject to the easement of the public.^" The easement of the
public is the right to use and improve the street for the purposes
of a highway only. A commercial railroad on a street, being
foreign to such purposes,^ ^ is an interference with the adjoining
owners' proprietary rights in the soil, and an acquisition or
taking of an estate or interest in his land, for which he is en-
titled to compensation as in other cases.^^ If the abutting owner
Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co., 5 Mackey
34; Glick v. Baltimore & 0. R. R.
Co., 19 D. C. 412; Tate v. M. K. &
T. R. R. Co., 64 Mo. 149; Corey v.
Buffalo etc. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 482 ;
Appeal of Philadelphia etc. R. R.
Co., 2 Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. Rep.
291 ; Yates v. Town of West Grafton,
34 W. Va. 783, 12 S. E. 1075.
19 As to distinctions based upon
the ownership of the fee of streets
see ante, § 124.
impost, § 852.
21566 ante, § 151.
2 2Western R. R. Co. v. Ala. G. S.
R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 11 So. 483,
17 L.R.A. 474; Alabama G. S. R. S.
Co. V. Collier, 112 Ala. 681; Mobile
etc. R. R. Co. V. Alabama Midland
R. R. Co., 116 Ala. 51, 23 So. 57;
Reichert v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
51 Ark. 491, 5 L.R.A. 183; Southern
Pac. R. R. Co. V. Reed, 41 Cal. 256;
Carson v. Central R. R. Co., 35 Cal.
325; Weyl v. Sonoma Valley R. R.
Co., 69 Cal. 202; Imlay v. Union
Branch R. R. Co., 26 Conn. 249, 68
Am. Dec. 392; Nicholson v. New
York & New Haven R. R. Co., 22
Conn. 73; McKean v. New York etc.
R. R. Co., 75 Conn. 343, 53 Atl. 656,
61 L.R.A. 730; Knapp & C. Mfg. Co.
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 76 Conn.
311, 56 Atl. 502, 100 Am. St. Rep.
994; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v.
Southern Invest. Co., 53 Fla. 832, 44
So. 351; Atlanta etc. R. R. Co. v.
Atlanta etc. R. R. Co., 125 6a. 529,
- 54 S. E. 736; Indianapolis etc. R. R.
Co. v. Hartley, 67 HI. 439; Bond v.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 171 111. 508,
49 N. E. 545 ; Rock Island etc. R. R.
Co. V. Johnson, 204 111. 488, 68 N.
E. 549; Spalding v. Macomb etc.
Ry. Co., 225 111. 585, 80 N. E. 327;
Protzman v. Indianapolis & Cinu.
R. R. Co., 9 Ind. 467, 68 Am. Dec.
650; Indiana Central Ry. Co. v.
Boden, 10 Ind. 96; New Albany &
Salem R. R. Co. v. O'Dailey, 12 Ind.
551 ; Cox V. Louisville R. R. Co., 48
Ind. 178; Indianapolis etc. Ry. Co.
V. Smith, 52 lud. 428; Terre Haute
& Logansport R. R. Co. v. Bissell,
108 Ind. 113; Striekler v. Midland
R. R. Co., 125 Ind. 412, 25 N. E.
455; Porter v. Midland R. R. Co.,
125 Ind. 476, 25 N. E. 556, 3 Am. R.
153
EOADS AND STREETS.
24:7
has title to the center of the street only, and the railroad is laid
wholly on the half of the street beyond his line, his right to com-
pensation would be controlled by the same principles as where
the fee of the whole is in the public, which is discussed in the
R. & Corp. Rep. 357; Kucheman v.
C. C. & D. Ry. Co., 46 la. 366;
Phipps V. West Md. E. R. Co., 66
Md. 319; Grand Rapids & Ind. E.
R. Co. V. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62, 31
Am. Rep. 306; S. C. 47 Mich. 393;
Hoffman v. Flint etc. R. R. Co., 114
Mich. 316, 72 N. W. 167; Schur-
meier v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 10
Minn. 82, 88 Am. Dee. 59; Gray v.
First Division of St. Paul & Pacific
R. R. Co., 13 Minn. 315; Molitor v.
Same, 14 Minn. 285; Harrington v.
St. Paul & Sioux City R. R. Co., 17
Minn. 215; Adams v. Hastings & Da-
kota R. R. Co., 18 Minn. 260; Hartz
V. St. Paul & Sioux City R. R. Co.,
21 Minn. 358; Witt v. St. Paul etc.
R. R. Co., 38 Minn. 122, 35 N. W.
862; Papooshek v. Winona etc. R. R.
Co., 44 Minn. 195, 46 N. W. 329;
Theobald v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co.,
66 Miss. 279, 6 So. 230, 14 Am. St.
Rep. 564, 4 L.R.A. 735; Central R.
R. Co. V. Hatfield, 18 N. J. Eq. 323;
Starr v. Camden etc. R. R. Co., 24
N. J. L. 592; Chamberlain v. Eliza-
bethport Steam Cordage Co., 41 N. J.
Eq. 43; Bork v. United N. J. R. R.
& C. Co., 70 N. J. L. 268, 57 Atl. 412,
103 Am. St. Rep. 808; Wager v.
Troy Union R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 526;
Carpenter v. Oswego & S. R. R. Co.,
24 N. Y. 655; Henderson v. N. Y.
C. R. R. Co., 78 N. Y. 423; Coats-
worth V. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 156
N. Y. 451 ; Washington Cemetery v.
Prospect Park & Coney Island R.
R. Co., 7 Hun 655; Matter of Pros-
pect Park etc. R. R. Co.. 13 Hun
345 ; Hussner v. Brooklyn City R. R.
Co., 30 Hun 409 ; People v. Law, 22
How. Pr. 109; Clark v. Brooklyn
City R. R. Co., 30 Hun 409; Syra-
cuse Solar Salt Co. v. Rome etc. R.
R. Co., 67 Hun 153, 22 N. Y. Supp.
321; Ray v. New York Bay Exten-
sion R. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 3 (For
other New York cases see ante, §
151) ; White v. Northwestern N. C.
R. R. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 18 S. E.
330, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 103,
37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 22 L.R.A. 627 ;
Parrott v. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co.,
10 Ohio St. 624; Cincinnati etc. R. R.
Co. V. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St.
523; Railroad Co. v. Williams, 35
Ohio St. 168; Lawrence R. R. Co. v.
O'Harra, 48 Ohio St. 343, 28 N. E.
175; Harmon v. Louisville etc. R.
R. Co., 87 Tenn. 614, 11 S. W. 703;
Hodges v. Seaboard etc. R. Co., 88
Va. 653, 14 S. E. 380; Petersburg R.
R. Co. v. Burtons, 1 Va. Dec. 397;
Ford V. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 14
Wis. 609, 80 Am. Dec. 791 ; Pomeroy
v. Milwaukee & Chi. R. R. Co., 16
Wis. 640; Hegar v. Chicago & N. W.
Ry. Co., 26 Wis. 624; Sherman v.
Mil. Lake Sliore & Western R. R.
Co., 40 Wis. 645; Chapman v. Osh-
kosh & Miss. R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 629;
Carl V. Sheboygan & Fond du Lao.
R. R. Co., 46 Wis. 625; Bleseh v.
C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 48 Wis. 168;
Buekner v. Chi. Mil. & N- W. Ry.
Co., 56 Wis. 403; Hanlin v. Chicago
& N. W. Ry. Co., 61 Wis. 515; Trus-
tees V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 77
Wis. 158, 45 N. W. 1086; Taylor v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 83 Wis. 636,
53 N. W. 853 ; Evans v. Chicago etc.
R. R. Co., 86 Wis. 597, 57 N. W. 357,
39 Am. St. Rep. 908; Frey v. Duluth
etc. R. R. Co., 91 Wis. 309, 64 N.
W. 1038; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v.
Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 95 Wis.
561, 70 N. W. 678, 60 Am. St. Rep.
248
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 154
following sections. ^^ Where a railroad is laid upon a turnpike,
the owner of the fee may have compensation for the additional
burden.^* Where a railroad company is authorized to appro-
priate a highway and lay out a new one to accommodate the
public, the appropriation of the highway amounts to a vaca-
tion of it, the title reverts to the owner, and he is entitled to
compensation as if no highway existed.^®
§ 154 (115). Right to compensation where fee of
street in the public. It having been determined that, though
the fee of a street is in the public, the abutting owner has cer-
tain private rights therein, appurtenant to his property,^® it fol-
lows that, when those rights are interfered with under the power
of eminent domain, or by a use of the street which is not within
the public easement, there has been a taking within the con-
stitution.^^ The existence and operation of a commercial rail-
136, 37 L.R.A. 856; Lange v. La
Crosse etc. Ry. Co., 118 Wis. 558, 95
N. W. 952.
To the contrary are the following
cases: Harrison v. New Orleans,
Pacific K. R. Co., 34 La. An. 462, 44
Am. Rep. 438; Snyder v. Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 340;
Phila. &, Trenton R. R. Co., 6 Whart.
25, 36 Am. Deo. 202; McLauehlin v.
Railroad Co., 5 Rich. S. C. 583;
Perry v. New Orleans M. & C. R. R.
Co., 55 Ala. 413, 28 Am. Rep. 740;
Montgomery v. Santa Ana & W. R.
R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786, 43
Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654;
Neitsey v. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co.,
5 Mackey 34; Click v. Baltimore &
0. R. R. Co., 19 D. C. 412; Fulton
V. Short Route R. R. Trans. Co., 85
Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Am. St. Rep.
619; Werger v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 35 La. An. 641 ; Hepting v.
New Orleans, Pac. R. R. Co., 36 La.
An. 898; Tate v. M. K. & T. R. R.
Co., 64 Mo. 149; Corey v. Buflfalo
etc. R. R. Co., 23 Barb. 482; Appeal
of Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 2
Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. Rep. 291;
Yates V. Town of West Grafton, 34
W. Va. 783, 12 S. E. 1075.
2 3"If the road is laid wholly on
the other half of the street, the
abutter's right to compensation
would be the same as in cases where
the fee of the entire street is in the
public." Stewart v. Ohio Riv. R.
R. Co., 38 W. Va. 438, 18 S. E. 604.
See Terre Haute & Logansport R. R.
Co. V. Bissell, 108 Ind. 113; Heiss
V. Milwaukee & Lake Winnebago R.
R. Co., 69 Wis. 555; Kuhl v. Chicago
& N. W. R. R. Co., 101 Wis. 42;
Trustees v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co.,
77 Wis. 158, 45 N. W. Rep. 1086;
Beck v. Erie Terminal R. R. Co.,
11 Pa. Co. Ct. 363; Alabama G.
S. R. R. Co. V. Collier, 112 Ala. 681,
14 So. 327; Cobb v. Warren St. Ry.
Co., 218 Pa. St. 366, 67 Atl. 654;
Ackar v. Knoxville, 117 Tenn. 224, 96
S. W. 973.
z^Mahon v. Utica & Schenectady
R. R. Co., Supl. to Hill & Denio,
156; Mifflin v. Railroad Co., 16 Pa.
St. 182. In the latter case the turn-
pike was vested in the railroad com-
pany by act of the legislature.
2 5Phillips V. Dunkirk, Warren &
Pittsburgh R. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177.
2 6An(e, §§ 120-124.
27Jnfe, § 65.
§ 154
KOADS AND STREETS.
249
road in the street is such a use and is necessarily some interfer-
ence with the rights of abutting owners, and, to the extent of
such interference, a right to compensation exists.^* For any
physical injury to the abutting property, as by casting cinders
upon it, polluting the air with smoke and gases, or by vibrations
communicated through the soil to an extent which would be
actionable if the property was not a street, a recovery may be
had.^^ With respect to this class of injuries the abutting
owner's rights are the same as though the street was private
property, and these rights are discussed elsewhere.*" The ten-
dency of the later decisions is towards the protection of private
rights and the more accurate ascertainment and definition of
those rights. .It is now well settled by the great weight of au-
thority that, where the fee of a street is in the abutting owner,
he may recover for the additional burden caused by a commercial
railroad laid on the street./ These cases necessarily proceed upon
the basis that a commercial railroad is not a legitimate street
use. The cases which deny compensation in any case, on the
ground that such a railroad is a legitimate use of a highway, are
so clearly against good sense and reason that we do not think
2 8 Western R. R. Co. v. Ala. G. T.
R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 11 So. 483, 17
L.R.A. 474; Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Reed, 41 Cal. 256; Ford v. Santa
Cruz R. R. Co., 59 Cal. 290; South
Carolina Railroad Co. v. Steiner, 44
Ga. 546; C. B. U. P. R. R. Co. v.
Twine, 23 Kan. 585, 33 Am. Rep.
203 ; Ft. Scott W. & W. R. R. Co. v.
Fox, 42 Kan. 490, 22 Pac. 583 ; Eliza-
bethtown etc. R. R. Co. v. Combs, 10
Bush 382; J. M. & I. R. R. Co. v.
Esterle, 13 Bush, Ky. 667; Schur-
meier v. St. Paul & Pacific R. R.
Co., 10 Minn. 82, 88 Am. Dec. 59;
Adams v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 39
Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629, 12 Am. St.
Rep. 644, 1 L.R.A. 493; Theobold v.
Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 66 Miss.
279,'#So. 230, 14 Am. St. Rep. 564,
4 L.R.A. 735; Story v. New York
Elevated R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 43
Am. Rep. 146; White v. Northwes-
tern N. C. R. R. Co., 113 N. C. 610,
18 B. B. 330, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 103, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 22
L.R.A. 627; South Bound R. R. Co.
V. Burton, 67 S. C. 515, 46 S. E.
340 ; Stewart v. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co.,
38 W. Va. 438, 18 S. E. 604.
2 9 South Carolina R. R. Co. v.
Steiner, 44 Ga. 546 ; Atchison & Neb-
raska R. R. Co. V. Garside, 10 Kan.
552; Crosby v. Owensboro etc. R. R.
Co., 10 Bush, 288 ; Elizabethtown R.
R. Co., V. Combs, 10 Bush, 382; J.
M. & I. R. R. Co. V. Esterle, 13 Bush
66T; Ball v. Maysville etc. R. R.
Co., 102 Ky. 486, 43 S. W. 731, 80
Am. St. Rep. 362; Willis v. Ky. &
Ind. Bridge Co., 104 Ky. 186, 46 S.
W. 488; Short Route Transfer Ry.
Co. V. Fulton, 12 Ky. L. R. 232;
Randle v. Pacific R. R. Co., 65 Mo.
325 ; Parrott v. Cincinnati etc. R. R.
Co., 3 Ohio St. 330; Same v. Same,
10 Ohio St. 624; G. C. & S. F. R. R.
Co. V. Eddins, 29 Alb. L. J. 518.
3 0See Post, §§ 236-238.
250
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 154
they require further discussion. The right to recover where
the fee is in the public is involved in so much doubt by the au-
thorities that we have collected in a note all the cases which in-
volve the question, with such comment as seems appropriate.^^
siAteSoma. No recovery, whether
fee in owner or public. Parry v.
New Orleans M. & C. K. R. Co., 55
Ala. 413. This case is overruled and
the contrary doctrine established by
Western R. R. Co. v. Alabama G.
T. R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 11 So.
483, 17 L.R.A. 474; Alabama G. S.
E. R. Co. v. Collier, 112 Ala. 681;
Mobile etc. R. E. Co. v. Ala. Mid-
land R. R. Co., 116 Ala. 51, 23 So.
57.
California. Fee in public, no com-
pensation. Carson v. Central R. R.
Co., 35 Cal. 325. Overruled by later
cases. Southern Pacific R. R. Co.
V. Reed, 41 Cal. 256; Schulte v.
North Pacific Transportation Co., 50
Cal. 592; Ford v. Santa Cruz R. R.
Co., 59 Cal. 290. But no recovery
can be had unless actual damages
are sustained. Hogan v. Central Pa-
cific R. R. Co., 71 Cal. 83. The late
case of Montgomery v. Santa Ana &
W. R. R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac.
Rep. 786, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 25
L.R.A. 654, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 25, again holds that a. railroad
for freight and passengers is a le-
gitimate street use, but holds also
that the abutter is entitled to dam-
ages, whether or not he may be
vested with the fee to the center of
the street if his right of ingress and
egress or his right to light and air
are interfered with. See Constitu-
tion of California, ante, § 18, also
Smith V. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 146
Cal. 164, 79 Pac. 868, 106 Am. St.
Rep. 17; Brown v. Rea, 150 Cal. 171,
88 Pac. 713; City Store v. San Jose
etc. Ry. Co., 150 Cal. 277, 88 Pac.
977 ; Coats v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co.,
1 Cal. App. 441, 82 Pac. 640.
Colorado. In favor of recovery.
Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo. 113; Den-
ver etc. R. R. Co. V. Domke, 11 Colo.
247.
District of Columbia. Against re-
covery whether fee in the abutter or
in the public. Nottingham v. B. &
P. R. R. Co., 3 McArthur 517; Neit-
sey V. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 5
Mackey 34; Click v. Baltimore &
0. R. R. Co., 19 D. C. 412.
Florida. See Florida Southern R.
R. Co. V. Brown, 23 Fla. 104.
Georgia. Earlier cases against re-
covery. Savannah, A. & G. R. R.
Co. V. Shields, 33 Ga. 601; Roll v.
City Council of Augusta, 34 Ga. 326 ;
Overruled in South Carolina R. R.
Co. V. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546, 560. In
this case the court says: "The own-
ers of lands and tenements on Wash-
ington street are entitled to have
and enjoy all the rights and privi-
leges which legally appertain there-
to, incorporeal as well as corporeal;
for when the law doth give anything
to one, it giveth impliedly whatso-
ever is necessary for enjoying the
same. If the railroad companies, by
permission of the public authorities,
have located their road on the pub-
lic street of the city, and by the use
thereof, in running their trains, have
invaded any of the legal rights of
the owners of the lands and tene-
ments on the street by hindering, ob-
structing or disturbing them in the
regular use and lawful enjoyment of
the same, then the owners of such
lands and tenements are entitled to
recover such damages as they have
actually sustained by such invasion
of their legal rights to the enjoy-
ment of their property, although the
railroad companies may not have
located their road on any part of it.
§ 154
EOADS AND STREETS.
251
We have allowed this to stand as it was written in the first
edition. Since then it has become very firmly established that
the abutter, though he has not the fee of the street, has certain
The invading, hindering, obstructing
or disturbing them in the regular
use and lawful enjoyment of their
property is an interference with
their private legal rights to that
property, and, to that extent, is the
taking of private property for public
use, for which just compensation
should be made."
Illinois. Fee in public, no com-
pensation, on the ground that a rail-
road is a legitimate use. Moses v.
Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. R. R. Co.,
21 111. 516. The ground of this case
overruled in Indianapolis etc. R. R.
Co. v. Hartley, 67 111. 439; see also
C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. V. McGinnis, 79
111. 269. The right to recover is now
settled by the constitution; ante, §
25.
Indiana. Tate v. Ohio & Miss. R.
R. Co., 7 Ind. 479; Button v. In-
diana Cent. R. R. Co., 7 Ind. 522;
Protzman v. Indianapolis & Cin. R.
R. Co., 9 Ind. 467, 68 Am. Dee. 650 ;
Indiana Cent. R. R. Co. v. Broden,
10 Ind. 96 ; New Albany & Salem R.
R. Co. V. O'Daily, 12 Ind. 551 ; Same
V. Same, 13 Ind. 353; Cox v. Louis-
ville R. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178; Dwen-
ger V. Chicago & Grand Trunk R. R.
Co., 98 Ind. 153. These cases leave
the question in doubt where the fee
is in the public and the railroad is
laid on the surface of the street. In
Decker v. Evansville Suburban R.
R. Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E. 349,
it is held that an abutter, though he
has not the fee is entitled to com-
pensation if his access is materially
interfered with. And see Pittsburgh
& C. R. Co. V. Noftsger, 148 Ind. 101.
Iowa. Rule of no compensation
where fee in public is firmly up-
held. Milburn v. Cedar Rapids, 12
la. 246; Hughes v. Miss. & Mo. R.
R. Co., 12 la. 261 ; Clinton v. Cedar
Rapids etc. E. R. Co., 24 la. 455
Slatten v. Des Moines Valley R. R,
Co., 29 la. 148, 4 Am. Rep. 205
Davenport v. Stevenson, 34 la. 225
Ingraham v. C. D. & M. R. R. Co.
34 la. 249; Ingram v. Same, 38 la,
669; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. New
ton, 36 la. 299; Hine v. K. & D. M,
R. R. Co., 42 la. 636; Cadle v. Mus
catine Western R. R. Co., 44 la. 11
Frith v. Dubuque, 45 la. 406; Davis
V. C. & N. W. Ky. Co., 46 la. 389
Simplot V. Chicago, M. & St. Paul
Ry. Co., 5 McCrary 158. The
ground taken, in some of the cases,
that a railroad is a legitimate use
of a street, is overruled in Kuche-
man v. C. C. & D. Ry. Co., 46 la.
366. But the later ease of O'Connor
V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 56 la.
735, affirms the doctrine of no com-
pensation, when the fee is in the
public. Compensation is now re-
quired by statute. § 344, post.
Kansas. No recovery, fee in pub-
lic. Atchison & Nebraska R. R.
Co. V. Garside, 10 Kan. 552. This
ease is virtually, though not ex-
pressly, overruled in the later cases
of C. B. U. P. R. R. Co. V. Twine,
23 Kan. 585, 33 Am. Rep. 203; Same
V. Andrews, 26 Kan. 702; Central
Branch Union Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Andrews, 30 Kan. 590. This last
case has been several times in the
Supreme Court since the first edi-
tion and is reported as follows : 34
Kan. 565; 37 Kan. 162; 37 Kan.
641; 41 Kan. 370, 21 Pae. 276. In
Kansas, N. & D. R. R. Co. v. Cuy-
kendall, 42 Kan. 234, 21 Pac. 1051,
the rule to be deduced from recent
decisions of the court is stated to
be that, "in order to justify a re-
covery for damages by the abutting
252
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 154
private rights of access, light and air, which are as much prop-
erty as the lot itself ; also that any interference with such rights
by a use which is not within the legitimate purposes of a high-
lot-owner, there must be such a
practical obstruction of the street in
front of the lots that the owner is
denied ingress and egress to and
from them. While the title to the
streets is in the county, the legis-
lature has given to the city govern-
ment the power of full control. The
abutting lot-owner has no greater
right to the use of the public street
than a railroad company that has
been authorized to construct its line
along it. Each must respect the
use of the other, but nothing short
of a practical obstruction of the use
by one will be a cause of action to
the other. A railroad is not an un-
reasonable obstruction to the free
use of the street, but rather a new
and improved method of using the
same, and germain to its principal
object as a passageway, like the
electric, steam-motor and horse-car
lines. So that, if the location and
construction of the line of railroad
is authorized by the city council,
and its location in the street is such
as to give the lot-owner ingress and
egress to and from his lots, such use
of the street by the railroad com-
pany does not interfere with the use
of the lot-owner, and consequently
he cannot recover for those remote
and indirect inconveniences 'arising
from smoke, noise, offensive vapors,
sparks, fires, shaking of the ground,'
and other annoyances." See Ottawa
etc. R. R. Co. v. Larson, 40 Kan.
301, 19 Pac. 661, 2 L.R.A. 59; Kan-
sas, K. & N. E. R. Co. V. McAfee, 42
Kan. 239, 21 Pac. 1052; Ft. Scott,
W. & W. R. R. Co. V. Fox, 42 Kan.
490, 22 Pac. 583 ; Wichita etc. R. R.
Co. V. Smith, 45 Kan. 264, 25 Pac.
623; Kansas, N. & T>. R. R. Co. v.
Mahler, 45 Kan. 565, 26 Pac. 22;
Herndon v. Kansas, N. & D. R. R.
Co., 46 Kan. 560, 26 Pac. 959; Leav-
enworth etc. R. R. Co. v. Curtau, 51
Kan. 432, 33 Pac. 297; Chicago etc.
R. R. Co. V. Union Inv. Co., 51 Kan.
600, 33 Pac. 378; Ottawa etc. R. R.
Co. V. Peterson, 51 Kan. 604, 33
Pac. 606; Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v.
Luening, 52 Kan. 732, 35 Pac. 801;
Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Arnold, 52
Kan. 729, 35 Pac. 780; Atchison etc.
R. R. Co. V. Davidson, 52 Kan. 739,
35 Pac. 787; Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co. V. Schwake, 70 Kan. 141, 78 Pac.
431, 68 L.R.A. 673.
Kentucky. The general doctrine
is that the abutting owner cannot
recover, whether fee in the public or
otherwise. Lexington & Ohio R. R.
Co. V. Applegate, 8 Dana (Ky.) 289,
33 Am. Dec. 497; Wolft v. Coving-
ton & Lexington R. R. Co., 15 B.
Mon. 404; Louisville & Frankfort
R. R. Co. V. Brown, 17 B. Mon. 763;
Crosby v. Owensboro & Russellville
R. R. Co., 10 Bush, (Ky.) 288;
Elizabethtown & Paducah R. R. Co.
V. Thompson, 79 Ky. 52. But the
abutting owner's right to use the
street is recognized as property, and
any unreasonable use of the street
by a railroad is actionable. Eliza-
bethtown etc. R. R. Co. V. Combs, 10
Bush, 382; J. M. & I. R. R. Co. v.
Esterle, 13 Bush 667; Fulton v.
Short Route R. R. Trans. Co., 85
Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Am. St. Rep.
619; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v.
Orr, 91 Ky. 109, 15 S. W. 8; Com-
monwealth V. City of Frankfort, 92
Ky. 149, 17 S. W. 287; Striekley v.
Chesapeake & 0. R. R. Co., 93 Ky.
323, 20 S. W. 261; Henderson Belt
R. R. Co. v. Dechamp, 95 Ky. 219,
24 S. W. 605; Chesapeake & 0. R. R.
Co. V. Kobs, (Ky.) 30 S. W. 6;
154
EOADS AND STEEETS.
253
Maysvilie & B. S. R. R. Co. v. In-
gram, (Ky.) 30 S. W. 8; Dulaney v.
Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 100 Ky.
628. Exactly at what point the use
becomes unreasonable and what rule
is to be applied in determining
what is an unreasonable use the
cases do not inform us. But, when
it is conceded that the abutting
owners have a private right to use
the street, we think a right to re-
cover follows in every case of a dis-
turbance of that right. The later
cases sustain a recovery for any ma-
terial interference with the right of
access and for damages by smoke,
cinders, noise and vibration. Ball
V. Maysvilie etc. R. R. Co., 102 Ky.
486, 43 S. W. 731, 80 Am. St. Rep.
362; Covington etc. R. R. & B. Co.
V. Kleymeler, 105 Ky. 609, 49 S. W.
484; Ferguson v. Covington etc.
Bridge Co., 108 Ky. 662, 57 S. W.
460; Ky. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Clark,
5 Ky. L. R. 184; Louisville etc. R. R.
Co. V. Finlay, 7 Ky. L. R. 129; Short
Route Transfer Ry. Co. v. Fulton,
12 Ky. L. R. 232; Louisville So. R.
R. Co. V. Cogar, 15 Ky. L. R. 444;
Louisville So. R. R. Co. v. Hooe, 18
Ky. L. R. 521, 35 S. W. 266, 38 S.
W. 131. There is no presumption
that the abutter owns the fee. Bon-
durant v. North Carolina etc. R. R.
Co., 5 Ky. L. R. 101.
Louisiana. No right to compensa-
tion in any case. New Orleans, M. &
C. R. R. Co., 26 La. An. 517; Koeh-
mel V. Same, 27 La. An. 442; Harri-
son v. New Orleans Pacific R. R.
Co., 34 La. An. 462, 44 Am. Rep.
438; Hill v. Chicago, St. Louis &
New Orleans R. R. Co., 38 La. An.
599. But an unreasonable location
in a street so as to take part of
plalntiflf's awning was restrained in
Laviosa v. Chi. St. L. & N. O. R. R.
Co., 1 McGloin, La. 299. A right to
compensation is now assured by the
constitution. Ante, § 30, see: Hept-
ing V. New Orleans Pac. R. R. Co.,
36 La. An. 898.
Michigan. Right to recover when
fee in public not directly passed
upon; but see Grand Rapids etc. R.
R. Co. v. Helsel, 38 Mich. 62, 31 Am.
Rep. 306; Same v. Same, 47 Mich.
393. Abutter may recover when he
owns the fee. Hoffman v. Flint etc.
R. R. Co., 114 Mich. 316, 72 N. W.
167.
Minnesota. Abutting owner may
have compensation, though fee in
the public. Schurmeir v. St. Paul
& Pacific R. R. Co., 10 Minn. 82, 105,
88 Am. Dec. 59; Cash v. Union
Depot etc. Co., 32 Minn. 101; Adams
V. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 39 Minn.
286, 39 N. W. 629, 12 Am. St. Rep.
644, 1 L.R.A. 493; Lamm v. Chicago
etc. R. R. Co., 45 Minn. 71, 47 N. W.
455, 10 L.R.A. 268.
Mississippi. See Donnaker v.
State of Mississippi, 8 S. & M. 649 ;
New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. R. Co.
V. Moye, 39 Miss. 374. Neither of
these cases passes directly upon the
right to compensation when the fee
Is in the abutting owner. In the re-
cent case of Theobald v. Louisville
N. 0. & T. R. R. Co., 66 Miss. 279,
6 So. 230, 14 Am. St. Rep. 564, 4
L.R.A. 735, it is held that the abut-
ting owner is entitled to compensa-
tion whether he owns the fee or not,
and the positions taken in this chap-
ter as to the rights of abutting own-
ers are fully approved.
Misso:iri. In this State no dis-
tinction appears to have been based
upon the ownership of the fee. No
damages can be recovered for a rail-
road on the surface of a street, if
built and operated in a proper man-
ner. Lackland v. North Mo. R. R.
Co., 31 Mo. 180; Same v. Same, 34
Mo. 259; Tate v. M. K. & T. R. R.
Co., 64 Mo. 149; Randle v. Pacific
R. R. Co., 65 Mo. 325; Swenson v.
Lexington, 69 Mo. 157; Botto v. Mo.
254
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 154
Paoifie R. R. Co., 11 Mo. App. 589;
Cross V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry.
Co., 77 Mo. 318; Henry Gaus &
Sons Mfg. Co. V. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 113 Mo. 308, 20 S. W. 658, 7
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 235, 18
L.R.A. 339. In the last case the
court goes so far as to hold that a
commercial railroad laid at the sur-
face of a street is not only not a
taking of the property of abutting
owners, but not even a damaging of
their property within the meaning
of a constitution requiring compen-
sation for property damaged as well
as taken. See post, § 351. But
where the railroad is laid on an em-
bankment, or elevated structure, or
upon or close to the sidewalk, or in
a narrow street so as practically to
destroy it as a thoroughfare, it is
held the abutter may have a remedy,
either for damages or an injunction.
Smith V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co.,
98 Mo. 20, 11 S. W. Rep. 259; Lock-
wood V. Wabash R. R. Co., 122 Mo.
86, 26 S. W. 698, 24 L.R.A. 516;
Knapp, Stout & Co. v. St. Louis
Transfer R. R. Co., 126 Mo. 26, 28
S. W. 626; Schulenburg etc. Co. v.
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 129 Mo. 455,
31 S. W. 796; De Geofroy v. Mer-
chants Bridge Terminal Ry. Co., 179
Mo. 698, 79 S. W. 386, 101 Am. St.
Rep. 524, 64 L.R.A. 959. In the case
of Sherlock v. Kansas City etc. R.
R. Co., 142 Mo. 172, 43 S. W. 629, 64
Am. St. Rep. 551, the court says:
"While this court, by a long line of
decisions from Lackland v. R. R., 31
Mo. 180, down to and including
Gaus & Sons v. R. R., 113 Mo. 308,
has held that 'the laying of a rail-
road track on the established grade
and operating a steam railroad
thereon, does not subject the street
to a servitude different from that
which was contemplated in the orig-
inal dedication,' it has been seri-
ously questioned, and it may be
gravely doubted whether the weight
of modern authority in this country
is not rightly arrayed against such
a doctrine."
Nebraska. The abutting owner
may recover, though the fee is in the
public. Burlington & Missouri Riv.
R. R. Co. V. Reinhackle, 15 Neb. 279,
48 Am. Rep. 342; Chicago etc. R. R.
Co. V. Sturey, 55 Neb. 137, 75 N. W.
557.
, New Jersey. Morris & Essex R.
R. Co. V. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352;
H. B. Anthony Shoe Co. v. West Jer-
sey R. R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 607. A
commercial railroad is an additional
burden on the fee. Bork v. United
N. J. R. R. & C. Co., 70 N. J. L. 268,
57 Atl. 412, 103 Am. St. Rep. 808.
New Mexico. See New Mexican
R. R. Co. V. Hendricks, (N. M.) 30
Pae. 901.
Neio York. The right to compen-
sation, when the fee is in the public,
would seem to be settled by the ele-
vated railroad cases. Story v. New
York Elevated R. R. Co., 90 N. Y.
122, 43 Am. Rep. 146; Mahady v.
Brunswick R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 148;
Matter of East River Bridge etc., 26
Hun 490. This prediction, made in
the first edition, has not been ful-
filled, but the court of appeals,
while adhering fully to the doctrine
enunciated in the elevated railroad
cases, above cited, has reaffirmed the
earlier doctrine, that an abutting
owner, not having the fee of the
street, cannot recover for a, com-
mercial railroad laid on the surface
or legal grade of the street. Fobes
V. Rome, W. & 0. R. R. Co., 121 N.
Y. 505, 24 N. E. 919, 8 L.R.A. 453,
3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 182; Case
V. Cayuga County, 34 N. Y. Supp.
595. In the Fobes case it is inti-
mated that there might be a remedy
for an excessive use of the street.
But if access is interfered with by
an embankment, made for the ac-
commodation of the railroad and
not in good faith as a change of
§ 154
EOADS AND STEEBTS.
255
grade, then the abutter may recover
for such interference. Reining v.
New York etc. R. R. Co., 128 N. Y.
157, 28 N. E. 640, 14 L.R.A. 133, 5
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 476; Egerer
V. New Yorlc Central etc. R. R. Co.,
130 N. Y. 108, 29 N. E. 95, 5 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 241 ; Coatsworth v.
Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 156 N. Y.
451, 51 N. E. 301. Compare Rauen-
stein V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 136
N. Y. 528, 32 N. E. 1047, 7 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 520, 18 L.R.A. 768.
And see cases cited in § 156.
Ifevada. Virginia & T. R. R. Co.
V. Lynch, 13 Nev. 92.
North Carolina. White v. North-
western N. C. R. R. Co., 113 N. C.
610, 18 S. E. 330, 9 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 103, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639,
22 L.R.A. 627, repudiates the dis-
tinctions based upon the ownership
of the fee of the street and holds
that the abutter may recover
whether he has the fee or not. So
also Staton v. Atlantic Coast Line
R. R. Co., 147 N. C. 428.
Ohio. Parrott v. Cincinnati etc.
R. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 330; S. C. 10
Ohio St. 624; Railroad Co. v. Ham-
bleton, 40 Ohio St. 496.
Pennsylvania. Right to compen-
sation denied in all cases. Phila. &
Trenton R. R. Co., 6 Wharton, 25,
36 Am. Dec. 202; Mercer v. Pitts-
burgh, Ft. W. & C. R. R. Co., 36 Pa.
St. 99; Snyder v. Pennsylvania R.
R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 340 ; Cleveland etc.
R. R. Co. V. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325,
94 Am. Dec. 84; Black v. Phila. &
R. R. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 249; Dan-
ville, H. & W. R. R. Co. V. Com-
monwealth, 73 Pa. St. 29; Struthers
V. Dunkirk etc. Ry. Co., 87 Pa. St.
282. In the latter case the court
was urged to overrule former de-
cisions, but refused to do so. See
also Philadelphia v. Empire Passen-
ger R. R. Co., 3 Brews. 547 ; Faust v.
Passenger Railway Co., 3 Phila. 164.
Compensation is now secured by the
constitution of 1874. In Kane v.
New York El. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y.
164, 26 N. E. 278, 3 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 744, 11 L.R.A. 640, it is
said by Andrews, J., delivering the
opinion of the court, and referring
to the Pennsylvania courts: "The
courts of that State have strenu-
ously asserted the supreme power of
the legislature to appropriate streets
to public uses destructive of their
ordinary use as public ways, and
have denied the right of abutting
owners to compensation, however
serious the injury to their property
occasioned by such appropriation.
The injustice of this rule led to the
insertion in the new constitution of
Pennsylvania, adopted in 1874, of a
provision declaring that municipal
and other corporations, invested
with the privilege of taking private
property for public use, should make
compensation for property 'taken,
injured or destroyed,' by the con-
struction of their works, etc.''
South Carolina. Recovery denied
without regard to fee. McLauchlin
V. Railroad Co., 5 Rich. 583. This
ease overruled and the right to re-
cover compensation, though the fee
is in the public, affirmed. South
Bound R. R. Co. v. Burton, 67 S. C.
515, 46 S. E. 340. And see Wilkins
V. Gaffney City, 54 S. C. 199, 32 S.
E. 299.
Tennessee. When fee in the pub-
lic there can be no recovery unless
the abutter's right of access is un-
reasonably interfered with. Iron Mt.
R. R. Co. V. Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522,
11 S. W. 705, 4 L.R.A. 622; Brumit
V. Railroad Co., 106 Tenn. 124, 60 S.
W. 505.
Texas. Fee in the public, no com-
pensation. H. & T. C. R. R. Co. V.
Odum, 53 Tex. 343; overruled in G.
C. & S. F. R. R. Co. V. Eddins, 29
Alb. L. J. 518. The right to recover
is now settled by the constitution.
256 EMINENT BOMAIN, § 155
way, is a taking within the constitution and that a commercial
railroad is such a use.^^
§ 155 (115a). Right to compensation where fee of
street in third party. It sometimes happens that the fee of
a street is in neither the abutting owner or the public, but in a
third party.^^ In such case the rights of the abutting owner,
as against the public, are the same as though the public had the
fee, and the rights of the public are the same as though the fee
was in the abutting owner. The right to compensation would
be the same as in cases where the public has the fee, and is treat-
ed in the last section.
§ 156. Commercial railroad on viaduct: New York
Park avenue cases. An interesting series of cases arose in New
York out of the following facts: The New York and Harlem
Railroad Company occupied Park Avenue in New York city
with its tracks, which were constructed at some places in cuts and
at other places upon a solid embankment of earth and masonry.
Park Avenue crosses the Harlem river and in 1890 Congress
passed an act requiring the existing bridges over the Harlem
to be replaced by bridges twenty-four feet above high tide.^* In
order to meet this requirement the legislature of New York in
1892 passed an act for the reconstruction and elevation of the
railroad tracks on Park avenue and for the construction of a new
and higher bridge over the Harlem river. The railroad was to
be placed on a steel structure, at a much higher grade than be-^
Ante, § 54; Morrow v. St. Louis etc. stitution of 1872, the abutter may
R. R. Co., 81 Tex. 405, 17 S. W. 44. recover to the extent his property is
Vermont. Hatch v. Vermont Cen- depreciated by the construction and
tral R. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49; S. C. 28 operation of the railroad, whether
Vt. 142; Richardson v. Same, 25 Vt. he owns the fee or not. Stewart v.
465, 60 Am. Dec. 459. Ohio Riv. R. R. Co., 38 W. Va. 438,
Washington. The constitution 18 S. E. 604; Arbenz v. Wheeling &
gives compensation for property H. R. R. Co., 33 W. Va. 1, 10 S. E.
taken or damaged. See Hatch v. 14, 5 L.R.A. 371 ; Guinn v. Ohio Riv.
Tacoma etc. R. R. Co., 6 Wash. 1, 32 R. R. Co., 46 W. Va. 151, 33 S. B.
Pac. 1063; Kaufman v. Tacoma etc. 87, 76 Am. St. Rep. 806.
R. R. Co., 11 Wash. 632, 40 Pac. 137. s^Ante, §§ 120, 151.
West Virginia. The propriety of ssCeclcer v. Evansville Suburban
distinctions based upon tlie owner- & R. R. Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E.
ship of the fee is much discussed in 349.
Spencer v. Point Pleasant & Ohio R. a 4 Vol. 26 U. S. Stats, at Large,
R. Co., 23 W. Va. 406, 426-432, but p. 437. See Muhllcer v. New York
the case is decided on other grounds. etc. R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 549, 6'6 N.
It is now settled that, under the con- E. 558.
§ 156 EOADS AND STEEETS. 257
fore, and Park avenue was to be improved for travel at the ordi-
nary grade. The work was to be done by the State through
a commission appointed by the mayor of New York and the
expense was to be equally divided between the city and the rail-
road company up to $1,500,000, the railroad company paying
all excess over that sum. The fee of the street was in the public.
The work was done pursuant to the act and the railroads com-
menced using the structure on Feb. 16, 1897. The statute made
no provision for compensation to abutting owners. Abutting
owners on Park avenue brought suits for damages or injunction
and in the first case which reached the court of appeals, it
was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover all damages
occasioned by the excess in heighth and width of the new struc-
ture over the old.^^ But in later cases it was determined that
there could be no recovery on the ground that the work was done
by the State for the improvement of the street.^® There was
a strong dissent from this conclusion and many instructive
opinions were filed. The elevated railroad cases are distin-
guished on the ground that they were an additional use of the
street for the benefit of a private corporation while the viaduct
in question was a scheme for improving the street for ordinary
travel.^^ In later cases it was held that there might be a recov-
3 5Lewis V. New York etc. E. R. etc. R. R. Co., 62 App. Div. 290, 70
Co., 162 N. Y. 202, 56 N. E. 540. N. Y. S. 10S8; S. C. reversed 173 N,
3 6Fries v. New York etc. R. R. Y. 644, 66 N. E. 1116; Larney v,
Co., 169 N. Y. 270, 62 N. E. 358, re- New York etc. R. R. Co., 62 App
versing S. C. 57 App. Div., 577, 68 N. Div. 311, 71 N. Y. S. 27; Pape v,
Y. S. 670; Muhlker v. New York etc. New York etc. R. R. Co., 74 App
R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 549, 66 N. E. Div. 175, 77 N. Y. S. 725; S. C. re
5.58, reversing S. C. 60 App. Div. versed, 175 N. Y. 504, 67 N. E. 1036
621 ; Dolan v. New York etc. R. R. Caldwell v. New York etc. R. R. Co.
Co., 175 N. Y. 367, 67 N. E. 612, re- HI App. Div. 164, 97 N. Y. S. 588
versing S. C. 74 App. Div. 434, 77 Wallaeh v. New York etc. R. R. Co,
N. Y. S. 815. In the last case it is 111 App. Div. 273, 97 N. Y. S. 717
said: "The evident purpose of this Bremer v. New York Central etc. R.
legislation was to open up Park ave- R. Co., 118 App. Div. 139, 103 N. Y,
nue as a street through its entire S. 318.
width, and to facilitate travel across 37"The decisions in the elevated
the same between the portions of the railroad cases are not in point,
city lying on either side of the There no attempt was made by the
street." p. 370. See also the fol- state to improve the street for the
lowing cases growing out of the benefit of the public. Instead, it
same improvement: Wilde v. New granted to a corporation the right to
York etc. R. R. Co., 168 N. Y. 597, mal<e an additional use of the
61 N. E. 554- Siegel v. New York street, in the doing of which it took
Em. D.— 17.
258
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 156
ery for damages caused by a station, outside the limits of the
regular structure.^® Cases involving liability for the structure
itself were taken to the Supreme Court of the United States,
and there the ruling of the New York court was reversed'.' The
plaintiff, in the case decided, acquired his property after the
decisions in the New York elevated railroad cases and he was
held thereby to have acquired by contract a right to the ease-
ments of light, air and access as adjudicated in those cases which
could not be impaired by the State or its agents without compen-
sation. It was held that there was no room for distinction be-
tween the elevated railroad cases and the one under discussion
and that the former were in point and decisive.**
Much stress was laid by the New York courts upon the fact
that the Park avenue viaduct was built by the State and the
railroads compelled to occupy it.*" Upon this point and, re-
ferring to the elevated railroad cases, the United States Supreme
Court says : "Another distinction is claimed, as we have already
observed, between the case at bar and those cases. The act of
the railroad in occupying the viaduct, it is said, was the act of the
certain easements belonging to abut-
ting owners, which it was compelled
to compensate them for." Muhlker
V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 173 N.
Y. 549, 536, 66 N. E. 588. And see
Pries V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
169 N. Y. 270, 62 N. E. 358.
3 8Dolan V. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 175 N. Y. 367, 67 N. E. 612, re-
versing S. C. 74 App. Div. 434, 77
N. Y. S. 815 ; Ketcham v. New York
etc. R. R. Co., 177 N. Y. 247, 69 N.
E. 533, reversing S. C. 76 App. Div.
619.
ssMuhlker v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 197 U. S. 544, 25 S. C. 522 ; Bir-
rell V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 198
U. S. 390, 25 S. C. 667. The fact
that access was improved was held
to be no reason why the plaintiff
should not recover for interference
vpith light and air. Four judges dis-
sent from the decision.
4 0Thus in Muhlker v. New York
etc. R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 549, 66 N.
E. 558, at page 554, the court says:
f'The State had the power to do
these things and all of them, and
defendant, having the right to move
its trains over the street, which
could not be taken away from it, did
not lose that right and became o.
trespasser because it obeyed the
command of the statute, which it
could not refuse to obey, to operate
its trains upon the structure which
the State had built. The plaintiff
was injured by the change as ap-
pears from the findings. But who
caused the injury? The defendant,
■which obeyed the command of the
statute which it had not the right to
resist, or the State, which had
power to make the changes which
were made in the street and did
make them and then compelled de-
fendant to make use of them? The
question admits of but one answer,
and that is, it was the State." To
the same effect is Fries v. New York
etc. R. R. Co., 169 N. Y. 270, 62 N.
E. 358. See especially pages 277,
282 and 283 of the official report.
§ 156 EOADS ANB STEEETS. 259
State. * * * The answer need not be hesitating. The per-
mission, or command of the State, can give no power to invade
private rights, even for a public purpose without payment of
compensation; and payment of such compensation, when neces-
sary to the performance of the duties of a railroad company,
may be, as we have already observed, part of its submission
to the command of the State." *^ This decision was rendered in
1905 and in the meantime the legislature of New York passed
an act providing for compensation to abutting owners on ac-
count of the viaduct, to be paid by the State, and ascertained
by the court of claims, with a proviso that the award should not
include any damages for which any railroad corporation was
or might be liable and that the facts proved should be such as
to make out a case of liability were the State a corporation
or private individual.*^ This act has been held to be valid,**
but how it will be applied, in view of the decision of the fed-
eral court, remains to be seen.
In Missouri, where a commercial railroad at the grade of the
street is held to be a legitimate street use, it is also held that, if
it is constructed upon an elevated structure, it constitutes an
additional burden for which compensation must be made to
the abutting owner.** So in New York where the abutter has
no remedy when the fee of the street is in the public and a com-
mercial railroad is laid at grade, he may recover when the road
is laid on an embankment or causeway in the middle of the
street.*^
But the true view is that a commercial railroad is not a proper
street use *" and cannot be authorized without compensation to
the abutting owner, whether he owns the fee or otherwise and
the manner of construction simply goes to the question of dam-
ages, not to the question of liability. Such a railroad is mani-
festly more injurious when constructed upon a steel viaduct, or
upon an embankment or in a cut than upon the surface.*^
4iMuhlker v. New York etc. R. R. ferman v. Long Island R. R. Co., 120
Co., 197 U. S. 544, 569, 25 S. C. 522. App. Div. 528, 105 N. Y. S. 487.
42Laws of 1901, chap. 729. 45Reining v. New York etc. R. R.
4 3Sander v. State, 182 N. Y, 400, Co., 128 N. Y. 157, 28 N. E. 640, 14
75 N. E. 234, reuersjjjir S. C. 90 App. L.R.A. 133; Egerer v. New York
Div. 618. Cent. etc. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 108,
44De Geofroy v. Merchants Bridge 29 N. E. 95, 14 L.R.A. 381.
Terminal Ry. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 79 S. i^Ante, §§ 151-154.
W. 386, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524, 64 4 'Besides the cases already cited
L.R.A. 959. To same effect is Lef- in this section we refer to the fol-
260 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 157
§ 157 (115b). Elevated street railroads. The railroads
here intended are of the type found in New York and Chicago,
consisting of a steel structure supported by columns in the street,
upon which the cars are operated in trains, with stations at con-
venient distances. They are devoted to passenger traffic only.
Such railroads are clearly not within the ordinary and legiti-
mate uses for which highways are established. If the fee of
the street is in the abutting owner, he is entitled to compensa-
tion, as in case of the ordinary steam railroad.*^ If the fee is
not in the abutting owner, he is still entitled to recover for
damages occasioned to his property by interfering with his right
of access and his right to light and air. These rights are prop-
erty, and, to impair or destroy them is a taking.*^ Various
questions in reference to the elevated railways of New York
City came before the courts of New York prior to 1882,^" but
the right to compensation was not authoritatively passed upon
until the decision made by the Court of Appeals in Story v.
New York Elevated Railroad Co. decided in that year.^^ Plain-
tiff owned an improved lot abutting on Front street, in which
the defendant proposed to construct "a road upon a series of
columns, about fifteen inches square, fourteen feet and six inches
high, placed five inches inside the edge of the sidewalk, and car-
rying girders, from thirty-three to thirty-nine inches deep, for
the support of cross ties for three sets of rails for a steam rail-
lowing: Railroad on embankment Y. Sup. Ct. 489; Matter of East
in street: Smith v. Kansas City River Bridge & Rapid Transit Co.,
etc. R. R. Co., 98 Mo. 20, 11 S. W. 10 Abb. New Cases, 245; Matter of
259. In cut: Kansas City etc. R. East River Bridge etc. Co., 26 Hun
R. Co. V. Schwake, 70 Kan. 141, 78 490; Matter of Brooklyn Rapid
Pac. 431, 68 L.R.A. 673. In tunnel: Transit Co., 63 How. Fr. 404. A
Terry v. Richmond, 94 Va. 537, 27 S. collection of Elevated Railway cases
E. 429. And see New Castle v. Lake with » note will be found in Vol. 3,
Erie etc. R. R. Co., 155 Ind. 18, 57 Abbott's New Cases, as follows:
N. B. 516; Coatsworth v. Lehigh Patten v. New York Elevated R. R.
Valley R. R. Co., 156 N. Y. 45, 51 N. Co., p. 306; Ninth Ave. R. R. Co. v.
E. 301; ante, § 138; post, § 178. Same, p. 347; Sixth Ave. R. R. v.
*«An.te, § 153. Gilbert Elevated R. R. Co., p. 372;
iSAnte, § 64. Matter of New York Elevated R. R.
soMatter of New York Elevated Co., p. 401; Gilbert Elevated R. R.
R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 327; Matter of Co. v. Anderson, p. 434; Spader v.
Gilbert Elevated Ry. Co., 70 N. Y. New York Elevated R. R. Co., p.
361; Matter of Kings County Ele- 467; Story v. Same, p. 478.
vated Ry. Co., 82 N. Y. 95; Sixth 5 190 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146,
Ave. Ry. Co. v. Gilbert Elevated Ry., decided Oct. 17th, 1882, found also in
43 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 292; S. C. 41 N. 11 Abb. New Cases, p. 236.
§ 157 EOADS AND STEEETS. 261
road." The cars intended for the road, when placed thereon,
would extend eleven feet above the tracks, would project two
feet over the sidewalk on either side of the street and reach with-
in nine feet of plaintiff's buildings. It was found as matter of
fact that the existence of this structure and operation of the
road would interfere with access to the plaintiff's premises, and
would, to some extent, intercept the light and air from his build-
ing and impair the enjoyment and value of his property. The
lot and street in question were originally a part of a tract of
land platted and sold by the city of New York, and in the deeds
from the city it is declared that "the said several streets shall
forever thereafter continue and be for the free and common
passage of, and as public streets and ways for the inhabitants
of the said city, and all others passing and returning through
or by the same, in like manner as the other streets of the said
city now are or lawfully ought to be." Front street was one
of the streets referred to. .Plaintiff's lot was originally conveyed
as bounded on Front street, and whatever rights in the street
had attached to the lot originally were duly vested in the plain-
tiff. ^The case was principally considered on the theory that
the fee of the street was in the city. It was held that the original
purchaser acquired certain rights in the street, in the nature of
an easement therein appurtenant to his lot. "But what is the
extent of this easement?" says the court (p. 146). "What rights
or privileges are secured thereby? /Generally, it may be said,
it is to have the street kept open, so that from it access may be
had to the Iot7-a«d-li^Tt'HEd air furnished across the open way.
The street occupies the surface and to its uses the rights of the
adjacent lots are subordinate, but above the surface there can be
no lawful obstruction to the access of light and air, to the detri-
ment of the abutting ovmer. To hold otherwise would enable the
city to derogate from its own grant, and violate the arrange-
ment on the faith of which the lot was purchased. This in effect
was an agreement, that if the grantee would buy the lot abutting
on the street, he might have the use of light and air over the
open space designated as a street. In this case it is found by
the trial court in substance, that the structure proposed by the
defendant, and intended for the street opposite the plaintiff's
premises, would cause an actual diminution of light, depreciate
the value of the plaintiff's warehouse and thus work his injury.
262
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 15Y
In doing this thing the defendant will take his property as much
as if it took the tenement itself." ^^
Although, in this particular case, the street in question was
laid out by the city itself, which also originally granted the plain-
tiff's lot with a covenant that the street should forever remain
open as a public street, yet the principles of the decision will
apply with equal force to property abutting upon streets estab-
lished by private dedication or by condemnation. (In platting
and conveying the property the city acted merely as a private
partyA The deeds of conveyance executed by the city did not
expressly transfer any rights in the streets as appurtenant to
the abutting property, nor define how the streets were to be used
and enjoyed except in general terms which would have been
implied by law. The meaning of the covenant in the deed, that
the streets in question are to be kept open, as public streets,
"in like manner as the other streets of the said city now are or
lawfully ought to be," is to be determined by reference to the
6 2The conclusions of the court
upon the whole case are given by
Tracy, J., as follows:
"First. That the plaintiff, by
force of the grant of the city, made
to his grantors, has a right or privi-
lege in Front street, which enables
him to have the same kept open and
continued as a public street for the
benefit of his abutting property.
"Second. That this right or privi-
lege constitutes an easement, in the
bed of the street, which attaches to
the abutting property of the plain-
tiff, and constitutes private property,
within the meaning of the constitu-
tion, of which he cannot be deprived,
without compensation.
"Third. That such a structure as
the court found the defendant was
about to erect in Front street, and
which it has since erected, is incon-
sistent with the use of Front street
as a public street.
"Fourth. That the plaintiff's prop-
erty has been taken and appropri-
ated by the defendant for public use
without compensation being made
therefor.
"Fifth. That the defendant's acts
are unlawful, and as the structure is
permanent in its character and, if
suffered to continue, will inflict a
permanent and continuing injury
upon the plaintiff he has the right to
restrain the erection and continu-
ance of the road by injunction.
"Sixth. That the statutes under
which the defendant is organized
authorize it to acquire such property
as may be necessary for its construc-
tion and operation by the exercise of
the right of eminent domain.
"Seventh. The injunction prohibit-
ing the continuance of the road in
Front street, should not be issued
until the defendant has had a rea-
sonable time after this decision to
acquire the plaintiff's property by
agreement, or by proceedings to con-
demn the same." pp. 178, 179. The
decision of the court is by Andrews,
Ch. J., Rapallo, Danforth, and
Tracy, JJ. Miller, Earl and Finch,
JJ., dissent.
§ 157 EOADS AND STEEETS. 263
general law and custom whicli regulates the uses of streets in
cities. The court does not determine whether an elevated rail-
road is a legitimate use of Front street by reference to the
deed of the city, but by reference to the manner in which the
streets of a city have been immemorially used and enjoyed. Had
the property in question been platted and sold by a private indi-
vidual, the purchasers would have acquired the same rights in
Front street as the grantees of the city acquired. And so, had
the streets in question been established by condemnation, the
result to the abutting property would have been the same.^* fln
short, the right to light, air and access over a public street
is a universal and inseparable constituent of abutting property.
Such right is property, as sacred as the lot itself, and cannot
be interfered with or taken for public use without compensa-
tion.5*)
These views in regard to the logical scope of the decision in
the Story case are in accordance with the later case of Lahr v.
Metropolitan Elevated K. R. Co.^^ In the latter case the Court
of Appeals was strenuously urged to reconsider or modify its
decision in the Story case, or at least confine its application to
property held by grant from the city itself upon covenants simi-
lar to those in question in the Story ease. But the court refused
to do either, and expressly approved of its former decision and
declared that, "wherever the principles of that case logically
lead us we feel constrained to go, and give full effect to the rule
therein stated, that abutters upon public streets in cities are en-
titled to such damages, as they may have sustained by reason of a
diversion of the street from the use for which it was originally
taken, and its illegal appropriation to other and inconsistent
B34»<e, §§ 120-123. is a perversion of the use of the
5 4Peyser v. New York Elevated R. street from the purposes originally
R. Co., 12 Abb. New Cases, 276; designed for it, and is a use which
Glover v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 66 neither the city authorities nor the
How. Pr. 77. legislature can legalize or sanction,
6 5104 N. Y. 268. without providing compensation for
6 6"We hold that the Story case the injury inflicted upon the prop-
has definitely determined: erty of abutting owners.
"First. That an elevated railroad "Second. That abutters upon a
in the streets of a city, operated by public street, claiming title to their
steam power and constructed as to premises by grant from the munici-
form, equipments and dimensions pal authorities, which contains a
like that described in the Story case, covenant that a street is to be laid
264
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 157
Accordingly, in the case last referred to, the principles of the
Story case were applied where the street was established by
condemnation and the fee acquired by the public for use as a
highway. /In another case it appeared that the street was estab-
lished under an act which provided that the streets opened there-
under should be converted to the use of the public in the man-
ner "now designated and settled by law, and uch other man-
ner as the legislature may hereafter deem proper to enact." It
was held, however, that the legislature could not enact that an
elevated railroad should be operated in the street' without com-
pensation to the abutting owners./''
Since the first edition in 1888 the question has been decided
in accordance with the earlier cases in numerous decisions of
the New York courts and in respect to streets established under
almost every conceivable variety of circumstances and condi-
tions. °* /It is the settled law of that State that the abutting
out in front of such property shall
forever thereafter continue for the
free and common passage of, and as
public streets and ways for the in-
habitants of said city, and all others
passing and returning through or by
the same, in like manner as the other
streets of the same city now are or
lawfully ought to be, acquire an
easement in the bed of the street for
ingress and egress to and from their
premises, and also for the free and
uninterrupted passage and circula-
tion of light and air through and
over such street for the benefit of
the property situated thereon.
"Third. That the ownership of
such easement is an interest in real
estate, constituting property within
the meaning of that term, as used
in the constitution of the State, and
requires compensation to be made
therefor before it can lawfully be
taken from its owner, for public use.
"Fourth. That the erection of an
elevated railroad, the use of which
is intended to be permanent, in a
public street, and upon which cars
are propelled by steam engines, gen-
erating steam and smoke, and dis-
tributing in the air cinders, dust,
ashes and other noxious and delete-
rious substances, and interrupting
the free passage of light and air to
and from adjoining premises, con-
stitutes a taking of the easement,
and its appropriation by the rail-
road corporation, rendering it liable
to the abutters for the damage occa-
sioned by such taking." Lahr. v.
Met. El. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 268,
288.
6 ^American Primitive Methodist
Society v. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 46
Hun 530.
5 sin Kane v. New York El. R. R.
Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278, 11
L.R.A. 640, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
744, the question arose, with refer-
ence to a street established under
the Dutch regime and while the civil
law was in force in the city, but the
same conclusions were reached. See
also Hine v. New York El. R. R. Co.,
54 Hun 425, 27 N. Y. St. 303, 7 N.
Y. Supp. 464 and Mortimer v. New
York El. R. R. Co., 57 N. Y. Supr.
Ct. 244, 6 N. Y. Supp. 898, where
the same phase is elaborately dis-
cussed.
§ 1-7
EOADS AND STEEETS.
265
owner, irrespective of the ownership of the fee, and irrespective
of the manner in which the street was established, has certain
easements of light, air and access and is entitled to compensa-
tion when these are interfered with by an elevated railroad in the
street.^')
A system of elevated railroads has been establisheed in Chica-
go, partly upon streets and alleys and partly upon property
acquired or condemned for that purpose. It has been held that
BSThe elevated railroad cases in
New York are very numerous, but
most of them relate to other ques-
tions than the right to compensation
and will be referred to in their ap-
propriate connection. We cite the
following as among the more im-
portant new cases, which deal with
the rights of abutting owners and
the right to compensation: New-
man V. Met. El. E. E. Co., 118 N. Y.
618, 23 N. E. 901, 7 L.E.A. 289, 2 Am.
E. E. & Corp. Eep. 318; Abendroth
V. Manhattan E. E. Co., 122 N. Y.
1, 25 N. E. 496, 19 Am. St. Eep. 461,
11 L.E.A. 634, 3 Am. E. E. & Corp.
Eep. 309, affirming S. C. 54 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 417; Kane v. New York
El. E. E. Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N.
E. 278; S. C. Sub. Nom. Duyckinck
V. New York El. E. E. Co., 3 Am. E.
E. & Corp. Eep. 744, affirming S. C.
15 Daly 294, 6 N. Y. St. 526; Wil-
liams V. Brooklyn El. E. E. Co., 126
N. Y. 96, 26 N. E. 1048; American
Bank Note Co. v. New York El. E.
E. Co., 129 N. Y. 252, 29 N. E. 302,
5 Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 583 ; Mes-
senger v. Manhattan E. E. Co., 129
N. Y. 502, 29 N. E. 955; Bohm v.
Metropolitan El. E. E. Co., 129 N.
Y. 576, 29 N. E. 802, 14 L.E.A. 344,
5 Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 416;
Hughes V. Met. El. E. E. Co., 130 N.
Y. 14, 28 N. E. 765; Bischoflf v. New
York El. E. E. Co., 138 N. Y. 257,
33 N. E. 1073 ; Bremer v. Manhattan
Ey. Co., 191 N. Y. 333, 84 N. E. 59.
In a recent Maryland case the court,
referring to the New York Elevated
E. E. cases, says: "The New York
doctrine involves this inextricable
dilemma, viz.. (ff the grading of a
street by a municipal corporation
cuts off all access to a person's
house, albeit his property is thereby
destroyed and rendered valueless, it
is not taken, in the constitutional
sense; but if a railroad company, in
lawfully constructing its road, does
precisely the same thing that the
city did in grading the street, then
the abutter's property is taken,
though not physically entered upon
at all." Garrett v. Lake Eoland El.
E. E. Co., 79 Md. 277, 29 Atl. 830, 10
Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 39. But the
court here ignores an important and
controlling distinction between grad-
ing a street and constructing an ele-
vated railroad in it. ffhe former is
a legitimate use of the street for
highway purposes, the latter is not.
The abutter's rights of light, air and
access, being subject to the right of
the public to use and Improve the
street for highway purposes (ante,
§ 120), he cannot complain of a
change of grade, and nothing is
taken from him thereby; but such
rights not being subject to any but
legitimate street uses, and an ele-
vated railroad not being such a use,
any interference with the easements
by its construction and operation is
so much taken from his property and
he is entitled to compensation there-
for under the constitution. Ante,
§ 64.
266
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 157
they are a lawful use of tlie streets, but the court evidently
intend by this that it is competent for the legislature to author-
ize their costruction therein.*" Compensation to abutting
owners is guaranteed by the constitution, in the provision which
requires compensation to be made for property damaged as well
as for property taken, so that the question of whether such use
of the streets constitutes a taking does not necessarily arise.® ^
There are elevated railways in Boston but the statute which
authorized them required that compensation should be made
to abutting owners, "who are damaged by reason of the location,
construction, maintenance and operation of said lines of rail-
way." ®^. Under this statute it is held to make no difference
whether the abutter owns the fee or not.** In New Jersey
compensation is required by statute and provision made for
condemning in advance the rights of abutting owners.®* A few
fiODoane v. Lake Street Elevated
R. E. Co., 165 111. 510, 46 N. E. 520,
56 Am. St. Rep. 265, 36 L.R.A. 97.
The court says: "It is conceded that
the common council of the City of
Chicago is, by the provisions of our
statute, given exclusive control and
supervision of its streets, the fee of
which is vested in the municipality.
While they are held in trust for the
public use and can only be appro-
priated to the purposes for which
they were dedicated, it is the settled
law of this State that permitting
street railroads to be placed therein
is not subjecting them to an unlaw-
ful use. It has often been so de-
cided by this court as to surface
roads, and no good reason lias been
suggested, and none we think can be
offered, for making a distinction in
this regard between elevated and
surface roads. The road in question,
if constructed in conformity with the
requirements of the ordinance, will
certainly obstruct travel upon the
street by other means less, and be
less hazardous to the public, than
would be a surface road. The pillars
upon which the superstructiire is to
be built, which, it is claimed, will
exclude the public from a part of the
street, are but a necessary part of
the road as much so as are the rails
and other parts of tracks con-
structed upon the ground, or as are
trolley posts placed in the street for
operating an electric road by the
trolley system. It is true that all
these things do to some extent inter-
fere with the use of the street by or-
dinary vehicles, but the inconve-
nience is one which must be borne
for the benefit resulting to the public
from the better modes of travel thus
afforded." And see Metropolitan W.
S. El. R. R. Co. V. Springer, 171 111.
170, 49 N. E. 416; Chicago Office
Bldg. V. Lake St. Ry. Co., 87 111.
App. 594.
siAldis V. Union El. R. R. Co., 203
111. 567, 68 N. E. 95.
6 2Baker v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 183
Mass. 178, 66 N. E. 711.
6 3Ibid.
64Sullivan v. North Hudson
County R. E. Co., 51 N. J. li. 518, 18
Atl. 689.
§ 157 EOADS AND STREETS. 267
miscellaneous cases bearing somewhat upon the subject of the
section are referred to below.^^
It seems to the writer that elevated street railroads may con-
stitute a distinct class as distinguished from surface street rail-
roads of all kinds. The elevated structure creates a second
street surface, a second story, so to speak, which seems utterly
at variance with the original dedication of the street to public
use as a highway. If such a structure and use is legitimate we
might have one with two or three stories, each devoted to the
same or different kind of traffic, or such a one as was contem-
plated in a recent New York case, consisting of a two-storied
viaduct, supported on brick arches, the first story fifty feet above
the surface and the second seventy-five feet.^®
The question of what constitutes an elevated railroad has been
passed upon in Maryland.^'' The question was whether a cer-
tain structure, proposed to be built upon North avenue, in the
city of Baltimore, was an elevated railroad within the meaning
of a statute, which provided that no elevated railroad should be
constructed in or through the city of Baltimore, except under a
special charter of the general assembly. It was held that a
street railroad built upon vertical iron pillars at an elevation of
twenty feet above the street, and extending a distance of three
quarters of a mile, was an elevated road, within the meaning of
the statute, and the fact that the road was elevated only for
the purpose of avoiding the tracks of a steam railroad on the
surface of the street, and that a descent was made as soon as
said tracks were out of the way, would not take the case out of
the operation of the statute.
65New York El. R. E. Co. v. Fifth esPeople's Rapid Transit Co. v.
Nat'l Bank, 135 U. S. 432, 10 S. C. Dash, 125 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 25. The
Rep. 743 ; Fifth Nat'l Bank v. New question involved v/as whether a cor-
York El. R. R. Co., 24 Fed. 114; poration to construct such a railroad
Hayes v. Waverly & P. R. R. Co., 51 could be formed under the general in-
N. J. Eq. 345, 27 Atl. 648; Pennsyl- corporation law. It was decided in
vania R. R. Co. v. Miller, 132 U. S. the negative. The railroad was not
75, 10 S. C. 34, 1 Am. R. R. & Corp. to be a street railroad but was to be
Rep. 15 ; Jones v. Railroad Co., 151 used exclusively for passenger traffic.
Pa. St. 30, 25 Atl. 134, 31 Am. St. 67Koch v. North Ave. R. R. Co., 75
Rep. 722, 17 L.R.A. 758; Fulton v. Md. 222, 23 Atl. 463, 15 L.R.A. 377.
Short Route R. R. Trans. Co., 85 Ky. See Fulton v. Short Route R. R.
640, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Am. St. Rep. 619; Trans. Co., 85 Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 287,
Freiday v. Sioux City Rapid Transit 7 Am. St. Rep. 619.
Co., 92 la. 191, 60 N. W. 656, 26
L.E.A. 246.
268
EMINENT I>OMAIN.
§ 158
In Illinois it has been held, that an elevated railroad may
be constructed under the general railroad law of the State.®*
A different conclusion has been reached in Pennsylvania** and
New York.^"
§ 158 (115c). Horse railroads. It has been determined
in numerous decisions, and without dissent except in the State
of New York, that the use of a street by a horse railroad con-
structed and operated in the ordinary manner falls within the
purposes for which streets are established and maintained, and
consequently, that for any damages resulting from such use to
the abutting owner, he can recover no compensation, whether the
fee of the street is in him or in the public.'^ ^ In New York
State, after various decisions which left the matter in doubt, ''^
it was finally held, in Craig v. Rochester City & Brighton R. E.
6sLieberman v. Chicago etc. E. E.
Co., 141 III. 140, 30 N. E. 544.
esPotts V. Quaker City El. R. R.
Co., 161 Pa. St. 396, 29 Atl. 108;
Commonwealth v. Northeastern El.
R. R. Co., 161 Pa. St. 409, 29 Atl.
112; Potts V. Quaker City El. R. R.
Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 593.
'oPeople's Rapid Transit Co. v.
Dash, 125 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 25;
Schafer v. Brooklyn & L. I. R. R.
Co., 124 N. Y. 630, 26 N. E. 311.
7iCarson v. Central R. R. Co. 35
Cal. 325; Market Street Ry. Co. v.
Central R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 583;
Elliott V. Fair Haven & Westville R.
R. Co., 32 Conn. 579 (a nisi prius
case only) ; Randall v. Jacksonville
St. R. R. Co., 19 Fla. 409; State v.
Jacksoriville St. R. R. Co., 29 Fla.
590, 10 So. 590; Savannah & Thun-
derbolt R. R. Co. V. Savannah, 45 Ga.
602; Eichels v. Evansville Streeo Ry.
Co., 78 Ind. 261, 41 Am. Rep. 561;
Clinton v. Clinton & Lyons Horse
Railway Co., 37 la. 61 ; Stange v.
Hill & West Dubuque Street Ry. Co.,
54 la. 669; Stanley v. Davenport, 54
la. 463; Brown v. Duplessis, 14 La.
An. 842; Briggs v. Lewiston & Au-
burn R. R. Co., 79 Me. 363, 1 Am. St.
Rep. 316; Peddicord v. Baltimore etc.
E. R. Co., 34 Md. 463; Hiss v.
Baltimore etc. Ry. Co., 52 Md. 242,
36 Am. Rep. 371; Hodges v. Balti-
more Passenger Ry. Co., 58 Md. 603;
Attorney General v. Metropolitan R.
R. Co., 125 Mass. 515; Hinchman v.
Patterson H. R. R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq.
75; Hogencamp v. Same, 17 N. J.
Eq. 83; Jersey City & Bergen R. R.
Co. v. Jersey City & Hoboken H. R.
R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 61; Patterson
etc. H. R. R. Co. v. Patterson, 24 N.
J. Eq. 158; West Jersey R. R. Co. v.
Cape May etc. R. R. Co., 34 N. J.
Eq. 164; Van Home v. Newark Pass.
R. R. Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 332, 21 Atl.,
1034; Street Railway v. Cummins-
ville, 14 Ohio St. 524; Peterson v.
Navy Yard etc. Ry. Co., 5 Phil. 199 ;
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rosedale
Ry. Co., 64 Tex. 80, 53 Am. Rep. 739;
Hobart v. Milwaukee City Ry. Co.,
27 Wis. 194, 9 Am. Rep. 461; Van
Bokelen v. Brooklyn City Ry. Co., 5
Blatch. 379.
7 2Davis V. Mayor etc. of New
York, 14 N. Y. 506; Milhau v. Sharp,
15 Barb. 193, 27 N. Y. 611 ; Wetmore
V. Story, 22 Barb. 414; Mason v.
Brooklyn City etc: R. R. Co., 35
Barb. 373; People v. Law, 34 Barb.
494; People v. Kerr, 37 Barb. 357, 27
N. Y. 188, 25 How. Pr. 258.
§ 160 EOADS AND STREETS. 269
Co., ^^ that a horse railroad was an additional burden upon the
soil for which the abutting owner, having the fee, was entitled to
compensation. In a later case it was determined that, where
the fee of the street is in thejgublic,_the laying of a horse railroad
on the surface of the street, under lawful autliority from the
municipality, was not a taking of any property of the abutting
owner. ^*
§ 159 (llSd). Cable railroads. Although the cable sys-
tem of operating railroads has been in use for a long time, there
seems to have been little question made as to the right to employ
this system when authorized by the legislature. As the cable
road leaves the street in substantially the same condition as the
horse railroad and is operated in substantially the same manner,
except as to motive power, it has doubtless been assumed that
the same principles would apply to it. This assumption has
been verified by a recent case in Pennsylvania which holds that a
cable road is not an additional burden upon the soil, entitling the
abutting owner to compensation. The reasoning of the court
is, that street railways are legitimate highway uses and "whether
the motive power of the cars be horses, electricity or a submerged
cable makes no difference in the use, and no one of these modes
of use confers any right of action upon the abutting owner." ^^
§ 160 (115e). Steam motor railroads. The question
whether a street railroad, operated by means of a steam motor,
is a legitimate street use, was first passed upon in Minnesota in
1886.'^® The plaintiff brought ejectment to recover possession
of the street in front of his property as against the defendant
which had occupied it with its railroad. The defendant's road
7 3 Craig V. Eochester City etc. R. See also, Indianapolis Cable St.
R. Co., 39 Barb. 494, 39 N. Y. 404; E. R. Co. v. Citizens' ' St. R.
see also Thayer v. Rochester City R. Co., 127 lud. 369, 24 N. E. 1054,
etc. R. R. Co., 15 Abb. N. C. 52. 26 N. E. 893, 8 L.R.A. 539; Brady v.
7 4KelIinger v. Forty-second Street Kansas City Cable Ey. Co., Ill Mo.
etc. R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206 ; see also 329, 19 S. W. 953; People v. Newton,
Mahady v. Brunswick R. R. Co., 91 112 N. Y. 396, 3 L.R.A. 174; In re
N. Y. 148. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 530,
76Rafferty v. Central Traction Co., 24 N. E. 951, 9 L.R.A. 124; Railroad
147 Pa. St. 579, 23 Atl. 884, 30 Am. v. Duncan, 111 Pa. St. 352; Lorie v.
St. Eep. 763, 6 Am. R. R. & Corp. North Chicago City R. R. Co., 32
Rep. 287. To the same effect is liar- Fed. Rep. 270.
risen v. Mt. Auburn Cable R. R. Co.,< 7 6Newell v. Minneapolis etc. R. R.
17 Weekly Bull. 265 (Hamilton Co. Co., 35 Minn. 112, 27 N. W. 839, 59
C. P. Ohio), referred to in Keasby Am. Rep. 303.
on Electric Wires, p. 104, note 4.
270 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 160
extended from a point within the city of Minneapolis to Lake
Minnatonka, eighteen miles beyond the city. The track con-
sisted, of T rails laid so as to conform to the surface of the street
and placed so as to be readily crossed. The cars used were from
thirty-four to thirty-seven feet long. The motors were
about twenty feet long. The trains consisted of from one to
four cars. Within the city it was operated like any ordinary
street passenger railway so far as concerned speed and the taking
up and letting down of passengers^ Beyond the city it was
operated like any ordinary steam railroad for general traffic. It
was held to be a proper and legitimate use of the street as a
highway, and a judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
Mitchell, J., dissented on the ground that the road was a new and
different use of the street from that contemplated when it was
acquired. The opinion of the court proceeds on the basis that
a horse railway is a legitimate street use, and that the road in
question is not substantially different; that the surface of the
street was not essentially disturbed; that it did not appear to
seriously interfere with the ordinary use of the street and was
an aid to the traffic thereon. The same doctrine is held in
California and Maine. '^'^ In Tennessee a steam dummy street
railroad was held to be an additional servitude upon the fee of
the street, and a use different from and inconsistent with the
ordinary use of a highway. The reasons for this conclusion are
found in those features which resemble the general traffic rail-
road, viz. : the steam engine, the noise, smoke and vibration, the
weight, length and speed of the trains, and the danger to life
and property.'^* In an Oregon case the plaintiff sued for dam-
7 'Montgomery v. Santa Ana etc. known as railroad traffic, the com-
Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 784, 43 pany may, perhaps, be said to make a
Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654 ; new and different use of the land. But
Briggs V. Lewiston & Auburn E. R. we have no occasion now to express
Co., 79 Me. 363, 1887. The court any opinion on that question. This de-
held, in the latter case, that whether fendant company is using the land as
operated by horse or steam power a street. Its railroad is a street rail-
the use was legitimate. As to the road. Its cars are used by those who
motor, it says: "We do not think wish to pass from place to place on
the motor is the criterion. It is the street. A change in the motor
rather the use of the street. If the is not a change in the use."
railroad company exclusively occupy 7sEast End St. R. R. Co. v. Doyle,
the land— shut off the street from 88 Tenn. 747, 13 S. W. 936, 9 L.R.A.
it, deprive it of its character of bear- 100, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 747.
ing the easement of a street — use it, Compare Smith v. Street E. R. Co.,
not for street traffic, but for what is 87 Tenn. 626,
§ 161 EOADS AND STREETS. 271
ages to his property by reason of the construction and operation
of a sti'eet railroad in front of his property. The road was oper-
ated with steam motors, and appears to have been used solely
for street passenger traffic. The plaintiff claimed to own the
fee of the street, but the court held that this was immaterial,
that the only substantial rights the plaintiff had in the street
were the rights of ingress and egress and that these existed the
same whether he owned the fee or not; that the construction of
a railroad of any kind in a street under authority from the legis-
lature, does not necessarily violate the right of the fee owner
and does not "put the land to a use foreign to that contemplated
in the establishment of the highway." It also held that if the
railway interfered with the enjoyment of the plaintiff's prop-
erty by obstructing access thereto, to such an extent as to mate-
rially depreciate its value, then he was entitled to recover the
amount of such depreciation.'* In Michigan a street railway,
operated by a steam motor, constructed on the side of a street,
with cuts and fills and laid with T rails, was held to be an addi-
tional burden on the fee of the street.^" A few other cases bear-
ing on the question are referred to in the note, but none of them
are directly in point.^^ It is plain, therefore, that the authori-
ties leave it very much in doubt whether a steam motor railroad
is a legitimate street use or not.
§ 161 (llSf). Electric trolley railroads. There is a
very unanimous concurrence of the courts in the position that
the construction and operation of a street passenger railway
on the surface of a street by means of the trolley system is a
legitimate street use and not the imposition of an additional
burden on the fee, and that the abutter, w'hether he owns the
fee or not, is not entitled to compensation for any damages re-
sulting therefrom.®^ The first case to be decided by a court
7 9McQuaid v. Portland R. K. Co., liams v. City Electric St. E. R. Co.,
18 Or. 237, 22 Pac. 899, 1 Am. R. R. 41 Fed. 556; Hussner v. Brooklyn
& Corp. Rep. 34. To the same effect : City R. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 433, 11 Am.
Paquet v. Mt. Tabor St. R. R. Co., 18 St. Rep. 679; Onset St. R. R. Co. v.
Or. 233, 22 Pac. 906. County Comrs., 154 Mass. 395, 28 N.
soNiehols v. Ann Arbor & Y. St. E. 286.
R. R. Co., 87 Mich. 361, 49 N. W. 8 2Birmingham Traction Co. v.
538, 16 L.R.A. 371. The court stood Birmingham R. R. & Elec. Co., 119
three to two. Ala. 137, 24 So. 502, 43 L.R.A. 233;
siStange v. Hill & West Dubuque Baker v. Selma St. & Suburban Ry.
St. R. R. Co., 54 la. 669; Stanley v. Co., 130 Ala. 474, 30 So. 464; Same v.
City of Davenport, 54 la. 463; Wil- Same, 135 Ala. 552, 33 So. 685, 93
272
EMINEITT DOMAIN'.
§ 161
Am. St. Rep. 42; Morris v. Mont-
gomery Traction Co., 143 Ala. 246, 38
So. 834; New York etc. R. R. Co. v.
Bridgeport Traction Co., 65 Conn.
410, 32 Atl. 953, 29 L.R.A. 367; Can-
astotia. Knife Co. v. Newington Tram-
way Co., 69 Conn. 146, 36 Atl. 1107;
Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta Ry. &
P. Co., Ill Ga. 679, 36 S. E. 873, 51
L.R.A. 125; Chicago B. & Q. R. R.
Co. V. West Chicago St. R. R. Co.,
156 111. 270, 40 N. E. 1008, 12 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 522; Winnetka v.
Chicago etc. Elec. Ry. Co., 204 111.
297, 68 N. E. 407, affirming S. C. 107
111. App. 117; Chicago etc. R. R. Co.
V. General Electric Co., 79 111. App.
569; Chicago etc. T. R. R. Co. v.
Whiting, 139 Ind. 297, 38 N. E. 604,
11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 507, 47
Am. St. Rep. 264, 26 L.R.A. 337;
Snyder v. Ft. Madison St. R. R. Co.,
105 la. 284, 75 N. W. 179, 41 L.R.A.
345; Louisville Bagging Mfg. Co. v.
Central Pass. R. R. Co., 95 Ky. 50, 23
S. W. 592; Ashland etc. St. Ry. Co.
V. Faulkner, 106 Ky. 332, 51 S. W.
806, 43 L.R.A. 554; Louisville Ry.
Co. V. Poster, 108 Ky. 743, 57 S. W.
480, 50 L.R.A. 813; Georgetown etc.
Traction Co. v. Mulholland, 25 Ky.
L. R. 578, 76 S. W. 148; Taylor v.
Portsmouth etc. R. R. Co., 91 Me.
193, 39 Atl. 560, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216;
Millbridge etc. Elec. R. R. Co., ap-
pellants, 96 Me. 110, 51 Atl. 818; Par-
sons V. Waterville etc. St. Ry. Co.,
101 Me. 173, 63 Atl. 728; Poole v.
Falls Road Elec. R. R. Co., 88 Md.
533, 41 Atl. 1069; Lonaconing etc.
Ry. Co. V. Consolidated Coal Cc, 95
Md. 630, 53 Atl. 420 ; Howe v. West
End St. R. R. Co., 167 Mass. 46, 44
N. E. 386; Eustis v. Milton St. Ry.
Co., 183 Mass. 586, 67 N. E. 663; De-
troit City R. R. Co. v. Mills, 85
Mich. 634, 48 N. W. 1007 ; People v.
Ft. Wayne & E. R. R. Co., 92 Mich.
522, 52 N. W. 1010 ; Dean v. Ann Ar-
bor St. R. R. Co., 93 Mich. 330, 53 N.
W. 396; Niemann v. Detroit Subur-
ban St. R. R. Co., 103 Mich. 256, 61
N. W. 519; Austin v. Detroit etc. Ry.
Co., 134 Mich. 149, 96 N. W. 35;
Mannel v. Detroit etc. Ry. Co., 139
Mich. 106, 102 N. W. 633; Placke v.
Union Depot R. R. Co., 140 Mo. 634,
41 S. W. 915; Ruckert v. Grand Ave.
Ry. Co., 163 Mo. 260, 63 S. W. 814;
Nagel V. Lindell Ry. Co., 167 Mo. 89,
66 S. W. 1090; State v. Jersey City,
57 N. J. L. 293, 30 Atl. 531, 26 L.R.A.
281 ; Roebling v. Trenton Pass. R. R.
Co., 58 N. J. L. 666, 34 Atl. 1090, 33
L.R.A. 129; Montelaire Military
Academy v. N. J. St. Ry. Co., 70 N.
J. L. 229, 57 Atl. 1050; S. C. 65 N.
J. L. 328, 47 Atl. 890; Budd v. Cam-
den Horse R. R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 782,
59 Atl. 229 ; Ehret v. Camden etc. R.
R. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 171, 47 Atl. 562;
Budd V. Camden Horse R. R. Co., 61
N. J. Eq. 543, 48 Atl. 1028; Camden
etc. Ry. Co. v. U. S. Cast Iron Pipe
& F. Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 279, 59 Atl.
523 ; Cincinnati Inclined Plane R. R.
Co. v. City & Suburban Tel. Ass., 48
Ohio St. 390, 27 N. E. 890, 12 L.R.A.
534; Mt. Adams etc. R. R. Co. v.
Winslow, 3 Ohio C. C. 425; Simmons
V. City of Toledo, 5 Ohio C. C. 124;
Simmons v. Toledo, 8 Ohio C. C.
535; Schoff v. Cleveland etc. R. R.
Co., 16 Ohio C. C. 252; Lockhart v.
Craig St. R. R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 419,
21 Atl. 26; Lockhart v. Craig St.
R. R. Co., 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 470; Com-
monwealth V. West Chester, 9 Pa.
Co. Ct. 542; Heilman v. Lebanon &
A. R. R. Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 241;
Central Pa. Tel. etc. Co. v. Wilkes-
Barre etc. R. R. Co., 11 Pa. Co. Ct.
417; Taggart v. Newport St. R. R.
Co., 16 R. I. 668, 19 Atl. 326, 2 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 44; Cumberland
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United Electric R.
R. Co., 93 Tenn. 492, 29 S. W. 104,
10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 549, 27
L.R.A. 236; San Antonio Rapid
Transit St. R. R. Co. v. Limburger,
88 Tex. 79, 30 S. W. 533, 53 Am. St.
§ 161 EOADS AND STEEETS. 273
of last resort was in Rhode Island.®^ The object of the suit was
to enjoin the defendant from erecting and maintaining poles
and wires in the street in front of the plaintiff's property, for
the purpose of operating its road by means of electricity. The
court, while recognizing the distinction between the ordinary
steam railroad and the horse railroad, held that the distinction
properly rested "not on any difference in the motive power, but
in the different effects produced by them, respectively, on the
highways or streets which they occupy." It held that a street
railway, operated in the usual manner, was in furtherance of
the original uses of the street, and not obstructive of such uses,
and that the use of electricity as a motive power made no differ-
ence ; that as the motive power was not the criterion, electricity
might be used, and the poles and wires necessary to conduct the
electricity were thus "directly ancillary to the uses of the street
as such."
The New York court of appeals, following its decision in
regard to horse railroads,®* holds that an electric street rail-
road is an additional burden upon the fee of the street.*^ But
if the abutter has not the fee he has no remedy.^® The supreme
court of Mississippi holds that an electric street railway is not
a legitimate street use and imposes an additional burden on the
soil.*^ In Nebraska it has been held that the poles and wires
Rep. 730; Dooley Block V. Salt Lake ssPeck v. Schenectady etc. Ry.
Rapid Transit Co., 9 Utah 31, 33 Co., 170 N. Y. 298, 63 N. E. 357,
Pac. 229, 8 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. afflrming S. C. 67 App. Div. 359, 73
327; Reid v. Norfolk City R. R. Co., K Y. S. 794; Paige v. Schenectady
94 Va. 117, 26 S. E. 428, 64 Am. St. Ry. Co., 178 N. Y. 102, 70 N. E. 213,
Rep. 708, 36 L.R.A. 274; Richmond reversing S. C. 84 App. Div. 91, 82
Traction Co. v. Murphy, 98 Va. 104, N. Y. S. 192. See Tracy v. Troy &
34 S. E. 982; La Crosse City Ry. Co. L. R. R. Co., 54 Hun 550, 27 N. Y.
V. Higbee, 107 Wis. 389, 83 N. W. St. 633, 7 N. Y. Supp. 892; Clark v.
701, 51 L.R.A. 923; Linden Land Middletown-Goshen Traction Co., 10
Co. V. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Lt. Co., App. Div. 354, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1109.
107 Wis. 493, 83 N. W. 851; Youn- seKennedy v. Minneola etc. Trac-
kin V. Milwaukee L. H. & T. Co., tion Co., 178 N. Y. 508, 71 N. E. 102,
112 Wis. 15, 87 N. W. 861 ; Same v. affirming S. C. 77 App. Div. 484, 78
Same, 120 Wis. 477, 98 N. W. 215. N. Y. S. 937. So where the road is
ssTaggart v. Newport St. R. R. on the further half of the street.
Co., 16 R. I. 668, 19 Atl. 326, 2 Am. Roberts v. Huntington R. R. Co., 56
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 44, 1890. Misc. 62.
s^Craig v. Rochester etc. R. R. s'Slaughter v. Meridian St. & Ry.
Co., 39 N. Y. 404. Co., (Miss.), 48 So. 6,
Em. D.— 18.
274
EMINENT DOMAIN.
161
of a trolley road are an additional burden on the street, because
they permanently and exclusively occupy parts of the street.^*
In Pennsylvania it is held that an electric railway cannot be
laid down upon a country road though it is a proper use of
city or village streets.*® The decision goes both upon the
ground that the statutes in regard to street railroads were not
intended to apply to country roads and also upon the ground
that a distinction exists between urban and rural highways and
that the latter are not subject to many uses which the former
are. But the weight of authority, as well as the reason of the
matter, is that the "same rule applies to country roads as to
city streets.®"
It has been held that an abutter has no legal ground of com-
plaint because the road is laid wholly on his side of the street or
near his boundary®^ but he would have a remedy for any un-
reasonable or excessive use of the street or for any unnecessary
interference with his easement of access,®^ as by planting a trol-
ssJaynes v. Omaha St. R. R. Co.,
53 Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67, 39 L.R.A.
751.
8 9 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Mont-
gomery Co. Pass. R. R. Co., 167 Pa.
St. 62, 31 Atl. 468, 46 Am. St. Rep.
659, 27 L.R.A. 766, reversing 14 Pa.
Co. Ct. 88, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 58.
90 Austin V. Detroit etc. Ry. Co.,
134 Mich. 149, 96 N. W. 35; Ehret v.
Camden etc. Ry. Co., 60 N. J. Eq.
246, 46 Atl. 578; Same v. Same, 61
N. J. Eq. 171, 47 Atl. 562; ante, §
118.
91 Ashland etc. St. Ry. Co. v.
Faulkner, 106 Ky. 332, 51 S. W.
806, 43 L.R.A. 554; Austin v. De-
troit etc. Ry. Co., 134 Mich. 149, 96
N. W. 35; Budd v. Camden Horse
R. R. Co., 61 K. J. Eq. 543, 48 Atl.
1028; Budd v. Camden Horse R. R.
Co., 70 N. J. L. 782, 59 Atl. 229;
San Antonio Rapid Transit St. Ry.
Co. V. Limburger, 88 Tex. 79, 30 S.
W. 533, 53 Am. St. Rep. 730.
9 2LouisvilIe Ry. Co. v. Foster, 108
Ky. 743, 57 S. W. 480, 50 L.R.A. 813;
Roebling v. Trenton Pass. Ry. Co., 58
N. J. L. 666, 34 Atl. 1090, 33 L.R.A.
129; La Crosse City Ry. Co. v. Hig-
bee, 107 Wis. 389, 83 N. W. 701, 51
L.R.A. 923. In the first of these
cases the plaintiff sued for damages
to his property by reason of noise,
smells, dust, etc., caused by a turn
table near his premises, the sweeping
of cars and use of the street as a,
terminal and the court held that the
plaintiff "as the owner of city prop-
erty fronting on the street, must
subini|t to all those noises, smells and
disturbfinces that are usual in city
life, including the use of the higli-
way by the street railway, in so far
as they were reasonably incidental to
the operation of a street railway in
a city, and borne by the public gen-
erally; and that, so far as the injury
complained of arose from these
causes, there could be no recovery;
but that she could recover for any
substantial injury to her property
arising from the location or opera-
tion of the turntable or cars that
was caused by such noises, smells, and
disturbances as were not fairly inci-
dental to the usual operation of such
a street railway, and borne by the
§ 162 EOADS AND STEEETS. 275
ley pole in front of his door."* The right to use streets for the
electric trolley railroad and its limitations are well summed up
hy the supreme court of Wisconsin, as follows : "1. A railroad
constructed on the grade of a street and operated so as not to
materially interfere with the common use thereof for public
travel by ordinary modes, or with private rights of abutting
land owners, and for the purpose of transporting persons from
place to place on such streets at their reasonable convenience,
is not an additional burden on the fee thereof. 2. A railroad
satisfies the above essentials, regardless of the motive power
used or how it is applied, if it be strictly a street railroad for
the carriage of passengers on the street, taking them on and
discharging them at reasonable points, and it be so constructed
and operated as not to materially interfere with the ordinary
modes of using the street for public travel or with private
rights. 3. A supporting trolley wire pole, set in the street in
front of the sidewalk, does not violate the above rule if it be
placed with reasonable regard for the convenience of the owner
of the fee of the land on which it is located, and so as not to
materially interfere with access to his lot Outside the street
line." »*
§ 162 (llSg). Subways or underground street rail-
roads. The first case involving such a railroad arose in New
York. In the matter of ISTew York District Railway Co.,®^ a
proposed railway, confined to the limits of a city and constructed
on the streets underneath their surface was held to be a street
railway. The case was an application by the railway company
for the appointment of commissioners to determine whether its
railroad ought to be built. The question whether such a railway
was a legitimate street use or whether abutting owners would
be entitled to compensation in case their property was injured
property owners generally along the 9 4Sylabus in La Crosse City Ey.
line." 751. Co. v. Higbee, 107 Wis. 389, 83 N. W.
9 3Trolley poles should be so placed 701, 51 L.R.A. 923.
as to do no unnecessary damage to sbio7 N. Y. 42. See Terry v. Eich-
the abutting property. Snyder v. Ft. mond, 94 Va. 537. In this case it
Madison St. R. R. Co., 105 la. 284, 75 was held that a railroad, which had
N. W. 179, 41 L.R.A. 34S. Where the authority to go through a. street in
location of poles is fixed by the mu- a tunnel, must make compensation
nicipality, the abutter may compel for injury to private rights,
the removal of a pole in a diflferent
location. ' Moore v. Camden etc. Ry.
Co., 73 N. J. L. 599, 64 Atl. 116.
276 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 162
or depreciated thereby was not before the court. The court
would seem to indicate that they would be. "Where the rail-
way runs under the streets, the adjoining owners are as much
and as dangerously affected as where it runs on their surface or
above them. Whether the new surface is safe and sufficient, or
weak and perilous, and invites or frightens away passage;
whether the openings obstruct or hinder access to the abutter,
or pour out through the ventilators smoke and steam upon his
premises ; whether his vaults and foundations will remain safe
and secure, or be undermined or weakened by vibration;
whether his gas and water supply will continue ample and con-
venient, and the new sewerage work him no injury; all these
are to him questions of vital importance, affecting his comfort
and convenience, the success of his business and the value of
his property."
Subways for street passenger railroads are in operation in
Boston and the same have been held not to be a taking of any
property of the owner of the fee. The court says : — 'fit can hard-
ly be contended that this is an unreasonable mode of using the
streets in reference either to travelers or abutters. If it is not
an unreasonable mode of using them, the mere fact that it de-
prives abutters of the use of vaults and other similar under-
ground structures in the streets, which they have heretofore
maintained is of little consequence. /Abutters are bound to
withdraw from occupation of streets above or below the surface
whenever the public needs the occupied space for travel. The
necessary requirements of the public for travel were all paid
for when the land was taken, whatever they may be, and whether
the particulars of them were foreseen or not. The only limita-
tion upon them is that they shall be of a kind that are not un-
reasonable.)' ^^
Whether the subway in New York city is a proper street, use
has been questioned but not decided. ^'^ Where an imauthorized
deviation was made from the authorized route, whereby the
96Sears v. Crocker, 184 Mass. 58G, S'March v. New York, 69 App.
588, 589, 69 N. E. 327, 100 Am. St. Div. 1, 74 N. Y. S. 630. In a recent
Eep. 577. The legislature may au- case in the supreme court it has been
tliorize the construction of a subway held that an a,butting owner, having
for street railroads in the streets of the fee, is entitled to compensation.
a city without the consent of the Matter of Rapid Transit R. R.
city. Prince v. Crocker, 116 Mass. Comrs., 128 App. Div. 103.
347, 44 N. E. 446.
§ 164 KOADS AND STEEETS. 277
tunnel was brought nearer the abutting property and great dam-
age done to it, the court refused to approve of the deviation, ex-
cept on condition that compensation be made for such damage.^*
§ 163. Other kinds of street railroads. The electric
trolley railroad has, for the most part, displaced all other kinds
of street roads. There are in New York city and possibly else-
where street railroads operated by means of an "underground
trolley," that is the wire carrying the electric current is under-
ground and connection is made through a slot between the rails.
There are also electric railways operated by means of a storage
battery. It is manifest that both of these are less injurious
than the overhead trolley and must be accounted legitimate street
uses if the latter are. The "underground trolley" railroad
has been held not to be an additional burden on the street.®^
§ 164 (llSh). Street railroads. — General conclusions.
As already shown a street railroad is ordinarily understood to
mean a railroad constructed and operated in a public street and
confined to local passenger traffic. In addition to the cases
cited in the preceding sections there are many others which hold
that a street railroad, as thus defined, is a legitimate street use,
without taking into account the motive power or the way in
which it is applied.^
In the history of street railroads, we have in the order of
time, as a propelling power : first, animals ; second, steam, and
third, electricity. For twenty years or more after the introduc-
tion of street railroads, they were operated by animal power
exclusively. Horse railroads and street railroads were for a
long time practically synonymous. During this time the doc-
trine was worked out by the courts that horse railroads were a le-
ssMatter of Board of Eapid Tran- N. W. 447; Ecorse Tp. v. Jackson etc
sit R. E. Comrs., 104 App. Div. 468, Ry. Co., 153 Mich. 393; Elfelt v
93 N. Y. S. 930; S. C. 117 App. Div. Stillwater St. R. R. Co., 53 Minn
160, 102 N. Y. S. 400. * 68, 55 N. W. 116; Ransom v. Citi
9 9 St. Michael's P. E. Church v. zens' R. R. Co., 104 Mo. 375, 16 S. W
Forty-second St. etc. R. R. Co., 26 416; Merrick v. Intramontaine E
Misc. 601. R. Co., 118 N. C. 1081, 24 S. E. 667
iFinch V. Riverside & A. R. R. Perry v. Wilkes-Barre & K. Pass. R
Co., 87 Cal. 597, 25 Pac. 765; Haskell R. Co., 4 Luzerne Leg. Rep. 519
V. Denver Tramway Co., 23 Colo. 60, Scranton etc. Traction Co. v. Del. &
46 Pac. 121 ; People v. Ft. Wayne &, H. Canal Co., 1 Pa. Supr. Ct. 409
E. R. R. Co., 92 Mich. 522, 52 N. W. Smith v. East End St. R. R. Co., 87
1010, 16 L.R.A. 752; Taylor v. Bay Tenn. 626, 11 S. W. 709.
City St. R. R. Co., 101 Mich. 140, 59
278 EMINENT DOMAIN, § 164
gitimate street use. The reasons assigned in support of this doc-
trine consisted in the tracks being laid on the Surface of the street
in such manner as to be readily crossed or used longitudinally by
ordinary vehicles, in the motive power being the same as that of
ordinary vehicles, in the fact that the cars were operated with no
more noise, jar or disturbance than that produced by other ve-
hicles, and in the fact that their business consisted in conveying
passengers from one point to another on the street in aid of the
ordinary street traffic. The horse railroad decisions were also
founded upon certain negative reasons, so to speak, or particu-
lars which distinguish them from the steam railroad. They
were held to be legitimate street uses because they presented
certain positive characteristics, and also because they did not
present certain other characteristics which were peculiar to
steam railroads. Thus horse railroads were distinguished from
steam railroads, in the rails and construction of the track, in
the motive power, in the speed with which the cars were pro-
pelled, in the noise and vibrations produced, the smoke and
steam emitted, the liability of the engine to frighten horses,
the danger to life and limb and the size and weight of the cars
and locomotives.^ When the steam motor and electric roads
2Thu3 in Citizens' Coach Co. v. obvious, however, that an ordinary
Camden Horse E. E. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. horse railroad, in occupying a high-
267, 36 Am. Eep. 542, it is said: way with its track, and making use
"Considering the developments of the of it with its cars, produces a dif-
railroads of the country, it is now ferent result from that produced by
perfectly obvious that the use of such an occupation and use by a
a public highway longitudinally by railroad operated by steam. By
a railroad operated by steam, is a legislative direction, the track of the
use entirely inconsistent with and horse railroad is required to be (as
destructive of the public use to in this case) so constructed not only
which the highway was originally as not to interfere with or prevent
devoted. The rate of speed at which the passage of other vehicles, but to
such roads are operated are danger- be adapted to such passage both
ous to the public, who would other- across and along the rails. The
wise use the highway. It makes use cars are drawn by animals such as
of rails not adapted to, but obstruct- usually draw the vehicles used on
ive of, the ordinary public use of public highways. They carry along
the highway by the usual vehicles the highway such passengers as
of travel thereon. The noise, the otherwise would be obliged to pass
danger, the obstruction of its road- over it on foot or in other vehicles,
bed, all combine to make the use of and do so with no more injury in
the highway by such a railroad in- the way of noise, jar, or disturb-
compatible with its general use as ance than would be occasioned by
a public highway. * * * It is the passage of other vehicles. The
§ 164
EOADS AND STREETS.
279
came before the courts, the doctrine in regard to horse rail-
roads -was already well established. The phrase street railroads
was conveniently substituted for that of horse railroads in the
forrmdcB of this doctrine, and the horse railroad cases were thus
made to sanction the steam motor and electric railroad. Every
reason but one on which the horse railroad decisions were
founded was disregarded. It was held that the track need not
be like the horse railroad track, but might consist of T rails.*
It was held that the motive power was immaterial,* and the
matter of noise, smoke and vibration was lost sight of altogether.
The whole matter was made to turn upon the nature of the
use, if it be novel and peculiar in its
form, it is but a modification of the
original use to which the highway
was devoted when it became a high-
way. The burden imposed thereby
upon the landowner, so far as the
use of his property is concerned, is
identical in kind and no greater in
degree than was originally imposed
upon the land when the highway
was opened."
In South Carolina K. E. Co. v.
Stein, 44 Ga. 546, 558 (1871), it is
said: "I think the streets may be
used, and bars laid upon them and
cars drawn over them by horses;
but there is something in a locomo-
tive power, in throwing smoke into
the houses along the street, its tre-
mendous weight shaking the houses
and breaking plastering and walls;
and in the noise and screeching of
whistles, which, in the machinery
employed, may make it the subject
matter of injury, which the horse
car, slowly driving along, would not
occasion. It is not in the use of
the street for ears, but in the mode
of use." In Hinchman v. Paterson,
H. R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. 75, 80, 1864,
the chancellor says of horse rail-
ways: "They are ordinarily, as in
this case, required to be laid level
with the surface of the street, in
conformity with existing grades. No
excavations or embankments to af-
fect the land are authorized or per-
mitted. The use of the road is
nearly identical with that of the
ordinary highway. The motive
power is the same. The noise and
jarring of the street by the cars is
not greater, and orainarily less,
than that produced by omnibuses
and other vehicles in ordinary use."
See also Hodges v. Baltimore
Union Pass. R. R. Co., 58 Md. 603
Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. v. Hunt
ley, 67 HI. 439, 444; Cox v. Louis
ville etc. R. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178
Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v.
Heisel, 38 Mich. 62, 31 Am. Rep
306; Williams v. New York Central
etc. R. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 97, 108, 69
Am. Dec. 632; Imlay v. Union
Branch R. R. Co., 26 Conn. 249, 68
Am. Dec. 392.
sNewell v. Minneapolis etc. R. R.
Co., 35 Minn. 112, 59 Am. Rep. 303;
Niemann v. Detroit Suburban St. R.
R. Co., 103 Mich. 256, 61 N. W. 519.
^Briggs V. Lewiston etc. Horse R.
R. Co., 79 Me. 363; Halsey v. Rapid
Transit R. R. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 380,
20 Atl. 859; Williams v. City Elec-
tric St. R. R. Co., 41 Fed. 556; Tag-
gart V. Newport St. R. R. Co., 16 R.
I. 326, 19 Atl. 326, 2 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 44; Raflerty v. Central
Traction Co., 147 Pa. St. 579, 23 Atl.
884, 30 Am. St. Rep. 763.
280 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 165
traiSc, the transportation of passengers from one point to an-
other upon the street.
Considering all the cases, except a few to be noticed in the
two following sections, and having due regard to the weight of
authority and the trend of judicial opinion we should say
that the general doctrine to be extracted from the street rail-
road cases is that a railroad is a legitimate street use provided,
first, that the road is devoted exclusively to street passenger
traffic, and, second, that its track is laid to conform to the sur-
face of the street, and so as to obstruct ordinary travel as little
as possible. This excludes a road with cuts and fills, because
of the cuts and fills.* It excludes the elevated railroad, because
of the elevation of the tracks above the surface and the super-
structure which such elevation makes necessary. It excludes
the commercial railroad because of the nature of its trafiic. It
admits any sort of motive power and any sort of motor; it
admits any size or weight of cars and trains of any length ; '
it admits any sort of superstructure or substructure which may
be necessary to apply the motive power, which does not mate-
rially interfere with the ordinary use of the street or with
access to abutting property.
§ 165. Interurban railroads. An interwhan railroad,
as commonly understood in the first decade of the twentieth
century, means an electric railway operated through and be-
tween different cities and towns, and carrying only passengers,
or passengers, light freight and express.'^ They are sometimes
SNichols V. Ann Arbor etc. R. R. sey v. Union Traction Co., 169 Ind.
Co., 87 Mich, 361, 49 N. W. 538; West- 563, 81 N. E. 922.
heffer v. Lebanon & A. St. R. R. Co., 'In Iowa an interurban railway
163 Pa. St. 54, 29 Atl. 873. See is defined by statute as follows:
Green v. City & Suburban R. R. Co., "Any railway operated upon the
78 Md. 294, 28 Atl. 626, 44 Am. St. streets of a city or town by electric
Rep. 288; post, § 178. In Austin v. or other power than steam, which
Detroit etc. Ry. Co., 134 Mich. 149, extends beyond the corporate limits
96 N. W. 35, a trolley road was held of such city or town to another
not to be an additional burden on a city, town or village, or any
country highway though the grade railway operated by electric or
was cut down some four feet along other power than steam, extending
the plaintiff's farm. from one city, town or village to an-
6The length of trains would doubt- other city, town or village, shall be
less be subject to municipal or legisla- known as an interurban railway."
tion regulation, even after the fran- Cedar Rapids v. Marion City Ry.
chise had been granted and had be- Co., 125 la. 430, 101 N. W. 176. The
come a binding contract. See Kin- case relates only to the mode of as-
§ 165 EOADS AND STREETS. 281
constructed wholly upon streets and highways and sometimes
partly or mostly on private rights of way. In passing into
or through cities and towns, where there are street railways,
they are usually operated upon the street railway tracks. The
name, in so far as it is descriptive, is not exclusively appli-
cable to the class of roads referred to. All commercial rail-
roads are interurban railroads. And many street railroads are
also interurban roads, especially in the vicinity of large cities.
But the name may be accepted as a convenient one to desig-
nate a class of railroads which are becoming increasingly nu-
merous. The questions to be considered are whether these rail-
roads when constructed and operated upon streets and highways
constitute an additional burden upon the soil or a taking of
any rights of the abutting owners.
As far back as the day of horse railroads there were many in-
terurban street railroads between cities and their suburbs or
between adjacent or nearby towns. They were constructed and
operated as ordinary street railroads and were held to be legiti-
mate street uses without noticing their interurban character.*
When electric power was introduced these roads were multiplied
in number and extended in their operations until the true
interurban railroad was evolved.* Interurban street passenger
railroads, constructed and operated like the ordinary street
railroad, have generally been held not to impose an
additional burden on the street or highway.^" In none
sessing the property of such rail- Ry. & Lt. Co., 99 Wis. 83, 74 N. W.
roads for taxation. In Ohio inter- 538, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844, 41 L.R.A.
urban railroads are classed by stat- 575.
ute with street railroads. State v. loCanastota Knife Co. v. Newing-
Dayton Traction Co., 64 Ohio St. 272, ton Tramway Co., 69 Conn. 146, 36
60 N. E. 291; Cincinnati, Lawrence- Atl. 1107; Cleveland etc. Ry. Co. v.
burg & Aurora Elec. St. K. R. Co. v. Feight, 41 Ind. App. 416; George-
Lohe, 68 Ohio St. 101, 67 N. E. 161; town & Lexington Traction Co. v.
Cincinnati etc. Elec. St. Ry. Co. v. Mulholland, 25 Ky. L. R. 578, 76 S.
Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 21 Ohio W. 148; Taylor v. Portsmouth etc.
C. C. 391 ; Chambers v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 91 Me. 193, 39 Atl. 560, 64
etc. Traction Co., 5 Ohio C. C. (N. Am. St. Rep. 216; Green v. City and
S.) 298. Suburban Ry. Co., 78 Md. 294;
sPeddicord v. Baltimore, Catons- Lonaconing Midland & Frostburg
ville & Ellicotts' Mills Pass. R. R. Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Coal Co., 95
Co., 34 Md. 463 ; Hiss V. Baltimore & Md. 630, 53 Atl. 420; Jeffers v.
Hampden Pass. Ry. Co., 52 Md. 242. Annapolis, 107 Md. 268; Howe v.
9The process of development is West End St. Ry. Co., 167 Mass. 46,
traced in Zehren v. Milwaukee Elec. 44 N. E. 386; Austin v. Detroit etc.
282
EMIITEITT DOMAIN.
165
of the cases cited, except two, was any account taken
of the distinction between interurban passenger traffic
and urban passenger traffic. -^^ In Pennsylvania such a
road was held to be an additional burden upon a country
highway, not because it was an interurban road but because a
street railroad is held not to be within the public easement in
such a highway. ^^ In Wisconsin an interurban street passenger
railway is held to be an additional burden both upon country
highways and city streets. The question first arose with respect
to the country highway. A corporation operating the street
Ry. Co., 134 Mich. 149, 96 N. W. 35;
Smith V. Jaclcson & Battle Creek
Traction Co., 137 Mich. 20, 100 N.
W. 121 ; Newell v. Minneapolis etc.
R. R. Co., 35 Minn. 112, 27 N. W.
839, 59 Am. Rep. 303; West Jersey
R. R. Co. V. Camden, Gloucester &
Woodbury Ry. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 31,
29 Atl. 423; Ehret v. Camden &
Trenton R. R. Co., 61 N. J. Eq., 171,
47 Atl. 567; Ranken v. St. Louis &
B. Suburban Ry. Co., 98 Fed. 479.
In Nichols v. Ann Arbor etc. R. R.
Co., 87 Mich. 361, 49 N. W. 538, 16
L.R.A. 371, such a road was held to
be an additional burden, because
constructed with cuts and fills. See
also Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Whit-
ing etc. R. R. Co., 139 Ind. 297,
38 N. E. 604, 47 Am. St. Ry. 264,
26 L.R.A. 337; New York Central
etc. R. R. Co. V. Auburn Interurban
R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 75, 70 N. E.
117 ; McQuaide v. Portland etc. R. R.
Co., 18 Ore. 237, 22 Pac. 899 ; Paquet
V. Mt. Tabor St. R. R. Co., 18 Ore.
233, 22 Pac. 906.
iiCanastota Knife Co. v. Newing-
ton Tramway Co., 69 Conn. 146, 36
Atl. 1107; Newell v. Minneapolis
etc. R. R. Co., 35 Minn. 112, 27 N.
W. 839, 59 Am. Rep. 303. In the
former case, speaking of the street
railway, the court says: "Its main
purpose is presumably, and should be
in fact, to facilitate and further the
use of every street through which it
passes. If it should run over a
thinly settled country road between
two cities, this would be no less
true. Highways are for through
travel as fully as for local travel.
A street railway laid over them
must always serve both purposes, to
a greater or less extent. If it fails
in either, it loses its identity with
ordinary highway use. A steam
railroad ordinarily serves but one,
and thus has not such identity.'' p.
154. In the latter case the court re-
ferring to the interurban traffic of
the road in question, says: "A per-
son who desires to go from any part
of Minneapolis to San Francisco has
the same right to use the streets of
the former city for the purpose of
passing out of it on his way to his
destination as a person who simply
desires to pass from one place in
Minneapolis to another in the same
city. The use of the streets is just
as legitimate, and just as clearly
and completely a lawful and proper
enjoyment of the public and common
easement, in the one case as in the
other." To same eflfect, Jeffers v.
Annapolis, 107 Md. 268.
1 2Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Mont-
gomery Co. Pass. Ry. Co., 167 Pa.
St. 62, 31 Atl. 468, 46 Am. St. Rep.
659, 27 L.R.A. 766. And see Heilman
V. Lebanon & Anville St. Ry. Co..
145 Pa. St. 23, 23 Atl. 329.
§ 165
EOADS AND STEEETS.
283
car system in Milwaukee proposed to construct a line to a sub-
urban village through an intervening country town. In a suit
by an abutting owner to enjoin the construction of the road
on one of the highways in such town, it was held that the
road was an additional burden and could not be constructed
without compensation to the owner of the fee'' Subsequently
the same rule was applied to city streets and it was held that
an interurban railway, transporting passengers through and be-
isZehren v. Milwaukee Eleo. Ry. &
Lt. Co., 99 Wis. 83, 74 N. W. 538, 67
Am. St. Rep. 844, 41 L.E.A. 575.
The court says: "The street rail-
way in its inception is a purely
urban institution. It is intended to
facilitate travel in and about the
city, from one part of the munici-
pality to another, and thus relieve
the sidewalks of foot passengers and
the roadway of vehicles. It is thus
an aid to the exercise of the ease-
ment of passage; strictly, a city
convenience, for use in the city, by
people living or stopping therein,
and fully under the control of munic-
ipal authorities, who have been en-
dowed with ample power for that
purpose. This strictly urban char-
acter of the street railways remained
practically unchanged for many
years, and during these years the
long line of decisions grew up recog-
nizing the street railway as merely
an improved method of using the
street, and rather as a help to the
street than as a burden thereon.
Time, however, has made changes in
conditions. New motive power has
been discovered, and it is found that
by its use an enlarged city street
car may profitably be run long dis-
tances, and compete to some extent
with the steam railway. It is pro-
posed to convert the city railways
into lines of passenger transporta-
tion, covering long distances and con-
necting widely separated cities and
villages, by using the country high-
ways, and operating long and heavy
coaches, sometimes made up into
trains of heavy oars. Thus the
urban railway has developed into the
interurban railway, and threatens
soon to develop into the interstate
railway. The small car which took
up passengers at one corner, and
dropped them at another, has be-
come a large coach, approximating
the ordinary railway coach in size,
and has become a part, perhaps, of a
train which sweeps across the coun-
try from one city to another, bear-
ing its load of passengers ticketed
through, with an occasional local
passenger picked up on the highway.
The purely city purpose which the
urban railway subserved has de-
veloped into or been supplanted by
an entirely different purpose, namely,
the transportation of passengers
from city to city over long stretches
of intervening country. Where this
train or car, with its load of through
passengers, is passing through a,
country town it is clearly serving no
township purpose, save in the most
limited sense. It is very difficult to
say that this use of a country high-
way is not an additional burden. It
is built and operated mainly to ob-
tain the through travel from city to
city, and only incidentally to take
up a passenger in the country town.
This through travel is unquestion-
ably composed of people who other-
wise would travel on the ordinary
steam railroad, and would not use
the highway at all. Thus, the oper-
ation of this newly developed street
284
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 165
tween cities, was an additional burden upon the city streets.-'*
In a proceeding by such a railroad to condemn the right to use
a city street," it was held that damages should be assessed on the
same basis as though the road was a commercial railroad.^"
But many interurban railroads are authorized to carry and
make a practice of carrying both freight and passengers and the
question arises whether such a road is an additional burden on
a street or highway. In Illinois such railroads are classed as
commercial railroads as respects the use of streets, even though
limited to the transportation of ordinary baggage, mail, express
and milk.-'® So in Ohio an interurban railroad, authorized to
carry baggage, packages, boxed and barrelled freight, farm prod-
uce, express matter and U. S. mail, was held to be an additional
railway (so called) upon the coun-
try road is precisely opposite to the
operation of the urban railway upon
the city street. It burdens the road
with travel which otherwise would
not be there, instead of relieving it
by the substitution of one vehicle for
many.
"However we regard this develop-
ment of the urban into the inter-
urban railway, it seems utterly im-
possible and illogical to say that it
is essentially the same in its pur-
pose and effects as the mere street
railway, which was held in the Ho-
bart Case (Hobart v. Milwaukee
City E. R. Co., 27 Wis. 194) not to
be an additional burden on the fee.
The reasons given for that holding in
that case either do not apply at all,
or only in a very limited degree, to
the interurban railroad. The differ-
ence is not so much in the change
of motive power as in the entirely
different character of the use. Sup-
pose a steam railway corporation
were organized to carry passengers
only from city to city, and should
attempt to lay its tracks upon the
country roads without compensa-
tion; is there any doubt but that
it would be held that it could not
do so? We think not. Our conclu-
sion is that an interurban electric
railway running upon the highways
through country towns, is an addi-
tional burden upon the highway."
pp. 95-97.
KYounkin v. Milwaukee L. H. &
T. Co., 112 Wis. 15, 87 N. W. 861;
Same v. Same, 120 Wis. 477, 98 N.
W. 215.
isAbbott V. Milwaukee L. H. & T.
Co., 126 Wis. 634, 106 N. W. 523, 4
L.R.A.(N.S.) 202. See a iso the fol-
lowing, which were proceedings by
the same company to condemn the
easements infringed upon. Wilbur
Lumber Co. v. Milwaukee Lt., H. &
Traction Co., 134 Wis. 352, 114 N.
W. 813; Brickies v. Same, 134 Wis.
358, 114 N. W. 810; Gosa v. Same,
134 Wis. 369, 114 N. W. 815; Tem-
pleton V. Same, 134 Wis. 377, 114 N.
W. 808; Putney Bros. Co. v. Same,
134 Wis. 379, 114 N. W. 809; Marsh
v. Same, 134 Wis. 384, 114 N. W.
804; Petrie v. Same, 134 Wis. 394,
114 N. W. 808.
16 Wilder v. Aurora etc. Elec. Trac-
tion Co., 216 111. 493, 75 N. E. 194;
Aurora v. Elgin etc. Traction Co.,
227 111. 485, 81 N. E. 544, 118 Am.
St. Rep. 284; Roekford etc. Ry. Co.
v. Keyt, 117 111. App. 32.
§ 165 KOADS AND STREETS. 285
burden on a highway.''^ An electric railroad proposed to be
built on roads and streets between Milwaukee and Kenosha and
authorized to carry freight and passengers, express and mail
matter, was held to be a commercial railroad by the supreme
court of AVisconsin.-'^ The question has received elaborate con-
sideration in two Indiana cases. In the earlier case a bill was
filed to enjoin the use of a street in Ft. Wayne by an interurban
railroad. The company was authorized to carry passengers, ex-
press, mail and baggage. Cars were to be operated singly, un-
less by permission of the city when trains of two cars could
be run. It was held not to be an additional burden on the
street. "If constructed and operated in the manner described,"
says the court, "in what essential particular will the defendant's
railroad differ from an ordinary electric street railroad ? Both
kinds of roads, when deemed necessary, use the T rail, and their
cars are propelled by the same motive power. The carriage
of light express matter, passenger baggage, and mail matter
upon street cars would not constitute ground of complaint on
the part of abutting lot owners. If only one car is run, the
street is occupied, and obstructed by it to no greater extent than
it would be by a street car. If two constitute a train, they
will take up no more space and do no more injury than a motor
car and trailer, which are commonly run upon street railroad
tracks when the business of the company requires such addi-
tional car. The fact that light express matter, passenger bag-
gage, and United States mail matter are carried on a car does
not affect the property owner nor injure his property. The
transportation of articles of this kind does not create any re-
semblance between the interurban electric railroad and a steam
railroad carrying ordinary goods and merchandise, and results
in none of the annoyances and injuries which are caused by
either passenger or freight trains, on such a railroad." '^ In the
later case, suit was brought to enjoin the operation of interur-
iTSchaaf v. Cleveland etc. Ry. Co., Co., 120 Mo. App. 335, 96 S. W. 707,
66 Ohio St. 215, 64 N. E. 145; Cham- where interurban railroads carrying
bers V. Cleveland etc. Traction Co., freight and passengers were classed
5 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 298. with commercial railroads, as re-
isChicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Mil- spects the duty to fence their tracks,
waukee etc. R. R. Co., 95 Wis. 561, isMordhurst v. Ft. Wayne etc.
70 N. E. 678, 60 Am. St. Rep. 136, Traction Co., 163 Ind. 268, 275, 71
37 L.R.A. 856. And see Hannah v. N. E. 642, 106 Am. St. Rep. 222, 68
Met. St. Ry. Co., 81 Mo. App. 78 and L.R.A. 105.
Riggs V. St. Francois County Ry.
286 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 165
ban cars and trains over a street railroad track in Indianapolis.
The company was authorized to carry passengers, mail, express
and baggage as in the former case. There appears to have been
no limit to the number of cars -which might be operated together
and trains of three cars, each sixty feet long, were in fact run
upon the street. The trains did not stop between the city limits
and the terminal of the road. There were opinions by all the
judges. Three of the judges held that such a road, operated in
a proper and reasonable manner, with due regard to the rights
of abutting owners and the demands of ordinary traffic, was
not an additional burden on the street. The case was decided
on demurrer to the complaint, which alleged the trains were run
at from twenty to thirty miles an hour, that the plaintiff's house
was jarred so that the plaster fell and pictures were shaken from
the walls, that horses hitched in the street were frightened and
the sleep of the family disturbed by the noise. The same judges
held that the complaint showed an unlawful and unjustifiable
manner of operating the road and that the plaintiff was entitled
to recover the damages caused by such unlawful use.^" Two
of the judges were of the opinion that an interurban railroad
carrying freight and passengers was an additional burden. A
California case holds that an interurban road for the transpor-
tation of both freight and passengers is a proper use of a street
and that an abutting owner cannot prevent such use but that,
2 0Kinsey v. Union Traction Co., pany, and in conformity to such city
169 Ind. 563, 81 N. E. 922. regulations as the authorities may
The conclusion of the court was from time to time impose upon
guardedly stated as follows: "I street cars operated in the streets of
therefore conclude upon this point the city, and with the sanction and
that interurban cars of suitable size, under the regulation of the city au-
construction and finish, for the car- thorities, temporarily, and in times
riage of both passengers, and ex- of emergency created by special oc-
press and light-package freight, casion, such a reasonable and limited
with permission of the city authori- number more than one as shall be
ties, may be run singly into the city required to meet the transient wants
of Indianapolis, upon the tracks of of the public for passenger carriage,
the local company, laid according to provided such increased number, in
the law regulating street railroad size and manner of operation, is in
tracks in city streets, to a point substantial conformity to the au-
within the city, and over the tracks thorized custom of the local com-
first designated by the board of pany on like occasions, and does not
public works and common council, at materially increase the burden of
a reasonable rate of speed, not ex- the highway easement, nor unduly
ceeding that allowed by law or ordi- interfere with other proper and
nance to the cars of the local com- legitimate uses of the street."
§ 166 EOADS AND STREETS. 287
under the constitutional provision giving compensation for prop-
erty taken or damaged, he may recover for any damage to his
property occasioned by such use.^"- These, so far as we are
aware, embrace all the decisions relating to the use of streets
by interurban railroads.
Starting with the well settled propositions that the street pas-
senger railway is a legitimate street use and that the commercial
railroad is not, it does not seem difficult to dispose of the inter-
urban railroad. In so far as it is operated as a street passenger
railway, in aid of local travel, stopping at street crossings, or
at convenient intervals to take up and let down passengers, it
is on the same basis as the urban street railway. If not operated
for the accommodation of local travel and in substantially the
same manner as the urban street railway, it should be classed
with the commercial railroad, with the consequent liability to
abutting owners. Such a railroad, with its trains sweeping
across the country at twenty or thirty miles an hour, and some-
times more, stopping only at cities and towns and at infrequent
intervals in the country, and in the cities and towns stopping
only for the accommodation of its interurban passengers and
not at all for local traffic on the street, is clearly analogous to
the steam railroad and competes with it and it alone. If the
interurban railroad of this class had followed the horse rail-
road, in the order of development, there is no doubt but what
it would have been classed with the steam railroad and not with
the horse railroad.
If the interurban railroad carries freight as well as passen-
gers, the analogy to the steam railroad is complete. Most of
the freight so carried is such as would otherwise seek transpor-
tation on the steam railroad rather than in drays and wagons
on the streets and highways. The question of freight traffic
is further considered in the following section.
§ 166. Street railroads carrying freight. The question
whether a street railroad carrying both freight and passengers
is a legitimate street use or additional burden on the street, is
a question which is now pressing for solution. Such use of the
streets has been authorized in several of the States. There is no
question, of course, but what the legislature has power to do
2 iMontgomery v. Santa Ana etc.
Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786, 43
Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654.
288 EMINENT DOMAIIf. § 166
this. The only question is whether it can be done without com-
pensation to the abutting owners.
This question has been considered to some extent in the sec-
tion upon interurban railroads.^^ In one of the cases there
cited, which involved the transportation of freight cars over
the street railway tracks in Indianapolis, the court says : "Un-
doubtedly the chief business of street cars is the carriage of
passengers, but there appears in the law of the highway no ob-
jection to the carriage of light and package freight. It has,
perhaps, always been the custom in Indianapolis to carry for
its passengers, hand baggage, filled and unfilled market baskets,
tool boxes, baby carriages, clothes baskets, and all manner of
small articles and packages that may be conveniently handled
from the platform; also, to carry without an accompanying
passenger, the United States mail from the central ofiice to the
various substations of the city; likewise, a large number of
packages of newspapers from down town offices, and depots
receiving consignments from St. Louis, Cincinnati and Chicago,
to the hundreds of distributing points throughout the city. Ke-
pair and construction materials, and perhaps some private
freight, are hauled through the city in the local company's
cars, and no complaint is heard or inconvenience manifest. Be-
sides, what principle can be advanced in condemnation of the
inclosed, reasonably sized, neatly constructed freight or express
car ? Was not the transportation of property over the roads as
deeply seated in the dedicatory purpose as the passage of per-
sons ? Plainly, the reasons which justify the one support the
other. The heavy drays and wagons employed in handling
the commerce of the city are a greater obstruction to the
street, and menace to the safety of those using it, than the num-
ber of pedestrians. Therefore a suitable car, comparatively
noiseless, confined to a fixed track four or five feet wide, in the
center of the street, to which track vehicles may be safely ad-
justed by keeping to the right, and which car will carry twenty
fold more freight or express than a wagon occupying the same
amount of space on the street, and meandering in an irregular
track, cannot, for any sufficient reason, be declared a nuisance,
or an improper use of the street. No use should be improper
that produces no extra hazard, and makes the way easier, safer
and more convenient, as a passageway for the public in com-
2U?i«e, § 165.
§ 166
EOADS AND STBEETS.
289
mon.^^ Similar views have been expressed by the supreme court
of California in case of an interurban street railroad authorized
to carry both freight and passengers.^*
2 3Kinsey v. Union Traction Co.,
169 Ind. 563, 81 N. E. 922, 940. See
also Mordhurst v. Ft. Wayne etc.
Traction Co., 163 Ind. 268, 71 N. E.
642, 106 Am. St. Rep. 222, 66 L.R.A.
105.
2 4lIontgomery v. Santa Ana & W.
E. R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. Rep.
786, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A.
654, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 25.
The court says: "A 'street railway'
has been defined as 'a railway laid
down upon roads or streets for the
purpose of carrying passengers.'
Elliott, supra, 557. It is further
said by the same author that 'the
distinctive and essential feature of
a street railway, considered in rela-
tion to other railroads, is that it is
a railway for the transportation of
passengers, and not of freight.' It
is said to exclude the idea of the
carriage of freight, and that a rail-
road over which heavily-laden
freight trains are drawn cannot
be considered a street railway.
Street cars are little more than car-
riages for transportation of pas-
sengers, propelled over fixed tracks,
to which their wheels are adapted,
and as a convenient, comfortable,
and economical mode of conveyance,
their use has become well-nigh uni-
versal in cities, and as they add,
when properly constructed, little or
nothing to the burdens of the serv-
ient tenement, their use is upheld
without the necessity of compensa-
tion to the abutting owner. The
use of a public street, however, for
an ordinary railway for the trans-
portation of freight and passengers,
it has heen said by the highest au-
thority, imposes a new burden upon
the street, not contemplated in its
Em. D. — 19.
dedication, and, therefore, the user
cannot be indulged without compen-
sation to the abutting owner of
property upon such public street.
We are at a loss for any good reason
for this distinction, or to see why
the transportation of freight by mod-
ern and improved methods is not
equally entitled to encouragement
with the transportation of passen-
gers. The essential wants of the
citizens demand the former equally
with the latter. If there is any dif-
ference in the burden imposed upon
the street, it is in degree, and not in
kind. The great highways of Eng-
land were constructed, not so much
for the convenience of passengers as
for the transportation of freight. In
the infancy of commerce, when trade
and traffic by land was insignificant
in volume, when the sumpter horse,
which answered to our modern pack
mule, answered all the purposes of
transportation for goods, footpaths,
bridlepaths, and lanes served all
needed purposes; but with the
growth of inland commerce, and the
need of greater facilities for the in-
terchange of commodities, the use of
wheeled vehicles, and, as a means
thereto, the highway, as we know it,
became a necessity. The App'an
Way, commenced 312 B. C, which has
provoked the admiration of the
world, was entitled to commendation
for its roadway sixteen feet in width,
constructed for the transportation of
burdens, while the paths of eight feet
on each side of it for foot passengers,
and upon which the Roman legions
were wont to march, were unpaved.
In the construction of modern high-
ways, urban and suburban, the great
difficulty and the prominent object
290
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 166
In JSTew York a statute passed in 1890 authorizes street rail-
roads to convey "persons and property in cars for compensa-
tion." In a suit by an abutting owner, having the fee of the
street, to enjoin a street railroad from operating express cars
over his land, the court of appeals affirmed a decree dismissing
the bill.^'' In subsequent cases in the same court this decision
has been regarded as settling the question of the right to operate
has been to build and adapt them, by
grade, width and structure of road- '
bed, to the carriage of freight. Yet
we are told in effect that, so far as
modern methods are concerned, so
far as ease, speed and economy are
involved, improvements are to be
limited to the transportation of pas-
sengers; that cars with wheels ad-
justed to move upon fixed tracks,
when applied to the transportation
of passengers, are within the con-
templated objects in view in opening
a road or street, and, therefore, add
nothing material to the burden of
the servitude of the abutting land-
owner, while a precisely similar
structure, adapted to the transpor-
tation of freight, adds an additional
burden, of a diflferent character, to
the servitude, and cannot be toler-
ated without compensation to the
abutting owner. An interminable
string of heavy drays may thunder
through the street from early morn-
ing until set of sun, a, menace to all
who frequent the thoroughfare, and
an inconvenience to all dwellers
thereon; but the cars of a railway,
which move usually but a, few times
a day, and with infinitely less an-
noyance to the public, upon tracks
so adjusted to the surface as to oc-
casion little or no inconvenience,
cannot be tolerated. We fail to
appreciate the philosophy of the dis-
tinction. On the contrary, we af-
firm that, when a public street in a
city is dedicated to the general use
of the public, it involves its use sub-
ject to municipal control and limita-
tions, for all the uses and purposes
of the public as a street, including
such methods for the transportation
of passengers and freight as modern
science and improvements may have
rendered necessary, and that the ap-
plication of these methods, and in-
deed of those yet to be discovered,
must have been contemplated when
the street was opened and the right
of way obtained, whether by dedica-
tion, purchase or condemnation pro-
ceedings, and hence that such a user
imposes no new burden or servitude
upon the owner of the abutting land.
The object of the user being within
the conceded rights of the public,
the methods of its accomplishment
are subject to legislative control,
and subject, also, to an action for
damages by any abutting owner,
whether or not he may be vested
with the fee to the center of the
street, whose right of Ingress and
egress, or his right to light and air
shall be interfered with."
2 0De Grauw v. Long Island Elee.
Ry. Co., 43 App. Div. 502, 60 N. Y.
S. 163; S. C. affirmed on opinion be-
low, 163 N. Y. 597, 57 N. E. IIOS.
The Supreme Court says: "In the
struggle which is going on for the
transportation of persons and prop-
erty, it must be confessed that
street surface railroads are not
backward in the assertion of all the
rights which the grant of power
confers. But the law is, and the
courts may be relied upon to enforce
the law, that the right of use of the
street by the public is first and
§ 166
EOADS AND STEEETS.
291
freight cars upon street railroads.^^ In Massachusetts a private
horse railroad laid upon a street or highway from a quarry to
a steam railroad and used for the transportation of freight only
was held to be within the public easement and not an additional
burden on the soil.^^ In Texas it has been held that a
street railroad for the transportation of freight may be au-
thorized to use the streets and that the abutter cannot enjoin
such use but that such a road is to be treated as a commerciaf
railroad as respects the right of the abutting owner to compen-
sation.^* In Ohio street railroads are authorized by statute
to carry both freight and passengers and the right to do so has
been upheld, but the suit did not involve the rights of abutting
owners.^^ In Wisconsin an act of 1898 authorizes the forma-
tion of street railway corporations with power to carry freight
and passengers, and also authorizes municipal corporations to
grant the use of streets to such corporations for both kinds of
traffic. In a suit to annul a franchise to such a corporation it
primary; the right of use by the
street surface railroad is secondary
and subordinate. It has the para-
mount right of use of its tracks, but
not the exclusive use, and when the
right of the public or an individual
member of it requires the use of the
street for a proper purpose, the
right of the railroad company must
yield thereto, even though the effect
be, for the time, to stop the opera-
tion of its cars thereon. We have,
at all times, been mindful of these
conditions, and when upholding the
rights of a railroad in a given case,
we have been careful to place a lim-
itation thereon, and have uniformly
asserted that whatever be the char-
acter of operation by the railroad,
and whatever use it sought to make
of the street, such use is subject to
the authority of the public therein,
and the public authority may, when-
ever necessary for the preservation
of the street for street purposes,
regulate and restrain the use there-
of by the railroad. We are not at
all sure that the transportation in
single cars of such property as is
the subject of the present contract
increases, or will increase, the bur-
den of use of the street. Such prop-
erty must be transported through
the city in cars or upon wagons.
Whether the use of the former is
more burdensome than would be the
latter is, to say the least, an open
question. Time will demonstrate."
p. 509.
2 6 "That the power exists to run
such cars is no longer an open ques-
tion in this court." Matter of Still-
water etc. St. Ry. Co., 171 N. Y.
589, 597, 64 N. E. 511, reversing S.
C. 72 App. Div. 294, 76 N. Y. S. 69.
And see Hatfield v. Straus, 189 N.
Y. 208, 82 N. E. 172, affirming S. C.
117 App. Div. 671, 102 N. Y. S. 934.
27White V. Blanchard Bros. etc.
Co., 178 Mass. 363, 59 N. E. 1025.
Compare Green v. Portland, 32 Me.
431.
2 8Aycock V. San Antonio Brewing
Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 341, 63 S. W.
953; Rische v. Texas Trans. Co., 27
Tex. Civ. App. 33, 66 S. W. 324.
2 9State v. Dayton Traction Co.,
64 Ohio St. 272, 60 N. E. 291.
292 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 166
was taken for granted that such a railroad would be an addi-
tional burden on the street but the question was not directly
passed upon.^" An act of Maryland of 1898 authorized the
street railway companies of Baltimore to transact an express
business upon their lines of railway in Baltimore and adjoin-
ing counties. A city and suburban express company arranged
with the railway companies to operate its own express cars over
the railway tracks and obtained from the city authority to lay
a switch track from the tracks in the street to its premises. The
owner of the property adjoining the premises of the express
company filed a bill to enjoin the laying of the switch track.
The supreme court held that the railway company was author-
ized to make the traffic arrangement, that the express company
was doing a public business and that the switch track to facili-
tate the conduct of the business was a proper use of the street
and could not be prevented by the plaintiff.^ ^ It would seem
to follow that the operation of express cars on the street rail-
way tracks was a legitimate use of the street. The use of street
cars for the transportation of freight has but just begun.
Whether the practice is likely to increase and become general
remains to be seen. When we direct our attention to the mov-
ing freight car, taking the place of twenty drays, twenty pairs
of horses and twenty drivers,^^ the advantages of such a use of
the streets seem obvious. It is presumably more economical.
It saves wear and tear of the street, diminishes the accumula-
tion of dirt and filth, relieves congestion and diminishes the
noise and confusion. The movement of the freight ear would no
more interfere with abutting property than the movement of the
passenger car. To the extent that the freight car is a substitute
for traffic teams on the street it thus tends to make the street
quieter, cleaner, freer and more sanitary. And since the street
exists as much for the movement of freight as for the movement
of persons, there seems to be no reason why the street freight
car should not be put upon the same basis as the street passenger
car, in so far as concerns the mere movement of the car on the
trades and in so far as it carries freight which would otherwise
be carried in vehicles on the streets. Certainly the street rail-
road decisions cannot be made to justify the street freight car
aoLinden Land Co. v. Milwaukee Co., 104 Md. 423, 65 Atl. 45.
Ry. & Lt. Co., 107 Wis. 493, 83 N. szKinsey v. Union Traction Co.,
W. 851. 169 lud. 563, 81 N. E. 922.
siDulaney v. United Rya. & Elec.
§ 166 EOADS AND STEEETS. 293
for anything but local freight traffic. Through freight traffic is
the business of the commercial railroad. To bring freight traffic
on the street which would otherwise not come there at all is not
to aid the street traffic or relieve the street but rather to put an
additional burden upon it and interfere with the ordinary use.
But how is local freight traffic to be handled upon street
freight cars ? There is a wide difference between the transpor-
tation of freight and the transportation of passengers. Freight
cannot handle itself. The operation of freight cars on street
railroad tracks for the collection and delivery of freight from
door to door on the street would seem to be utterly out of the
question. The stopping, standing and starting of such cars and
the transfer of freight to and from the abutting property would
greatly interfere with the ordinary traffic on the street. If
such cars were operated on the same tracks with passenger cars,
the passenger service would be rendered of no value. If on sepa-
rate tracks, the street would be still further incumbered and
ordinary traffic still more inconvenienced. In either case the
street would be turned into a freight yard from end to end.
The only other way of handling local freight would be by means
of switch tracks to abutting property. These curved tracks with
their frogs and intersections and the movement of cars in and
out would also be a serious interference with ordinary traffic.
Since this privilege could not be granted to one and denied
to another, such switch tracks might become so numerous on
business streets as to render ordinary traffic difficult and danger-
ous. Whichever method is employed it is manifest that such
traffic and such conditions bear little analogy to the street
passenger service and cannot be justified as legitimate street
uses on the basis of the street railroad cases. The street passen-
ger service involves simply the movement of the car and its
stopping for very brief intervals to receive and discharge passen-
gers. The passengers look after themselves. Freight transpor-
tation is an entirely different matter. The freight must be
loaded and unloaded, which involves long stops on the street
or the removal of the car from the street by means of switch
tracks to abutting property. There is no reason why the princi-
ple of the street railway cases should be extended to include
a traffic so entirely different in its nature and involving such
a different use of the street.
It would seem from the nature of the case that the transpor-
tation of local freight in street cars was only practicable betwoca
294: EMINENT DOMAIN. § 167
points that can be reached by means of switch tracks to abutting
property. But it has been held in New York that such switch
tracks to private property are a purely private purpose for which
the use of streets cannot be granted.^* If this view is correct
but little, if any, use can be made of street railways for local
freight traffic, since the legislature cannot take property for
private use with or without compensation.
§ 167 (115i). Railroads in streets. — General conclu-
sions. In regard to the use of streets for railroad purposes
two things may be regarded as settled : Firsts that the ordinary
commercial steam railroad is not a legitimate street use and
that it cannot be laid in a street or highway without compensa-
tion to the abutting owner, whether he owns the fee or not;
second, that the ordinary surface street railroad for local pas^
senger traffic only is a legitimate street use and that such use of
a street may be made without compensation to the abutting
owner, without regard to the ownership of the fee. Beyond
this the law is unsettled. Just now the battle is over the inter-
urban railroad and the street car carrying freight. What new
questions may arise in the future, in consequence of new ideas
in railroad construction and operation, or new inventions in
motive power and appliances; or new demands for traffic, can-
not be foreseen. That new questions will arise is as certain as
that progress will continue. It is also probable that it will be-
come more and more difficult to distinguish railroads on the
basis of their physical characteristics, their methods of opera-
tion or the nature of their traffic. Originally the distinction
between the steam railroad and the horse railroad was very
marked. But through the discovery and application of electrical
power the horse railroad has developed into the trolley road
and that in turn into the interurban railroad. The latter cer-
tainly resembles the steam railroad more than it does the horse
railroad. If street cars should carry freight and if the steam
railroads should adopt electrical power, the differences between
the different railroads would become very shadowy. It will
probably be more and more difficult to maintain distinctions
in law between different sorts of railroads, based upon differ-
ences in motive power, traffic or methods of construction and op-
eration.
3 3Hatfield v. Straus, 189 N. Y. Compare Dulaney v. United Rys. &
208, 82 N. E. 172, affirming S. G. Elec. Co., 104 Md. 423, 65 Atl. 45.
117 App. Div. 671, 102 N. Y. S. 934. And see post, § 173.
§ 167
EOADS AND STREETS.
295
It seems to the writer that there is no rational basis for a
distinction between surface roads and that either all should
be admitted as legitimate, or all excluded as illegitimate, street
uses. As between these alternatives the latter should be chosen.
A railroad involves a fixed and permanent structure in the street
which is more or less of an obstruction to ordinary travel. If
one track is a legitimate use there seems to be no escape from
the consequence that any number of tracks is legitimate. It
rests simply with the proper public authorities to determine
how many tracks will best subserve the public interests.^* And
so a street might be filled with railroad tracks and all ordinary
traffic excluded therefrom, and yet be held to be devoted to legiti-
mate and proper street uses.^'' And this is a palpable absurd-
ity.^® For these reasons we think that railroads are not legiti-
mate street uses.^'^ This conclusion does not prevent the use of
streets by railroads, since property devoted to one public use
may be taken for another public use or a joint use permitted.
3*8ee post. § 171.
3 5 "To hold that a railroad is one
of the legitimate uses of a public
street leads to the inconsistency
that the street may be monopolized
by a corporation or an individual,
and filled with parallel tracks,
which would practically exclude all
ordinary travel, and still be said to
be devoted to the ordinary uses of a
public street." Theobald v. Louis-
ville R. R. Co., 66 Miss. 279, 6 So.
230, 14 Am. St. Rep. 564, 4 L.R.A.
735. And the court in Jaynes v.
Omaha St. R. R. Co., 53 Neb. 631,
74 N. W. 67, 39 L.R.A. 751, in hold-
ing that the plaintiflF was entitled to
compensation for a trolley pole in
front of her premises, said: "If a
railway company without responsi-
bility to the abutting owner, may
build and maintain in the street one
track, it may construct and main-
tain any number. If it may with
impunity place and maintain in the
street in front of the lot owner's
property poles fifty feet apart, it
may place them five feet apart, or
closer, until the premises, with poles
and wires in front, will resemble the
pictures one sees of the staked cor-
ral of the South African Zulu. Such
a staking in of premises would, of
course, impair their value; and yet
the difference in the case supposed
and the one under consideration is
one of degree only." pp. 654, 653.
3 6 Courts which hold that certain
railways are legitimate street uses
would avoid this absurdity by also
holding that there is a limit to the
extent of such use, that railroads
cannot monopolize a street even
with legislative authoritj', unless
compensation is made to tiie abut-
ter. See Canastota Knife Co. v.
Newington Tramway Co., 69 Conn.
146, 36 Atl. 1107; Lonaconing Mid-
land etc. Ry. Co. v. Consolidated
Coal Co., 95 Md. 630, 53 Atl. 420;
West Jersey R. R. Co. v. Camden etc.
Ry. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 31, 29 Atl. 423.
But how and upon what principle are
the courts to set limits to legitimate
street uses which the legislature has
authorized?
31 See Slaughter v. Meridian L. &
Ry. Co. (Miss.), 48 So. 6.
296 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 168
It simply prevents sueh use being made without just compensa-
tion to abutting property owners. The justice of this view is
shown by numerous statutes and constitutions which require
compensation in such cases.^® The manifest justice of requiring
compensation where damage is inflicted should incline courts to
extend the analogy of the steam railroad cases rather than that
of the horse railroad cases.
§ 168 (115j). Whether a railroad is a proper or legiti-
mate street use is a question pi law. Nearly all the cases
which determine whether a railroad is, or is not, a legitimate
street use, treat the question as one of law.^^ The question was
directly passed upon in Williams v. Brooklyn El. K. E. Co.,*"
in which the court says : "But it cannot be left to the jury to
say whether the structure is or is not one which the legislature
or the municipality may authorize as against an abutting own-
er, upon the theory that it is a question of fact, and not of law,
depending upon the extent of the interference in a particular
case with the public right of passage or with the enjoyment by
the abutting owners of their premises." So in a Minnesota case
where it is said : "This question of consistency or inconsistency
is a question of law; that is to say, the facts of a given case
being ascertained, it is for the court to pronounce upon their
effect, and to determine whether the manner of using the street
complained of is or is not, all things considered, a substantial
infringement upon the common public right.* ^
§ 169 (116). Authority to occupy a street, how grant-
ed and construed. Before a railroad company can lawfully
occupy a street, it must have authority to do so from the legis-
lature, or from some municipal corporation having power to
grant it. A railroad cannot occupy a street imder its general
authority to make a location, but such right must be expressly
granted or necessarily implied.*^ This is true of all kinds of
railroads, for though street railroads are generally held to be a
SiSee Ruokert v. Grand Ave. Ey. the manner in which the railroad is
Co., 163 Mo. 260, 63 S. W. 814; constructed and used. See § 171.
Strickford v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 4 0126 N. Y. 96, 26 N. E. 1048.
73 N. H. 81, 59 Atl. 367; Richmond 4iNewell v. Minneapolis etc. R.R.
Traction Co. v. Murphy, 98 Va. 104, Co., 35 Minn. 112, 115, 27 N. W.
34 S. E. 982; post, %§ 344, 351. 839, 59 Am. Rep. 303.
ssPerhaps the only exception is to ^zKavanagh v. Mobile etc. R. R.
be found in those cases which make Co., 78 Ga. 271, 2 S. E. 636; Daly
the right of recovery depend upon v. Georgia Southern etc. R. R. Co.,
§ 169
BOADS AND STREETS.
297
legitimate street use, they are not so in the sense that any who
choose may occupy the streets for that purpose. Municipal cor-
porations cannot grant the use of streets for railroad purposes
without legislative authority.** In case of commercial railroads
80 Ga. 793, 7 S. E. 146, 12 Am. St
Rep. 286; Athens Terminal Co. v.
Athens F. & M. Works, 129 Ga. 393,
58 S. E. 891 ; Chicago etc. R. R. Co.
V. Chicago, 121 111. 176, 11 N. E.
907; Chicago Terminal Transfer R.
R. Co. V. Chicago, 220 111. 310, 77
N. E. 204; People v. South Park
Comrs., 221 111. 522, 77 N. E. 925;
Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Lie'bf reid,
92 Ky. 407, 17 S. W. 870; New Or-
leans etc. R. R. Co. V. City of New
Orleans, 26 La. An. 517 ; Springfield
V. Conn. Riv. R. R. Co., 4 Gush. 63;
Cooper V. Alden, Harr. Mich. 72;
Nash V. Lowry, 37 Minn. 261, 33 N.
W. 787; Morris & Essex R. R. Co.
V. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352; Van
Home V. Newark Passenger R. R.
Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 332, 21 Atl. 1034;
Burlington v. Penn R. R. Co., 56 N.
J. Eq. 259, 38 Atl. 849 ; Gray v. New
York etc. Traction Co., 56 N. J. Eq.
463, 40 Atl. 21 ; Trenton St. Ry. Co.
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 276,
49 Atl. 481; State v. Hoboken, 35
N. J. L. 205; State v. Board of
Chosen Freeholders, 56 N. J. L. 416,
28 Atl. 553; Davis v. Mayor etc. of
New York, 14 N. Y. 506; Milhau v.
Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611, 84 Am. Dec.
314; Wetmore v. Story, 22 Barb.
414; In re Rochester Electric R. R.
Co., 123 N. Y. 351, 25 N. E. 381;
Sloan v. People's Elec. R. R. Co.,
7 Ohio C. C. 84; Steel ton Borough
v. East Harrisburgh Pass. R. R. Co.,
11 Pa. Co. Ct. 161 ; Watkins v. West
Phila. Pass R. R. Co., 1 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 463; Haines v. Twenty-second
St. etc. Pass. R. R. Co., 1 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 506; Appeal of Pittsburg etc. R.
R. Co., 1 Penny. 449; Citizens' St.
R. R. Co. V. Africa, 100 Tenn. 26;
>Torfolk Ry. & Lt. Co. v. Consoli-
<lated Turnpike Co., 100 Va. 243, 40
S. E. 897 ; Hart v. Buehner, 54 Fed.
925, 5 C. C. A. 1; Knoxville v.
Africa, 77 Fed. 501, 23 C. C. A. 252;
Pembroke v. Canadian Cent. R. R.
Co., 3 Ontario 503; Regina v. Train,
9 Cox C. C. 180. So as to crossing
street. Clifton Heights v. Kent
Mfg. Co., 220 Pa. St. 585, 69 Atl. 1114.
It has been held that lawful au-
thority to occupy a street will be
presumed after the lapse of twenty
years. Higbee v. Camden & Amboy
R. R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 435; Morris
& Essex R. R. Co. v. Prudden, 20 N.
J. Eq. 530.
4 3Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mo-
bile etc. R. R. Co., 124 Ala. 162, 26
So. 895 ; Mobile v. Louisville etc. R.
R. Co., 124 Ala. 132, 26 So. 902;
Humphreys v. Ft. Smith Traction,
L. & P. Co., 71 Ark. 152, 71 S. W.
662; Daly v. Ga. Southern R. R. Co.,
80 Ga. 793, 7 S. E. 146, 12 Am. St.
Rep. 286; Augusta etc. R. R. Co. v.
Augusta, 100 Ga. 701, 28 S. E. 126;
Jeflfers v. Annapolis, 107 Md. 268;
Detroit Citizens St. R. R. Co. v.
Detroit, 110 Mich. 384, 68 N. W.
304, 64 Am. St. Rep. 350; State v.
East Fifth St. R. R. Co., 140 Mo.
539, 41 S. W. 955, 62 Am. St. Rep.
742, 38 L.R.A. 218; Thompson v.
Ocean City R. R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 74,
36 Atl. 1087; Tallon v. Hoboken, 60
N. J. L. 212, 37 Atl. 895; Beekman
V. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 13 App. Div.
279, 43 N. Y. Supp. 174; Geneva etc.
R. R. Co. V. N. Y. Cent. etc. R. R.
Co., 24 App. Div. N. Y. 335; Potts v.
Quaker City EI. R. R. Co., 161 Pa.
St. 393, 29 Atl. 108; Arbenz v.
Wheeling etc. R. R. Co., 33 W. Va.
298
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 169
the prevailing doctrine is that this authority must be given in
express terms, and that it cannot be derived from a general
power to control and regulate the streets of the municipality.**
Power to "make ordinances concerning the rights of way, regu-
lation of street cars, street railways, and other railroads" was
held not to confer power to grant the use of a street to a steam
railroad company.*^ Whether such general power is sufficient
to authorize a municipality to grant the use of its streets to a
street railroad company is a disputed question.*'' A want of
1, 10 S. E. 14, 5 L.R.A. 371; Knox-
ville V. Africa, 77 Fed. 501, 23 C. C. A.
252. The franchise emanates from
the State, though granted immedi-
ately by a municipality. Ibid.
Where the power is conferred upon
a city, only the legislative body can
grant the franchise. Schwede v.
Hamrich Bros. Brewing Co., 29
Wash. 21, 69 Pac. 362. The legis-
lature may provide that the right
shall only be granted to corpora-
tions. Goddard v. Chicago etc. Ey.
Co., 202 111. 362, 66 N. E. 1066.
4 4Perry v. New Orleans & Chatta-
nooga R. R. Co., 55 Ala. 413, 28 Am.
Rep. 740; Daly v. Ga. Southern R.
R. Co., 80 Ga. 793, 12 Am. St. Rep.
286; Covington St. Ry. Co. v. City
of Covington, 9 Bush 127; 2 Dillon,
Munic. Corp. § 705. A city having
power to give such consent and not
being restricted to any particular
mode, may do so by resolution or
vote, as well as by ordinance. Mer-
chant's Union Barb Wire Co. v. Chi-
cago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 70 la. 105.
A provision in a city charter au-
thorizing the laying of railroads in
streets on consent of a majority of
the land owners was held to refer to
horse railroads only. Chamberlain
V. Elizabethport Steam Cordage Co.,
41 N. J. Eq. 43. A provision in a
charter that the company should not
occupy any street without the con-
sent of the city was held not to con-
fer authority even with consent.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Phila.
Belt R. R. Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 625.
And. see Asheville St. R. E.. Co. v.
West Asheville R. R. Co., 114 N. C.
725, 19 S. E. 697; Tallon v. Hoboken,
60 N. J. L. 212; Burlington v. Penn.
R. R. Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 259, 38 Atl.
849.
4 5Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mo-
bile etc. R. R. Co., 124 Ala. 162, 26
So. 895. If the power is in doubt
it does not exist. Ibid.
4 6The following cases deny the
authority: Humphreys v. Ft. Smith
T. L. & P. Co., 71 Ark. 152, 71 S. W.
662; Covington St. Ry. Co. v. Cov-
ington, 9 Bush. 127; Stillwater v.
Lowry, 83 Minn. 275, 86 N. W. 103;
Davis V. New York, 14 N. Y. 506;
People V. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188; Mil-
hau V. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611; Norfolk
Ry. & Lt. Co. V. Consolidated Turn-
pike Co., 100 Va. 243, 40 S. E. 897.
Contra: State v. Jacksonville St. R.
R. Co., 29 Fla. 590, 10 So. 590; Hen-
derson V. Ogdeu City R. R. Co., 7
Utah 199, 26 Pac. 286; Ogden City
R. R. Co. V. Ogden City, 7 Utah 207,
26 Pac. 288; Detroit Citizens' St. R.
R. Co. V. City of Detroit, 64 Fed.
628, 12 C. C. A. 365. See Powell
V. Macon etc. R. R. Co., 92 Ga.
209, 17 S. E. 1027; Almand
V. Atlanta Consolidated St. Ry.
Co., 108 Ga. 417, 34 S. E. 36;
New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. New
Orleans, 44 La. An. 748, 11 So. 77;
Same v. Same, 44 La. An. 728, 11 So.
78 ; People's R. R. Co. v. Memphis R.
R. Co., 10 Wall. 38. A grant by a
§5 169
EOADS AND STEEETS.
299
previous authority may be cured by ratification.*^ The legisla-
ture may grant the use of streets to railroads without the con-
sent of the municipality in which they are situated.** But the
consent of the municipality is frequently, if not generally re-
quired, and when required, is a condition precedent to any valid
franchise to use the streets.* *• A consent procured by means of
city contrary to law is void. Cool-
ville Pass. R. R. Co. v. Wilkes-Barre
Southside R. R. Co., 5 Luzerne Leg.
Reg. Rep. 340. A constitutional
provision against the granting of
special privileges and immunities
does not prevent the grant of such
a franchise. Atchison St. R. R. Co.
v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 31 Kan. 660.
Under authority to ''grade, pave, re-
pair or otherwise improve its
streets," a city cannot lay street
railroad tracks in a street for the
purpose of leasing them to others to
be operated as a street railroad. At-
torney General v. Detroit Common
Council, 148 Mich. 1, 111 N. W. 860.
4 7Nash V. Lowry, 37 Minn. 261,
33 N. W. 787; Pembroke v. Canada
Central R. R. Co., 3 Ontario 503. A
city may be estopped from alleging
that tracks were laid in a street
without authority. Spokane St. R.
R. Co. V. City of Spokane Falls, 6
Wash. 521, 33 Pac. 1072.
< 8 State V. Jacksonville St. R. R.
Co., 29 Fla. 590, 10 So. 590; Mil-
bridge etc. Elec. R. R. Co., appel-
lants, 96 Me. 110, 51 Atl. 818; Can-
ton V. Canton Cotton Warehouse
Co., 84 Miss. 268, 36 So. 266, 105 Am.
St. Rep. 428, 65 L.R.A. 561 ; Appeal
of Borough of Milvale, 131 Pa. St.
1, 18 Atl. 993, 1 Am. R. R. Corp.
Rep. 151; Harrisburg City Pass. R.
R. Co. V. City of Harrisburg, 149
Pa. St. 469, 24 Atl. 56 ; Citizens' St.
R. R. Co. V. City of Memphis, 53
Fed. Rep. 715. The legislature may
authorize the construction of a sub-
way for railroads in the streets of a
city without the consent of such
city. Prince v. Crocker, 116 Mass.
347, 44 N. E. Rep. 446. But it is
otherwise provided by the constitu-
tion in Missouri. State v. Lindell
R. R. Co., 151 Mo. 162. The adop-
tion of a constitutional provision
that "any association or corporation
organized for the purpose, shall have
the right to construct and operate a
railroad between any points within
the state, and to connect at the State
line with railroads of other States,"
was held not to repeal or annul a
statute prohibiting railroads from
occupying any street, lane or alley,
in any incorporated city without the
consent of such city. Pittsburg v.
Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co., 205 Pa. St.
13, 54 Atl. 468.
4 0 City of Philadelphia v. River
Front R. R. Co., 173 Pa. St. 334, 34
Atl. 60; Appeal of Pittsburgh etc.
R. R. Co., 1 Penny. 449; West Jer-
sey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse
R. R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 163, 35 Atl.
49; State v. Cape May, 58 N. J. L.
565, 34 Atl. 397 ; McKeesport v. Cit-
izens' Pass R. R. Co., 2 Pa. Supr. Ct.
249.
The fact that the railroad is laid
on a turnpike with the consent of
the turnpike corporation will not re-
lieve it from also getting the consent
of the municipality. In re Rochester
Electric R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 351, 25
N. E. 381 ; Steelton Borough v. East
Harrisburg Pass. R. R. Co., 11 Pa. Co.
Ct. 161. In all such cases the fran-
chise comes from the State. Chicago
City R. R. Co. v. People, 73 HI. 541.
A law requiring such consent wai
held to apply to grants previously
300
EMINENT DOMAIN,
§ 169
bribery, duress or fraud is invalid.^" So if it is not given in the
manner and in accordance -with the conditions imposed by the
statute.'^ Where a company was organized to construct a street
railroad through several municipalities, it was held that it must
get the consent of all before it could construct any part.°^ A
city has no power to authorize railroads upon streets for private
use.^^
made but not acted upon. Hanson
V. Chicago etc. E. R. Co., 61 Iowa
588; Appeal of Lorimer etc. R. R.
Co., 137 Pa. St. 533, 20 Atl. 570. But
see Stroudsburg v. Stroudsburg
Pass. R. R. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 124.
Where the act requires the consent
of the "local authorities" it means
"the officers of the city, town or vil-
lage whose duties and powers relate
to the supervision, care and mainte-
nance of the streets or highways."
In re Rochester Electric R. R. Co.,
123 N. Y. 351, 25 K E. 381. Com-
pare Sewede v. Hemrich Bros. Brew-
ing Co., 29 Wash. 21, 69 Pac. 362.
The provision in the constitution of
Pennsylvania that "any association
or corporation organized for the pur-
pose, shall have the right to construct
and operate a railroad between
any points within the State, and to
connect at the State line with rail-
roads of other States," was held not
to repeal or abrogate a prior statute
prohibiting railroads from occupy-
ing any street, lane or alley in any
incorporated city without the con-
sent of such city. Pittsburg v. Pitts-
burg etc. R. R. Co., 205 Pa. St. 13,
54 Atl. 468.
soLehigh Coal & Nav. Co. v. Inter-
county St. E. R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 75,
31 Atl. 471; Tamaqua & L. St. R. R.
Co. V. Inter-county St. R. R. Co., 167
Pa. St. 91, 31 Atl. 473. An ordi-
nance giving consent was held in-
valid, where stockholders of the com-
pany were members of the council
and their votes were necessary to its
passage. Jolly v. Pittsburgh etc. R.
R. Co., 16 Pa. Co. Ct. 1.
6 1 Thompson v. Board of Super-
visors, 111 Cal. 553, 44 Pac. 230;
People V. Cray croft. 111 Cal. 544, 44
Pac. 463; Harvey v. Aurora etc. Ry.
Co. 186 111. 283, 57 N. E. 857; Avon-
by-the-Sea L. & I. Co. v. Neptune
City, 53 N. J. Eq. 178, 32 Atl. Rep.
220; State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L.
309, 30 Atl. Rep. 528; State v. Nep-
tune City, 57 N. J. L. 362, 30 Atl.
Rep. 529 ; Camden Horse R. E. Co. v.
West Jersey Traction Co., 58 N. J.
L. 102, 32 Atl. Rep. 72; State v.
Shivers, 58 N. J. L. 124, 33 Atl.^lep.
55; Stockton v. North Jersey St. R.
R. Co. (N. J. Ch.), 34 Atl. Rep.
688; Beekman v. Third Ave. R. R.
Co., 13 App. Div. 279, 43 N. Y. Sup.
174. Where by statute the right can
only be granted to a corporation, a
grant to individuals is void. Wilder
v. Aurora etc. Elec. Traction Co., 216
111. 493, 75 N. E. 194.
6 2Pennsylvania E. E. Co. v. Tur-
tle Creek Val. R. R. Co., 179 Pa. St.
584, 36 Atl. 348; Penn. R. R. Co. v.
Parkersburg etc. St. Ry. Co., 26 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 159.
ssMacon v. Harris, 75 Ga. 761; S.
C. 73 Ga. 428; Heath v. Des Moines
& St. Louis Ry. Co., 61 la. 11 ; Mike-
sail V. Durkee, 34 Kan. 509; Com-
monwealth v. City of Frankfort, 92
Ky. 149, 17 S. W. 287; Greene v.
Portland, 32 Me. 431; Bradley v.
Pharr, 45 La. An. 426, 12 So. 618, 19
L.E.A. 647; Gustafson v. Hamm, 56
Minn. 334, 57 N. W. 1054, 22 L.R.A.
§ 169
EOABS AKTD STEEETS.
301
There is a difference of opinion in tlie authorities, as to wheth-
er the grant of a franchise to operate a railroad in a street, can
be made exclusive, even by authority of the legislature.^* But
it is quite clear that a municipal corporation cannot make such
a grant, without express authority,^' and that a grant will not
be construed to be exclusive unless so expressed.^" It is held
that the grant may be for a period extending beyond the corpo-
rate existence of the grantee.®^ In some States municipal cor-
porations are not authorized to grant or consent to the construc-
tion of a railroad in a street without the consent of the owners
565; Glaesner v. Anheuser-Busch
Brewing Assn., 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W.
707, 2 Am. E. R. & Corp. Rep. 420;
State V. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 79;
Fanning v. Osborne & Co., 34 Hun
121; S. C. 102 N. Y. 441; Appeal of
Hartman Steel Co., 129 Pa. St. 551,
18 Atl. 553; Barker v. Hartman
Steel Co., 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 183. But see
White V. Blanchard Bros. Granite
Co., 178 Mass. 363, 59 N. E. 1025. As
to whether a track or railroad is for
private or public use see post, § 264.
6 4Elliott Roads and Streets, pp.
566-569; 2 Dill. Munic. Corp. §§ 715,
716, 727; Birmingham etc. R. R. Co.
V. Birmingham St. R. R. Co., 79 Ala.
465, 58 Am, Rep 815; Des Moines
St. R. R. Co. V. Des Moines etc. R.
E. Co., 73 Iowa 513, 33 N. W. 610,
35 N. W. 602; Davis v. New York,
14 N. Y. 506 ; Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N.
Y. 611, 84 Am. Dec. 314; 11 Am. R.
E. & Corp. Rep. 448, note 2.
5 5Florida Cent. R. R. Co. v. Ocala
St. R. R. Co., 39 Fla. 300; St. Louia
etc. R. R. Co. V. Belleville, 20 111.
App. 580 ; New Orleans City etc. R. R.
Co. V. New Orleans, 44 La. An. 748,
11 So. 77 ; Same v. Same, 44 La. An.
728, 11 So. 78; Detroit Citizens' St.
R. R. Co. V. Detroit, 110 Mich. 384,
68 N. W. 304, 64 Am. St. Rep. 350;
Parkhurst v. City of Salem, 23 Or.
472, 32 Pac. 304, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 562; Henderson v. Ogden City
K. E. Co., 7 Utah 199, 26 Pac. 286;
11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 463, note
6 and numerous cases there cited;
Detroit Citizens' St. R. R. Co. v. De-
troit, 171 U. S. 48; New Orleans
City R. R. Co. v. Crescent City R. R.
Co., 12 Fed. 308.
seCovington St. R. R. Co. v. Cov-
ington etc. R. R. Co., 1 Ky. L. R.
318; North Baltimore Pass. R. R.
Co. V. Mayor etc. of Baltimore, 75
Md. 247, 23 Atl. 470; Turney v. So.
Pac. Co., 44 Ore. 280, 75 Pac. 144, 76
Pac. 1080; Pennsylvania S. 0. R. R.
Co. V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
157 Pa. St. 42, 27 Atl. 683; Philadel-
phia etc. R. R. Co. V. Berks County,
2 Woodward's Decs. 361; City of
Houston V. Houston St. R. R. Co., 83
Tex. 548, 19 S. W. 127, 6 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 108; Newport News etc.
Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Hampton Roads Ry.
& Elec. Co., 102 Va. 795, 47 S. E. 839;
11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. p. 463,
note 7 and cases cited.
5 'Detroit Citizens' St. E. E. Co.
v. City of Detroit, 64 Fed. 628, 12
C. C. A. 365. As to power of city to
grant franchise for a term of years
see City of Houston v. Houston City
St. E. E. Co., 83 Tex. 548, 19 S. W.
127, 6 Am. E. E. & Corp. Rep. 108;
People's R. R. v. Memphis E. E., 10
Wall. 38 ; City of Detroit v. Detroit
City E. R. Co., 56 Fed. 867; Louis-
ville Trust Co. V. City of Cincinnati,
75 Fed. 716.
302
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 169
of a certain amount of frontage on the street.^* A municipality
may impose reasonable conditions in giving its consent to use
the street ^' and, -when it has an absolute right of refusal, it
6 8 Without attempting to discuss
the questions arising under such
statutes we refer to some cases'
thereon. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 107 111. 450;
Hunt V. Chicago Horse & D. K. E.
Co., 121 111. 638; Tibbets v. West &
South Towns St. R. R. Co., 153 111.
147, 38 N. E. 664; Doane v. Chicago
City R. R. Co., 160 111. 22, 45 N. E.
507, 35 L.R.A. 588; Doane v. Lake
St. El. R. R. Co., 165 111. 510, 46 N.
E. 520, 56 Am. St. Rep. 265, 36
L.R.A. 97; McGann v. People, 194
111. 526, 62 N. E. 941, reversing S.
C. 97 111. App. 587; Mercer County
Traction Co. v. United N. J. R. R.
& C. Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 588, 54 Atl.
819 ; Same v. Same, 65 N. J. Eq. 574,
56 Atl. 897 ; Same v. Same, 68 N. J.
Eq. 714, 61 Atl. 461; Orton v. Me-
tuchen, 66 N. J. L. 572, 49 Atl. 814;
Currie v. Atlantic City, 66 N. J. L.
671, 50 Atl. 504, reversing S. C. 66
N. J. L. 140, 48 Atl. 615; Shepard v.
East Orange, 69 N. J. L. 133, 53 Atl.
1047 ; Same v. Same, 70 N. J. L. 203,
57 Atl. 441 ; Montclair Military
Academy v. N. J. St. Ry. Co., 70
N. J. L. 229, 57 Atl. 1050; S. C. 65
N. J. L. 328, 47 Atl. 890; In re Third
Ave. R. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 536, 24 N.
E. 951, 9 L.R.A. 124; S. C. 56 Hun
537, 31 N. Y. St. 645, 9 N. Y. Supp.
833 ; White v. Manhattan R. R. Co.,
139 N. Y. 19, 34 N. B. 887, 8 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 739, and cases cited
in note; Dusenbury v. New York
etc. Traction Co., 46 App. Div. 267,
61 N. Y. S. 420; Adee v. Nassau
Elec. R. R. Co., 65 App. Div. 529, 72
N. Y. S. 992; S. C. affirmed, 173 N.
Y. 580, 65 N. E. 1113; Fox v. New
York City Interborough R. R. Co.,
112 App. Div. 832, 98 N. Y. S. 338;
Mt. Auburn Cable R. R. Co. v.
Neare, 54 Ohio St. 153, 42 N. E. 768;
Hamilton etc. Traction Co. v. Par-
rot, 67 Ohio St. 181, 65 N. E. 1011,
60 L.R.A. 531 ■; Forest City etc. R. R.
Co. V. Day, 73 Ohio St. 83, 76 N. E.
396; Sloane v. People's Elee. R. R.
Co., 7 Ohio C. C. 84; Simmons v. To-
ledo, S Ohio C. C. 535 ; Day v. Forest
City Ry. Co., 5 Ohio C. C. (N. S.)
393; Isom v. Low Fare Ry Co., 10
Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 89; Beeson v.
Chicago, 75 Fed. 880.
6 9 Byrne v. Chicago General R. R.
Co., 169 111. 75, 48 N. E. 703; People
V. Suburban R. R. Co., 178 111. 594,
53 N. E. 349; Chester v. Wabash etc.
R. R. Co., 182 111. 382, 55 N. E. 524;
Citizens Horse R. R. Co. v. City of
Belleville, 47 111. App. 388 ; Byrne v.
Chicago General R. R. Co., 63 III.
App. 438; Rutherford v. Hudson
Riv. Traction Co., 73 N. J. L. 227,
63 Atl. 84; People v. O'Brien, 111 N.
Y. 1, 18 N. E. 692, 7 Am. St. Rep.
684, 2 L.R.A. 255 ; Gaedeke v. Staten
Island Midland R. R. Co., 46 App.
Div. 219, 61 N. Y. S. 290; Delaware
etc. R. R. Co. v. Oswego, 92 App.
Div. 551, 86 N. Y. S. 1027; City of
Allegheny v. Millville etc. St. R. R.
Co., 159 Pa. St. 411, 28 Atl. 202;
Township of Plymouth v. Chestnut
Hill & N. R. R. Co., 168 Pa. St. 181,
32 Atl. 19; S. C. 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 442
Minersville v. Schuylkill Elec. Ry,
Co., 205 Pa. St. 394, 54 Atl. 1050
Edwards v. Pittsburg Junction R. R,
Co., 215 Pa. St. 597, 64 Atl. 798
Burke v. Cumberland Traction Co.,
15 Pa. Co. Ct. 159. Illegal condi
tions do not vitiate the grant. Gal-
veston etc. R. R. Co. v. Galveston, 91
Tex. 17, 36 L.R.A. 44. Conditions
inconsistent with a statute are void.
Los Angeles Ry. Co. v. Los Angeles,
152 Cal. 242, 92 Pac. 490,
§ 169
EOADS AND STEEETS.
303
can impose any conditions it sees fit.®" When a grant has heen
made and accepted or acted upon it constitutes an irrevocable
contract.''^ In Maryland it has been held that such a grant
may be revoked by a city after the tracks are laid, but there
would be an obligation to make compensation.**^ Where the
grant is to construct a road within a limited time, the grant
will be forfeited if the condition is not complied with.®^ Where
the grant is to lay one or more tracks within three years, addi-
tional tracks cannot be laid after the three years have expired."*
Where the grant was without limit but reserved the right to
forfeit the franchise if the road was not built within
five years, it was held the road could be built at any time before
a forfeiture was declared."* A municipal corporation by grant-
ing the franchise is not thereby made liable for damages by the
construction and operation of the road."®
soChicago Terminal Transfer R.
E. Co. V. Chicago, 220 111. 310, 77 N.
E. 204; Monroe v. Detroit etc. Ry.
Co., 143 Mich. 315, 106 N. W. 704;
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Kirkwood,
159 Mo. 239, 60 S. W. 110, 53 L.R.A.
300.
6iPort of Mobile v. Louisville etc.
R. R. Co., 84 Ala. 115; Town of Ar-
eata V. Areata & M. R. R. Co., 92
Cal. 039, 28 Pac. 676; City of Belle-
ville V. Citizens' Horse R. R. Co., 152
111. 171, 38 N. E. 584, 26 L.R.A. 681 ;
Harvey v. Aurora etc. R. R. Co., 186
111. 283, 57 N. E. 857; Mattison v.
Alton etc. Traction Co., 235 111. 346,
85 N. E. 596; Columbus v. Columbus
etc. R. R. Co., 37 Ind. 294; East
Louisiana R. R. Co. v. New Orleans,
46 La. An. 526, 15 So. 157; Willis v.
Erie Pass. Ry. Co., 188 Pa. St. 71,
41 Atl. 1119; Wheeling etc. R. R.
Co. v. Triadelphia, 58 W. Va. 487, 52
S. E. 499, 4 L.R.A. (N. S.) 321; Bal-
timore T. & G. Co. V. City of Balti-
more, 64 Fed. Rep. 153. The grant
may of course be revoked before ac-
ceptance. East St. Louis Union R.
R. Co. V. East St. Louis, 39 111. App.
398. A general grant to a street
railway company of the right to use
any and all streets of a city from
time to time as it may elect, was
held to be revocable at any time as
to streets not used. Logansport Ry.
Co. v. Logansport, 114 Fed. 688.
6 2Lake Roland El. R. R. Co. v.
City of Baltimore, 77 Md. 352, 26
Atl. 510, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
619, 20 L.R.A. 126.
6 3 Atchison Street R. R. Co. v.
Nave, 38 Kan. 744, 17 Pac. 587, 5
Am. St. Rep. 800; State v. Latrobe,
81 Md. 222, 31 Atl. 788. A city can-
not declare a forfeiture for breach of
condition unless the right to do so
is reserved, as the power to adjudge
a forfeiture pertains to the judi-
ciary. Alexandria v. Morgan's La.
etc. Co., 109 La. 50, 33 So. 65.
6 4 Chicago Terminal Transfer R.
R. Co. V. Chicago, 220 HI. 310, 77 N.
E. 204; Chicago v. Chicago Terminal
Transfer R. R. Co., 121 111. App. 197 ;
Eastern Wis. Ry. & Lt. Co. v. Winne-
bago Traction Co., 126 Wis. 179, 105
N. W. 571. For a forfeiture clause in
a statute held self-executing see Los
Angeles Ry. Co. v. Los Angeles, 152
Cal. 242, 92 Pac. 490.
csLouisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Bowl-
ing Green Ry. Co., 110 Ky. 788, 63 S.
W. 4.
66Sorensen v. Greeley, 10 Colo.
304
EMINEBTT DOMAIN.
§ 169
Authority to occupy a street, -whether obtained directly from
the legislature or from a local municipality, only protects the
company to the extent of the public right or easement in the
street, and leaves the company to deal with private rights as in
other cases." ^ Authority to occupy a street includes authority
to use a bridge forming part of the street, even though it be-
longs to a private- corporation."^ Grants of authority are strict-
ly construed."" Authority to occupy a street has been held to
include authority to construct a turnout to a depot,''" and to
lay switch-tracks to abutting property.''^ Authority to build
an elevated railroad in a street does not authorize any part
369; Green v. Portland, 32 Me. 431;
Terry v. Richmond, 94 Va. 537;
Hatch V. Tacoma etc. K. R. Co., 6
Wash. 1, 32 Pac. 1063; Kaufman v.
Tacoma etc. R. R. Co., 11 Wash. 632,
40 Pac. 137.
6 7 Coats V. Atchison etc. R. R. Co.,
1 Cal. App. 441, 82 Pac. 640; Illinois
Cent. R. R. Co. v. Turner, 194 111.
575, 62 N. E. 798, affirming S. C. 97
111. App. 219; Aldis v. Union El. R.
R. Co., 203 111. 567, 68 N. E. 95;
Gray v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 13
Minn. 315; Lamm v. Chicago etc. R.
R. Co., 45 Minn. 71, 47 N. W. 455, 10
L.R.A. 268; Cape Girardeau etc.
Road Co. V. Renfoe, 58 Mo. 265;
Washington Cemetery v. P. P. & C.
I. R. R. Co., 68 N. Y. 591 ; Matter of
New York El. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y.
327, 354; Staton v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. R. Co., 147 N. C. 428; South
Bound R. R. Co. v. Burton, 67 S. C.
515, 46 S. E. 340; Eastern Wis. Ry.
& Lt. Co. V. Hackett, 135 Wis. 464.
espittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v. Point
Bridge Co., 165 Pa. St. 37, 30 Atl. 511,
26 L.R.A. 323. But the railroad
company may be made to bear the
expense of strengthening the bridge
if necessary, and may be prevented
from using the bridge until the work
is done. Berks County v. Reading
City Pass. R. R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 102,
31 Atl. 474, 663; Laure v. Oil City
St. R. R. Co., 170 Pa. St. 249, 32 Atl.
977. See State v. Board of Chosen
Freeholders, 56 N. J. L. 416, 28 Atl.
553.
6 9Mobile V. Louisville etc. R. R.
Co., 124 Ala. 132, 26 So. 902 ; Harvey
V. Aurora etc. R. R. Co., 186 111. 283,
57 N. E. 857; Blocki v. People, 220
111. 444, 77 N. E. 172; Chicago Ter-
minal Transfer R. R. Co. v. Chicago,
203 111. 576, 68 N. E. 99 ; Aurora v.
Elgin etc. Traction Co., 227 111. 485,
81 N. E. 544, 118 Am. St. Rep. 284;
Chicago V. Chicago Terminal Trans-
fer R. R. Co., 121 111. App. 197; In-
diana Ry. Co. V. Hoffman, 162 lud.
593, 69 N. E. 399; State v. City of
Trenton, 54 N. J. L. 92, 23 Atl. 281 ;
State V. City of Newark, 54 N. J. L.
102, 23 Atl. 284; People v. Newton,
112 N. Y. 396, 19 N. E. 831, 3 L.R.A.
174; City of Philadelphia v. Citi-
zens' Pass. R. R. Co., 151 Pa. St. 128,
24 Atl. 1099; Junction Pass. R. R.
Co. V. Williamsport Pass. R. R. Co.,
154 Pa. St. 116, 26 Atl. 295; Cleve-
land Elec. Ry. Co. v. Cleveland etc.
Ry. Co., 204 U. S. 116, 27 S. C. 202.
7 0New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v.
2d Municipality, 1 La. An. 128;
Knight v. Carrolton R. R. Co., 9 La.
An. 284.
71 Beaver v. Beaver Val. R. R. Co.,
217 Pa. St. 280, 66 Atl. 520; Morris-
town V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 3
Mont. Co. L. Rep. 5.
§ 169 EOADS AND STEEETS. 305
of the depot or stairs to be constructed on a cross street. ''^ A
city has no power to grant the use of a street for a station or
for yard purposes and an ordinance granting such right was an-
nulled at the suit of the people.^* Where a company must
specify its route in its articles of incorporation, the consent
of the city that it may occupy streets not specified in its route,
is of no validity.^* Authority to lay a single track with neces-
sary switches, does not justify switches of unnecessary length
and frequency so as to make practically a double trackJ^ Un-
der a grant to construct a surface road and to intersect, cross,
join and unite with other railroads, an incline cannot be built
to connect with an elevated road.''® Authority to occupy a street
when necessary means a practical necessity.''' A grant is not
void because the location of the, tracks in the street is not speci-
fied, as that is a matter for subsequent regulation.''^ In case of
a dedicated street, it has been held that the municipal authorities
could not authorize its use by a street railroad, until after ac-
ceptance.''* When the franchise expires the road and its equip-
ment remain the property of the company holding the franchise
and the municipality cannot take possession of the same or
make a valid grant thereof to another company.*"
7 2Mattlage v. New York El. R. R. 7 9Russell v. Chicago Eleo. Ey.
Co., 67 How. Pr. 232; S. C. 14 Daly Co., 205 111. 155, 68 N. E. 727. But
1 ; Bremer v. Manhattan Ry. Co., such an act would itself seem to be
191 N. Y. 333, 84 N. E. 59; and see an acceptance of the street, unless
Douglass V. Leavenworth, 6 Kan. acceptance was required to be made
App. 96; Birrell v. New York etc. in some specified way. See post,
R. R. Co., 41 N. Y. App Div. 506; § 495.
Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Astor, 126 soCleveland Eleo. Ry. Co. v. Cleve-
App. Div. 907. land etc. Ry. Co. 204 U. S. 116, 27
7 3 Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. People, S. C. 202. We refer to a few miscel-
222 111. 427, 78 N. E. 790, affirming laneous cases on the giving of au-
S. C. 120 111. App. 306. thority to railroads to occupy
'^Knoxville v. Africa, 77 Fed. Rep. streets. Matter of Crosstown St. R.
501, 23 C. C. A. 252. R. Co., 68 Hun 236, 22 N. Y. Supp.
75Willis v. Railroad, 188 Pa. St. 818; Adamson v. Nassau Electric R.
56, 41 Atl. 307; Bridgewater v. R. Co., 89 Hun 261, 34 N. Y. Supp.
Beaver Val. Traction Co., 214 Pa. St. 1073; S. C. 12 Miscl. 600; Atkinson
343, 63 Atl. 796. v. Asheville St. R. R. Co., 113 N. C.
76Eldert v. Long Island Elec. R. 581, 18 S. E. 284; Rahn Township
R. Co., 28 App. Div. N. Y. 451. v. Tamaqua & L. St. R. R. Co., 167
77Wayzata v. Great Northern R. Pa. St. 84, 31 Atl. 472; Homestead
R. Co., 67 Minn. 385. St. R. R. Co. v. Pittsburgh etc. St.
78Baker v. Selma St. & Subn. Ry. R. R. Co., 166 Pa. St. 162, 30 Atl.
Co., 130 Ala. 474, 30 So. 464. 950, 27 L.E.A. 383. In Wisconsin a
Em. D.— 20.
306
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 170
§ 170 (117). Rights of company as to manner of con-
structing and operating road. If the grant of authority spe-
cifies the particular part of the street to be occupied, or imposes
any conditions as to construction or operation, such provisions
must be complied with.^^ Every such grant is accompanied with
the implied condition, that the road shall be so constructed and
operated as to produce no unnecessary or unreasonable inter-
ference with public or private rights.*^ This necessarily fol-
lows from the fact that the user is a joint one, and that the
highway is not abandoned, though the soil is devoted to an ad-
franchise to construct and operate a
street railroad cannot be granted to a
railroad company organized under
the general railroad law. State v.
Milwaukee etc. R. E. Co., 116 Wis.
142, 92 Wis. 546. Where a company
obtained permission to use a street
it was held estopped to deny that it
was a street. Bedenbaugh v. South-
ern Ry. Co., 69 S. C. 1, 48 S. E. 53.
siPacific R. R. Co. v. Leavenworth
City, 1 Dill. 393. Where a statute
required tracks to be placed as
nearly as possible in the middle of a
street, it means as nearly as practi-
cable. Finch V. Riverside & A. R. R.
Co., 87 Cal. 597, 25 Pac. 765.
8 2Baker v. Selma St. & Suburban
Ry. Co., 135 Ala. 552, 33 So. 685, 93
Am. St. Rep. 42; St. Louis etc. R.
R. Co. V. Neely, 63 Ark. 636, 37
L.R.A. 616 ; Shea v. Potrero etc. R. R.
Co., 44 Cal. 414; Chicago, B. & Q. R.
R. Co. V. City of Quincy, 139 111. 355,
28 N. E. 1069; Town of Rice v. Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co., 30 111. App. 481 ;
Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Whitley
Co., 95 Ky. 215, 24 S. W. 604, 44 Am.
St. Rep. 220; Hepting v. New Or-
leans Pass. R. R. Co., 36 La. An.
898 ; Shreveport v. St. Louis S. W.
Ry. Co., 115 La. 885, 40 So. 298;
Poole V. Falls Road Elec. R. R. Co.,
88 Md. 533, 41 Atl. 1069; Pennsylva-
nia S. V. R. R. Co. V. Phila. & R. R.
Co., 157 Pa. St. 42, 27 Atl. 683;
Jones V. Erie & W. R. R. Co., 109
Pa. St. 333, 32 Atl. 535, 47 Am. St.
Rep. 916; Heilman v. Lebanon etc.
R. R. Co., 180 Pa. St. 627, 37 Atl.
199; Philadelphia & N. R. R. Co. v.
Berks County R. R. Co., 2 Wood-
ward's Decs. 361 ; Stroudsburg
Borough v. Stroudsburg Pass. R. R.
Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 124; Strouds-
burg Borough V. Wilkes-Barre etc.
R. R. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 395; Berks
& D. Turnpike Co. v. Lebanon & M.
St. R. E. Co., 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 55 ; Ar-
benz V. Wheeling & H. R. R. Co., 33
W. Va. 1, 10 S. E. 14, 5 L.R.A. 371 ;
City of Moundsville v. Ohio R. R.
Co., 37 W. Va. 92, 16 S. E. 514, 20
L.R.A. 161 ; Evans v. Chicago etc. R.
R. Co., 86 Wis. 597, 57 N. W. 354;
In Heilman v. Lebanon etc. R. R.
Co., 180 Pa. St. 627, 628, 37 Atl. 199,
the court says: "When permission
is given them to occupy a public
street, they acquire thereby not an
exclusive right upon its surface, but
a right concurrent with that of the
general public. Their cars are a sub-
stitute for the private carriage and
the public omnibus. They must
move them along their tracks upon
the surface of the street to the grade
of which they are required to con-
form. They have no right to grade
or fill or in any manner interfere
with the access to private property
from the highway, or so to construct
the road as to interfere with public
travel, or disturb adjacent owners."
§ 170
EOADS AND STEEETS.
307
ditional public use. Thus, under a general authority to occupy
a street, the road must be laid substantially at the grade of the
street, that is, with only such elevations and depressions as are
necessary to secure a regular grade,*^ and in the traveled road-
way, and not over the curb or sidewalk.** Under such general
authority only a single track can be laid down, and that can
only be used for purposes of transportation.*' But the authori-
ties are not uniform upon this point *° and doubtless much would
saSavannah etc. R. R. Co. v.
Shiels, 33 Ga. 601; Tate v. Ohio &
Miss. R. R. Co., 7 Ind. 479; Hutton
V. Indiana Central Ry. Co., 7 Ind. 522 ;
Protzman v. Indianapolis & Cinn.
R. R. Co., 9 Ind. 467, 68 Am. Dec.
650 ; Lackland v. North Missouri R.
R. Co., 31 Mo. 180; S. C. 34 Mo. 259;
Randle y. Pacific R. R. Co., 65 Mo.
325; Swenson v. Lexington, 69 Mo.
157; Cross v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co.,
77 Mo. 318; Smith v. Kansas City
etc. R. R. Co., 98 Mo. 20, 11 S. W.
259; Farrar v. Midland Elec. Ry.
Co., 101 Mo. App. 140, 74 S. W. 500;
Heilman v. Lebanon etc. R. R. Co.,
180 Pa. St. 627, 37 Atl. 199; Berks &
D. Turnpike Co. v. Lebanon & M. St.
R. R. Co., 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 55. The
company may make such alterations
of grade as are reasonably necessary
for the proper construction of the
road. Laroe v. Northampton St. Ry.
Co., 189 Mass. 254, 75 N. E. 255. Au-
thority to lay tracks on a street at
a given grade, means that the final
surface must be of that grade, not
that the street may be brought to
tliat grade and then the ties and
rails placed on top of that. Given
V. Des Moines 70 la. 637. But in
such case the company will be
estopped from alleging that its road
was not properly constructed. Eslich
V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co., 75 la.
443, 39 N. W. 700.
s^Lavison v. Chicago, St. L. & N.
0. Ry. Co., 1 McGloin, La. 299; hut
see contra, Koelmel v. New Orleans,
M. & C. R. R. Co., 27 La. An. 442;
Kennedy v. Detroit R. R. Co., 108
Mich. 390, 66 N. W. 495; Breen v.
Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co., 220 Pa. St.
612, 69 Atl. 1047. If some other loca-
tion than the middle of the street
is specified in the grant, the road
may, of course, be laid as specified.
Kellinger v. Forty-seCond St. R. R.
Co., 50 N. Y. 206 ; Carson v. Central
R. R. Co., 35 Cal. 325; Clark v. Sec-
ond etc. St. R. R. Co., 3 Phil. 259.
But in Ohio it is held that if the
track is so located as to be an ob-
struction to the convenient access to
the abutting property, the owner is
entitled to compensation. Street
Railway v. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St.
523. A grant is not bad because it
does not specify the location of the
tracks, as that is a matter for sub-
sequent regulation. Baker v. Selma
St. & Suburban Ry. Co., 130 Ala. 474,
30 So. 464.
ssLackland v. North Missouri R. R.
Co., 31 Mo. 180; Southern Pacific R.
R. Co. v. Reed, 41 Cal. 256; contra:
Davis V. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 46 la.
389.
SBThe following hold the contrary:
Workman v. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 129
Cal. 536, 62 Pac. 185; Davis v. C. &
N. W. Ry. Co., 46 la. 389; and see
Street Railway Co. v. West Side Ry.
Co., 48 Mich. 433. In Indianapolis
& St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Calvert, 110
Ind. 555, it was held that one who
had granted the right to lay one
track in the street in front of his
property could not enjoin the con-
struction of a switch which was laid
308
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 170
depend upon the language of tlie grant. Authority to construct
a line of street railway on a specified street was held to authorize
a double track.*^ Such an authority does not authorize a double
decked road.^* Authority to cross a street does not sanction
the occupation of the street with concrete abutments supporting
a trestle.*^ Authority to lay tracks or a single or double track
is not exhausted by laying one track.^" The company, having
once located its track, has exhausted its right of choice, and may
not move it to a different location,'^ The company may not
build a depot *^ or passenger platform,^^ a water hydrant,^*
a switch tower ®' or other structure ®^ in the street, or turn it into
on the same ties and projected four-
teen inches for a space of nineteen
feet opposite his property. But au-
thority to construct a single traclc
was held not to authorize side tracks
in Kavanagh v. Mobile etc. R. R. Co.,
78 Ga. 271.
STBrown v. Atlanta Ry. & P. Co.,
113 Ga. 462, 39 S. E. 71.
ssMatter of Long Island R. R. Co.,
189 N. Y. 428, 82 N. E. 443; Dun-
more V. Scranton Ry. Co., 34 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 294.
8 9 Delaware etc. R. R. Co. v. Syra-
cuse, 165 Eed. 631 (C. C. A.)
soWorkman v. So. Pac. R. R. Co.,
129 Cal. 536, 62 Pac. 185; Varwig v.
Cleveland etc. R. R. Co., 6 Ohio C.
C. 439; Detroit Citizens St. Ry. Co.
V. Board of Public Works, 126 Mich.
554, 85 N. W. 1072; Ransom v. Citi-
zens' R. R. Co., 104 Mo. 375, 16 S.
W. 416. Where a company had au-
thority to occupy so much of certain
streets as "may be necessary for the
construction of its track, sidings
and branches," and it constructed
and used a, single track for many
years, it was held to have exhausted
its power. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R.
Co. V. Philadelphia & N. R. R. R. Co.,
157 Pa. St. 42, 27 Atl. 683.
oiLittle Miami R. R. Co. v. Nay-
lor, 2 Ohio St. ^35, 59 Am. Dec. 667;
especially if the new position is more
injurious to abutting property. Du-
tacli V. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R.
Co., 89 Mo. 483. See contra, Snyder
V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 55 Pa. St.
340. It is held that a company may
change the gauge of its road at
pleasure, when not restricted. Ap-
peal of Borough of Millvale, 131 Pa.
St. 1, 18 Atl. 993, 1 Am. R. E. &
Corp. Rep. 151. And see Denver etc.
R. R. Co. v. Barsaloux, 15 Col. 290,
25 Pac. 165; Denver etc. R. R. Co. v.
Toohey, 15 Col. 297, 25 Pac. 166. If
tracks are first laid too near to-
gether, they may be changed to give
the proper space. Simpson v. Phila.
etc. R. R. Co., 4 Mont. Co. L. Rep.
102.
s2Barney v. Keokuk, 4 Dill. 593,
affirmed 94 U. S. 324; Cooper v.
Alden, Harr. Mich. 72; Village of
Wayzata v. Great Northern R. R.
Co., 50 Minn. 438, 52 N. W. 913;
Riley v. Pennsylvania Co., 32 Pa.
Super. Ct. 579. Authority to con-
struct an elevated railroad on a
street does not authorize a depot or
stairs on an intersecting street.
Mattlage v. New York El. Ry. Co.,
67 How. Pr. 232.
ssHigbee v. Camden & Amboy R.
R. Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 276, 20 N. J. Eq.
435.
9 4 Chicago Great Western Ry. Co.
V. First M. E. Church, 102 Fed. 85,
42 C. C. A. 178, 50 L.R.A. 488.
9 5 Williams v. Los Angeles Ry. Co.,
150 Cal. 592, 89 Pac. 330.
9 6Taber v. New York etc. R. R.
Co. 28 R. I. 269.
§ 170
KOADS AND STREETS.
309
a switch yard or freight delivery or place for the storage of
cars.®'^ Nor change the grade of its tracks without authority.
The company may lay a switch track to its barns and occupy
for a short distance for that purpose a street not named in its
grant.''® And the company may lay water pipes on its right of
way across streets to conduct water to a suitable place for its
engines.®^ Where two companies have a franchise on the same
street each should locate with due regard to the rights of the
other and so as to best accommodate the public.-^ The rights
of the company are at all times subject to reasonable regulation
by the municipality.^
s'Neitzey v. Baltimore etc. K. E.
Co., 0 Mackey 34; Trook v. B. & P.
R. R. Co., 3 McArthur, D. C. 392;
Glick V. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co.,
19 D. C. 412; Fitzgerald v. Baltimore
& 0. R. R. Co., 19 D. C. 513; Balti-
more & 0. E. E. Co. V. Fitzgerald, 2
App. Cas. D. C. 501 ; Atlantic etc.
Ry. Co. V. Montezuma, 122 Ga. 1, 49
S. E. 738; Owensborougli etc. R. R.
Co. V. Sutton (Ky.) 13 S. W. 1086;
Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v.
Heisel, 38 Mich. 62, 31 Am. Rep. 306 ;
S. C. 47 Mich. 393; Lackland v.
North Missouri R. R. Co., 31 Mo.
180; Randle v. Pacific R. R. Co., 65
Mo. 325; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v.
Angel, 41 N. J. Eq. 316; Mahady v.
Brunswick R. R. Co., 91 K Y. 148;
Iron Mt. R. R. Co. v. Bingham, 87
Tenn. 522, 11 S. W. 705, 4 L.E.A.
622; Baugh v. Texas & N. O. E. E.
Co., 80 Tex. 56, 15 S. W. 587. As to
whether u, city may authorize such
a use of streets as against abutting
owners, see Gilchrist Co. v. Des
Moines, 128 la. 49, 102 N. W. 831;
Cummins v. Summunduwot Lodge, 9
Kan. App. 153, 58 Pac. 486; Lake
Shore etc. Ey. Co. v. Elyria, 69
Ohio St. 414, 69 N. E. 738; Pickup
V. Phila., etc. Ry. Co., 29 Pa. Super.
Ct. 631. In Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.
V. Fitzgerald, 2 App. Cas. D. C. 501,
the court says: "What the legisla-
tive power has given to the company
is simply the right which individuals
have by the common law, the right
of transit over certain streets of the
city — substantially that and nothing
more. Individuals, in their use of
the right of transit, may not con-
vert the streets into freight yards,
or into places of storage for their
wagons, or into stables for their
horses. When the right of transit is
given to a, railroad company, why
should it be construed to mean any
more than it does in the case of an
individual, due regard being had to
the different instrumentalities used."
Chester v. B. 0. E. E. Co., 217 Pa.
St. 402, 66 Atl. 654.
9 8Brooklyn Heights E. E. Co. v.
Brooklyn, 152 N. Y. 244, 46 N. E.
Eep. 509.
9 9iCanton v. Canton Cotton Ware-
house Co., 84 Miss. 268, 36 So. 266,
105 Am. St. Eep. 428, 65 L.R.A. 561.
iGeneral Electric R. E. Co. v. Chi-
cage City E. E. Co., 66 111. App. 362.
2State V. St. Paul City Ey. Co.,
78 Minn. 331, 81 N. W. 200; Allen
V. Jersey City, 53 N. J. L. 522, 22
Atl. 257 ; State v. Atlantic etc. E. E.
Co., 141 N. C. 736, 53 S. E. 290;
Baltimore v. Baltimore T. & G. Co.,
166 U. S. 673, 17 S. C. Eep. 696.
And see Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v.
Chicago, 159 111. 369, 42 N. E. Rep.
781 ; Burlington v. Burlington St. R.
R. Co., 49 la. 144.
310 EMINENT DOMAIN. § lYl
§ 171 (117a). The doctrine of an unreasonable or ex-
cessive use of streets by railroads, as a basis for compen-
sation. Some of the States which hold that railroads of ail
kinds are legitimate street uses, have sought to avoid the harsh
consequences of this doctrine by introducing the qualification,
that for any unreasonable or excessive use of the street the
abutter may have compensation. Thus in a recent Kentucky
case it is said : "The design of a railroad is to facilitate travel.
It, therefore, subserves the object of a street dedication instead
of destroying it. It may, therefore, under legislative sanction,
have a joint occupancy of a street with other modes of travel
having the same end in view ; but it cannot occupy or use it to
the unreasonable exclusion or obstruction of such other modes.
The limitation upon the public right is that the appropriation
of the street must not be inconsistent with the end for which it
was established." And again: "It follows that the construction
of a railroad along a public street is not, per se, an encroach-
ment upon the individual right of the- abutting lot-owner, and
whether he can complain depends not upon the fact of its ex-
istence, but the manner of its construction and operation. If
he is thereby deprived of its reasonable use, he may appeal
to the courts for relief ; but if he is merely inconvenienced there-
by, or suffers some remote consequential injury, it is damnum
absque injuria." And in a subsequent part of the opinion the
court indicates what might be regarded as an unreasonable use.
"Undoubtedly, if the structure shall be so located as to unrea-
sonably obstruct the abutting lot-owner's means of egress and
ingress from and to his lot; or, if he suffers substantial injury
by having smoke, sparks or cinders thrown into his house; or
its walls be cracked by the movement of heavy trains, he would
be entitled to recover for the damages directly resulting from
such causes." * There are a number of cases in other States
3 Fulton V. Shor<- Route Trans. Co., 30 S. W. 6; Maysville & B. S. R. R.
85 Ky. 640, 652-655, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Co. v. Ingram (Ky.), 30 S. W. 8;
Am. St. Rep. 619. See also Louis- Maysville etc. R. R. Co. v. Conner
ville & N. R. R. Co. v. Orr, 91 Ky. (Ky.), 29 S. W. 344; Covington etc.
109, 15 S. W. 8; Commonwealth v. R. R. & Bridge Co. v. Kleymeier, 105
City of Frankfort, 92 Ky. 149, 17 S. Ky. 609, 49 S. W. 484; Ferguson v.
W. 287; Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. Covington etc. Bridge Co., 108 Ky.
V. Kreiger, 93 Ky. 243, 19 S. W. 738; 662, 57 S. W. 460; Elizabethtown
Strickley v. Chesapeake & O. R. R. etc. R. R. Co. v. Tierney, 11 Ky. L.
Co., 93 Ky. 323, 20 S. W. 261 ; Chesa- R. 526 ; Louisville Southern R. R. Co.
peake & 0. R. R. Co. v. Kobs (Ky.), v. Cogar, 15 Ky. L. R. 444; Louis-
§ 171
EOADS AND STKEETS.
Sll
which give more or less of support to this doctrine.* In a
Tennessee case the court, in enjoining the laying of a third
track in a street forty-one feet wide, said: "A public street,
either with or without the consent of municipal authorities, can-
not be converted into a mere roadbed for railroad tracks, over
which trains will be constantly operated, to the destruction of
the public use, and of the business and property interest of
vlUe Southern R. R. Co. v. Hooe, 18
Ky. L. R. 521, 35 S. W. 266, 38 S.
W. 131.
*In Kansas, while it is the gen-
eral doctrine that the abutter can-
not recover for the ordinary incon-
veniences occasioned by a commercial
railroad in a street, yet he may re-
cover, if there is such a practical ob-
struction of the street in front of his
lots as to amount to a denial of
access. Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v.
Cuykendall, 42 Kan. 234, 21 Pac.
1051; Wichita etc. R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 45 Kan. 264, 25 Pac. 623;
Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Davidson,
52 Kan. 739, 35 Pac. 787. The court
appears to rule, as matter of law,
that where there is ample room be-
tween the sidewallc and the railroad
for the passage of vehicles, there can
be no recovery. Kansas etc. R. R.
Co. V. Cuykendall, 42 Kan. 234, 21
Pac. 1051 ; Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v.
Mahler, 45 Kan. 565, 26 Pac. 22;
Wichita etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 45
Kan. 264, 25 Pac. 623; Herndon v.
Kansas etc. R. R. Co. 46 Kan. 560,
26 Pac. 959. See also Ottawa etc.
R. R. Co. V. Larson, 40 Kan. 301, 19
Pac. 661, 2 L.R.A. 59; Central
Branch U. P. R. R. Co. v. Andrews,
41 Kan. 370, 21 Pac. 276; Kansas
etc. R. R. Co. V. McAfee, 42 Kan.
239, 21 Pac. 1052 ; Chicago etc. R. R.
Co. V. Union Inv. Co., 51 Kan. 600,
33 Pac. 378. In Missouri the doc-
trine that a commercial railroad,
laid at the grade of a street, is a
legitimate use of the street, has long
been established, but late cases have
introduced the qualification that if
the street is so narrow that the run-
ning of trains excludes ordinary
traffic for the time being, or if the
road is laid on one side or over the
sidewalk, so as to be especially in-
jurious to abutting property, the
abutting owners may enjoin its con-
struction or operation. Lockwood v.
Wabash R. R. Co., 122 Mo. 86, 26
S. W. 698, 24 L.R.A. 516; Knapp,
Stout & Co. v. St. Louis Trans. Co.,
126 Mo. 26, 28 S. W. 627; Schulen-
burg & B. L. Co. v. St. Louis etc. R.
R. R. Co., 129 Mo. 455, 31 S. W. 796;
Brown v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 137
Mo. 529, 38 S. W. 1099; Watson v.
Robertson Ave. R. R. Co., 69 Mo.
App. 548; Sherlock v. Kansas City
Belt R. R. Co., 142 Mo. 172, 43 S. W.
629, 64 Am. St. Rep. 551; Corby v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 150 Mo. 457,
52 S. W. 282. In the first of these
cases the court says: "Beginning
with Lackland v. Railroad Co., 31
Mo. 183, this court has vmiformly
held that laying a track on the es-
tablished grade of a street, under
legislative authority, and operating
a steam railway thereon, was not
subjecting the street to a public use
different from that contemplated in
the original grant. This proposi-
tion was most ably and strenuously
attacked in Gaus & Sons Manuf. Co.
V. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 113 Mo.
308, 20 S. W. 658, but we felt con-
strained by the unbroken line of de-
cisions to adhere to it. Porter v.
Railroad Co., 33 Mo. 128; Cross v.
Railway Co., 77 Mo, 321; Smith v.
312
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 171
Railroad Co., 98 Mo. 24, 11 S. W.
Rep. 259; Kansas City, St. J. & C.
B. R. R. Co. V. St. Joseph T. R. R.
Co., 97 Mo. 469, 10 S. W. 826; Rude
V. City of St. Louis, 93 Mo. 408, 6
S. W. 257. This proposition un-
qualifiedly leads to this conclusion:
A city may authorize a, steam rail-
road to occupy a street with its
tracks, and operate its trains over
it. The abutting proprietors can-
not recover damages for the injury
resulting to their property, although
it is subject to smoke, noise and
cinders at all hours of day and night,
and all ingress and egress for the
legitimate purposes of business cut
off, except at such times as the rail-
road may elect not to run trains
upon it. Debarred from redress in
that direction, they apply to a court
of equity to restrain what they con-
ceive is a public and private nui-
sance, and ask for protection of
their own right to use the street as
abutting owners, and are met with
the assertion that what the law it-
self licenses cannot be a nuisance, and
that they must submit to whatever
inconvenience ensues, because they
might have anticipated that the
street would be subjected to this
servitude when they purchased their
property. If these propositions are
true, then it results that an abut-
ting property owner on a street may
have his property damaged or de-
stroyed without redress, notwith-
standing the constitutional guaranty
'that private property shall not be
taken or damaged for public use
without just compensation.' Const,
art. 2, § 21. But, while it has been
said that a city might authorize a
railroad company to lay its tracks in
its streets, it also has been deter-
mined by this court and many others
that the city could not, in the exer-
cise of its power, create a, nuisance
in the streets, or devote them, or
any part of them, to a purpose in-
consistent with the rights of the
public or abutting property owners.
Thus, in Dubach v. Railroad Co., 89
Mo. 483, 1 S. W. Rep. 86, Judge
Henry, speaking for the whole court,
said: 'If the character of a, street
should be such that defendant's
track could not be laid upon the
street without hindering the public
from using it, then, no matter how
important to the company that its
track should be laid in that street,
it could not be done.' 'Nor is it com-
petent for a city to authorize such
use of a street dedicated as a street
as will destroy it as a, thoroughfare
for the public use.' In this case it
is too plain to be evaded that the
grant conferred by this ordinance
practically creates a monopoly in de-
fendant in the use of this street.
* * * Every time the defendant
uses this street with its trains it
absolutely deprives all teamsters of
ordinary freight wagons access to
this street, and, as the ordinance
gives defendant the privilege of
using it with its trains as often as
it pleases, such use is utterly incom-
patible with the purposes for which
this street was created, and is un-
reasonable. The municipal assembly
had no right to appropriate this
street to defendant's use in this
way.
* # *
No case in this
State is authority for such exclusive
use of a highway, and, if it was, we
should not follow it. The company
is a common carrier, and entitled as
such to collect tolls, but not ex-
clusive right to monopolize a public
street, and shut out the public and
other carriers. Holding, as we do,
that this ordinance, in view of the
facts developed, amounts to a prac-
tical condemnation of this portion of
Collins street to the private and
almost exclusive use of defendant,
we think the injunction was prop-
erly granted by the Circuit Court,
auu plaintiffs had such an interest
§ 171 EOADS AND STEEETS. 313
those abutting thereon." ^ The doctrine is not confined to com-
mercial railroads, but has been applied to street railroads ^ and
interurban roads.'' These cases, as it seems to the writer, are
a virtual confession of error in holding railroads to be a legiti-
mate street use. They illustrate, however, the tendency of
courts to work out in one way or another, substantial justice
to the property owner. The theory of the cases would seem to
be that while a railroad is a proper street use and in line with
the purposes for which streets are established, yet if it materially
interferes with the abutting owner's rights or easements in the
street, or interferes with the enjoyment of such rights and ease-
ments so as to produce a material impairment of the property,
then the abutter is entitled to compensation. The question turns
upon the effect of the railroad on the abutting property. There
does not seem to be any criterion to measure this effect but a pe-
cuniary one. If property is depreciated in value from any cause
it is materially affected and it does not seem as though any dis-
tinction could be made between a large and a small deprecia-
tion. These cases, if thus interpreted, will, therefore, bring
about the same result as those which hold that a railroad is not
a legitimate street use, for in the latter class of cases there can be
no recovery, if there is no diminution in value.®
In a recent Kentucky case, at the suit of an abutting owner,
as would enable them to maintain SAshland, etc. St. Ry. Co. v.
the action." The following cases Faullcner, 106 Ky. 332, 51 S. W. 806,
also may be referred to as being 43 L.R.A. 554; McQuaid v. Portland
more or less in line with the fore- &, V. R. R. Co., 18 Or. 237, 22 Pac.
going, though some of them contain 899, 1 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 34;
dicta only. Newell v. Minneapolis Paquet v. Mt. Tabor St. R. R. Co.,
etc. R. R. Co., 35 Minn. 112, 59 Am. 18 Ore. 233, 22 Pac. 908; Dooley
Rep. 303; People v. Ft. Wayne etc. Block v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit
R. R. Co., 92 Mich. 522, 52 N. W. Co., 9 Utah, 31, 33 Pac. 229, 8 Am.
1010, 16 L.R.A. 752; State v. Tren- R. R. & Corp. Rep. 327; Smith v.
ton Pass. R. R. Co., 58 N. J. L. 666, East End. St. R. R. Co., 87 Tenn.
34 Atl. 1090; Iron Mt. R. R. Co. v. 026, 11 S. W. 709.
Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 11 S. W. 705, TMordhurst v. Ft. Wayne etc.
4 L.R.A. 622; Brumit v. Railroad Traction Co., 163 Ind. 268, 71 N. E.
Co., 106 Tenn. 124, 60 S. W. 505; 642, 106 Am. St. Rep. 222, 68 L.R.A.
Jackson v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 41 105 ; Kinsey v. Union Traction Co.,
Fed. 656. 109 Ind. 563, 81 N. E. 922.
sPepper v. Union Ry. Co., 113 sPost, § 751.
Tenn. 53, 85 S. W. 864, to same
eflfect; Mason v. Ohio River R. R.
Co., 51 W. Va. 183, 41 S. B. 418.
314:
EMINENT BOMAIN.
§ 172
a decree was entered, limiting a railroad company, which had
authority to occupy a street, to a single track laid in the middle
of the street and also restricting the number of freight trains
which might be operated during business hours. On appeal
the decree was sustained as to the former part and reversed as
to the latter, thus holding that a court of equity cannot, in ad-
vance, restrict a company as to the use of its tracks.®
§ 172 (117b). Railroads in streets constructed with-
out authority, or used in a way not authorized. — Remedies
of abutters. A railroad in a street may be unauthorized be-
cause constructed without any color of authority whatever, or
because constructed under an apparent authority which is void
for any reason,^" or has expired,^^ or because constructed in a
manner or location not within the authority granted. -^^ In all
such cases the railroad is a public nuisance ^* and the abutter
is entitled to the same remedies as in any other similar case of
sKentucky & I. Bridge Co. v.
Kreiger, 93 Ky. 243, 19 S. W. 738.
loDaly V. Georgia etc. E. R. Co.,
80 Ga. 793, 12 Am. St. Rep. 286;
Georgia etc. R. R. Co. v. Harvey, 84
Ga. 372, 10 S. E. 971; Common-
wealth V. City of Frankfort, 92 Ky.
149, 17 S. W. 287; Lockwood v.
Wabash E. R. Co., 122 Mo. 86, 26 S.
W. 698, 24 L.R.A. 516; Schulenberg
etc. Co. V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
129 Mo. 455, 31 S. W. 796; Steven-
son V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co. (Mo.), 31
S. W. Rep. 793; Appeal of Hartman
Steel Co., 129 Pa. St. 551, 18 Atl.
553; Thomas v. Inter-County St. R.
R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 120, 31 Atl. 426.
iiAtchison St. R. R. Co. v. Nave,
38 Kan. 744, 17 Pac. 587, 5 Am. St.
Rep. 800.
i2Reynolds v. Presidio etc. R. R.
Co., 1 Cal. App. 229, 81 Pac. 1118;
Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Wliitley
County Court, 95 Ky. 215, 24 S. W.
604, 44 Am. St. Rep. 220; Hepting
V. New Orleans Pac. R. R. Co., 30
La. An. 898; Village of Wayzata v.
Great Northern R. R. Co., 50 Minn.
438, 52 N. W. Rep. 913; Knapp,
Stout & Co. V. St. Louis Transfer
E. R. Co., 126 Mo. 26, 28 S. W. Rep.
627; Thompson v. Pennsylvania R.
R. Co., 51 N. J. L. 42, 15 Atl. 833;
Hussner v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co.,
114 N. Y. 433, 21 N. E. 1002, 11 Am.
St. Rep. 679; Mattlage v. New York
El. R. R. Co., 67 How. Pr. 232, 14
Daly 1; Galveston Wharf. Co. v.
Gulf etc. R. R. Co., 81 Tex. 494, 17
S. W. 57 ; Dooley Block v. Salt Lake
Rapid Transit Co., 9 Utah 31, 33
Pac. 229, 8 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
327.
isBirmingham Ry. Lt. & P. Co. v.
Moran, 151 Ala. 187, 44 So. 152; City
Store V. San Jose etc. Ry. Co., 150
Cal. 277, 88 Pac. 977; Kavanagh v.
Mobile .etc. R. R. Co., 78 Ga. 271;
Glaesner v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing
Assn., 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W. 707, 2
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 420; Van
Home V. Newark Pass. R. R. Co., 48
N. J. Eq. 332, 21 Atl. 1034; Louis-
ville etc. E. E. Co. V. Cincinnati etc.
Ey. Co., 3 Ohio N. P. (N.S.) 109;
Appeal of Hartman Steel Co., 129
Pa. St. 551, 18 Atl. 553; Thomas v.
Inter-County St. E. E. Co., 167 Pa.
St. 120, 31Atl. 476; Watkinsv.West
Phila. Pass. E. E. Co., 1 Pa. Dist. Ct.
§ 172
EOADS AND STKEETS.
315
public nuisance in the streets.'* If the abutting owner has the
fee, he is entitled to the same rights and remedies as though the
public easement did not exist, and may maintain trespass,'^
ejectment '" or bill for injunction. '' If the fee is in the pub-
lic, as both title and possession would be in a third party, the
only remedy of the abutting owner is an action on the case, or
a bill for injunction.-'* But a bill cannot be maintained for that
purpose by one who does not own property upon the street,
though he be a tax-payer.-'® If the abutter does not own the fee
he must show some special damages in order to be entitled to an
action,^" but this may consist in the diminution in the value of
463; Haines v. 22d. St. etc. R. R.
Co., 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 506; City of
Moundsville v. Ohio R. R. Co., 37
W. Va. 92, 16 S. E. 514, 20 L.R.A.
161; Hetzel v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 169
U. S. 26.
i4Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Tay-
lor, 6 App. D. C. 259; Garnett v.
Jacksonville etc. R. R. Co., 20 Fla.
889; Morris etc. R. R. Co. v. Newark,
10 N. J. Eq. 352; Parrot v. Cincin-
nati etc. R. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 330;
Cooper V. Alden, Harr. Mich. 72;
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Philadel-
phia & Reading R. R. Co., 15 Phila.
48 ; Hopkins v. Calasauqua Mfg. Co.,
180 Pa. St. 199, 36 Atl. 735 ; Patton
V. Olymphia D. & L. Co., 15 Wash.
210, 46 Pac. 237.
i6MorreU v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
49 Minn. 526, 52 N. W. 140; Florida
Southern R. R. Co. v. Brown, 23 Fla.
104; Jacksonville etc. R. R. Co. v.
Lockwood, 33 Fla. 573, 15 So. 327;
Post, § 931, and, generally, as to
remedies in such cases, see post,
chap, xxviii.
isWager v. Troy Union R. R. Co.,
25 N. Y. 526; Carpenter v. Oswego
& S. R. R. Co., 24 N. y". 655. Con^
tra: Edwardsville R. R. Co. v.
Sawyer, 92 111. 377. See post, § 926.
I'Imlay v. Union Branch R. R.
Co., 26 Conn. 249, 68 Am. Dec. 392;
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bull, 116
Ga. 776, 43 S. E. 52; Cox v. Louis-
ville R. R. Co., 48 Inc 178; Har-
rington v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
17 Minn. 215; Swinhart v. St. Louis
etc. Ry. Co., 207 Mo. 423, 105 S. W.
1043; Henderson v. New York Cent.
R. R. Co., 78 N. Y. 423; Wright v.
Syracuse etc. R. R. Co., 92 Hun 32,
36 N. Y. S. 901 ; Auchinloss v. Met.
R. R. Co., 69 App. Div. 63, 74 N. Y.
S. 534; Thomas v. Inter-County St.
R. R. Co., 167 Pa. St. 120, 31 Atl.
476; Hannum v. Media etc. Elec. Ry.
Co., 200 Pa. St. 44, 49 Atl. 789 ; Hall
v. Pa. R. R. Co., 215 Pa. St. 172,
64 Atl. 408; Ford v. Chicago & N.
W. Ry. Co., 14 Wis. 609, 80 Am.
Dec. 791; Allen v. Clausen, 114 Wis.
244, 90 N. W. 181; post, § 891.
18 Atchison St. R. R. Co. v. Nave,
38 Kan. 744, 17 Pac. 587, 5 Am. St.
Rep. 800 ; Dooley Block v. Salt Lake
Rapid Transit Co., 9 Utah 31, 33
Pac. 229, 8 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
327 ; Hart v. Buchner, 54 Fed. 925.
19 Davis V. New York, 14 N. Y.
506.
2 0Reynolds v. Presidio etc. R. R.
Co., 1 Cal. App. 229, 81 Pac. 1118;
Jacksonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Thomp-
son, 34 Fla. 346, 16 So. 282; Kav-
anagh v. Mobile etc. R. R. Co., 78
Ga. 271 ; East Tennessee etc. R. R.
Co. v. Boardman, 96 Ga. 356, 23 S.
E. 403; Atchison St. R. R. Co. v.
Nave, 38 Kan. 744, 17 Pac. 587, 5
Am. St. Rep. 800; Van Home v.
316
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 173
Ms property.^^ When the road is constructed in a negligent
and improper manner,^ ^ or when it is so operated or used as to
unnecessarily obstruct the street,^^ the company will be liable.
The subject of remedies is elsewhere discussed.^*
§ 173. Switch tracks to private property and railroads
for private use. It is a general rule that the use of streets
cannot be granted for private purposes.^" It follows neces-
sarily that a purely private railway cannot be constructed upon,
across or along a public street or highway. There is practically
no question about this proposition, the difficulty lying in its
application. The great weight of authority is that a side,
switch or spur track connecting a railroad with private prop-
erty, such as a factory, elevator, quarry or other place of busi-
ness and for the accommodation of the owner of the property
is a private use and that such tracks cannot be laid upon or across
the streets and highways.^" The question was -much debated
Newark Pass. R. E. Co., 48 N. J. Eq.
332, 21 Atl. 1034; Watkln v. W.
Phila. Pass. K. E. Co., 1 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 463 ; Haines v. 22d St. etc. R. E.
Co., 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 506.
2ijSee post, §§ 199, 951.
2 2Cadle V. Muscatine Western R.
R. Co., 44 la. 11; Brewer v. Boston
C. & F. R. R. Co., 113 Mass. 52;
Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v. McAfee, 42
Kan. 239, 21 Pac. 1052; Hepting v.
New Orleans Pac. R. R. Co., 36 La.
An. 898; McQuaid v. Portland &
V. R. R. Co., 18 Ore. 237, 22 Pac.
899, 1 Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 34;
Paquet v. Mt. Tabor St. E. E. Co.,
18 Ore., 233, 22 Pac. 906; Harman
V. Louisville R. R. Co., 87 Tenn. 614,
11 S. W. 703; Cane Belt R. R. Co.
V. Ridgeway, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 108,
85 S. W. 496; Evans v. Chicago
etc. E. R. Co., 86 Wis. 597, 57 N. W.
354, 39 Am. St. Rep. 908.
2 3Canastota Knife Co. v. Newing-
ton Tramway Co., 69 Conn. 146;
Neitzey v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
5 Maekey 34; Click v. B. & 0. R.
R. Co., 19 D. C. 412; Fitzgerald v.
B. & 0. R. R. Co., 19 D. C. 513;
Baltimore & P. R. R. Co. v. Fitz-
gerald, 2 App. Cas. D. C. 501 ; Frith
V. Dubuque, 45 la. 406; Atchison &
Nebraska R. R. Co. v. Garside, 10
Kan. 552 ; Owensborough etc. E. E.
Co. V. Sutton (Ky.), 13 S. W. 1086;
Stevenson v. Mo. Pac. E. E. Co.
(Mo.), 31 S. W. 793; Thompson v.
Pennsylvania E. E. Co., 51 N. J. L.
42, 15 Atl. 833; State v. Trenton
Pass. E. E. Co., 58 N. J. L. 686, 34
Atl. 1090, 33 L.E.A. 129; Mahady
v. Brunswick R. R. Co., 91 N. Y.
148; Green v. New York Central R.
R. Co., 65 How. Pr. 154; Mt. Au-
burn Cable E. E. Co. v. Neare, 54
Ohio St. 153, 42 N. E. 768; Smith v.
East End St. E. E. Co., 87 Tenn.
626, 11 S. W. 709; Iron Mt. E. E.
Co. V. Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 4 L.
E. A. 622; Baugh v. Texas & N. 0.
R. R. Co., 80 Tex. 56, 15 S. W. 587.
iiSee Chapters 27 and 28.
2 54nfe, § 127.
2 6Macon v. Harris, 73 6a. 42;
Macon v. Harris, 75 Ga. 761 ; Heath
v. Des Moines etc. Ry. Co., 61 la. 11 ;
Mikesell v. Durkee, 34 Kan. 509;
Commonwealth v. Frankfort, 92 Ky.
149, 17 S. W. 287; Bradley v. Pharr,
45 La. An. 426, 12 So. 618; Green
§ 173 EOADS AND STEEETS. 317
in one of the New York cases cited where the proprietor of a
department store in the city of New York was licensed by the
city authorities to construct a switch track from his store to the
street car tracks in front with a view to operating freight cars
beween his store and a delivery station some miles away. At
the suit of the owner of the adjoining property the court en-
joined the construction of the track, as being for a private use.
"There can be no doubt," says the court, "that an abutting owner
in a city has the right of free access to and from his property in
the usual way. He may use for that purpose such means of con-
veyance for the transportation and delivery of goods and mer-
chandise as are usual and customary, but the right of ingress
and egress by railroad cars running upon railroad tracks has
not yet, I think, been sanctioned by custom or by law. The
claim of right in that regard is far in advance of any use of
the public streets that has heretofore been recognized. It may be
argued that if the abutting owner may use carriages, wagons,
trucks and even motor cars for the purpose of free access and
the transaction of his business, why not permit him to use rail-
road cars upon a railroad track ? Such an argument is mis-
leading, since if carried to its logical conclusion the result would
be that the governing body in a city would have the power to
surrender the use of streets to private parties for exclusively
private purposes." ^^
V. Portland, 32 Me. 431 ; Gustafson 31 W. Va. 710, 8 S. E. 453. And see
V. Hamm, 56 Minn. 334, 57 N. W. post, § 264.
1054; Glaesner v. Anheuser-Busch 27Hatfield v. Straus, 189 N. Y.
Brewing Co., 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W. 208, 82 N. E. 172, affirming S. C. 117
707, 2 Am. K. R. & Corp. Rep. 420; App. Div. 671, 102 N. Y. S. 934.
Swift V. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 66 Four judges concurred in the opin-
io. J. Eq. 34, 57 Atl. 456; State v. ion and three dissented. We quote
Trenton, 36 N. J. 79; Fanning v. from the dissenting opinion as fol-
Osborne, 102 N. Y. 441, reversing lows: "The right to lay pipes or
S. C. 34 Hun 121 ; Hatfield v. Straus, other conduits for the transmission
189 N. Y. 208, 82 N. E. 172, affirm- of gas, electricity, steam, light, heat
ing S. C. 117 App. Div. 671, 102 or power, like the right to lay tracks
N". Y. S. 934; Barker v. Hartman for oars in which to transport pas-
Steel Co., 129 Pa. St. 551, 18 Atl. sengers or property, must be granted
553; Richi v. Chattanooga Brewing for public use, but for the purpose
Co., 105 Tenn. 651, 58 S. W. 646; of using the gas, electricity, steam,
Cereghino v. Ore. Short Line R. R. light, heat and power individual
Co., 26 Utah 467, 73 Pac. 634, 90 members of society constituting the
Am. St. Rep. 843; Pittsburgh etc. public are granted permission to ex-
R. R. Co. V. Benwood Iron Works, cavate in the public streets and high-
318
EMINENT DOMAIN.
174
In Illinois such spur or switch tracks are regarded as a part
of the railway and a public use, though serving but a single es-
tablishment and constructed at the expense of its owner. ^^
When such a track is open to all who wish to use it and either
does serve various parties or is capable of doing so, it is a public
use and may be laid in a street.^^ So such a track may be laid
to the premises of an express company for use in its business, as
such companies are common carriers and the use is a public
one.^**
§ 174 (118). Railroad across street. — Right of abutter
on street to compensation. A railroad cannot be laid across
a highway without compensation to the owner of the fee.*^ Gen-
erally, the mode of crossing and the duties of the company in
ways and permanently lay pipes and
other conduits to connect their abut-
ting property with the pipes and
other conduits in the streets and
highways through which to take the
gas, etc. for private use. Unless
spur tracks of some kind are allowed
to the owners of abutting property,
the loading and unloading of express
cars must necessarily be confined to
the public streets, and thus public
travel will be delayed and the gen-
eral public as well as individuals be
greatly inconvenienced.
"For the purpose of confining
abutting owners to a reasonable use
of the public streets it is no more
necessary to require that express
cars be loaded and unloaded in the
streets and highways than it is that
individual consumers of gas or water
be required to take the same in some
way from the distributing pipes in
the public streets. A reasonable use
of all public service corporations
would seem to require that abutting
owners of property be allowed lo
make such reasonable connection
with the public service pipes, con-
duits or tracks as will tend to public
utility. The defendant's goods,
wares and merchandise must be
transported from place to place, and
I cannot see that running one car
over a spur track from the street
surface railroad would be more in-
convenient to the public than run-
ning heavy motor cars or trucks
drawn by horses at irregular inter-
vals over the defendant's driveway.
If such a use of the street tends to
public benefit it cannot be said to
be an unreasonable use thereof. No
actual permanent taking of a por-
tion of the street for private pur-
poses is proposed. The board of
estimate and apportionment in their
discretion may have found that the
use of such spur track within the
hours mentioned would relieve a con-
gested street and generally tend to
the public good." pp. 229, 230.
2 8Truesdale v. Peoria Grape Sugar
Co., 101 111. 561 ; Mills v. Parlin, 106
111. 60; Chicago Dock & Canal Co.
v. Garrity, 115 111. 155, 3 N. E. 448;
People v. Blocki, 203 111. 363, 67 N.
E. 809. And see White v. Blanchard
Bros. etc. Co., 178 Mass. 363, 59 N.
E. 1025 ; Stockdale etc. v. Eio Grande
Western By. Co., 28 Utah 201, 77
Pac. 849.
2 9 Clark V. Blackmar, 47 N. Y.
150; post, § 264.
3 0Dulaney v. United Rys. & Eleo.
Co., 104 Md. 423, 65 Atl. 45.
siTrustees v. Auburn & Rochester
E. R. Co., 3 Hill 567 ; Starr v. Cam-
den etc. R. R. Co., 24 N. J. L. 592.
§ 174
EOADS AND STREETS.
319
respect to the same are defined by statute. Crossings above or
below grade are frequently made, requiring alteration in the
surface of the street to make suitable approaches. For damages
resulting from such lateral approaches, the right to recover de-
pends upon principles already discussed in this chapter. Dif-
ferent States hold different doctrines. If the crossing above or
below grade is wholly unnecessary, the company will be liable
for damages caused by the lateral approaches.^^ As such changes
of grade are made solely to accommodate the railroad company,
and not at all for the purpose of improving the highway for
travel, being always, in fact, a detriment to the highway as such,
the abutting owners should receive compensation for any injury
to their rights in the street as already defined, as by interfering
with access or light and air, as well as for actual invasion of
their lots, as by turning surface water onto them or otherwise.
Some courts have allowed a recovery for such damages,^^ and
others have denied it.^* Damages to abutting property by the
3 2Louisville & Nashville K. E. Co.
V. Hodge, 6 Bush 141 ; Farrant v.
First Division of St. Paul & Pac. Ry.
Co., 13 Minn. 311. The company
may make necessary alterations;
Commonwealth v. Hartford & New
Haven R. R. Co., 14 Gray 379.
3 3 Alabama M. R. R. Co. v. Wil-
liams, 92 Ala. 277, 9 So. 203; Nichol-
son V. New York & New Haven R. R.
Co., 22 Conn. 74; Longworth v. Meri-
den & W. R. R. Co., 61 Conn. 451, 23
Atl. 827 ; Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co.
V. Smith, 52 Ind. 428; Egbert v.
Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co., 0 Ind.
App. 350, 33 N.~E. 659; Pennsylvania
Co. V. Stanley, 10 Ind. App. 421, 37
N. E. 288, 38 N. B. 421; Hitchcock
V. Chicago etc. R. E. Co., 88 Iowa,
242, 55 N. W. 337 ; Louisville & N. R.
R. Co. V. Finley, 86 Ky. 294, 5 S. W.
753; Kaiser v. St. Paul S. & T. F. R.
R. Co., 22 Minn. 149; Perrine v. Pa.
R. R. Co., 72 N. J. L. 398, 61 Atl.
87 ; McNulta v. Ralston, 5 Ohio C. C.
330; Wead v. St. Johnsbury & L. C.
R. E. Co., 64 Vt. 52, 24 Atl. 361;
Buchner v. C. M. & N. W. Ey. Co., 56
Wis. 403; Buchner v. Chicago, Mil.
& St. Paul Ey. Co., 60 Wis. 264;
Shealy v. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 72
Wis. 471, 40 N. W. 145; Shealy v.
Chicago etc. E. R. Co., 77 Wis. 653,
46 N. W. 887; West v. Parkdale, 8
Ont. 59; West v. Parkdale, 7 Ont.
270.
34Nottingham v. B. & P. R. R. Co.,
3 McArthur, 517; Franz v. Sioux
City etc. R. R. Co., 55 la. 107 ; Atch-
ison etc. R. R. Co. V. Arnold, 52 Kan.
729, 35 Pac. 780 ; Atchison etc. R. R.
Co. V. Luening, 52 Kan. 732, 35 Pac.
801; Whittier \. Portland & Ken-
nebec R. R. Co., 38 Me. 26 ; Putnam
V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 182 Mass.
351, 6S N. E. 790; Hyde v. Boston
etc. St. Ry. Co., 194 Mass. 80, 80 N.
E. 517; Phelps v. Detroit, 120 Mich.
447, 79 N. W. 640; Towle v. Eastern
Railroad, 17 N. H. 519; Uline v.
New York Cent. R. R. Co., 101 N. Y.
98, 4 N. E. 536, 54 Am. Rep. 661;
Conklin v. New York, Ontario &
Western Ry. Co., 102 N. Y. 107;
Ottenot v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
119 N. Y. 603, 23 N. E. 169; Eauen-
stein V. New York etc. E. E. Co., 136
N. Y. 528, 32 N. E. 528, 18 L.E.A.
320
EMIl^ENT DOMAIK.
§ 174
construction of viaducts or bridges over railroads, and by the
approaches to such viaducts or bridges, are considered in another
section.^^ Where a railroad crosses a cid de sac, and so inter-
feres with the access to property thereon, a recovery may be
had, although the surface of the street is not interfered with.''®
But where a street was crossed by a cut two blocks away from
the plaintiff's property, it was held he could not recover, as his
right of access or outlet was not interfered with.*^ Where a
street was crossed seventy-one feet from the plaintiff's property
and blocked up at that point, so as to leave plaintiff on a cul
de sac, he was held entitled to recover damages.^^ So where one
end of an alley was blockaded, so as to interfere with access to
the rear of plaintiff's lot.^® Where the crossing is at a distance
from the plaintiff's property and the street is obstructed or
rendered inconvenient and the plaintiff's property is thereby
depreciated in value, the question of liability is one upon which
768, 7 Am. R. K. & Corp. Rep. 520;
S. C. 120 N. Y. 661, 24 N. B. 1020;
Buck V. Conn. & Pass. River R. R.
Co., 42 Vt. 370; Richardson v. Ver-
mont Central R. R. Co., 25 Vt. 465,
60 Am. Dec. 459.
Si Ante, § 138, post, §§ 178, 191.
Harvey v. Georgia Southern etc. R.
R. Co., 90 Ga. 66, 15 S. E. Rep. 783.
3 6Brakken v. Minneapolis etc. R.
R. Co., 29 Minn. 41; Hayes v. Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co., 46 Minn. 349, 49
N. W. Rep. 61.
STShaubut v. St. Paul & Sioux City
R. R. Co., 21 Minn. 502; and see
Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis
Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 425; S. C. 31 Minn.
45, and 29 Minn. 41 ; also Rochette v.
Chicago, Mil. & St. Paul Ry. Co., 32
Minn. 201 ; Barnum v. Minnesota
Transfer Co., 33 Minn. 365; Lakkie
v. Chicago etc.. R. R. Co., 44 Minn.
438, 46 N. W. 912. But see Glaessner
V. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn.,
iOO Mo. 508, 13 S. W. 707, 2 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 420.
ssjohnsen v. Old Colony R. R. Co.,
18 R. I. 642, 29 Atl. 594. But see
O'Connor v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
56 la. 735.
3 9Harvey v. Georgia So. R. R. Co.,
90 Ga. 66, 15 S. E. 783 ; Pennsylvania
R. R. Co. V. Stanley, 10 Ind. App.
421, 37 N. E. 288, 38 N. E.
421 ; Kaji V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
57 Minn. 422, 59 N. W. 493; Leaven--
worth etc. R. R. Co. v. Curtan, 51
Kan. 432, 33 Pac. 297.
4 0In addition to the cases already
cited we refer to the following cases
favoring the right of recovery: Chi-
cago v. Pulcyn, 129 111. App. 179;
Danville etc. R. R. Co. v. Tidrick, 137
111. App. 553; Park v. C. & S. W.
R. R. Co., 43 la. 636 ; Dairy v. Iowa
Cent. Ry. Co., 113 la. 716, 84 N. W.
683. Contra : Little Rock, etc. R. R.
Co. V. Newman, 73 Ark. 1, 83 S. W.
653, 108 Am. St. Rep. 17; Newton v.
New York etc. R. R. Co., 72 Conn.
420, 44 Atl. 813; Grey v. Greenville,
etc. Ry. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 372, 46 Atl.
638; Matter of Grade Crossing
Comrs., 166 N. Y. 69, 59 N. E. 706;
Scrutchfield v. Choctaw etc. R. R. Co.,
18 Okl. 308, 88 Pac. 1048, 9 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 496. And see Sheehan V. Fall
River, 187 Mass. 356, 73 N. E. 544;
Buckholz V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
148 N. Y. 640, 43 N. E. 76; Buckholtz
§ 175
EOADS AND STREETS.
321
the authorities are very conflicting.*" The question is more
fully treated in a subsequent section.*'
The duty of a railroad company to restore a highway crossed
is a continuing one, and where it crosses by a bridge, it must
be replaced when necessary.*^ But it is not obliged to strengthen
a bridge in order to make it safe for a street railway.** Au-
thority to cross any highway in the line of the railway does
not authorize a track on a curve, which does not cross the high-
way but begins a branch road.** Legislative authority to cross
any public road or way, was held to include city streets as well
as country roads.* ^
§ 175 (119). Right of municipality having the fee of
street to receive compensation. As we have already had oc-
casion to observe a municipal corporation, though holding the
fee of its streets, holds them simply as a tnistee for the public.*"
It has no such private right or interest therein, as entitles it to
compensation when a railroad is laid thereon by legislative au-
thority, though without its consent.*'^ The same rule applies
to street railroads as to commercial railroads.*^ So as to a public
bridge.** So the legislature may authorize the use of city streets
V. New York etc. R. K. Co., 71 App.
Div. 452, 75 N. Y. S. 824, S. C.
affirmed 177 N. Y. 550, 69 N. E. 1121 ;
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Shepard,
72 App. Div. 108, 76 N. Y. S. 247;
Shepherd v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
130 U. S. 426, 9 S. C. 598.
iiPost, § 191.
4 2 Chesapeake etc. R. R. Co. v. Dyer
County, 87 Tenn. 712, 11 S. W. 943,
and see Henry v. Wabash Western R.
R. Co., 44 Mo. App. 100.
isBrideu v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 27 R. I. 569, 65 Atl. 315.
■iiBangor etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith,
47 Me. 34.
4 6 Canton v. Canton Cotton Ware-
house Co., 84 Miss. 268, 36 So. 266,
105 Am. St. Rep. 428, 65 L.R.A. 561.
nAnte, § 127.
4 7 Savannah etc. R. R. Co. v. Sa-
vannah, 45 6a. 602 ; Clinton v. Cedar
Rapids & Mo. River R. R. Co., 24 la.
455; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. New-
Em. D.— 21.
ton, 36 la. 299; Canton v. Canton
Cotton Warehouse Co., 84 Miss. 268,
36 So. 268, 105 Am. St. Rep. 428, 65
L.R.A. 561 ; People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y.
188; Milwaukee v. Milwaukee etc.
R. R. Co., 7 Wis. 85. See Richmond
etc. R. R. Co. V. Estill Co., 105 Ky.
808, 49 S. W. 805. Contra, Donnaker
V. State, 8 S. & M. 649.
4 8Savannah & Thunderbolt R. R.
Co. V. Savannah, 45 Ga. 602 ; Clinton
V. Clinton & Lyons H. Ry. Co., 37 la.
61; Milbridge etc. Elec. R. R. Co.,
Appellants, 96 Me. 110, 51 Atl. 818;
People V. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188.
"County of Floyd v. Rome St. R.
R. Co., 77 Ga. 614. So the legislature
may authorize a drainage district to
remove a county bridge and require
the county to rebuild at its own ex-
pense. Heffner v. Cass & Morgan
Cos., 193 111. 439, 62 N. E, 201, 58
L.R.A. 3C3,
322
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 176
for other purposes, as for gas pipes,^° or a telephone line>^^ with-
out compensation to the municipality.''^ But where a railroad
company made an exclusive appropriation of a part of a public
highway including a bridge, and tore down the bridge and used
the materials, it was held that the town could recover therefor,^*
being put in this respect upon the same footing as a turnpike
company. And where a railroad was so constructed as to destroy
a portion of a county road, it was held that the county could
maintain an action for damages.^*, A municipality may enjoin
the construction of a railroad upon a street without authority,"*
and when a railroad or any of its appurtenances is unlawfully
upon a street, it can maintain an action for its removal.*"
§ 176 (120). When the owner is estopped from claim-
ing damages. Where the owner of property urges or induces
a railroad company to locate its road upon the adjacent street,
or gives his consent thereto, he will, after the invitation or con-
sent has been acted upon, be estopped from claiming damages or
enjoining the operation of the road.*'' But a consent to locate
soLa Harfe v. Elm Tp. Gas etc. Co.,
69 Kan. 97, 76 Pac. 448.
51 State Line Telephone Co. v.
Ellison, 121 App. Div. 499, 106 N. Y.
S. 130; Zanesville v. Zanesville Tel.
& Tel. Co., 64 Ohio St. 67, 59 N. E.
781, 83 Am. St. Rep. 725, 52 L.E.A.
150.
5 2In State v. Dunlap, 49 Wash.
.385, 95 Pac. 321, it appears that a
statute permitted railroad companies
to take highways not in any munici-
pality upon making compensation to
the county. So in Nebraska not ex-
cepting city streets. South Omaha
V. Omaha B. & T. Ry. Co., 76 Neb.
718, 107 N. W. 988.
ssTroy v. Cheshire R. R. Co., 23
N. H. 83, 55 Am. Dec. 177.
5 4Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v.
Whitley County Court, 95 Ky. 215,
24 S. W. 604, 44 Am. St. Rep. 220;
Big Sandy Ry. Co. v. Boyd County,
125 Ky. 345. And where a highway
was flooded by a dam it was held the
public authorities could recover dam-
ages. Commissioners of Highways
V. Sperling, 120 Mich. 493, 79 N. W.
§93,
6 5Stamford v. Stamford H. R. R.
Co., 56 Conn. 381, 1 L.R.A. 375;
Brunswick & W. R. R. Co. v. City of
Waycross, 88 Ga. 68, 13 S. E. 835;
City of Philadelphia v. Phila. etc. R.
R. Co., 19 Phil. 507 ; Williamsport v.
Williamsport Pass. R. R. Co., 3 Pa.
Co. Ct. 39; Philadelphia v. Phila. etc.
R. R. Co., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 390. But see
Supervisors v. Sea View R. R. Co.,
23 Hun 180.
BsVillage of Wayzata v. Great
Northern R. R. Co., 50 Minn. 438, 52
N. W. 913; City of St. Louis v. Mo.
Pac. R. R. Co., 114 Mo. 13, 21 S. W.
202; Morris & Essex R. R. Co. v.
Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352 ; Rio Grande
R. R. Co. v. Brownsville, 45 Tex. 88.
"Joyce v. East St. Louis El. St.
R. R. Co., 43 111. App. 157; Burkham
V. Ohio & M. R. R. Co., 122 Ind. 344,
23 N. E. 799; Union Barb Wire Co.
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 79
la. 614, 44 N. W. 900; Wolf
V. Covington & Lexington R. R.
Co., 15 B. Mon. 404; Miller v.
Railroad Co., 6 Hill 61 ; Murdock v.
Prospect Park & Coney Island R. R.
§ 178 EOADS AND STEEETS. 323
an elevated railroad in the middle of the street, is not a con-
sent to build over the sidewalk and -will not bar an action for
the latter mode of construction.®^ Where the location of a
railroad in a street was indicated by a single red line, a consent
to the location is a consent to a single track only, and does not
bar an action for an additional track.®"
§ 177 (121). Measure of damages: Remedies. A
discussion of the proper measure of damages and of the elements
which may properly be considered in all cases where a recovery
may be had for injuries by a railroad laid in a public street,
together with a consideration of the proper remedies to be re-
sorted to in such cases, are reserved for a subsequent part of
this treatise, to which the reader is referred.®"
§ 178 (121a). Where there is a change of grade in
connection with the construction of a railroad in a street.
It has already been shown that damages occasioned by a change
of grade for the purpose of improving a street as a highway are
not a taking within the constitution.*"^ We have also endeavored
to show that if the grade is changed for any other purpose than
to improve the street for passage, any injury to the abutting
property caused thereby will amount to a taking."^ Ordinarily
when a railroad is laid in a street it is required to conform to
the grade of the street. ^^ If a grade has been established and the
street has never been brought to the grade so established, a rail-
road will not be liable to abutters for merely bringing the street
to the established grade in order to lay its tracks at such grade."*
Co., 10 Hun 598; Heinburg v. Man- Co., 26 Conn. 249; South Carolina E.
hattan Ry. Co., 162 N. Y. 352, 56 N. R. Co. v. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546; Hender-
E. 899 ; Smythe v. Brooklyn El. R. R. son v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 78 N.
Co., 193 N. Y. 335, modifying 121 Y. 423. As to the apportionment of
App. Div. 282 ; Wolford v. Fisher, 48 damages where only part of the track
Ore. 479, 84 Pac. 850, 87 Pac. 530, 7 is on the land of the abutting owner,
L.R.A. (N.S.) 991. See further post, see Blesch v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 48
§ 760; Oklahoma City etc. Ry. Co. v. Wis. 168; S. C. 43 Wis. 183; Kuche-
Dunham, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 575, 88 man v. C. C. & D. Ry. Co., 46 la. 366.
S. W. 849. Remedies, post, chapters xxvii and
ssShaw V. New York El. R. R. Co., xxviii.
78 App. Div. 290, 79 K. Y. S. 915. eiAnte, §§ 96, 137.
59Stephens v. New York etc. R. R. enAnte, §§ 137, 138.
Co., 175 N. Y. 72, 67 N. E. 119, re- esSmith v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
versing 61 App. Div. 612. Co., 98 Mo. 20, 11 S. W. 259; Farrar
eoMeasure of Damages, post, § 735. v. Midland Elec. Ry. Co., 101 Mo.
A few of the leading cases are here App. 140, 74 S. W. 500.
cited. Imlay v. Union Branch R. R. e^Interstate Consol. R. T. R. R. Co.
324
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 1Y8
But sometimes the grade is changed, not for the purpose of fa-
cilitating ordinary trajBBe, but of accommodating the tracks of
a railroad company. According to the better reason, as we con-
ceive it, the abutter in such case is entitled to recover for any
damage to his property caused by the change. The authorities,
however, are conflicting and, perhaps, on the whole, do not favor
a recovery.®^ In a New York case a railroad was constructed
V. Early, 46 Kan. 197, 26 Pac. 422;
Offut V. Montgomery Co., 94 Md. 115,
50 Atl. 419; Underwood v. Worcester,
177 Mass. 173, 58 N. E. 589. Contra:
Stritesky v. Cedar Rapids, 98 la. 373,
67 N. W. 271.
6 5 The following are opposed to a
recovery on the ground of a taking.
Protzman v. Indianapolis etc. E. R.
Co., 9 Ind. 467; Weir v. Owensboro
& N. E. E. Co. (Ky.), 21 S. W. 643;
Briggs V. Lewiston etc. R. R. Co.,
79 Me. 363, 10 Atl. 47, 1 Am. St. Eep.
316 ; O'Brien v. Baltimore Belt R. R.
Co., 74 Md. 363, 22 Atl. 141 ; Garrett
V. Lake Roland EI. R. R. Co., 79 Md.
277, 29 Atl. 830, 10 Am. R. E. &
Corp. Eep. 39 ; Oflfutt v. Montgomery
Co., 94 Md. 115, 50 Atl. 419; Under-
wood V. Worcester, 177 Mass. 173, 58
N. E. 589 ; Laroz v. Northampton St.
Ey. Co., 189 Mass. 254, 75 N. E. 255 ;
Austin V. Detroit etc. Ey. Co., 134
Mich. 149, 96 N. W. 35 ; Thompson v.
Macon City, 106 Mo. App. 84, 80 S.
W. 1 ; Corey v. Buffalo etc. E. E. Co.,
23 Barb. 482; County of Chester v.
Brewer, 117 Pa. St. 647, 12 Atl. 577.
And see Green v. City & Suburban E.
E. Co., 78 Md. 294, 28 Atl. 626, 44 Am.
St. Eep. 288.
The following cases favor a recov-
ery: Chicago etc. E. E. Co. v. Eisert,
127 Ind. 156, 26 N. E. 759; Atchison &
C. E. R. Co. V. Davidson, 52 Kan. 739,
35 Pac. 787; Nichols v. Ann Arbor
etc. R. R. Co., 87 Mich. 361, 49 N.
W. 538, 16 L.E.A. 371 ; Tate v. M. K.
& T. R. E. Co., 64 Mo. 149; Egerer
V. New York Cent. etc. E. E. Co.,
130 N, Y. 108, 29 N. E. 95, 5 Am. E.
E. & Corp. Eep. 241 ; Reining v.
New York etc. R. R. Co., 128 N. Y.
157, 28 N. E. 640, 14 L.E.A. 133, 5
Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 476; Coats-
worth V. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 156
N. Y. 451; Coyne v. Memphis, 118
Teun. 651, 102 S. W. 355; Zehren v.
Milwaukee Elec. R. R. Co., 99 Wis.
83, 74 N. W. 538, 67 Am. St. Rep.
844.
The following cases, involving the
right to recover in such cases, arose
under constitutions or statutes giv-
ing compensation for property dam-
aged or injured as well as for prop-
erty taken: Alabama M. R. R. Co.
V. Coskry, 92 Ala. 254, 9 So. 202;
Eslich V. Mason City etc. R. R. Co.,
75 la. 443, 39 N. W. 700; Taylor v.
Bay City St. R. R. Co., 101 Mich.
140, 59 N. W. 447; Sheehy v. Kansas
City Cable R. R. Co., 94 Mo. 574, 7
S. W. 579, 4 Am. St. Rep. 396;
Smith V. Kansas City etc. E. E. Co.,
98 Mo. 20, 11 S. W. 259; Brady v.
Kansas City Cable E. E. Co., Ill
Mo. 329, 19 S. W. 953; Spencer v.
Met. St. E. E. Co., 58 Mo. App. 513;
Fred v. Kansas City Cable E. E.
Co., 65 Mo. App. 121 ; Nebraska etc.
E. E. Co. V. Scott, 31 Neb. 571, 48 N.
W. 390; County of Chester v.
Brewer, 117 Pa. St. 647, 12 Atl. 577;
Baltimore etc. E. E. Co. v. Duke, 129
Pa. St. 422, 18 Atl. 560; Westheffer
V. Lebanon & A. St. E. E. Co., 163
Pa. St. 54, 29 Atl. 873; Hatch v. Ta-
coma etc. E. E. Co., 6 Wash. 1, 32
Pac. 1063; Kaufman v. Tacoma etc.
E. E. Co., II Wash. 632, 40 Pac.
137; Arbenz v, Wheeling etc, R. R,
§ 178
EOADS AND STREETS.
325
on an embankment supported by retaining walls in the middle o£
a street. The embankment was twenty-four feet wide and six
feet high opposite the plaintiff's property. The grade and plan
were approved by the city authorities. It was held that the in-
terference with access to the plaintiff's property was a taking
within the constitution, though the fee of the street was in the
city.*® In a precisely similar ease in Maryland it was held
that there was no taking.*^ A change of grade for the benefit
of a railroad company does not come within the general au-
thority vested in municipal corporations to establish and change
the grade of streets.®^ If a change of grade is made by a rail-
road company without authority, the company will be liable in
tort for all damages thereby occasioned to abutting property."^
Where, after a railroad had been constructed on its own right of
way fifty feet wide, land on either side was taken for a street,
abutters are not entitled to damages for a change of grade of the
Co. 33 W. Va. 1, 10 S. E. 14, 5 L.R.A.
371. See also Jacksonville etc. R. R.
Co. V. Thompson, 34 Fla. 346, 10 So.
282; Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v. Cuyk-
endall, 42 Kan. 234, 21 Pac. 1051;
Witt V. St. Paul & N. P. R. R. Co.,
38 Minn. 122, 35 N. W. 862; Jarboe
V. Carrollton, 73 Mo. App. 347;Hulett
V. Missouri etc. R. R. Co., 80 Mo.
App. 87 ; Iron Mt. R. R. Co. v. Bing-
ham, 87 Tenn. 522, 11 S. W. 705, 4
L.R.A. 622; Trustees First Cong.
Church V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co.,
77 Wis. 158, 45 N. W. 1086; Jackson
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 41 Fed.
656; Hendrie v. Toronto etc. R. R.
Co., 26 Ontario 667.
6 6Reining v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 128 N. Y. 157, 28 N. E. 640, 14
L.R.A. 133.
67Garrett v. Lake Roland El. R.
R. Co., 79 Md. 277, 29 Atl. Rep. 830,
24 L.R.A. 396, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 39. The defendant railroad
company built a causeway about
fifteen feet wide in the center of a
street, to form the approach to a
bridge by which the railroad was
carried over another railroad. The
causeway was of masonry and left
less than ten feet between it and the
curb. It was nine feet high at the
bridge and declined to the grade of
the street. Plaintiff owned lots
abutting on the street, opposite, but
did not own the fee of the street.
Held, that the interference with
access and other injury to plaintiff's
property did not constitute a taking
thereof within the meaning of the
constitution.
esPhelps v. Detroit, 120 Mich.
447, 79 N. W. 640; Reining v. New
York etc. R. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 157,
28 N. E. 640, 14 L.R.A. 33; Zehren
V. Milwaukee Elec. R. R. Co., 99
Wis. S3, 74 N. W. 538, 67 Am. St.
Rep. 844.
esPeabody v. Boston etc. R. R.
Co., 181 Mass. 76, 62 N. E. 1047;
Peabody v. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
187 Mass. 489, 73 N. E. 649; Smith
V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., 98
Mo. 20, 11 S. W. 259; Farrar v. Mid-
land Elec. Ry. Co., 101 Mo. App. 140,
74 S. W. 500; United N. J. R. R. &
C. Co. V. Lewis, 68 N. J. Eq. 437, 59
Atl. 227; Murray Hill Land Co. v.
Milwaukee Lt., H. & T. Co., 110 Wis.
555, 86 N. W. 199.
326 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 179
railroad, the same being still on its private right of ■waj.''° If
a railway so constructs its road in a street as to turn surface
water on the plaintiff's property, it will be liable.''^ Under
the general rule as to damages from a change of grade, if the
grade of tracks is changed in good faith for the benefit of the
highway, there can be no recovery. ''^
§ 179 (121b). Compensation for additional track or
change of use. In Indiana it has been held that when a rail-
road company locates its road upon a public street, the fee of
which is in the abutting owners, and damages are assessed and
paid in the usual way, the company will acquire the right to lay
down as many tracks as its business may require, and that such
right can be exercised from time to time as the business of the
company increases.^* According to this view a railroad com-
pany, by condemning a right of way through a street, would ac-
quire the same rights in the street, at least as against abutting
owners, as it would have in a right of way over private property.
Certainly such a result ought not to be countenanced unless the
statutes clearly compel it. When a railroad seeks to condemn
a right of way in a street it can only acquire a right to the joint
use of the street, and its application should describe exactly
the extent of the right or joint use proposed to be acquired ; in
other words, the number of tracks to be laid down and their lo-
cation, and how they are to be used.'^* This is the only way in
which the rights of the railroad, the public and the abutting
7 0Bennett v. Long Island K. R. the location of a railroad along,
Co., 181 N. Y. 431, 74 N. E. 418, af- upon and over a street or highway,
firming S. C. 89 App. Div. 379, 85 N. the location and appropriation is
Y. S. 938. made with a view of future use and
7iMonarch Mfg. Co. v. Omaha etc. occupancy by the railroad company
Ry. Co., 127 la. 511, 103 N. W. 493; to the full extent and purpose as the
McCloskey v. Atlantic City R. R. future operation and business of the
Co., 70 N. J. L. 20, 56 Atl. 669 ; atite, company may demand. It gives to
§§ 112, 141. 'See Hewett v. Canton, the company, as against the prop-
182 Mass. 220, 65 N. E. 42. erty owners affected thereby, the
7 2Welde V. New York etc. R. R. right to use such street or highway,
Co., 28 App. Div. 379. upon which the road is located, a
'sWhite V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., full and complete right to use the
122 Ind. 317, 23 N. E. 782, 7 L.R.A. same, for railroad purposes, in as
257, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 138 ; full and ample a manner as the
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Eisert, 127 necessity of the company may de-
Ind. 156, 26 N. E. 759. In the first mand."
of these cases the court says: "In liPost, §§ 549-552.
appropriation of a right of way, or
§ 179
EOADS AND STREETS.
327
owners can be defined and the damages assessed upon an intelli-
gent basisJ" In most cases railroads are constructed in streets
by virtue of a legislative or municipal grant of authority, and
not by virtue of a condemnation. If the construction of the
railroad is wrongful as against the abutting owner, he has his
remedy for damages, but he can only recover for the damages
actually sustained, and these must depend upon the use which
has actually been made of the street. He can only recover the
damages caused by the tracks already laid. If, after damages
have been assessed for the original entry, or after the same have
been barred by the lapse of time, an additional track is laid,
either under the original or a subsequent authority, there is a
clear right to recover the damages thereby occasioned. ''®
The fact that a narrow gauge track is changed to a standard
gauge laid on the same ties or that heavier trains are operated
was held to give no right to compensation.'''' But in another
case, where a dummy passenger railroad changed hands and was
used by the purchaser chiefly for heavy freight trains drawn by
the ordinary locomotive, it was held that an abutting owner had
a right of actioh for the damage resulting to his property from
7 6Philadelphia etc. E. E. Co. v.
Berks County R. R. Co., 2 Wood-
ward's Decs. (Pa. Supm.) 361;
Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co. v. Phil-
adelphia etc. R. R. Co., 157 Pa. St.
42, 27 Atl. 683; Jones v. Erie & W.
V. R. R. Co., 169 Pa. St. 333, 32 Atl.
335, 47 Am. St. Rep. 916. In the last
case the court says : "The presump-
tion arising under the general rail-
road laws that a railroad company
takes, when it enters by virtue of the
right of eminent domain, the
breadth of 60 feet for its right of
way, is only applicable where the
entry is adverse, and upon property
subject to seizure or appropriation
under general laws. It does not ap-
ply to an entry upon a public street,
whether made under authority of the
act of assembly incorporating the
company, or by virtue of municipal
consent."
7 6Denver & R. G. R. R. Co. v.
Costes, 1 Col. App. 336, 28 Pac. 1129;
Rock Island etc. R. R. Co. v. John-
son, 204 111. 488, 68 N. E. 549; Ho-
gan V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 208
111. 161, 69 N. E. 853; McCarty v. C.
B. & Q. R. R. Co., 34 111. App. 273;
Maltman v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
41 111. App. 229; Stephens v. New
York etc. R. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 72, 67
N. E. 119; In re New York El. R. R.
Co., 76 Hun 384, 28 N. Y. Supp. 110;
Maitland v. Manhattan R. R. Co., 9
Miscl. 616, 30 N. Y. Supp. 428; C. C.
& St. L. R. R. Co. V. Reeder, 6 Ohio
C. C. 354; Northern Central R. R.
Co. V. Holland, 117 Pa. St. 613, 12
Atl. 575. And' see Ranson v. Citi-
zens' R. R. Co., 104 Mo. 375, 16 S.
W. 416; Varwig v. Cleveland etc. R.
R. Co., 6 Ohio C. C. 439; Dilley v.
Wilkes-Barre Pass. R. R. Co., 12 Pa.
Co. Ct. 270; Illinois Central R. R.
Co. V. Davis, 71 111. App. 99.
'7Kakeldy v. Columbia etc. R. R.
Co., 37 Wash. 675, 80 Pac. 205.
328
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 180
the change.''^ So where the track was changed from the surface
of the street to an embankment.''*
§ 180 (121c). Street railroads crossing commercial
railroads. The right of way which a steam railroad acquires
across a street is subject to the easement of the public in the
street and to the use of the street for all legitimate street pur-
poses. A street railroad, being generally held to be a legitimate
street use/" it follows that it may be laid across the tracks of a
steam railroad, intersecting the street without compensation.*'
The^ same rule has been held to apply in case of interurban rail-
roads constructed on a street or highway and crossing a commer-
786rossman v. Houston etc. Ey.
Co., 99 Tex. 641, 92 S. W. 838; Bir-
mingham Belt Ry. Co. v. Lockwood,
150 Ala. 610, 43 So. 819. See Stette-
gast V. Houston, 38 Tex. Civ. App.
623, 87 S. W. 197.
TSLouisville etc. E. R. Co. v. Cum-
nock, 25 Ky. L. E. 1330, 77 S. W.
933.
so Ante, §§ 164, 167.
siNew York etc. R. E. Co. v.
Bridgeport Traction Co., 65 Conn.
410, 32 Atl. 953, 29 L.E.A. 367;
Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta Ey. &
P. Co., HI Ga. 679, 36 S. E.
873, 51 L.R.A. 125; Chicago etc.
R. E. Co. V. West Chicago St. E. E.
Co., 156 111. 270, 40 N. E. 1008, 12
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 522; General
Eleo. Ry. Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R.
Co., 184 111. 588, 56 N. E. 963 ; Pitts-
burgh etc. R. R. Co. V. West Chicago
St. R. R. Co., 54 HI. App. 273; Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co. V. Whiting etc.
R. R. Co., 139 Ind. 297, 38 N. E. 604,
11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 507, 47
Am. St. Rep. 264, 26 L.R.A. 337;
Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co. v. Ash-
land & C. St. R. R. Co., 96 Ky. 347,
26 S. W. 181; Louisville etc. R. E.
Co. V. Bowling Green Ey. Co., 110
Ky. 788, 63 S. W. 4; Central Pass.
Ey. Co. V. Philadelphia etc. E. E.
Co., 95 Md. 428, 62 Atl. 752; St.
Louis & Suburban Ey. Co. v.
Lindell E. E. Co., 190 Mo. 246,
88 S. W. 634; Morris etc. R. R.
Co. V. Newark Pass. R. R. Co., 51 N.
J. Eq. 379, 29 Atl. 184; Cincinnati
etc. Elec. St. Ry. v. Cincinnati etc.
R. R. Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 391; Cleve-
land etc. Ry. Co. v. Urbana etc. Ry.
Co., 5 Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 583; Buf-
falo etc. R. R. Co. v. Du Bois Trac-
tion Pass. R. R. Co., 149 Pa. St. 1,
24 Atl. 179; North Penn. R. R. Co.
V. Inland Traction Co., 205 Pa. St.
579, 55 Atl. 774; Delaware etc. R. E.
Co. V. Wilkes-Barre & W. S. R. R.
Co., 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 627; Du Bois
Traction Pass E. E. Co. v. Buffalo
etc. R. E. Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 401;
Pennsylvania E. E. Co. v. Inland
Traction Co., 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 115;
Atchison etc. Ey. Co. v. General Elec.
Ey. Co., 112 Fed. 689, 50 C. C. A.
424 ; East St. Louis Ey. Co. v. Louis-
ville etc. E. E. Co., 149 Fed. 159, 79
C. C. A. 107. And see Highland Ave.
etc. E. E. Co. V. Birmingham Union
E. E. Co., 93 Ala. 505, 9 So. 568;
Birmingham Traction Co. V. Bir-
mingham E. E. & Elec. Co., 119 Ala.
129, 24 So. 368; Atchison St. E. E.
Co. V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 31 Kan.
660; Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. v. St.
Joseph Terminal R. R. Co., 97 Mo.
457, 10 S. W. 826; Chicago etc. R. R.
Co. v. Beatrice Rapid Transit & P.
Co., 47 Neb. 741, 66 N. W. 830; Buf-
falo etc. R. R. Co. V. New York etc.
R. R. Co., 72 Hun 587, 25 N. Y.
§ 181
EOADS AND STEEETS.
329
cial railroad.*^ Of course the street railroad company must con-
struct the crossing at its own expense and with as little injury
to the other company as possible.®^ Where a grade crossing of
a steam railroad and street railroad is abolished by raising the
tracks of the former, the work must be so done as to give suffi-
cient head room for the cars of the street railroad company.**
The crossing of steam railroads by street railroads is frequently
regulated by statute.*'
§ 181 (121 d). Railroads in streets. — Miscellaneous
cases. The abutting owner has no easement in the street for
backing up teams to the sidewalk for the purpose of loading
and unloading freight, and the interference with such use of
the street by laying a railroad therein affords no ground for an
injunction or suit for damages.*® When streets are dedicated
by plat and the right is reserved to use them for railroad pur-
Supp. 265; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v.
General Elec. R. R. Co., 79 111. App.
569; Consolidated Traction Co. v.
South Orange etc. R. R. Co., 56 N. J.
Eq. 569, 40 Atl. 15. One street rail-
road company may cross the tracks
of another without compensation.
Birmingham Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Bir-
mingham Traction Co., 122 Ala. 349,
25 So. 192.
s2South East etc. Ry. Co. v.
Evansville etc. Elec. Ry. Co., 169
Ind. 339, 82 N. E. 765 ; Cleveland etc.
Ry. Co. V. Feight, 41 Ind. App. 416.
In Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. N. O.
Terminal Co., 120 La. 978, 45 So.
962, it was held that a steam rail-
road laid along a street is subject to
the right of another steam railroad
to cross its tracks and that the ex-
pense of constructing the crossing
should be divided between the com-
panies.
8 3Ibid. Central Pass Ry. Co. v.
Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co., 95 Md.
428, 52 Atl. 752; Briden v. New
York etc. R. R. Co., 27 R. I. 569, 05
Atl. 315. In the former case the
steam road filed a bill to enjoin the
street railroad from crossing, until
it agreed to construct the crossing
and keep it in repair at its own ex-
pense. Pending the suit the crossing
was, by agreement, put in by the
street railroad company. On the
final hearing the defendant was en-
joined from using the crossing until
it entered into an agreement with
the plaintiff to keep the grossing in
repair in accordance with the re-
quirements of the plaintiff's en-
gineers and this decree was affirmed.
In the Rhode Island case, where the
highway was carried over the steam
road by a bridge, it was held that
the street railroad must strengthen
the bridge at its own expense.
8 4 Chicago General R. R. Co. v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 181 111. 605.
8 6;See Jackson etc. Traction Co. v.
Comrs. of Railroads, 128 Mich. 164,
87 N. W. 133 ; Trenton St. Ry. Co. v.
United N. J. R. R. & C. Co., 60 N. J.
Eq. 500, 46 Atl. 763 ; Geneva etc. Ry.
Co. v. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co.,
163 N. Y. 228, 57 N. E. 498.
ssHobart v. Milwaukee City R. R.
Co., 27 Wis. 194, 9 Am. Rep. 461;
Louisville Bagging Mfg. Co. v. Cen-
tral Pass. R. R. Co., 95 Ky. 50, 23 fcl.
W. 592 ; Taylor v. Bay City St. R. R.
Co., 101 Mich. 140, 59 N. W. 447.
330 EMINENT DOMAIN, 181
poses, the reservation confers no greater right than an ordinary
grant.*'' Where land is dedicated for a street, with a railroad
thereon, the dedication is subject to the right of the railroad
company** Where lots are conveyed to a railroad company to
be used for railroad purposes, it does not carry the right to use
the street to the center line thereof for such purposes, to the dam-
age of other property of the grantor.*^ The fact that a street
has been mapped out through plaintiff's land does not give a rail-
road company any right to occupy it without compensation.^"
Where a boulevard was laid out under a special act of the legis-
lature, with a provision that no railway or tramway should be
constructed thereon without compensation to the owner of the
fee, the same as though no highway existed, it was held the
legislature could not abrogate this condition by authorizing a
railroad without compensation.®^ Where a railroad was built
on the property of the company, adjoining a street or alley, and
the filling encroached slightly thereon, it was held the owner
opposite had no right of action.®^ An abutment or arch in a
street for the use of a railroad, and authorized by municipal
authority, is not a nuisance, which can be prevented or abated.®^
A telephone company may compel a railroad company subse-
quently occupying the street with trolley wires, to put up guard
wires where it crosses the telephone line, the duty being enjoined
by ordinance.®* A consent of abutters to lay tracks in a street
does not authorize any encroachment on their property, though
the street is too narrow to accommodate the tracks.®^ An abutter
can recover nothing for gate fixtures, erected on his fee pursu-
ant to municipal authority or direction."" One railroad com-
8 70ttawa etc. E,. R. Co. v. Larson, E. Co., 66 la. 440; Morris v. Wiscon-
40 Kan. 301, 19 Pae. 661, 2 L.R.A. sin Midland R. R. Co., 82 Wis. 541,
59. 52 N. W. 758.
ssCity of Denver v. Denver etc. R. ssChicago & N. W. R. R. Co. v.
R. Co., 17 Col. 583, 31 Pac. 338. Elgin, 91 111. 251; Gates v. Kansas
ssLamm v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., City etc. R. R. Co., Ill Mo. 28, 19 S.
45 Minn. 71, 47 N. W. 455, 10 L.R.A. W. 957.
268. 9 4 State v. Janesville St. R. R. Co.,
soQuigley v. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 87 Wis. 72, 57 N. W. 970, 41 Am. St.
121 Pa. St. 35, 15 Atl. 478, S. C. 4 Rep. 23.
Mont. Co. L. Rep. 179. ssCurtin v. Rochester R. E. Co., 78
siMatter of Southern Boulevard Hun 555, 29 N. Y. Supp. 521.
R. R. Co., 58 Hun 497, 38 N. Y. St. "Trustees First Cong. Church v.
550, 12 N. Y. Supp. 466; appeal from Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 77 Wis.
same dismissed, 128 N. Y. 93. 158, 45 N. W. 1086.
9 2Rinard v. Burlington & W. R.
§ 182 EOADS AND STREETS. 331
panj' may be prevented by injunction from wrongfully interfer-
ing with another company in laying its tracks in a street.®'^ A
city cannot authorize the construction of a railroad on a private
street.^* A city may impose reasonable regulations upon a rail-
road company as to the manner of laying its tracks, though its
authority is derived directly from the legislature.®" A railroad
company, owning abutting property, is entitled to the same rem-
edies as any other abutter.^ Where a railroad had built an
overhead crossing, it was held that a street railroad company
could not use it without compensation.^ Where two main tracks
and three or four side tracks had been laid in a street one hun-
dred feet wide under due authority and had been in use eighteen
years, it was held the city could not compel the removal of the
tracks when they did not appear to be an unreasonable use of the
street.*
IV. Othee uses of Streets.
§ 182 (126). What are legitimate street uses gener-
ally. In regard to the uses which the public authorities can
make, or authorize to be made, of the land acquired for streets,
the general rule is that streets are laid out primarily to accommo-
date the public in traveling from place to place, and for use in
the transportation of goods and property, and that the
right attaches to do whatever is necessary or proper to facilitate
such travel and transportation in the usual and ordinary modes.
"The primary law of the highway is motion, and whatever ve-
hicles are used, or whatever method of transmission of intel-
ligence is adopted, the vehicle must move and the intelligence
be transmitted by some moving body, which must pass along the
highway, either on or over or perhaps under it; but it cannot
permanently appropriate any part of it." * But, while the pur-
97Chicago General E. R. Co. v. Reading Paper Mills, 149 Pa. St. 18,
West Chicago St. R. R. Co., 63 111. 24 Atl. 205.
App. 464; Central Crosstown R. R. 2 Carolina Central R. R. Co. v.
Co. V. Met. St. R. R. Co., 16 App. Wilmington St. R. R. Co., 120 N. C.
Div. N. Y. 229. 520; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v.
9 8Talbot V. Richmond etc. R. R. Greensburg etc. R. R. Co., 176 Pa. St.
Co., 31 Gratt. 685. 559, 35 Atl. 122, 36 L.R.A. 839.
ssHarrisburg City Pass. R. R. sColorado Springs v. Colorado etc.
Co. V. Harrisburg, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 584; Ry. Co., 38 Colo. 107, 89 Pac. 820.
Same v. Same, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 593. ■JEels v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.,
iPennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co. v. 143 N. Y. 133, 38 N. E. 202, 25 L.R.A.
332
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 182
pose of streets is primarily for public travel and transportation,
yet in populous districts it has been the immemorial custom to
employ them for other purposes of a public nature which, though
having little or no connection with the use or improvement of
040, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 69.
In Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wil-
liams, 86 Va. 696, 11 S.E. 106, 19 Am.
St. Rep. 908, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 258, the court says: "The right
of the commonwealth is to use by go-
ing along over. This is the extent of
the right. If the right was granted to
the defendant to go over simply to
carry its messages, then the right
granted was in existence before the
grant, and the right to go over is not
only not disputed, but distinctly ad-
mitted. This is the servitude over
the land fixed upon it by law and the
whole extent of it. If anything
more is taken, it is an additional
servitude, and is a taking of the
property within the meaning of the
constitution." See also Donovan v.
AUert, 11 N. D. 289, 91 N. W. 441, 95
Am. St. Rep. 720, 58 L.R.A. 775;
Cincinnati Inclined Plane R. R. Co.
V. City & Suburban Tel. Ass'n, 48
Ohio St. 390, 27 N. E. 890, 12 L.R.A.
534, 4 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 533;
Dailey v. State, 51 Ohio St. 348, 37
N. E. 710, 24 L.R.A. 724, 10 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 687. On the other
hand, the Supreme Court of Minne-
sota in a recent case has declared in
favor of a more enlarged conception
of the purpose of highways. It says :
"It seems to us that a limita-
tion of the public easement in
highways to travel and the trans-
portation of persons and property
in movable vehicles is too nar-
row. In our judgment, public high-
ways, whether urban or rural, are
designed as avenues of communica-
tion; and, if the original conception
of a highway was limited to travel
and transportation of property in
movable vehicles, it was because
these were the only modes of commu-
nication then known; that as civili-
zation advanced, and new and im-
proved methods of communication
and transportation were developed,
these are all in aid of and within tlie
general purpose for which highways
are designed. Whether it be travel,
the transportation of persons and
property, or the transmission of in-
telligence, and whether accomplished
by old methods or by new ones, they
are all included within the public
'highway easement,' and impose no
additional servitude on the land, pro-
vided they are not inconsistent with
the reasonably safe and practical use
of the highway in other and usual
and necessary modes, and provided
they do not unreasonably impair the
special easements of abutting owners
in the street for purposes of access,
light, and air. It is impracticable,
as well as dangerous, to attempt to
lay down, except in this general form,
any rule or test of universal applica-
tion as to what is or what is not a
legitimate 'street or highway use.'
Courts have often attempted to do so,
but have always been compelled by
the logic of events to shift their
ground. The only safe way is to keep
in mind the general purpose of high-
ways, and adopt a gradual process of
inclusion and exclusion as cases
arise. * * * It is said that 'the
primary law of the street is motion.'
It is true motion is the law
of the street, in the sense that
the person or thing to be trans-
mitted or transported must move;
but it is not true in the sense that
the medium or agency by or through
which it is conveyed or trans-
mitted must move. Pipes laid
§ isa
EOADS AND STREETS.
333
the street as a highway, are not inconsistent with such use."
Out of this usage has grown up a rule that streets in cities and
villages may be used for various incidental purposes, such as
sewer, gas and water pipes. The best general statement of this
rule, which we have met with, is found in the case of In re
City of Yonkers,^ and is as follows : "It is part of the purpose
in view when land is taken or dedicated for use as a public
street in a city, that it shall be used not only for the purpose of
mere passage and repassage, but for all such incidental purposes,
including the building of sewers therein, as may be necessary,
appropriate and usual for the proper enjoyment of such street." ''
But these generalizations are of but little practical value. As
to every new use proposed the question will arise as to whetJier
it is an exercise of the right of passage or is such a purpose as is
"necessary, appropriate and usual" for the "proper enjoyment"
of the street.^
for the transmission of water, gas,
and steam are immovable. So are
the tracks of street railways, also the
poles and wires of the trolley system.
And it can make no difference in prin-
ciple whether the immovable struc-
ture is on, under, or above the sur-
face of the ground, for the rights of
the owner of the fee are the same in
either case. Subject only to the pub-
lic easement for highway purposes,
he remains the owner of the land up-
ward and downward indefinitely. If
the transmission of intelligence by
telegraph or telephone is not in-
cluded in the public easement in a
highway, it would be equally an in-
vasion of his rights of property, even
if the wires were placed under-
ground. If an immovable structure
in a highway constitutes an addi-
tional servitude, it is not merely be-
cause it is immovable, but because it
unreasonably interferes with the gen-
eral use of the street by the public,
or because it unreasonably impairs
the special easements of abutting
ovraers." Cater v. N. W. Tel. Exch.
Co., 60 Minn. 539, 63 N. W. Ill, 51
Am. St. Rep. 543, 28 L.R.A. 310.
Similar views are expressed in the
following: Magee v. Overshiner, 150
Ind. 127, 49 N. E. 951, 65 Am. St.
Rep. 358, 40 L.R.A. 370; Taylor v.
Portsmouth etc. St. R. R. Co., 91 Me.
193, 39 Atl. 560, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216;
Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Avritt,
120 Ky. 34, 85 S. W. 204; Frazier v.
East Tenn. Tel. Co., 115 Tenn. 416,
90 S. W. 620, 112 Am. St. Rep. 856,
3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 323.
6"No structure upon the street can
be authorized which is inconsistent
with the continued use of the same
as an open public street." Story v.
New York El. R. R. Co., 90 N. Y.
177, 43 Am. Rep. 146. To the same
eflFect Jaynes v. Omaha St. R. R. Co.,
53 Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67, 39 L.R.A.
751.
6117 N. Y. 564, 573, 23 N. E. 601.
7/See also McDevitt v. People's
Nat. Gas. Co., 160 Pa. St. 367, 28 Atl.
948; Van Brunt v. Town of Flatbush,
59 Hun 192, 37 N. Y. St. 200, 13 N.
Y. Supp. 545.
sin Halsey v. Rapid Transit St. R.
R. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859,
it is said : "Any use of a street which
is limited to an exercise of the right
of passage, and which is confined to
a mere use of the public easement,
334
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 182
In Massachusetts it is held that the puhlic easement in a
street "includes every kind of travel and communication for
the movement of transportation of persons or property which
is reasonable and proper in the use of the public street. It in-
cludes the use of all kinds of vehicles v^hich can be introduced
with a reasonable regard for the safety and convenience of tho
public, and every reasonable means of transportation, transmis-
sion and movement beneath the surface of the ground as well
as upon or above it." ®
The easement of the public is not limited to the particular
methods of use in vogue when the easement was acquired, but
includes improved methods which the progress of society finds
necessary or convenient, and which do not subvert the use of the
street by the public in the ordinary way.-^" The new use must
not be inconsistent with the common and ordinary modes of
using the street. "If the use complained of is such that the
public and common right of passage of persons and things can-
not be enjoyed without substantial impairment on account of
the manner of such use, then it is inconsistent with the public
whether it be by old methods or new,
and which does not in any substan-
tial degree destroy the street as a
means of free passage, common to all
the people, is a legitimate use, and
within the purposes for which the
public acquired the land."
9New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Boston Terminal Co., 182 Mass. 397,
65 N. E. 835. In Sears v. Crocker, 184
Mass. 586, 588, 69 N. E. 327, 100 Am.
St. Rep. 577, it is said: "Our system,
which leaves to the landowner the
use of a street above or below or on
the surface, so far as he can use it
without interference with the rights
of the public, is just and right, but
the public rights in these lands are
plainly paramount, and they include,
as they ought to include, the power
to appropriate the streets above or
below the surface as well as upon it,
in any way that is not unreasonable,
in reference either to the acts of all
who have occasion to travel or to the
effect upon the property of abutters."
See also White v. Blanchard Bros.
Granite Co., 178 Mass. 363, 59 N. E.
1025; Eustis v. Milton St. Ey. Co.,
183 Mass. 586, 67 N. E. 663 ; Cheney
V. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 198
Mass. 356.
10 Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Avritt, 120 Ky. 34, 85 S. W. 204:
"The dedication of a street must be
presumed to have been made, not for
such purposes and uses only as were
known to the landowner and plotter
at the time of such dedication, but
for all public purposes, present and
prospective, consistent with its char-
acter as a public highway, and not
actually detrimental to the abutting
real estate." Mordhurst v. Ft. Wayne
etc. Traction Co., 163 Ind. 268, 280,
71 N. E. 642, 106 Am. St. Rep. 222, 66
L.R.A. 105. See also Kinsey v. Union
Traction Co., 169 Ind. 563, 81 N. E.
922.
§ 183
EOADS AND STEEETS.
335
and common right, and not a proper and lawful use of the ease-
ment of the street." ^^
§ 183 (127). Sewers and drains. Drainage is neces-
sary for the proper construction and maintenance of highways,
both in city and country. The manner in whqjh this drainage
can be best secured is solely a question for the proper authorities.
In the country, an open drain may suffice, but in the city, where
the whole surface of the street is needed for travel, a covered
sewer is required. As the proper drainage of house-lots and
cellars, and the prompt removal of tho liquid refuse from dwel-
lings, are necessary to the public health, and therefore matters of
public concern, the public may provide the means for such drain-
age and removal and construct public sewers in the streets for
that purpose. -^^ But a sewer, constructed through the streets
iiNewell V. Minneapolis etc. E,. R.
Co., 35 Minn. 112, 27 N. W. 839, 59
Am. Eep. 303.
12 Cone V. Hartford, 28 Conn. 3G3,
372; Leeds v. Richmond, 102 Ind.
372 ; McMahon v. Council Bluffs, 12
la. 268; Boston v. Richardson, 13
Allen 146, 159; Chelsea Dye-House
and Laundry Co. v. Commonwealth,
164 Mass. 350, 41 N. E. 649; Lincoln
V. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 1, 41 N.
E. 112; Cabot v. Kingman, 166 Mass.
403, 44 N. E. 344, 33 L.R.A. 45 ; War-
ren v. Grand Haven, 30 Mich. 24;
White V. Yazoo City, 27 Miss. 357;
Glasby v. Morris, 18 N. J. Eq. 72;
Traphagen v. Jersey City, 29 N. J.
Eq. 206; Stoudinger v. Newark, 28
K J. Eq. 187; S. C. on appeal, 28 N.
J. Eq. 446; In re City of Yonkers, 117
y. Y. 564, 23 N. E. 661; Kelsey v.
King, 32 Barb. 410; Allison v. Cin-
cinnati, 2 Cinn. Super. Ct. 462; Cin-
cinnati V. Penny, 21 Ohio St. 499, 8
Am. Rep. 73; Elster v. Springfield, 49
Ohio St. 82, 34 N. E. 274 ; Lockart v.
Craig St. R. R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 419,
21 Atl. 26.
In Cone v. Hartford, the court
says : "There cannot be a doubt that,
in the laying out and establishment
of a highway, the right of repairing
and maintaining, as well as of origi-
nally constructing it, is embraced,
and therefore, when damages are as-
sessed to a person for laying out and
constructing a road upon his land,
those damages include compensation
as well for the repairing of such road
as its original construction. Such
reparation embraces and extends to
the making of such gutters, drains
and sewers as are necessary and
proper in order to preserve the high-
way in good condition for the pur-
poses for which it was made. And,
for these purposes, we have no doubt
that it is as competent to construct
drains and sewers below, as it is upon
the surface of the ground. On ordi-
nary country roads the gutters upon
their sides are usually deemed suffi-
cient to carry off the water and filth
upon them. In populous places, how-
ever, where they accumulate in
greater quantities, or where it may
be necessary for the public to use, for
passing and other proper purposes,
every part of the highway, it
is frequently requisite to make
the drains of the highway be-
neath its surface, and the safety
as well as the commodiousness
of the public travel, and the health-
336 EMINENT BOMAIN. § 184
of a town, which is not for use of the town or the ahutting own-
ers, but solely to carry the sewerage of an adjoining town to the
sea, is an additional servitude upon the street and cannot be
built without compensation to the owners of the fee.l* So of
a sewer upon a country road to carry the sewerage of a city to
a stream. '^^ The making of a drain or open ditch on the side
of a street, if for the amelioration of the street, is a proper use
of the street, for which the abutting owner has no legal ground
of complaint. -^^ But the public authorities cannot authorize a
private drain to be laid in a street over the fee of others.*"
§ 184 (128). Water pipes. Water is a prime necessity,
and in densely populated districts cannot be obtained from the
soil without danger to health. A supply of pure water,
therefore, becomes a matter of public concern, and its distribu-
tion by public authority by means of pipes laid in the public
streets is an ancient and universal custom. Such a supply is
not only a requisite to the public health, but for the public safe-
ty as well, in order to afford the means of extinguishing fires and
preventing conflagrations, and may even be connected with the
use of the street for travel, when used for sprinkling. Such a
use of urban streets is proper and legitimate.-''' But to lay pipes
in a country highway for the purpose of conducting water to a
fulness of the people in its vicinity 488. But the contrary is held in
may also require it. It is no objec- Wood v. McGrath, 150 Pa. St. 461,
tion, therefore, to a sewer in a high- 24 Atl. 682, 16 L.R.A. 715. And see
Vf3i,j, that it is made beneath the sur- Smith v. Simmons, 103 Pa. St. 32, 49
face of the ground, if the circum- Am. Rep. 119; Susquehanna Depot v.
stances render it proper so to con- Simmons, 112 Pa. St. 384, 5 Atl. 434,
struct it." 56 Am. Rep. 317; Glasby v. Morris,
13 Van Brunt v. Town of Flatbush, 18 N. J. Eq. 72; Conrad v. Smith, 32
128 N. Y. 50, 27 N. E. 973, reversing Mich. 429.
S. C. 59 Hun 192, 37 N. Y. St. 200, "Bishop v. North Adams Fire
13 N. Y. Supp. 545. Compare Cum- Dist., 167 Mass. 364, 45 N. E. 925;
mins V. City of Seymour, 79 Ind. 491. Crooke v. Flatbush Water Works Co.,
14 Whitney v. Toledo, 8 Ohio C. C. 29 Hun 245; Same v. Same, 27 Hun
(N.S.) 577. 72; Witcher v. Holland W. W. Co.,
iBCummins v. Seymour, 79 Ind. 66 Hun 619, 20 N. Y. Supp. 560;
491, 41 Am. Rep. 618; McMahon v. same affirmed without opinion, 142
Council Bluffs, 12 la. 268; Wilson v. N. Y. 626; Village of Pelham Manor
Duncan, 74 la. 491, 38 N. W. Rep. v. New Rochelle Water Co., 143 N. Y.,
371; Randall v. Christiansen, 76 la. 532, 38 N. E. 711; Provost v. New
169, 40 N. W. 703; Highway Comrs. Chester Water Co., 162 Pa. St. 275, 29
V. Ely, 54 Mich. 173; White v. Yazoo Atl. 914; Smith v. Goldsboro, 121 N,
City, 27 Miss. 357. C, 350, 28 S. B. 479.
leMurray v. Gibson, 21 lU. App,
§ 185
EOADS AND STEEETS.
337
town would be an additional burden for whicb the owner of tbe
fee would be entitled to compensation.^^ Where a water pipe
was laid underneath the sidewalk, so as to prevent the abutter
building stairs to his basement, it was held he could recover no
compensation.-'"
§ 185 (129). Gas pipes. Gas is not, like water, a nec-
essity in the sense of being absolutely indispensable, but it has
become a practical necessity in all urban communities. The
right to lay pipes in the streets of cities and villages for the dis-
tribution of gas has never been questioned, but has often, in-
directly, received judicial sanction.^" But a country highway
cannot be used for the purpose of conveying natural gas to a
distant city.^^ This is an additional burden, for which compen-
sation must be made. It is otherwise when those living along
the road where the pipe is laid are to receive gas for light and
heat.^^ And in Massachusetts it is held that gas mains may be
laid through a city street for the purpose of conveying gas to
another municipality without compensation to the owner of the
fee in the street. ^^ A city is not entitled to compensation for
isBaltimore County W. & Elec. Co.
V. Dubruvil, 105 Md. 424, 66 Atl. 439.
See ante, § 183, note 13; post, § 135,
note, 21.
isProvost V. New Chester Water
Co., 162 Pa. St. 275, 29 Atl. 914.
20Story V. New York El. R. R. Co.,
90 N. Y. at p. 161, 43 Am. Rep. 146;
West V. Bancroft, 32 Vt. p. 371;
Tompkins v. Hodgson, 2 Hun 146;
People V. Bowen, 30 Barb. 24; Smith
V. Central Diat. Tel. Co., 2 Ohio C. C.
259, 263; Boston v. Richards, 13
Allen 146, 160; Pierce »r. Drew, 136
Mass. 75, 81, 49 Am. Rep. 7; Cheney
V. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 198 Mass.
356; McDevitt v. People's Natural
Gas Co., 160 Pa. St. 367, 28 Atl. 948.
See Mallory v. City of Bradford, 1
Pa;. Dist. Ct. 670; King v. Philadel-
phia Co., 154 Pa. St. 160, 26 Atl. 308,
35 Am. St. Rep. 817, 21 L.R.A. 141 ;
Levis V. Newton, 75 Fed. 884.
2iKincaid v. Indianapolis Nat. Gas
Co., 124 Ind. 577, 24 N. E. 1068, 19
Am. St. Rep. 113, 8 L.R.A. 602, 3 Am.
Era. D.— 22.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 1; Board of
Comrs. V. Indianapolis Nat. Gas Co.,
134 Ind. 209, 33 N. E. 972; Windfall
Nat. Gas Co. v. Terwilliger, 152 Ind.
364, 53 N. E. 284; Consumers' Gas
Trust Co. V. Huntsinger, 14 Ind. App.
156, 39 N. E. 423, 42 N. E. 640; Huff-
man V. State, 21 Ind. App. 449, 52 N.
E. 713; Ward v. Triple State Nat.
Gas & Oil Co., 115 Ky. 723, 74 S. W.
709; Bloomfield etc. Gas Light Co. v.
Calkins, 62 N. Y. 386; S. C. 1 Thomp.
etc. 541, 549; Calkins v. Bloomfield
etc. Gas Light Co., 1 N. Y. Supm.
541; Sterling's Appeal, 111 Pa. St.
35. But where the fee of the highway
is in tl^e public, the abutter is not
entitled to compensation. Ward v.
Triple State Nat. Gas & Oil Co., 115
Ky. 723, 74 S. W. 709.
2 2Hardman v. Cabot, 60 W. Va.
664, 55 S. E. 756, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.)
506.
2 3Cheney v. Boston Consolidated
Gas Co., 198 Mass. 356.
338
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 186
the laying of gas pipes in its streets by authority of the legisla-
ture,^* but it may prevent such use of its streets without authori-
ty.^^ It has been held that one gas company has no standing
in court to contest the right of a rival company to occupy a
street, so long as its property and rights are not interfered
with.28
§ 186 (130). Steam, electricity, etc. Within the prin-
ciple of the foregoing cases would be the laying of pipes in
streets, for the purpose of conducting and distributing gas or
steam for heating, or the laying of subterranean cables or wires
for supplying electricity, either for lighting or other general
use.^'^
§ 187 (131). Telegraph and telephone lines. The lines
of a telegraph or telephone company are on the same footing
as the steam railroad. They form no part of the equipment of
a public highway, but are entirely foreign to its use. Where
the fee of the street is in the abutting owner, he is clearly en-
titled to compensation for the additional burden placed upon
his land.^^ When the fee is in the public, the abutting owner
2 4La Harpe v. Elm Tp. Gas etc.
Co., 69 Kan. 97, 76 Pac. 448; People
V. Bowen, 30 Barb. 24.
2 5 Citizens' Gas etc. Co. v. Elwood,
114 Ind. 332. So such use of the
streets may be prevented by indict-
ment. Queen v. Longton Gas Co., 2
EI. & El. 651, 105 E. C. L. R. 650.
3 6Coffeyville M. & Gas Co. v. Citi-
zens' Nat. Gas Co., 55 Kan. 179, 40
Pac. 326. But see People's Gas Light
Co. V. Jersey City Gas Light Co., 46
N. J. L. 297.
2 7Carli V. Railroad Co., 28 Minn,
at p. 376, 41 Am. Rep. 290; Berks &
Dauphin Turnpike Road v. Lebanon
Steam Co., 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 354; Empire
City Subway Co. v. Broadway & S.
A. R. R. Co., 87 Hun 279, 33 N. Y.
Supp. 1055. Sut see post, § 188.
Where the legislature grants the
right to a company to place and
maintain its electric wires under-
ground subject to the regulations of
the municipality, the latter may re-
quire the grantee to take the wires
of other companies in its conduits or
the city may provide the conduits for
all the wires. State v. Towers, 71
Conn. G57, 42 Atl. 1083.
2 8Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Bar-
nett, 107 111. 507, 47 Am. Rep. 453;
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170
111. 520, 49 N. E. 365, 62 Am. St. Rep.
390, 39 L.R.A. 722; Burrell v. Am.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 224 111. 268, 79 N. E.
705, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1091; De Kalb
Co. Telephone Co. v. Dutton, 228 111.
178, 81 N. E. 838, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.)
1057; American Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Jones, 78 111. App. 372; Union Elec.
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Applequest, 104 111.
App. 517 ; Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v.
Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, 21 Atl. 690, 28
Am. St. Rep. 219; Md. Tel. & Tel. Co.
v. Ruth, 106 Md. 644, 68 Atl. 358;
Stowers v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 68
Miss. 559, 9 So. 356, 24 Am. St. Rep.
290, 12 L.R.A. 864; Bronson v. Al-
bion Telephone Co., 67 Neb. Ill, 93 N.
W. 201, 60 L.R.A. 426; Nicoll v. New
York etc. Co., 62 N. J. L. 733, 42 Atl.
§ 187
EOADS AND STREETS.
339
583, 72 Am. St. Rep. 666; S. C. 62 N.
J. L. 156, 40 Atl. 627; Eels v. Am.
Tel. & Tel. Co., U3_N. Y. 133, 38 N.
E. 202, 25 L.R.AT 640, 10 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 69 ; Jemison v. Bell Tel-
ephone Co., ISO N. Y. 493, 79 N. E.
728; Osborne v. Auburn Telephone
Co., 189 N. Y. 393, 82 N. Y. S. 428,
reversing S. 0. Ill App. Div. 702;
Bashfield v. Empire State Tel. Co.,
71 Hun 532, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1006;
Comisky v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 41
N. Y. App. Div. 245; Gray v. York
State Telephone Co., 92 App. Div.
89, 86 N. Y. S. 771 ; Powers v. State
Line Telephone Co., 116 App. Div.
737, 102 N. Y. S. 34; Gray v. York
State Telephone Co., 41 Misc. 109,
83 N. Y. S. 920; Hudson Riv. Tele-
phone Co. V. Eorrestal, 56 Misc. 133;
Donovan v. Allert, 11 N. D. 289, 91
N. W. 441, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720, 58
L.R.A. 775; Dusenbury v. Mutual
Union Tel. Co., 11 Abb. New Cases,
440; Metropolitan Telephone & Tel-
egraph Co. v. Colwell Lead Co., 50
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 488; Tiffany v. Unit-
ed States Illuminating Co., 51 N. Y.
Supr. Ct. 280; S. C. 67 How. Pr. 73;
Wade V. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 147
N. C. 219; Cosgriff v. Tri-State Tel-
ephone Co., 15 N. D. 210, 107 N. W.
525; Dailey v. State, 51 Ohio St.
348, 37 N. E. 710, 24 L.R.A. 724;
Smith V. Central District P. & Tel.
Co., 2 Ohio C. C. 259; Tanninan v.
City & Suburban Tel. Ass., 1 Ohio N.
P. (N.S.)81; Mantell v. Bucyrus Tel-
ephone Co., 20 Ohio C. C. 345 ; West-
ern Union Tel. Co. v. Williams, 86
Va. 696, 11 S. E. 106, 2 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 258, 19 Am. St. Rep. 908;
Kreuger v. Wis. Telephone Co., 106
Wis. 96, 81 N. W. 1041, 50 L.R.A.
298; Pacific Postal Tel. Cable Co. v.
Irvine, 49 Fed. 113; Kester v. West-
ern Union Tel. Co., 108 Fed. 926.
The following New York cases hold
a telephone line to be a proper use of
H, city or village street but are over-
ruled by later decisions of the Court
of Appeals cited above: Johnson v.
New York etc. Tel. & Tel. Co., 76
App. Div. 564, 78 N. Y. S. 598 ; Gan-
nett v. Independent Telephone Co.,
55 Misc. 555, 106 N. Y. S. 3. In Eels
V. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 143 N. Y. 133,
38 N. E. 210, 25 L.R.A. 640, 10 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 69, the court
says: "We thinlc neither the State
nor its corporation can appropriate
any portion of the public highway
permanently to its own special, con-
tinuous and exclusive use by setting
up poles therein, although the pur-
pose to which they are to be applied
is to string wires thereon, and thus
to transmit messages for all the pub-
lic at a reasonable compensation. It
may be at once admitted that the
purpose is a public one, although for
the private gain of a corporation;
but the constitution provides that
private property shall not be taken
for public use without compensation
to the owner. Where land is dedi-
cated or taken for a public highway,
the question is, what are the uses
implied in such dedication or tak-
ing? Primarily there can be no
doubt that the use is for passage
over the highway. The title to the
fee of the highway generally remains
in the adjoining owner, and he re-
tains the ownership of the land, sub-
ject only to the public easement. If
this easement do not include the
right of a telegraph company to per-
manently appropriate any portion
of the highway, however small it
may be, to its own special, continu-
ous and exclusive use, then the de-
fendant herein has no defense to the
plaintiff's claim. Although the pur-
pose of a public highway is for the
passage of the public, it may be con-
ceded that the land forming such
highway was not taken for the pur-
pose of enabling the public to pass
over it only in the then known vehi-
cles, or for using it in the then
known methods for the conveyance
340
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 187
may recover for any interference with his rights in the street.^*
It is held to make no difference that the city fire alarm and po-
of property or the transmission of
intelligence. Still the primary law
of the highway is motion, and what-
ever vehicles are used, or whatever
method of transmission of intelli-
gence is adopted, the vehicle must
move and the intelligence be trans-
mitted by some moving body, which
. must pass along the highway, either
on or over or perhaps under it; but
it cannot permanently appropriate
any part of it. * * * We cannot
agree that this permanent appropri-
ation and exclusive possession of a
small portion of the highway can
properly be regarded as any newly
discovered method of exercising the
old public easement, for the very
reason that this so-called 'new
method' is a permanent, continuous
and exclusive use and possession of
some part of the public highway it-
self, and, therefore, cannot be simply
a new method of exercising such old
public easement. It is a totally dis-
tinct and different kind of use from
any heretofore known. It is not a
mere difference in the kind of vehi-
cle, or in their number or capacity,
or in the manner, method or means
of locomotion. All these might be
varied, increased as to number,
capacity or form, altered as to means
or rapidity of locomotion, or trans-
formed in their nature and charac-
ter, and still the use of the highway
might be substantially the same — a
highway for passage and motion of
some sort. Here, however, in the
use of the highway by the defendant
is the fact of permanent and exclu-
sive appropriation and possession, a
fact which is, as it seems to us,
wholly at war with that of the legiti-
mate public eaesment in a highway."
In Willis V. Erie T. & T. Co., 37
Minn. 347, the court was equally
divided and the judgment of the
lower court in favor of the abutting
owner was affirmed, no opinion be-
ing given. In New Jersey an act
passed March 11, 1880, Supp. to Rev.
Stat. p. 1022, requires compensation
to be made when telegraph or tele-
phone poles are set in a street. The
following cases have arisen under
the statute involving its validity and
the method of procedure under it:
Turnpike Co. v. News Co., 43 N. J.
L. 381 ; Broome v. N. Y. & N. J. Tel.
Co., 49 N. J. L. 624; Winter v. N. Y.
& N. J. Tel. Co., 51 N. J. Eq. 83. In
Roake v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph
Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 35, the chancellor
refused a preliminary injunction on
a bill filed to prevent the stringing
of wires in front of the plaintiff's
premises on the ground that his
right was doubtful. In Broome v.
N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co., 42 N. J. Eq.
141, a mandatory injunction was
granted to compel the removal of
poles set in the highway in front of
plaintiff's premises, the fee of the
street being in him, and the erection
of other poles was prohibited. In
Howell V. Western Union Tel. Co., 4
Mackey, 424 (1886), an injunction
to prevent the erection of telegraph
poles in front of the plaintiff's prop-
erty was denied on the ground that
plaintiff would suffer no irreparable
injury and that the remedy at law
was adequate. The main question
was not discussed.
2 9 In Chesapeake etc. Tel. Co. v.
Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, 21 Atl. 690,
the right to compensation was sus-
tained irrespective of the fee of the
street. On this point the court says :
"If the fee be in the city, or in some
third person, then — First, what are
the rights, in a case like this, of the
owner of a lot abutting on the street t
§ 187
EOADS AND STEEETS.
341
lice wires are attached to the same poles. ^'' It is evident that
poles and wires may be so placed as not to afford the slightest
impediment to the access of light and air or to ingress and egress.
In such case, the fee being in the public, there is no taking, be-
cause there is no damage.^ ^ Whether there is or is not damage
is a question of fact, and, if damage can be shown, the remedy
is clear upon the authority of cases discussed in previous sec-
tions of this chapter. There is a strong dissent from these
views, several of the courts holding that a telegraph or tele-
phone line is a legitimate street use, and may be placed in a
street without compensation to the abutting owner, whether he
owns the fee or not.^^ As will be seen by reference to the
notes, the courts of last resort are about equally divided on the
and, secondly, how are those rights
aflfected by the provisions of the Code
relied on in the pleas ? There is some
diversity of opinion in the decided
cases upon the first of these ques-
tions, but all agree in going at least
this far — and we are not required to
go any further in deciding this ap-
peal— that where the fee or legal
title has passed from the original
proprietor, as in cases where the land
has been acquired for streets by the
exercise of the right of eminent do-
main, the adjoining owner cannot
maintain an action for injuries to
the soil or* ejectment, but he never-
theless has a remedy for any special
injury to his rights by the unauthor-
ized acts of others. Hence, if an ap-
propriation of a street by a person
or body corporate, even under legis-
lative and municipal sanction, un-
reasonably abridges the right of ad-
jacent lot-owners to use the street as
a means of ingress and egress, or
otherwise, they are thereby deprived
of a, right without compensation;
and an action will lie against the
person or corporation guilty of
usurping such unreasonable and ex-
clusive use for the recovery of such
immediate and direct damages as the
abutter may sustain."
soDeKalb County Telephone Co. v.
Button, 228 111. 178, 81 N. E. 838, 10
L.R.A. (N.S.) 1057.
siHolleran v. Bell Telephone Co.,
64 App. Div. 41, 71 N. Y. S. 685; S.
C. aflirmed 177 N. Y. 573, 69 N. E.
1122; Gay v. Mutual Union Tel. Co.,
12 Mo. App. 485; Forsyth v. Balti-
more & Ohio Tel. Co., 12 Mo. App.
494; Hays v. Columbia Telephone
Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 480.
3 2Hobbs v. Long Distance Tel. &
Tel. Co., 147 Ala. 393, 41 So. 1003, 7
L.R.A. (N.S.) 87; Magee v. Over-
shiner, 150 Ind. 127, 49 N. 1?. 951, 65
Am. St. Rep. 358, 40 L.R.A. 370 ; Co-
burn V. New Telephone Co., 156 Ind.
90, 59 N. E. 324, 52 L.R.A. 671; Mc-
Cann v. Johnson County Tel. Co., 69
Kan. 210, 76 Pac. 870, 66 L.R.A. 171 ;
Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Avritt,
120 ICy. 34, 85 S. W. 204; Irwin v.
Great Southern Telephone Co., 37 La.
An. 63 ; Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75,
49 Am. Rep. 7 ; People v. Eaton, 100
Mich. 208, 59 N. W. 145, 24 L.R.A.
721; Cater v. Northwestern Tel.
Exch. Co., 60 Minn. 539, 63 N. W.
Ill, 51 Am. St. Rep. 543, 28 L.R.A.
310; (Compare Willis v. Erie Tel. &
Tel. Co., 37Minn. 347, 34N.W. 337.)
Julia Building Ass'n v. Bell Tel. Co.,
88 Mo. 258, 57 Am. Rep. 398; City of
St. Louis V. Bell Tel. Co., 96 Mo. 623,
10 S. W. 197, 9 Am. St. Rep. 370, 2
342
EMINEI^T DOMAIN.
§ 187
question. The text writers generally favor the right to com-
pensation.^^ Under constitutions giving compensation for prop-
erty damaged or injured for public use, there may he a re-
L.E.A. 278; Gay v. Mutual Union
Tel. Co., 12 Mo. App. 485; Forsythe
V. Baltimore & O. Tel. Co., 12 Mo.
App. 494; Hershfield v. Koeky Mt.
Bell Co., 12 Mont. 102, 29 Pac. 883;
Shinzel v. Bell Telephone Co., 31 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 221 ; Kirby v. Citizens' Tel-
ephone Co., 17 S. D. 362, 97 N. W. 3 ;
Frasier v. East Tenn. Telephone Co.,
115 Tenn. 416, 90 S. W. 620, 112 Am.
St. Rep. 856, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 323;
Maxwell v. Central D. & P. Tel. Co.,
51 W. Va. 121, 41 S. E. 125; Lowther
V. Bridgeman, 57 W; Va. 306, 50 S. E.
410; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Nalley, 165 Fed. 263. These cases all
go upon substantially the same
ground which is thus stated in Pierce
V. Drew, 136 Mass. 75, 81: "When
the land was taken for a highway
that which was taken was not merely
the privilege of traveling over it in
the then known vehicles, or of using
it in the then known methods, for
either the conveyance of property or
the transmission of intelligence. * * *
The discovery of the telegraph de-
veloped a new and valuable mode of
communicating intelligence. Its use
is certainly similar to, if not identi-
cal with, that public use of transmit-
ting information for which the high-
way was originally taken, even if the
means adopted are quite different
from the post-boy and the mail-
coach. It is a newly discovered
method of exercising the old public
easement, and all appropriate
methods must have been deemed to
have been paid for when the road
was laid out.'' These views are most
ably and convincingly answered in
the dissenting opinion in the same
case. To say that a telegraph or tel-
ephone line is a legitimate street use
because it accomplishes some of the
objects for which the street is estab-
lished, lays down a principle which
justifies the use of a street for the
commercial railroad, the elevated
railroad or even for a canal. There
is absolutely no analogy between or-
dinary travel and the telegraph or
telephone, and it is even more foreign
to street uses proper than the com-
mercial railroad. In East Tenn. Tel-
ephone Co. V. Russellville, 106 Ky.
667, 51 S. W. 308, 21 Ky. L. R. 305, is
a dictum to the effe.ct that a tele-
phone line is an additional burden.
3 32 Dill. Mimic. Corp. § 698a;
Elliott, Roads and Streets, pp. 533-
530; Keasbey on Electric Wires, pp.
82-84. We also refer to the following
cases as having some bearing on the
subject: Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.
Co. V. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1,
55 Am. St. Rep. 930, 31 L.R.A. 193;
Bradley v. Southern New Eng. Tel.
Co., 66 Conn. 559, 34 Atl. 499, 32
L.R.A. 280 ; Chicago Telephone Co. v.
N. W. Telephone Co., 199 111. 324, 65
N. E. 329; Chamberlain' v. la. Tel.
Co., 119 la. 619, 93 N. W. 596; East
Tenn. Tel. Co. v. Anderson Co. Tel.
Co., 115 Ky. 488, 74 S. W. 218; Postal
Tel. Cable Co. v. Baltimore, 79 Md.
502, 29 Atl. 819, 24 L.R.A. 161;
Mich. Telephone Co. v. St. Joseph,
121 Mich. 502, 80 N. W. 383, 80 Am
St. Rep. 520, 47 L.R.A. 87; Mich.
Telephone Co. v. Benton Harbor, 121
Mich. 512, 80 N. W. 386, 47 L.R.A.
104; Duluth v. Duluth Telephone Co.,
84 Min. 486, 87 N. W. 1127; State
V. Red Lodge, 30 Mont. 338, 76 Pac.
758; State v. Red Lodge, 33 Mont.
345, 83 Pac. 642; Neb. Telephone Co.
V. Western Independent L. D. T. Co.,
OS Neb. 772, 95 N. W. 18; State v.
§ 188
EOADS AND STKEETS.
343
covery for anj damage to abutting property by reason of a
telegraph or telephone line in the street.^*
Telephone wires placed in a conduit u'nder the surface of a
street and intended to supply telephone service to residents
on the street, would seem to come within the principle of the de-
cisions as to gas and water pipes in streets, and, therefore, to be
such a use of the street as could be made without compensation
to the abutting owner.^^
§ 188 (131a). Electric wires for lighting and other
purposes. It seems beyond question from the authorities that,
under the general power to improve streets and render them
more convenient and safe for travel, the public authorities may
provide for lighting them at night. If this is so, it can hardly be
that such authorities are limited to any particular kind or sys-
tem of lighting. It follows that poles and wires may be placed
in the street for the purpose of lighting them by means of
electricity. Such a use is directly connected with and incident
to the public right of passage. The abutting owner would have
no ground of , complaint, in the absence of any abuse of the right
Bayonne, 59 N. J. L. 101, 34 Atl.
1080; Hudson Eiv. Tel. Co. v. Water-
vliet T. & R. R. Co., 135 N. Y. 393, 32
N. E. 148, 6 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
619, 31 Am. St. Rep. 838, 17 L.R.A.
674; Weeks v. N. Y. & N. J. Tele-
phone Co., 86 App. Dlv. 257, 83 N. Y.
S. 678; Cincinnati Inclined Plane R.
R. Co. V. City & Suburban Tel. Ass'n
48 Ohio St. 390, 27 N. E. Rep. 890, 4
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 533, 12 L.R.A.
534 ; Worth v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.,
7 Ohio C. C. 290 ; Burns v. Columbus
Citizens' Telephone Co., 10 Ohio C. C.
(N.S.) 307; New Castle City v. Cen-
tral D. &.P. Tel. Co., 207 Pa. St. 371,
56 Atl. 931; Wirth v. Postal Tel.
Cable Co., 7 Ohio C. C. 290; York
Tel. Co. V. Kersey, 5 Pa. Dist. Ct.
366; Russ v. Pennsylvania Tel. Co.,
15 Pa. Co. Ct. 226 ; Memphis Tel. Co.
V. Hun, 16 Lea, 456; Rugg v. Com-
mercial Union Tel. Co., 66 Vt. 208,
28 Atl. 1036; Western Union Tel. Co.
V. Bullard, 67 Vt. 272, 31 Atl. 286;
State V. Sheboygan, 111 Wis. 23, 86
N. W. 657; St. Louis v. Western
Union Tel. Co., 149 U. S. 465, 13 S. C.
990; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Richmond, 103 Fed. 33, 44 C. C. A.
147 ; Morristown v. East Tenn. Tele-
phone Co., 115 Fed. 304, 53 C. C. A.
132. The case of American Tel. &
Tel. Co. V. Pearce, 71 Md. 535, 18 Atl.
910, 1 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 73, de-
cides that a telegraph or telephone
line on a railroad right of way for
general commercial use, is an addi-
tional burden on the soil for which
the owner is entitled to compensa-
tion.
3 4Shinzel v. Bell Telephone Co.,
31 Pa. Super. Ct. 221; Maxwell v.
Central D. & P. Tel. Co., 51 W. Va.
121, 41 S. E. 125; post, § 352.
ssCoburn v. New Telephone Co.,
156 Ind. 90, 59 N. E. 324, 52 L.R.A.
671; Castle v. Bell Telephone Co.,
49 App. Div. 437, 63 N. Y. S. 482;
Bums V. Columbus Citizens Tele-
phone Co., 10 Ohio C. C. (N. S.)
307.
344
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 188
to so use the street.^® The lighting of private premises, how-
ever, has no connection whatever with the use of a street for
public passage, and the placing of poles and wires or other
appliances in the street for that purpose cannot, therefore, be
justified as a street use. It would follow that poles and wires,
to be used exclusively for private lighting, cannot be placed in
a public street without compensation to the abutting owner for
any damage sustained.^'^ In regard to poles and wires to be
used for both public and private lighting, the logical position
would seem to be that the abutting owner would be entitled to
a remedy to the extent of the unlawful use.^* It may be doubt-
ed, however, whether these distinctions are practicable, and it
is probable that the use of streets for electric light wires will be
sustained, without regard to whether they are for public or pri-
vate lighting, but that the abutting owner will have a remedy
for any unnecessary injury to his rights, as by obstructing his
doorway with a pole.^* In Massachusetts poles and wires for
sBLoeber v. Butte General Elec-
tric Co., 16 Mont. 1, 39 Pac. 912, 11
Am. R. K. & Corp. Rep. 260, 50
Am. St. Rep. 468; French v. Robb,
67 N. J. L. 260, 51 Atl. 509, 91 Am.
St. Rep. 433, 57 L.R.A. 956; Palmer
V. Larchmont Elec. Co., 158 N. Y.
231, 52 N. E. 1092, 43 L.R.A. 672.
3 7 See Carpenter v. Capital Elec.
Co., 178 111. 29, 52 N. E. 973, 69
Am. St. Rep. 286, 43 L.R.A. 645;
French v. Robb, 67 N. J. L. 260, 51
Atl. 509, 91 Am. St. Rep. 433, 57
L.R.A. 956; Callen v. Columbus Edi-
son Elec. Lt. Co., 66 Ohio St. 166,
64 N. E. 141, 58 L.R.A. 782.
3 sit was so held in French v.
Robb, 67 N. J. L. 260, 51 Atl. 509,
91 Am. St. Rep. 433, 57 L.R.A. 956.
So in Gurnsey v. Northern Cal. Pow-
er Co., 7 Cal. App. 534.
3 9 Lines of poles and wires for pub-
lic and private lighting are held to
be a proper street use in Illinois and
Mississippi. MoWethey v. Aurora
Elec. Lt. & P. Co., 202 111. 218, 67
N. E. 9, affirming Aurora Elec. Lt.
& P. Co. V. McWethey, 104 111. App.
479; Gulf Coast lee & Mfg. Co. v.
Bowers, 80 Miss. 570, 32 So. 113;
Hazelhurst v. Mayes, 84 Miss. 7, 36
So. 33, 64 L.R.A. 805. In Tuttle v.
Brush Electric Illuminating Co., 50
N. Y. Super. Ct. 464 (1883), the suit
was to prevent tlie erection of elec-
tric light poles in the street in front
of plaintiff's property, and to compel
the removal of those already erected.
The fee of the street was in the
public for street uses. The poles
were to be used for street lighting
and for private lighting. Ingraham,
J., denied the relief, holding that
such poles for the purpose of light-
ing the street were proper, but
doubting whether poles could be
erected for the purpose of lighting
private premises. In the same year.
Maxwell, J., of the court of com-
mon pleas of Ohio, enjoined the erec-
tion of electric light poles in the
street, though the plaintiff did not
have the fee. McLean v. Brush Elec-
tric Light Co., 9 Cinn. Law Bull.
65 (1883). In People ex rel. Mc-
Manus v. Thompson, 65 How. Pr.
407 (1883),. Haight, J., held that
poles and wires for street light-
§ 188
EOADS ANB STREETS.
345
electric lighting are, by statute, placed upon the same footing
as poles and wires for the telegraph and telephone. Compen-
sation must be made to abutting owners for any injury to their
property caused thereby, but not for any injury to the fee of the
street.*" At the present time it is common to use the streets for
wires for fire alarm purposes, and to aid in the police serv-
ing were a proper use of a
street. The decision in the case
was affirmed without passing upon
this question. 32 Hun 93. In Tif-
fany V. U. S. Illuminating Co., 51
N Y. Super. Ct. 280; 67 How. Pr. 73
(1885), the . New York superior
court, general term, affirmed a de-
cree enjoining the erection of elec-
tric light poles in front of plaintiflf's
property. The court says : "Its bus-
iness is to furnish light to the city
corporation for the public lighting
of the streets, and to private indi-
viduals to light private houses. Tlie
former may involve a public and or-
dinary use of the street; the latter
would involve a use of the street for
private purposes. On the plaintiff
showing that the defendant, a, pri-
vate corporation, is about to obstruct
the street with poles, etc., it would
appear prima facie, that it was
without authority to do so. The
defenoant, to absolve itself from re-
sponsibility, must show the author-
ity. Its evidence on this point is
most general and does not show
that every part of its proposed
work is necessary or highly conven-
ient for both the public and the
private use. It is entirely consis-
tent with the testimony, that the
particular pole and wire that
would be in front of the plaintiflf's
house, would not be necessary to the
public use." In Johnson v. Thomp-
son-Houston Electric Co., 54 Hun
469, 7 N. Y. Supp. 716 (1889), it
was held at general term that an
abutting owner could not compel
the removal from in front of his
premises of an electric light pole,
from which a, street lamp was to
be suspended, and which was to be
used both for lighting the streets
and private premises. It was
doubted whether a street could be
used for poles and wires for pri-
vate lighting, and intimated that
the plaintiff might have such use
enjoined until compensation was
made. Consumers' Gas & El. Light
Co. V. Congress Spring Co., 69 Hun
133, 39 N. Y. St. 703, 15 N. Y. Supp.
624 and Berlew v. Electric Illumin-
ating Co., 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 651 (1886)
support the view that light wires
are a legitimate street use. So does
Loeber v. Butte General Electric Co.
16 Mont. 1, 39 Pac. 912, 50 Am. St.
Rep. 468, 11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
260, wherein it was held that the
plaintiff could not enjoin the erec-
tion of a light pole in an alley, in
the rear of his premises, the fee of
which was in the public. See also
Electric Construction Co. v. Heffer-
man, 12 N. Y. Supp. 336. In Haver-
ford Electric Light Co. v. Hart, 13
Pa. Co. Ct. 369, 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 571,
electric light poles were held to be
an additional burden on a country
highway. Also in Palmer v. Larch-
mont Electric Co., 6 App. Div. 12, 39
N. Y. Supp. 522. The erection of a
light pole in front of the plaintiff's
premises, without authority was en-
joined in Malone v. Waukesha Elec.
Lt. Co. 120 Wis. 485, 98 N. W. 247.
4 "See Suburban Light & Power
Co. V. Board of Aldermen, 153 Mass.
346 EMINE]SrT DOMAIN. § 189
ice.*^ Electricity is also distributed to some extent by means
of wires in streets to be converted into mechanical power. It
is not too much to expect that at no distant day its use for this
purpose will greatly increase, and also that it will become prac-
ticable for heating purposes. It is manifest, however, that
while all these applications of electricity subserve a public pur-
pose in aid of which the power of eminent domain may be
invoked, none of them are connected with or in aid of the pub-
lic right of passage in a street, and are not properly street uses.*^
Although the process of putting electric wires under the sur-
face of streets, for the various purposes for which they are used,
has been going on for a number of years, no question appears
to have been made by abutting owners as to the right to use
the streets in that way.**
§ 189 (132). Markets. A public market is entirely for-
eign to the legitimate uses of a public highway, and when a part
of the highway is devoted to such use by legislative authority,
the abutting owner is entitled to compensation, whether the fee
is in him or in the public.** But, where fifty feet in the middle
of a street was condemned for market purposes, the abutting
owners cannot enjoin its use for that purpose on account of the
200, 26 N. E. 447; Pub Stats. Mass. We refer to the following cases
c. 109; Acts, 1883, c. 221; Acts, 1889, growing out of electric light wires
c. 398. in streets, but which did not involve
4iln Callen v. Columbus Edison any controversy with abutting own-
Elec. Lt. Co., 66 Ohio St. 166, 64 N. ers. Crowder v. Town of Sullivan,
E. 141, 58 L.E.A. 782, it is doubted 128 Ind. 486, 28 N. E. 94, 13 L.R.A.
whether such wires are a proper 647; City of Newport v. Newport
street use. See De Kalb County Light Co., 89 Ky. 454, 12 S. W. 1040,
Telephone Co. v. Button, 228 111. 1 Am. R. R. & Corp. Eep. 397;
178, 81 N. E. 838, 10 L.E,.A.(N.S.) State v. Murphy, 130 Mo. 10, 31 S.
1057. W. 594, 12 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
42See Edison Elec. 111. Co. v. 370, 31 L.R.A. 798; Nebraska Tel.
Hooper, 85 Md. 110, 36 Atl. 113; Co. v. York Gas & El. Light Co., 27
Smith V. Goldboro, 121 N. C. 350, Neb. 284, 43 N. W. 126; Grand Eap-
28 S. E. 479; Young v. York Haven ids E. L. & P. Co. v. Grand Rapids
Elec. T. Co., 15 Pa. Dist. Ct. 843. E. L. & G. Co., 33 Fed. 659.
4 3ln State v. Murphy (Mo.), 34 4 4 state v. Mobile, 5 Porter (Ala.)
S. W. 51, it was held that the privi- 279; Lutterloh v. Cedar K.eys, 15
lege of constructing electrical sub- Fla. 306; Schopp v. St. Louis, 117
ways in the streets of a city could Mo. 131, 22 S. W. 898, 8 Am. R. R.
not be granted to a private com- & Corp. Rep. 391, 20 L.R.A. 783;
pany, whose object was to lease the State v. Lavanac, 34 N. J. L. 201,
same for gain, though they were ex- 205; Herrick v. Cleveland, 7 Ohio
pected to be leased for puMic uses. C. C. 470. In State v. Lavanac, 34
§ 190
EOADS AND STEEETS.
347
concourse of teams in front of their property thereby occa-
sioned.*^
§ 190 (132a). Destruction of or injury to shade trees
in streets. Where the public owns the fee of the street, the
abutting owner has no proprietary right in the soil or minerals,
or in the herbage or trees growing thereon. The public au-
thorities may, therefore, cut or remove the trees in their discre-
tion, and the abutter has no remedy, though his property may be
damaged thereby.*'' In New York it is held that the abutter,
though he does not own the fee of the street, has an interest in
shade trees in the nature of an easement, which is on the same
basis as the easements of light and air, and that this inter-
est is sufficient to enable him to maintain an action for their
destruction by a wrongdoer.*^ But when the abutter owns the
fee of the street, he owns the trees thereon, subject to the public
easement.*^ The rights of the public in such case are thus
stated in a recent Wisconsin case: "The right of the public to
use the street for the purposes of travel extends to the portions
set apart or used for sidewalks, as well as to the way for car-
N. J. L. 201, the court says: "I think
the true rule is that land taken by
the public for a particular use can-
not be applied, under such a se-
questration, to any other use, to the
detriment of the land owner. Tliis
is the only rule which will adequate-
ly protect the constitutional right of
the citizen. To permit land taken
for one purpose, and for which the
landowner has been compensated, to
be applied to another and additional
purpose, for which he has received
no compensation, would be a mere
evasion of the spirit of the funda-
mental law of the State. Land tak-
en and applied for the ordinary pur-
poses of a street would often be an
improvement of the adjacent prop-
erty; an appropriation of it to the
uses of a market would, perhaps,
as often be destructive of one-half
of the value of such property." In
Philadelphia v. Slocum, 14 Phil. 141,
it was held that where land was
dedicated for a street with a proviso
that a certain space in the center
should be used for market purposes,
the city might abandon the market
and improve the whole as a street.
"Henkel v. Detroit, 49 Mich. 249,
13 N. W. 611, 43 Am. Rep. 404.
And see Miller v. Webster City, 94
la. 162, 62 N. W. 648, 11 Am. E. R.
& Corp. Rep. 346. Where a city au-
thorized the use of a street for mar-
ket purposes by allowing wagons to
stand against the curb for purposes
of traffic, whereby a nuisance re-
sulted, it was held that the abutting
fee owner could enjoin. Richmond
V. Smith, 148 Ind. 294.
4 6 City of Atlanta v. Holliday, 96
Ga. 546, 23 S. E. 509.
4 'Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co.,
181 N. y. 313, 73 N. E. 1108, lOB
Am. St. Rep. 549, 70 L.R.A. 701,
aflirming S. C. 90 App. Div. 380, 85
N. Y. S. 478; Lane v. Lamke, 53
App. Div. 395, 65 N. Y. S. 1090.
isPost, § 853; Lancaster v. Rich-
ardson, 4 Lans. 136.
348 EMIITENT DOMAIN. § 190
riages, wagons, etc., and, in short, to the entire width of the
street upon which the land of the lot-owner abuts. As against
the lot-owner, the city as trustee of the public use, has an un-
doubted right, whenever its authorities see fit, to open and fit
for use and travel the street over which the public easement
extends, to its entire width, and whether it will so open and im-
prove it, or whether it should be so opened or improved, is a
matter of discretion, to be determined by the public authorities
to whom the charge and control of. the public interests in and
over such easements is committed. With this discretion of the
authorities, courts cannot ordinarily interfere upon the com-
plaint of a lot-owner, so long as the easement continues to exist ;
and no mere non-user, however long continued, will operate as
an abandonment of the public right, even th'ough, until needed
for a public use, the authorities should treat the street as the
property of the owner of the lot. The public authorities, rep-
resenting its interests, will not be thereby estopped from remov-
ing obstructions therefrom, and opening and fitting it for pub-
lic use to its entire width.*® The public use is the dominant
interest, and the public authorities are the exclusive judges
when and to what extent the street shall be improved. Courts
can interfere only in case of fraud or oppression, constituting
manifest abuse of discretion." ^° Undoubtedly the proper pub-
lic authorities may cause the removal of shade trees in a street
where they constitute an obstruction to travel or when neces-
sary for the improvement of the street without liability to
the owner of the fee.^-' But, as intimated in the Wisconsin
case above quoted, the courts will interfere to prevent or redress
the wrong to the owner of the fee by the removal of trees, when
the authorities abuse the discretion vested in them. And it
is an abuse of discretion to remove valuable shade trees when
4 9 Citing state v. Leaver, 62 Wis. Bilbid; Vanderhurst v. Tholcke,
387, 22 N. W. 576; Eeilly v. City of 113 Cal. 147, 45 Pac. 266; Castle-
Racine, 51 Wis. 526, 8 N. W. 417; bury v. Atlanta, 74 Ga. 164; Pat-
Childs V. Nelson, 69 Wis. 125, 33 terson v. Vail, 43 la. 142; Cart-
N. W. 587. Wright v. Liberty Telephone Co., 205
soChase V. City of Oskosh, 81 Wis. Mo. 126, 103 S. W. 982, 12 L.R.A.
313, 51 N. W. 560, 6 Am. R. R. & (N.S.) 1125; Colston v. St. Joseph,
Corp. Rep. 1, 29 Am St. Rep. 898, 106 Mo. App. 714, 80 S. W. 590;
15 L.R.A. 553-. This case is quoted Sherman v. Butcher, 72 N. J. L. 53,
and approved in Tate v. City of 60 Atl. 336.
Greensborough, 114 N. C. 392, 19 S.
E. 767, 24 L.E.A. 671.
§ 190 BOADS AND STREETS. 349
there is no reasonable necessity therefor. °^ In Massachusetts
shade trees are protected by statute, and can only be removed
upon complaint to the proper authorities and a determination
by them that the public necessity so requires, of which proceed-
ing the owner is entitled to notice with an opportunity to be
heard.°* And in Michigan a city was held liable for removing
shade trees without notice to the abutting owner and giving him
an opportunity to transplant them, and this in the absence of
any statute on the subject.^* A statute of ISTew Hampshire
provided for designating and marking ornamental and shade
trees in the public highways and for their care and preserva-
tion and for the acquisition of title thereto by purchase or
condemnation and also forbade the injury or destruction of
trees so marked and designated under a penalty. In a suit
for the penalty against an abutting owner for cutting down such
a tree, the court held the statute unconstitutional, as amounting
to a taking of the abutter's property without compensation.^'
Whether trees may be mutilated or removed to make room for
electric wires or railroads or other such uses, will depend upon
the view taken as to whether these are legitimate street uses.
If they are held to be so, then they stand upon the same footing
as ordinary street improvements.^" If not, then they cannot
be placed in the street at all without compensation to the abutter,
6 2City of Atlanta v. HoUiday, 96 City of Lowell, 149 Mass. 85, 21 N.
Ga. 546, 23 S. E. 509; City of Mt. E. 233.
Carmel v. Bell, 52 111. App. 427; B4Stretcli v. Cassopolis, 125 Mich.
City of Mt. Carmel v. Shaw, 52 111. 167, 84 N. W. 51, 84 Am. St. Rep.
App. 429; Bills v. Belknap, 36 la. 567, 51 L.R.A. 345; Miller v. Ypsil-
583; Everett v. Council Bluffs, 46 anti etc. Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 171, 84
la. 60 ; Chisman v. Deck, 84 la. 344, N. W. 49, 84 Am. St. Rep. 569, 51
51 N. W. 55; Frostburg v. Wineland, L.R.A. 955.
98 Md. 239, 56 Atl. 811, 103 Am. St. 55Bigelow v. Whitcomb, 72 N. H.
Rep. 399, 64 L.R.A. 627 ; Stretch v. 473, 57 Atl. 680, 65 L.R.A. 676.
Cassopolis, 125 Mich. 167, 84 N. W. seSouthern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
51, 84 Am. St. Rep. 567, 51 L.R.A. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1, 55
345; Cross v. Morristown, 18 N. J. Am. St. Rep. 930, 31 L.R.A. 193;
Eq. 305, 313; Tainter v. Morris- Huntting v. Hartford St. Ry. Co.,
town, 19 N. J. Eq. 46; State v. 73 Conn. 179, 46 Atl. 824; Miller v.
Mayor etc. of Vineland, 56 N. J. K Ypsilanti etc. Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 171,
474, 28 Atl. 1039, 23 L.R.A. 685; 84 N. W. 49, 84 Am. St. Rep. 569,
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith, 04 51 L.R.A. 955 ; McAntire v. Joplin
Ohio St. 106, 59 N. E. 890. Tel. Co., 75 Mo. App. 535; Dodd v.
5 3 White V. Godfrey, 97 Mass. 472; Consolidated Traction Co., 57 N. J.
Bliss V. Ball, 99 Mass. 597; Chase v. L. 482, 31 Atl. 980. In the Michi-
350 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 191
and this compensation would include any injury to his trees.
For any unauthorized or unnecessary interference with shade
trees for any of these purposes, the abutter, owning the fee,
may recover damages.^'' There is no necessity, in the legal
sense, for cutting or trimming trees, merely because it is more
convenient or less expensive.®* If interference with trees can
reasonably be avoided, the companies are bound to let them
alone.
§ 191 (132b). Interfering with access by obstructing
street at a distance from the plaintiff's property.
Whether a plaintiff can recover damages when the street upon
which he abuts is closed or obstructed at a point not in front of
his property, is one of the vexed questions of the law. Accord-
ing to the better view, as it seems to the writer, the private right
of access is the right, not only to go from one's property to
the street and from the street to the property, but also to use
the street in either direction as an outlet to the general system
of highways.®^ This right extends at least to the next inter-
secting street.*" Consequently if the street upon which the
plaintiff abuts is wrongfully closed or obstructed in either di-
rection, at a point between the plaintiff's property and the next
gan case it was held that though a 59 N. E. 890; Marshall v. Am. Tel.
street railway company had a right & Tel. Co., 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 615;
to remove trees, a removal of them Memphis Tel. Co. v. Hun, 16
without notice to the owner would Lea 456; O'Connor v. Nova Scotia
render the company liable. Tel. Co., 22 Duvall 276; And
B7Hoyt V. Southern New Eng. see Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co.
Tel. Co., 60 Conn. 385, 22 Atl. 957; v. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666, 29 So. 762;
Bradley v. Southern New Eng. Tel. Osborne v. Auburn Telephone Co., Ill
Co., 66 Conn. 559, 34 Atl. 499, 32 App. Div. 702, 97 N. Y. S. 874. In
L.R.A. 280 ; Rockford Gas etc. Co. Darling v. Newport Elec. Lt. Co., 74
V. Ernst, 68 111. App. 300; N. H. 515, it was held that an elec-
Tisso V. Great So. Tel. & Tel. trio company had no right to trim
Co., 39 La. An. 996, 3 So. 261, 4 trees which grew upon private
Am. St. Rep. 248; Wyant v. Central ground and projected into the
Telephone Co., 123 Mich. 51, 81 N. street, without an assessment of
W. 928, 81 Am. St. Rep. 155, 47
L.R.A. 497; Hazelhurst v. Mayes, 84 5 8 Van Siclen v. Jamaica Elec. Lt.
Miss. 7, 36 So. 33, 64 L.R.A. 805; Co., 45 App. Div. 1, 61 N. Y. S. 210;
Cartwright v. Liberty Telephone Co., S. C. affirmed 168 N. Y. 650, 61 N.
205 Mo. 126, 103 S. W. 982, 12 E. 1135; Brown v. Asheville Elec.
L.R.A.(N.S.) 1125; State v. Graeme, Co., 138 N. C. 533, 51 S. E. 62, 107
130 Mo. App. 138; McCruden >f. Am. St. Rep. 554, 69 L.R.A. 631.
Rochester R. R. Co., 5 Misc. 59, 25 ^^Ante, § 123; post, § 198.
N. Y. Supp. 114; Western Union eolbid.
Tel. Co. V. Smith, 64 Ohio St. 106,
191
EOADS AND STEEETS,
351
intersecting street, this right is violated and an action accrues/'^
So where the plaintiff's property was on a cul de sac and his
outlet was blocked or obstructed.''^ If such closure or obstruc-
tion is lawfully made for a public purpose, there is a taking
or damaging of the plaintiff's property for which compensation
may be had under the constitution.®^ If the obstruction is
more remote from the plaintiff's property it is generally held
that there can be no recovery.®*
61 Gushing- Wctmore Co. v. Gray,
152 Cal. 118, 92 Pac. 70; Harvey v.
Ga. Southern etc. R. R. Co., 90 Ga.
66, 15 S. E. 783; Brunswick etc. R.
R. Co. V. Hardy, 112 Ga. 604, 37
S. E. 888, 52 L.R.A. 396; Southern
Cotton Oil Co. V. Bull, 116 Ga. 776,
43 S. E. 52; Savannah etc. Ry. Co.
V. Gill, 118 Ga. 737, 45 S. E. 623;
Winnetka v. Clifford, 201 111. 475,
66 N. E. 384; O'Brien v. Central
Iron etc. Co., 158 Ind. 218, 63 N. E.
302, 92 Am. St. Rep. 305, 57 L.R.A.
508; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Stan-
ley, 10 Ind. App. 421, 37 N. E. 288,
38 N. E. 421 ; Park v. C. & S. W. R.
R. Co., 43 la. 636; Dairy v. Iowa
Cent. Ry. Co., 113 la. 716, 84 N. W.
688; Young v. Rothrock, 121 la.
588, 96 N. W. 1105; Leavenworth
etc. R. E. Co. V. Curtan, 51 Kan.
432, 33 Pac. 297; Atchison etc. Ry.
Co. V. Armstrong, 71 Kan. 366, 80
Pac. 928, 114 Am. St. Rep. 474, 1
L.R.A.(N.S.) 113; Dyche v. Weich-
selbaum, 9 Kan. App. 360, 58 Pac.
126; Richardson v. Davis, 91 Md.
390, 46 Atl. 964; Kaje v. Chicago
etc. R. R. Co., 57 Minn. 422, 59 N.
W. 493 ; Fitzer v. St. Paul City Ry.
Co., 105 Minn. 221, 117 N. W. 434;
Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch Brew-
ing Co., 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W. 707,
2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 420; Au-
tenreith v. St. Louis etc. R. E. Co.,
36 Mo. App. 254; Dries v. St. Jos-
eph, 98 Mo. App. 611, 73 S. W. 723;
Ellis V. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 131
Mo. App. 395; Morris & C. Dredg-
ing Co. V. Jersey City, 64 N. J. L.
587, 46 Atl. 609; Perrine v. Penn.
R. R. Co., 72 N. J. L. 398, 61 Atl.
87; Buckholz v. New York etc. R.
R. Co., 148 N. Y. 640, 43 N. E. 76;
Ackerman v. True, 56 App. DiV. 54,
66 N. Y. S. 6; Gillender v. New
York, 127 App. Div. 612; Tise v.
Whataker-Harvey Co., 144 N. C. 507,
57 S. E. 210; Madden v. Penn. Ry.
Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 73; Johnston v.
Old Colony R. R. Co., 18 R. I. 642,
29 Atl. 594; Richardson v. Lone
Star Salt Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 486,
post, §§ 202, 203.
Contra: San Jose Ranch Co. v.
Brooks, 74 Cal. 463, 16 Pac. 250;
Newton v. ISIew York, etc. R. R. Co.,
72 Conn. 420, 44 Atl. 813; Stuffle-
beam v. Montgomery, 3 Ida. 20, 26
Pac. 125; Jacksonvflle etc. Ry. Co.
v. Thompson, 34 Fla. 346, 16 So. 282,
26 L.R.A. 410; O'Connor v. St. Lou-
is etc. R. R. Co., 56 la. 735; Har-
rington V. la. Cent. Ry. Co., 126 la.
388, 102 N. W. 139; Grey v. Green-
ville etc. Ry. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 372,
46 Atl. 638. See Guttery v. Glenn,
201 111. 275, 66 N. E. 305 ; Davenport
v. Dedham, 178 Mass. 382, 59 N. E.
1029; Davenport v. Hyde Park, 178
Mass. 385, 59 N. E. 1030.
6 2Brakken v. Minneapolis etc. Ry.
Co., 29 Minn. 41, 11 N. W. 124; S.
C. 31 Minn. 45, 16 N. W. 459; 32
Minn. 425, 21 N. W. 414; Hayes v.
Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 349,
49 N. W. 61.
6 3 See post, §§ 202-207, 354.
64Ibid; Shaubert v. St. Paul etc.
E. R. Co., 21 Minn. 502 ; Rochette v.
352
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 192
§ 192 (121e). Damage to railroads, water pipes, gas
pipes, etc, by the grading and improvement of streets.
The power to grade and change the grade of streets and other-
wise improve them in aid of the right of passage is continuing
and inalienable.^* A grant of the right to lay down and operate
a railroad in a street,®" or to lay water or gas pipes therein "^
is subject to the paramount right of the public to grade and
improve the street. It follows that the grantees of such privi-
leges cannot recover for any damage to their property resulting
from such improvements, when the same are executed with due
care and skill. Accordingly, when the grade of a street is low-
ered and water or gas pipes are exposed or brought too near the
surface, there is no remedy against the city either to prevent
the change or recover damages therefor, but the company must
lower its pipes at its own expense."'^ So where the grade was
raised and the pipes were buried too deep."* A gas company
may be compelled to remove its pipes to make way for a munici-
pal water main.®® A railroad company cannot prevent a change
of grade, but may be compelled to change the grade of its tracks
to conform to a new grade of the street."* But this power of
Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 201,
20 N. W. 140; Barnum v. Minn.
Transfer Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 365, 23
N. W. 538; Kakkie v. St. Paul etc.
Ry. Co., 44 Miniv 438, 46 N. W. 912.
6 6Roanoke Gas Co. v. City of Ro-
anoke, 88 Va. 810, 14 S. E. 665, 6
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 88; Ante
§ 145.
6 6Ridge Ave. Pass. R. R. Co. v.
Philadelphia, 10 Phil. 37; Chicago,
B. & Q. R. R. Co. V. City of Quincy,
136 111. 563, 27 N. E. 192, 29 Am.
St. Rep. 334; Ridge Ave. Pass. R. R.
Co. V. Philadelphia, 181 Pa. St. 592,
37 Atl. 910.
6 7Roekland Water Co. v. City of
Rockland, 83 Me. 267, 22 Atl. 166;
Natick Gas Lt. Co. v. Natick, 175
Mass. 246, 56 N. E. 292; Stillwater
Water Co. v. City of Stillwater, 50
Minn. 498, 52 N. W. 893; National
W. W. Co. V. City of Kansas, 20 Mo.
App. 237; In matter of Deering, 93
N. Y. 361; Columbus Gas Light &
Coke Co. V. City of Columbus, 50
Ohio St. 65, 33 N. E. 292, 7 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 472, 40 Am. St. Rep.
648, 19 L.R.A. 510; Scranton Gas &
W. Co. V. Scranton City, 214 Pa. St.
580, 64 Atl. 84; Pittsburg v. Con-
solidated Gas Co., 34 Pa. Super. Ct.
374 ; Roanoke Gas Co. v. City of Ro-
anoke, 88 Va. 810, 14 S. E. 665, 6
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 88; South-
wark Water Co. v. District Board,
L. R. (1898) 2 Ch. 603.
6 8 Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co. v.
Brookline, 121 Mass. 5.
6 9Pittsburg V. Consolidated Gas
Co., 34 Pa. Super. Ct. 374.
'oHampton v. Chicago etc. Ry.
Co., 125 111. App. 412; McHale v.
Easton & B. Transit Co., 169 Pa. St.
416, 32 Atl. Rep. 461; City of De-
troit V. Ft. Wayne etc. R. R. Co., 90
Mich. 646, 51 N. W. Rep. 688, 6
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 188. But
a contractor, paving a street, has
no right imneeessarily to obstruct
§ 192
EOADS AND STEEETS.
353
changing the grade of streets cannoi be so exercised as to destroy
the franchise of a railroad company lawfully authorized to oc-
cupy a street. A railroad was authorized to be built upon a
street along the shore of Puget Sound, in Seattle, and to connect
with the wharves along its route. The railroad and surround-
ing property were destroyed by fire. Thereupon the city raised
the grade of intersecting streets so as to render it impossible for
the railroad to be reconstructed without cutting through the
embankments made by such changes of grade. In a suit by the
city to enjoin such cutting, the bill was dismissed on the ground
that the city's power to grade the streets must be so exercised as
not to destroy the company's franchise.'^ ^ Where a railroad
crossed a street under an ordinance which required it to build a
bridge so as to allow use of the full width of the street, and the
city subsequently widened the street, it was held that the railroad
company was entitled to compensation for having to reconstruct
the operation of street ears, and
may be prevented from so doing.
Milwaukee St. R. K. Co. v. Adlam,
85 Wis. 142, 55 N. W. Kep. 181, 8
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 320.
7iCity of Seattle v. Columbia &
P. S. R. R. Co., 6 Wash. 379, 33
Pac. Rep. 1048. The court says:
"Under such a state of facts, we
think the well-settled rule of law is
that the city's right to graduate its
streets or alter the grades thereof is
not an absolute one, to be exercised
at its option, regardless of its ef-
fect upon others, but it is a, power
which must be reasonably exercised
with reference to the rights of par-
ties interested. It cannot be exer-
cised to the extent of working the
destruction of such a franchise pre-
viously granted. This would amount
to an unauthorized taking of prop-
erty, and none of the cases cited by
appellant, in our opinion, support
such contention, as none of them go
to the extent of holding that the
city may. so alter and change the
grades of its streets as to work a
4estruction of a valuable property
under such circumstances, but the
Em. D.— 23.
right to change the grades of streets
is sustained upon the ground that
the same may be done consistently
with the preservation of rights pre-
viously acquired by others. * » •
The property of railroad companies
is as much within the protection of
the law as that of any other com-
pany or of any individual. Rail-
roads are recognized as essential to
the welfare and prosperity of the
people, and, because of their capaci-
ty for usefulness to the whole peo-
ple, railroad companies are invested
with large powers of a public na-
ture. The laws of the state also
provide for the organization of
cities, and large powers are granted
to them relating to the control and
regulation of matters within the
municipal limits; but, where a
broad interpretation of such powers
clashes with acquired property
rights, as in this instance, such rea-
sonable construction should be giv-
en them as shall not have the ef-
fect of destroying or even materially
injuring such rights. The city must
so use its powers as to enable the
respondents to have a reasonable
354r EMINENT DOMAIN. § 193
the bridge.''^ Where a railroad crosses a street by a bridge and
is allowed to occupy a part of the street with piers, it may be
compelled to remove them without compensation when the traffic
on the street requires if^ Where a statute provided that any
person damaged by altering a street should be entitled to com-
pensation, it was held to apply to a water company whose pipes
were exposed by a change of grade.''*
§ 193 (121f). Damage to railroads, water and gas
pipes by the construction of sewers. The construction of
sewers differs from the grading of streets which was considered
in the last section, in that the grading of a street ordinarily
extends to the entire surface, while a sewer occupies but a small
portion of the width. If the construction of a sewer necessarily
interferes with water or gas pipes or a railroad, and causes
damage thereto, there is no remedy and no taking, because the
respective franchises are subject to the right of the city to con-
struct sewers.''^ But it may be doubted whether a city has an
absolute discretion to locate a sewer where it pleases, regardless
of the consequences to those having franchises in the street.
Thus it has been held that the location of a sewer in the center
of a street, on the line of a railroad, will be enjoined, when it
can just as well be laid elsewhere in the street.^* Where a
street was laid out over a railroad right of way without making
the railroad a party, it was held that it could recover any ex-
use and enjoyment of theirs and not 43 Atl. 104; Kirby v. Citizens' R.
so as to render it impossible or even Co., 48 Md. 168, 30 Am. Rep. 455;
very difficult for the respondents to Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. v. Mor-
reconstruct and operate their rail- ley, 45 Mo. App. 304; Portsmouth
roads." Gas Light Co. v. Shanahan, 65 N. H.
7 2Kansas City v. Kansas City 233, 19 Atl. 1002 ; Brooklyn El. R. R.
Belt R. E. Co., 102 Mo. 633, 14 S. Co. v. Brooklyn, 2 App. Div. 98, 37
W. 808, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. N. Y. Supp. 560; Elster v. City of
522, 10 L.R.A. 851. Springfield, 49 Ohio St. 82, 30 N. E.
TSDelaware etc. R. R. Co. v. Buf- 274; Bryn Mawr Water Co. v.
falo, 158 N. y. 266, 53 N. E. 44; Lower Marion Tp., 15 Pa. Co. Ct.
Delaware etc. R. R. Co. v. Buffalo, 527; San Antonio v. San Antonio
158 N. Y. 478, 53 N. E. 533. St. R. R. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 1.
TiParis Mountain Water Co. v. '6Des Moines City R. Co. v. City,
Greenville, 53 S. C. 82, 30 S. E. 699. of Des Moines, 90 la. 770, 58 N. W.-
76Raihvay Co. v. Louisville, 8 770, 26 L.R.A. 767; Scranton G. &
Bush 415; New Orleans Gas Lt. Co. W. Co. v. Scranton, 11 Pa. Dist.
v. Drainage Commission, 111 La. 838, Ct. 671; Clapp v. City of Spokane,
35 So. 929; S. C. affirmed, 197 U. S. 53 Fed. 515; Contra, Spokane St.
453, 25 S. C. 471; Brunswick Gas R. R. Co. v. City of Spokane, 5
Light Co. v. Brunswick, 92 Me. 493, Wash. 634, 32 Pac. 456.
§ 194: EOADS AND STEEETS. 355
pense incurred in consequence of a sewer being built across its
tracks on such street.''^
§ 194 (133). Miscellaneous uses. A well or cistern
may be constructed in a street for the purpose of obtaining
water to be used in sprinkling the streets or extinguishing fires
or convenience of the public, provided this can be done without
damage to the abutting owner or destruction of the public use.'^*
The sprinkling of streets is one mode of making their use more
convenient, and the public may use the street for such appli-
ances for that purpose as are reasonable under the circum-
stances. But a city may not erect a water tank in the street
for use in sprinkling and such use may be enjoined by the abut-
ting owner.'* But the plea that a structure is for use in the
amelioration of the streets will not justify the serious obstruc-
tion of a street by the indirect means of such amelioration, as
by the erection of pumping works in a street,*" or a mill for
sawing lumber or crushing stone for a pavement. Nor can a
street be occupied by a stand pipe®' or used for boring wells*^
to obtain a public water supply. The erection of a pound for
the confinement of stray animals, or of a jail or lock-up upon
a public street, is a misappropriation which may be enjoined
7 'Baltimore v. Cowen, 88 Md. 447, 150 111. 588, 37 N. E. 1096, 41 Am. St.
41 Atl. 900. Eep. 400, 10 Am. R. E. & Corp. Rep.
'8 West V. Bancroft, 32 Vt. 307; 62, reversing S. C. 49 111. App. 590.
Barter v. Commonwealth, 3 Penn. & In a suit by an abutting owner to
Watts, 253; Savage v. Salem, 23 Or. recover damages because of such a
381, 31 Pac. 832, 37 Am. St. Rep. stand pipe a declaration which al-
088, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 428. leged that the plaintiff's property
In Dubuque v. Malony, 9 la. 450, was damaged by reason of the ap-
the city had constructed a brick prehension that the stand pipe would
cistern in the street for similar fall or be blown upon the plaintiff's
purposes, and the defendant, in dig- property or that it might burst and
ging for the foundation of his build- flood it; and which stated no
ing, removed the support of the soil ground for such apprehension, was
so that it burst and was destroyed. held to state no cause of action.
The city sued for damages, and a re- Doyle v. Sycamore, 193 111. 501, 61
covery was denied on the ground N. E. 1117.
that such use of the street, the fee 8 20dneal v. City of Sherman, 77
being in the abutting owners, was Tex. 182, 14 S. W. Rep. 31. In Lost-
not justified. Utter v. City of Aurora, 126 Ind, 436,
73Davis v. Appleton, 109 Wis. 580, 26 N. E. 18i, 12 L.R.A. 259, it was
85 N. W. 515. held that a. city could maintain a
soCity of Morrison v. Hinkson, 87 well and pump in a street without
111. 587, 29 Am. Rep. 77. subjecting the soil to an additional
81 Barrows v. City of Sycamore, servitude.
356 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 194
by the abutting owner,®^ or for which trespass will lie.®* The
erection of ornamental or memorial statuary at proper places
in public streets is sanctioned by long and universal usage, and
may be regarded as a legitimate use of the same.*' A munici-
pality may authorize the use of a street for a street fair when
travel and access are not materially interfered with thereby.**
The erection of lamps for street lighting, of hydrants, fire plugs,
drinking fountains and watering troughs, all fall within the
principles heretofore laid down as to the appropriate use of
streets. Weighing scales cannot be placed in a street over the
objection of an abutter who has the fee.*'' A canal for any
purpose would seem to be a perversion of the street, and, there-
fore, a use which could not be authorized without compensa-
tion.** But drains for the improvement of a highway are
proper though they interfere with access.*® A street cannot be
used for warehouse.^" a band stand,®^ electric light plant®^ or
other building.®^ A city was held not liable to an abutting
owner for obstructing access to his premises by wagons by means
of a platform and step for the use of pedestrians.®* An elevated
footway over a street a hundred feet from plaintiff's premises
was held to be no obstruction to his light and air, and so to
afford him no cause of action.®^ When the abutter owns the
fee, it has been held that a city cannot authorize the use of the
ssLutterloh v. Town of Cedar Colo. 579, 26 Pac. 129; Tucker v.
Keys, 15 Fla. 306. Inhabitants of Russell, 14 Pick. 279;
8 4 Winchester v. Capron, 63 N. H. Taylor v. Chicago etc. E,. K. Co., 83
605, 56 Am. Eep. 554. Wis. 636, 53 N. W. 853.
ssThompkins v. Hodgson, 2 Hun 89Dean v. Millard, 151 Mich. 582,
146. 115 N. W. 739.
ssState V. Stoner, 39 Ind. App. sopacket Co. v. Sorrels, 50 Ark.
104, 79 N. E. 399. 466; Bingham v. Doane, 9 Ohio 165;
s'Cline v. Cornwall, 21 Grant Ch. Attorney General v. Tarr, 148 Mass.
129. But where a city had power to 309, 19 N. E. 358, 2 L.E.A. 87.
provide for weighing hay, coal, etc., siRichmond v. Smith, 101 Va. 161,
it was held that it could grant to an 43 S. E. 345.
individual the right to place scales 9 2McIhenny v. Trenton, 148 Mich,
in the street in front of his premises 381, 111 N. W. 1083, 118 Am. St.
and that, after such grant had been Rep. 583, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.) 623.
acted upon it could not be revoked. 9 3Pettit v. Grand Junction, 119
Town of Spencer v. Andrew, 82 la. la. 352, 93 N. W. 381.
14, 47 N. W. 1007, 12 L.R.A. 115. 94Hobson v. City of Philadelphia,
ssCity of Fresno v. Fresno Canal 155 Pa. St. 131, 25 Atl. 1046.
& Irr. Co., 98 Cal. 179, 32 Pac. 943; ssQttendorf v. Agnew, 13 Daly,
Walley v. Platte & D. Ditch Co., 15 16; Knox v. New York, 55 Barb. 404.
§ 194
EOADS AND STKETS.
357
street for a hack stand. ^" Where the fee is in the abutting
owner, he is entitled to the herbage growing thereon, and a law
or ordinance allowing it to be depastured by the public is void."^
As to the taking of a highway for a turnpike or ferry landing,
the reader is referred to a subsequent section.''* 2To action will
lie on account of changes in the relative width of roadway and
sidewalk.^^ 'Nov because the curb is placed nearer the lot line on
one side than on the other. -"^ Nor because a portion of the street
is set apart for a bicycle path ^ or speedway.^ Under legislative
authority the control of a city street may be turned over to park
commissioners and traffic teams excluded therefrom, but it is
intimated that if abutters are damaged thereby they would have
a remedy.* When railroad tracks are elevated to avoid a gTade
crossing, the railroad company may be permitted to occupy a
part of the street for the supports of its bridge.'' The legisla-
ture may authorize the use of space under the stairs of an ele-
vated railroad for news stands and booths, when such use does
not interfere with the travel on the street." So the space under a
ssMcCaffrey v. Smith. 41 Hun 117.
See Odell v. Bretney, 62 App. Div.
595, 71 N. Y. S. 449.
9 7 Woodruff V. Neal, 28 Conn. 165;
Cole V. Drew, 44 Vt. 49. Contra:
Hardenburk v. Loekwood, 25 Barb.
9. Where such a law was in force
when the highway was laid out, it
was held that compensation was
made in view of such statute, and
that the act was valid as to such
highway. Griffin v. JIartin, 7 Barb.
297.
ispost, §§ 219, 220.
ssMunson v. Mallory, 36 Conn.
165, 4 Am. Rep. 52; O'Neil v. Arm-
strong, 17 Phil. 273; and see Carter
V. Chicago, 57 111. 283; Chicago v.
Wright, 69 III. 318; Topliff v. Chi-
cago, 196 111. 215, 36 N. E. 692; Com-
monwealth V. Borough of Beaver,
171 Pa. St. 542, 33 Atl. 112.
iMcGrew v. Kansas City, 64 Kan.
61, 67 Pae. 438; McGrew v. Kansas
City, 69 Kan. 606, 77 Pac. 698. So
where a street was so improved as
to leave a space for grass and side-
walk on one side and only for side-
walk on tlie otlier, it was held a
person on the latter side could not re-
cover damages. English v. Danville,
170 111. 131, S. C. 69 111. App. 288.
But where the sidewalk was removed
and the curb placed on the street
line it was held the abutter was en-
titled to damages. Xarehold v. West-
port, 71 Mo. App. 508.
2Ryan v. Preston, 59 App. Div. 97,
69 N. Y. S. 100; O'Donnell v. Pres-
ton, 74 App. Div. 80, 77 N. Y. S.
305; Kyan v. Preston, 32 Misc. 92,
60 N. Y. S. 162.
sScovel V. Detroit, 146 Mich. 93,
109 N. W. 20.
^Kreigh v. Chicago, 86 111. 407;
People v. \A'alsh, 96 111. 232, 36 Am.
Rep. 135; Cicero Lumber Co. v. Ci-
cero, 176 III. 9, 51 N. E. 758, 68 Am.
St. Rep. 155, 42 L.R.A. 696 ; and see
Simon v. Northrop, 27 Ore. 488, 40
Pac. 560, 30 L.R.A. 171.
sSummerfield v. Chicago, 197 111.
270, 64 N. E. 490.
ePeopIe v. Keating, 108 N. Y. 300,
61 N. E. 637, rcverdnp S. C. 62 App.
Div. 348, 71 N. Y. S. 97.
358
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 195
bridge or viaduct which is incapable of use as a street, may be
leased for any purpose which does not interfere with the use
of the bridge.'^ Where the abutter owned the fee and the city
laid a flagstone sidewalk, it was held that it became a part of
the realty and the city was held liable for removing it because
the abutter refused to pay for it.* There is no liability for
the necessary interference with access during the construction
of authorized public works in a street.®
§ 195. The franchiste to use streets and its incidents.
This subject has been considered with respect to railways in
a former section.-^" The legislature has paramount authority
over streets and highways and municipalities can only exer-
cise such control thereover as has been granted to them by that
body.^"- Consequently a municipal corporation cannot grant
the right to use its streets for any purpose unless it has been
authorized to do so by the legislature.^^ Powers granted to
municipal corporations over streets may be resumed at the
pleasure of the legislature,^^ which may itself grant the use of
streets in cities without their consent.-'* As a general rule no
'Ejcard Boiler &, Engine Co. v.
Toledo, 6 Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 501.
spiatt V. Oneonta, 88 App. Div.
192, 84 N. Y. S. 699; S. C. affirmed
■without opinion, 183 N. Y. 516, 76
N. E. 1106.
sLefkovitz v. Chicago, 238 111. 23.
10 Ante, § 169.
iiChamberlain v. la. Telephone
Co., 119 la. 619, 93 N. W. 596; La
Harpe v. Elm Tp. Gas etc. Co., 69
Kan. 97, 76 Pac. 448 ; New England
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Boston Terminal
Co., 182 Mass. 397, 65 N. E. 835;
United E. R. & C. Co. v. Jersey City,
71 N. J. L. 80, 58 Atl. 71; Fries v.
New York etc. R. R. Co., 169 N. Y.
270, 62 N. E. 358, reversing S. C. 57
App. Div. 577, 68 N. Y. S. 670; Muhl-
ker V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 173*
N. Y. 549, 66 N. E. 558; 2 Dill.
Munic. Corp. §§ 680, 683.
i2/6i(J.; Domestic Tel. Co. v. New-
ark, 49 N. J. L. 344; Beekraan v.
Flint ave. R. R. Co., 153 N. Y. 144,
47 N. E. 277; Potter v. CoUis, 156
N. Y. 16, 50 N. E. 413; Phoenix v.
Gannon, 123 App. Div. 93, 108 N. Y.
S. 255; State v. Monroe, 40 Wash.
545, 82 Pac. 888.
i3"The legislature, representing
the state, has paramount authority
over its public ways, including the
streets in cities as well as the
country roads, and the legislature
can at any time resume the power
previously granted to municipal sub-
divisions of the state." United R. R.
& C. Co. v. Jersey City, 71 N. J. L.
80, 81, 58 Atl. 71.
i4La Harpe v. Elm Tp. Gas etc.
Co., 69 Kan. 97, 76 Pac. 448; Mil-
bridge etc. Elec. R. E. Co., appel-
lants, 96 Me. 110, 51 Atl. 818; Che-
ney V. Boston Consolidated Gas Co.,
198 Mass. 356; Rochester etc. Water
Co. V. Rochester, 176 N. Y. 36, 68
N. E. 117, affirming S. C. 84 App.
Div. 71, 82 W. Y. S. 455; Economic
P. & C. Co. V. Buffalo, 59 Misc. 571 ;
State V. Sheboygan, 111 Wis. 23, 86
N. W. 657.
§ 195
EOADS AND STEEETS.
359
person or corporation can occupy a street or highway for any
structure such as a railway, water main, gas main, electric
wires or conduits, without a grant from the legislature, either
directly or through a municipal corporation to which the power
has been delegated. ■^^ And any such structure or appliance
placed in the street without such authority is a public nuisance
and any abutting owner whose easements in the street are im-
paired thereby may have his action for damages or abatement of
the nuisance.-'® But it has been held in Kansas that a natural
gas company could lay its pipes in the public highways without
any permission from the legislature or local authorities, the
same being for the transportation of a commodity and within
the public easement.-''^ When a grant to use the streets for a
public purpose has been made and accepted, there is a binding
contract which cannot be revoked or impaired without compen-
sation.^* Structures and appliances placed in the street under
a valid franchise are the private property of the grantee and
are protected by the Constitution, the same as other private
i5East Tenn. Telephone Co. v.
Anderson Co. Telephone Co., 115 Ky.
488, 74 S. W. 218; Twin Village
Water Co. v. Damariseotta Gas Lt.
Co., 98 Me. 325, 56 Atl. 1112; Pur-
nell V. McLane, 98 Md. 589, 5G Atl.
830; Baltimore Co. W. & Elec. Co. v.
Baltimore Co., 105 Md. 154, 66 Atl.
34; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
V. Mobile, 162 Fed. 523.
isNeb. Telephone Co. v. Western
Independent L. D. T. Co., 68 Neb.
772, 95 N. W. 18; ante, 172.
Instate V. Kansas Natural Gas Co.,
71 Kan. 508, 80 Pac. 962, 114 Am.
St. Rep. 507. The suit was by the
attorney general to oust the com-
pany from such use of the public
ways. The court says : "The conten-
tion of the state is that the use
■which the gas company is making of
the highway is exceptional, and may
be exercised only under a franchise
from the state, mediately or imme-
diately. We think this is an over-
statement of the proposition. The
use is not exceptional. The trans-
portation of commodities on the
highways is one of the uses for
which it has always been main-
tained. The means, however, used
by the gas company in the transpor-
tation of gas are exceptional. A de-
mand for this method has not here-
tofore existed in this state; but
shall this fact alone deprive the
defendant of the use of the highway
for a usual and proper purpose, un-
less such use necessarily obstruct,
seriously inconvenience or endanger
public travel? » » » The public
highway is maintained for the trans-
portation of the commodities of the
country, and the means employed for
such purpose need only be such as
not to interfere with public travel
to the extent hereinbefore stated. It
is not shown that such privilege has
been abused by the defendant in this
case, nor is it claimed that the use
by the gas company has or will in-
convenience or obstruct public travel.
Judgment for the plaintiff is there-
fore denied." p. 510.
isPeople v. Central Union Tel. Co.,
192 111. 307, 61 N. E. 428, 85 Am.
360
EMINENT DOMAIN.
191:
property.-'^ Such structures and appliances are held subject to
the right of the public authorities to change or improve the street
as the public interests require.^** And also, it is held, subject to
the right of the public authorities to discontinue or vacate the
street, in which case the right to use the land ceases and the own-
er of such structures and appliances must remove them at hi*
own expense.^^ In the case last referred to certain streets in
Boston were discontinued and taken for a terminal station. The
plaintiff, an electrical company, had conduits in these streets for
its wires. The company removed its wires but the conduits
could not be removed without destroying them. It was held
that the company could not recover for its loss, either by peti-
tion under the statute, as for property taken, or in tort.^^
St. Rep. 338; Chicago Telephone Co.
V. N. W. Telephone Co., 199 111. 324,
65 N. E. 329; Kalamazoo v. Kalama-
zoo H. L. & P. Co., 124 Mich. 74,
82 N. W. 811; N. W. Telephone
Exch. Co. V. Minneapolis, 81 Minn.
140, 83 N. W. 527, 86 N. W. 69, 53
L.R.A. 175; Duluth v. Duluth Tele-
phone Co., 84 Minn. 486, 87 N. W.
1127; Rochester etc. Water Co. v.
Rochester, 176 N. Y. 36, 68 N. E.
117, affirming S. C. 84 App. Div. 71,
82 N. Y. S. 455; Southern Kan. Ry.
Co. V. Oklahoma City, 12 Old. 82, 69
Pac. 1050; Mead v. Portland, 45 Ore.
1, 76 Pac. 347; Wl^eeling etc. R. R.
Co. V. Triadelphia, 58 W. Va. 487,
52 S. E. 499, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 321;
Morristown v. East Tenn.' Tel. Co.,
115 Fed. 304, 53 C. C. A. 132.
isMontgomery Lt. & W. P. Co. v.
Citizens' Lt. H. & P. Co., 142 Ala.
462, 38 So. 1026; Missouri-Edison
Elec. Co. V. Weber, 102 Mo. App. 95.
204m<e, §§ 192, 193.
2iNew England Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Boston Terminal Co., 182 Mass. 397,
65 N. E. 835.
2 2New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Boston Terminal Co., 182 Mass. 397,
65 N. E. 835; Boston Electric Lt.
Co. V. Boston Terminal Co., 184 Mass.
568, 69 N. E; 346. In the former
case, which was a petition under the
statute, the court says: "All the
statutes and ordinances upon which
the petitioners rely as a justification
for their action in constructing con-
duits in the public streets and as
giving them rights of property there,
are merely provisions for the regula-
tion of the different public rights
in the streets. None of them pur-
ports to convey private rights of
property. Most of them expressly
state the limitations upon the au-
thority given, and make the peti-
tioners subject to possible future
proceedings terminating or modify-
ing their rights. But where there is
no such express provision the result is
the same; their rights in connection
with the rights of the public are sub-
ject to reasonable regulation, or
even to termination at any time, if
the supreme authority acting in the
pviblic interest shall so determine.
It follows that they have no rights
of property in the street, and their
structures that were built therein
were personal property which they
had a right to remove, and whieli
could not be subject for the assess-
ment of damages under statutes of
this kind." p. 400.
§ 195
ROADS A2<D STREETS.
3(Ji
Grants of franchises by municipal corporations must be made
in accordance with the power eonferred^^ and where a city was
empowered to grant franchises by ordinance, a grant by resolu-
tion was held to be ineffective.^* Such grants are subject to
the police power and to regulation in the interests of the pub-
lic.'''' Grantees of franchises may be compelled to change the
location of structures in the street as the public needs require
and without compensation for the trouble and expense.^® A
municipality cannot grant an exclusive franchise without ex-
press legislative authority ^^ and a mere grant gives no exclusive
right.^* A general grant to a gas company to lay its pipes in
any and all streets of a city, was held valid. ^* When no dura-
tion is fixed for such gTants they are held not to be in perpetuity
but during the existence of the municipality making the grant
and when such municipality ceases to exist the grant termi-
nates.^" A statute giving telegraph and telephone companies
the right to construct their lines upon the public roads or high-
ways of the State has generally been held to include the streets
saPhoenix v. Gannon, 123 App.
Div. 93, 108 N. Y. S. 255; and see
London Mills v. White, 208 III. 289,
70 N. E. 313; Lowther v. Bridgeman,
57 W. Va. 306, 50 S. E. 410; Hard-
man V. Cabot, 60 W. Va. 664, 55 S.
E. 756, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 506.
2 4Morristown v. East Tenn. Tele-
phone Co., 115 Fed. 304, 53 C. C. A.
132.
25State T. St. Paul City Ey. Co.,
78 Minn. 331, 81 N. W. 200; Carth-
age V. Garner, 209 Mo. 688, 108 S. W.
521; Economic P. & C. Co. v. Buf-
falo, 59 Misc. 571; New Castle City
V. Central D. & P. Tel. Co., 207 Pa.
St. 371, 56 Atl. 931.
2 6Merced Falls Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Turner, 2 Cal. App. 720, 84 Pac.
239; Atlantic etc. By. Co. v. Cor-
dele, 125 Ga. 373, 54 S. E. 155;
Atlantic etc. By. Co. v. Cordele, 128
Ga. 293, 57 S. E. 493; Crocker v.
Boston Elec. Lt. Co., 180 Mass. 51G,
62 N. E. 978; Carthage v. Central
iS\ Y. Tel. & Tel. Co., 185 N. Y. 448,
78 N. E. 165, 113 Am. St. Eep. 9.32,
reversing 110 App. Div. 625; People
V. Ellison, 188 N. Y. 523, 81 N. E.
447, afp.rming 115 App. Div. 254, 101
N. Y. S. 35; Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Millcreek, 195 Pa. St. 643, 46 Atl.
140; Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Harbor
Creek Tp., 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 437;
Charlottsville v. Southern By. Co.
97 Va. 428, 34 S. E. 98 ; Washington
etc. By. Co. v. Alexandria, 98 Va.
344, 36 S. E. 385 ; Ganz v. Ohio Pos-
tal Tel. Cable Co., 140 Fed. 692, 72
C. C. A. 186.
270klahoma v. Oklahoma Gas &
Elec. Co., 13 Okl. 454, 74 Pac. 98;
Clarksburg Elec. Lt. Co. v. Clarks-
burg, 47 W. Va. 739, 35 S. E. 994,
.50 L.E.A. 142; Hutchinson W. L. &
P. Co. V. Hutchinson, 144 Fed. 256.
2 8 Columbus V. Columbus Gas Co.,
76 Ohio St. 309, 81 N. E. 440.
2 9Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo H. L.
& P. Co., 124 Mich. 74, 82 N. W. 811 ;
Meyers v. Hudson Co. Elec. Co., 03
N. J. L. 573, 44 Atl. 713.
soPeople v. Chicago Telephone Co.,
220 111. 238, 77 N. E. 245; Venner
V. Chicago City Ey. Co., 236 111. 349,
86 N. E. 266.
362 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 196
of cities and villages.*^ All such grants are strictly construed
in favor of the public.^^
V. — Damages peom the Vacation, Discontinuance and
Closing of Streets and Highways.
§ 196. The power to vacate streets and highways. The
legislature has plenary authority over the public streets and
highways and may itself vacate and discontinue them, as it
may deem best for the public good, or it may delegate the power
to do so to municipal corporations and local authorities, sub-
ject, in either case, to such limitations as the constitution may
impose.^* In one of the cases cited the supreme court of Cali-
fornia says : "That the legislature possesses competent power to
vacate a street in a city; that the legislature may delegate or
commit such power to the municipal authorities of the city ; that
its exercise by the municipal authorities is dependent upon the
will and subject to the control of the legislature ; and that after
such power has been committed to the municipal authorities,
the legislature may revoke it in part as well as in whole, or,
without an express revocation, may itself exercise it in any
particular instance, are propositions about which there can be
31 Chamberlain v. la. Telephone City, 123 Fed. 232, 59 C. C. A. 236.
Co., 119 la. 619, 93 N. W. 596; N. One legislature cannot bind future
W. Telephone Exch. Co. v. Minneapo- ones by enacting that no street rail-
lis, 81 Minn. 140, 86 N. W. 69; way franchise shall be granted on
Duluth V. Duluth Telephone Co., 84 certain streets. Commonwealth v.
Minn. 486, 87 N. W. 1127; State v. Broad St. Ey. Co., 219 Pa. St. 11,
Red Lodge, 30 Mont. 338, 76 Pac. 67 Atl. 958. As to annexing condi-
758; State v. Red Lodge, 33 Mont. tions to grant by city see Mich. Tel.
345, 83 Pac. 642; Point Pleasant Co. v. St. Joseph, 121 Mich. 502,
Elec. Lt. & P. Co. V. Bayhead, 62 80 N. W. 383, 80 Am. St. Rep. 520,
K. J. Eq. 296, 49 Atl. 1108; State v. 47 L.R.A. 87; Mich. Tel. Co. v. Ben-
Sheboygan, 111 Wis. 23, 86 N. W. ton Harbor, 121 Mich. 512, 80 N. W.
657; Abbott v. Duluth, 104 Fed. 833. 386, 47 L.R.A. 104; Keystone State
3 2 Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ridley Park, 28 Pa.
R. Co. V. Chicago, 203 111. 576, 68 N. Super. Ct. 635 ; Southern Bell Tel. &
E. 99; ante, § 169. A grant without Tel. Co. v. Richmond, 103 Fed. 33,
limitation as to time was held good 44 C. C. A. 147.
for the life of the company in Wyan- 3 3Polack v. S. F. Orphan Asylum,
dotte Elec. Lt. Co. v. Wyandotte, 48 Cal. 490; San Francisco v. Burr,
124 Mich. 43, 82 N. W. 821, but was 108 Cal. 460; Whitsett v. Union
held revocable at any time as to Depot & R. R. Co., 10 Colo. 243, 15
future exercises of the power In Pac. 339 ; Marietta Chair Co. v. Hen-
Boise City etc. Water Co. v. Boise derson, 121 Ga. 399, 49 S. E. 312,
§ li)T KOADS AJSD STEEETS. 363
no controversy in this State." ** Doubtless there would be no
question about the correctness of these propositions in any State,
unless there were constitutional provisions in the way. The
power to vacate and close public streets is as necessary for the
public good as the power to establish them, in order that the
public may be relieved from the expense of maintaining useless
streets and highways and from liability for their non-repair or
defective condition, and in order also that, though the ways are
not useless, the space occupied by them may be devoted to more
pressing public needs, or that improvements for the public safety
and welfare may be carried out.^'' It of course follows from
what has already been said that a municipal corporation or
local body cannot vacate or discontinue a street or highway un-
less authorized to do so by the legislature and then only in the
manner and to the extent that the law provides.^"
§ 197. Right to compensation for the vacation or clos-
ing of streets. General principles. When a street is va-
cated or closed by statutory authority, the right of any person
damaged thereby to compensation depends upon the consti-
tution or upon some statute making provision therefor. In
many of the States there are statutes which provide for compen-
sation in such cases.*^ If there is no statute giving compensa^
104 Am. St. Rep. 156; Smith v. Ma- 95; State v. Snedecker, 30 N. J. L.
con, 129 Ga. 227, 58 S. E. 713 ; Meyer 80. Most of the cases hereafter cited
V. Teutopolis, 131 111. 552, 23 N. E. in this chapter are authority for
651; Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; this point.
McLachlau v. Gray, 105 la. 259, 74 3 6Macintosh v. Nome, 1 Alaska,
N. W. 773 ; Leavenworth v. Douglass, 492 ; Texarkana v. Leach, 66 Ark.
59 Kan. 416, 53 Pac. 123; State v. 40, 48 S. W. 807, 74 Am. St. Eep.
Board of Park Comrs., 100 Minn. 68; Cromwell v. Brown, 50 Conn.
150, 110 N. W. 1121, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 470; Marietta Chair Co. v. Hen-
1045 ; Coster V. Albany, 43 N. Y. 399 ; derson, 121 Ga. 399, 49 S. E. 312, 104
Fearing v. Irwin, 55 N. Y. 486; Am. St. Eep. 156; Coker v. Atlanta
Beatty v. Kinnear Mfg. Co., 21 etc. Ry. Co., 123 Ga. 483, 51 S. E.
Ohio C. C. 384; McGee's Appeal, 481; Louisville v. Bannon, 99 Ky. 74,
114 Pa. St. 470, 8 Atl. 237; Poni- 35 S. W. 120; Miller v. Corinna, 42
schil V. Hoquiam Sash & Door Co., Minn. 391, 44 N. W. 127; Coleman v.
41 Wash. 303, 83 Pac. 316; Arm- Holden, 88 Miss. 798, 41 So. 374;
strong V. County Court, 54 W. Va. I«ighton v. Concord etc. R. R. Co.,
503, 46 S. E. 131. 72 N. H. 224, 55 Atl. 938.
= 4Polack V. S. F. Orphan Asylum, s'/See East St. Louis v. O'Flynn,
48 Cal. 490, 492. 119 111. 200, 10 N. E. 395, 59 Am.
ssLevee District v. Farmer, 101 Rep. 795; Parker v. Catholic Bishop,
Cal. 178, 35 Pac. 569, 23 L.R.A. 388; 146 111. 158, 34 N. E. 473, afjlrming
Coffey County v. Venard, 10 Kan. S. C. 41 111. App. 74; Butterworth
364 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 197
tion, then the right must be derived from the constitution, if at
all. Some constitutions provide only for compensation "when
property is taken for public use, -while others provide also for
compensation when property is damaged or injured for public
use.** The statutes which provide for compensation are usu-
ally general in their terms and the same in phrase and legal ef-
fect as the constitutional provisions last referred to. The right
to compensation therefor, when property is claimed to be in-
jured by the vacation or closing of a street, will depend upon
whether the injury complained of is a taking within the con-
stitution or whether it is damage or injury within the meaning of
the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to. There
is a taking if any private right appurtenant to the property in
question is destroyed or interfered with, otherwise not.** Such
destruction or injury to private rights would also be damage
or injury within the meaning of those words as used in constitu-
tions and statutes.*" But they include something more and are
generally held to embrace damages that are special and peculiar
to the plaintiff or which would be actionable but for the statu-
tory authority.*^ If a street is closed or obstructed without
statutory authority the act is a public nuisance. The right of
any particular person to recover for injury to his property by
such a nuisance will depend upon whether his damage is special
and peculiar within the meaning of the law.
It is thus manifest that the principal questions which arise
in connection with the vacation and closing of streets and upon
which the right to relief depends, are what private "rights" exist
V. Bartlett, 50 Ind. 537; Cook v. Petition of Concord, 50 N. H. 530;
Quick, 127 Ind. 477, 26 N. E. 1007; Matter of New York, 28 App. Div.
Brady v. Shinkle, 40 la. 576 ; Hicks 143 ; Matter of Morris Ave., 56 App.
V. Ward, 69 Me. 436; Smith v. Bos- Div. 122, 67 N. Y. S. 603; Matter of
ton, 7 Gush. 234; Nichols v. Rich- Vanderbilt Ave., 95 App. Div. 533,
mond, 162 Mass. 170, 33 N. E. 501; 88 N. Y. S. 769; Blackvvell etc. Ry.
Kimball v. Homan, 74 Mich. 699, 42 Co. v. Gist, 18 Okl. 516, 90 Pae. 889;
N. W. 167 ; Buhl v. Fort St. Union In re Melon St., 182 Pa. St. 397, 38
Depot Co., 98 Mich. 596, 57 N. W. Atl. 482, 28 L.R.A. 275; Ruscomb
829, 23 L.R.A. 392, 9 Am. R. R. & St., 30 Pa. Super. Ct. 476; Attorney
Corp. Rep. 173 ; In re Big Hollow General v. Sherry, 20 R. I. 43, 37 Atl.
Road, 111 Mo. 326, 19 S. W. 947; 43.
Heinrich v. St. Louis, 125 Mo. 424, iiAnte, §§ 15-61.
28 S. W. 626, 46 Am. St. Rep. 490; soAnte, § 65.
Lindsay v. Omaha, 30 Neb. 512, 46 i^Fost, § 362.
N. W. 627, 27 Am. St. Rep. 415; 4iPosf, §§ 363, 364.
§ 198 EOADS AND STREETS. 365
in the street and what constitutes special damage. These ques-
tions will be next considered.
§ 198. Private rights in streets and highways. This
subject has already been considered in the earlier sections of
this chapter,*^ but more with reference to the rights of an abut-
ting owner in the street in front of his property or immediately
adjacent thereto. Some further considerations seem necessary
with special reference to the subject in hand and to the rights
of such owners in the street beyond their lot lines and in neigh-
boring streets upon which they do not abut. Highways and
streets may be established in three ways: by dedication; by
prescription ; and by condemnation. The most common form of
dedication is that by plat. The effect of platting a tract of
ground and of selling lots with reference to such plat, is thus
stated by the editor of Smith's Leading Cases in a passage often
quoted : "If the owner of land lays out and establishes a town,
and makes and exhibits a plan of the town, with various plats of
spare ground, such as streets, alleys, quays, etc., and sells the
lots with clear reference to that plan, the purchasers of lots ac-
quire, as appurtenant to their lots, every easement, privilege
and advantage which the plan represents as belonging to them as
a part of the town, or to their owners as citizens of the town.
And the right thus passing to the purchaser is not the mere
right that such purchaser may use these streets, or other public
places, according to their appropriate purposes, but a right
vesting in the purchasers, that all persons whatever, as their
occasion may require or invite, may so use them ; in other words,
the sale and conveyance of lots in the town, and according to
its plan, imply a grant or covenant to the purchasers, that the
streets and other public places, indicated as such upon the plan,
shall be forever open to the use of the public, free from all claims
or interference of the proprietor inconsistent with such use." *^
The correctness of this statement is attested by many cases
which have laid down the law in similar language.** Accord-
ing to some authorities each purchaser under the plat acquires
i'Ante, §§ 120 et seq. 106; Wiekliffe v. Lexington, 11 B.
■132 Smith's Leading Cases, 7tli Mon. 163. The passage is quoted
Am. Ed. p. 154, citing Rowan v. and approved in Zearing v. Eaber, 74
Portland, 8 B. Mon. 232, 237; Bow- III. 409, 411, 412 and Earl v. Chica-
ling Green v. Hobsen, 3 B. Mon. 478, go, 136 111. 277, 285, 280.
481; Huber v. Gazley, 18 Ohio 18; 44Chambers v. Talladega Real Est.
Dummer v. Jersey City, Spencer, 86, & L. Ass., 126 Ala. 290, 28 So. 636;
366
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 198
the right to have all the streets and alleys laid down on the plat
kept open and to that extent has a private right in each and
all of the streets and alleys on the subdivision.*^ But the
prevailing rule is that the purchaser of a lot according to a plat
acquires an easement only in such streets and alleys laid down
on the plat as are necessary for the reasonable and convenient
enjoyment of the lot conveyed.*^ This rule fixes no precise
McLean v. Llewellyn Iron Works, 2
Cal. App. 346, 83 Pac. 1082, 1085;
Elsendrath v. Chicago, 192 111. 320,
61 N. E. 419; Thompson v. Maloney,
199 111. 276, 65 N. E. 236, 93 Am.
St. Rep. 133; Russell v. Lincoln,
200 111. 511, 65 N. E. 1088; Russell
V. Chicago etc. Elec. Ry. Co., 205 111.
155, 68 N. E. 727; Indianapolis v.
Cross, 7 Ind. 9; Rowan v. Portland,
8 B. Mon. 232 ; Winter v. Payne, 33
ria. 470, 15 So. 211 ; Porter v. Car-
penter, 39 Fla. 14, 21 So. 788; Price
V. Stratton, 45 Fla. 535, 33 So. 644;
Horton v. Williams, 99 Mich. 423,
58 N. W. 369; Longworth v. Sede-
vic, 165 Mo. 221, 65 S. W. 260; Tay-
lor V. Hopper, 62 N. Y. 649; Clean
V. Steyner, 135 N. Y. 341, 32 N. E.
9; Lord V. Atkins, 138 N. Y. 184, 33
N. E. 1035; Matter of Adams, 141
N. Y. 297, 36 N. E. 318; Kerrigan
V. Backus, 69 App. Div. 329, 74 N.
Y. S. 906 ; Collins v. BuflFalo Furnace
Co., 73 App. Div. 22, 76 N. Y. S.
420; Smith v. Smith, 120 App. Div.
278, 104 N. Y. S. 1106; Moose v. Car-
son, 104 N. C. 431, 10 S. E. 689;
Ermentrout v. Stitzel, 170 Pa. St,
540, 33 Atl. 109; Fereday v. Manke-
dick, 172 Pa. St. 535, 34 Atl. 46;
Quicksall v. Philadelphia, 177 Pa.
St. 301, 35 Atl. 609; Higgins v.
Sharon, 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 92; Common-
wealth V. Shoemaker, 14 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 194, 202; Witman v. Smeltzer,
16 Pa. Supr. 285 ; Smith v. Union S.
& S. Co;, 17 Pa. Supr. Ct. 444; Cbr-
sicana v. Zorn, 97. Tex. 317, 78 S.
W. 924; McFarland v. Lendekugel,
107 Wis. 474. 83 N. W. 757. See
Barr v. Oskaloosa, 45 la. 275; Kim-
ball V. Kenosha, 4 Wis. 321.
iBIndianapolis v. Kingsbury, 101
Ind. 200, 51 Am. Rep. 749; Hall v.
Breyfogle, 162 Ind. 494, 70 N. E.
883; Collins v. Asheville Land Co.,
128 TSr. C. 563, 39 S. E. 21, 83 Am.
St. Rep. 720; Cook v. Totten, 49 W.
Va. 177, 38 S. E. 491, 87 Am. St.
Rep. 792. And see South Western
State Normal School's Case, 213 Pa.
St. 244, 62 Atl. 908.
4 6Roberts v. Mathews, 137 Ala.
523, 34 So. 624, 97 Am. St. Rep. 56;
Field V. Barling, 149 111. 556, 37 N.
E. 850, 41 Am. St. Rep: 311, 10 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 707; Highbarger
V. Milford, 71 Kan. 331, 80 Pac. 633;
Rodgers v. Parker, 9 Gray, 445; Fox
V. Union Sugar Co., 109 Mass. 292;
Regan v. Boston Gas Lt. Co., 137
Mass. 37; Pearson v. Allen, 151
Mass. 79, 23 N. E. 731, 21 Am. St.
Rep. 426 ; Diamond Match Co. v. On-
tonagon, 72 Mich. 249, 40 N. W. 448 ;
Horton v. Williams, 99 Mich. 423,
58 N. W. 369; Dodge v. Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 351;
S. C. affirmed on opinion below, 45
N. J. Eq. 368; Taylor v. Hopper, 62
N. Y. 649; Kerrigan v. Backus, 69
App. Div. 329, 74 N. Y. S. 906^ Mad-
den V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 21
Ohio C. C. 73; Ermentrput. v. Stjtzel,
170.Pa. St. 540, 33 Atl. 109; Fereday
V. Mankedick, 172 Pa. St. 535, 34 Atl.
46; Garvey. v. Harbison-Walker Re-
fractories Co., 213 Pa. St. 177, 62
Atl. 778; Johnston v. Old Colony R.
R. Co., 18 R. I. 642, 29 Atl. 549, 49
Am. St. Rep. 800; State v. Hamilton,
§ 198 EOADS AND STREETS. 367
limit to the private rights acquired but the reasonable applica-
tion of the rule would include such streets and parts of streets
as give value to the lot and the loss of which would render the
lot less valuable to use or sell. The grant, according to well
recognized principles, should be construed in favor of the pur-
chaser and he should be held to acquire all that is fairly neces-
sary for the enjoyment of the property conveyed. Some cases
hold that the purchaser acquires the right to have the street
on which his property abuts kept open to the next connecting
street in each direction and no farther.*^
Where two or more owning adjoining tracts in severalty
united in platting the same, it was held that a purchaser from
one acquired no right in the streets laid down on the plat, except
such parts of the streets as were on the land of his grantor.**
But it would seem that by uniting in the plat the proprietors
agreed to represent and treat the plat as a unit and that a pur-
chaser from any one should get the same rights in the streets as
though all belonged to one person. If this result could not be
worked out on the basis of a grant it might on that of estoppel.
When the owner of a tract plats his property and makes the
streets continuous with those in an older and adjoining plat, the
purchaser of a lot in the former is held to get no private right
to the streets in the latter.*®
A street may be dedicated by grants of land describing it as
a boundary and in such case there is an implied covenant that
109 Tenn. 276, 70 S. W. 619. In the son of an obstruction to such street
last case it is said that the true rule or way."
is laid down in Jones on Easements, 4 7Hawlcy v. Baltimore, 33 Md.
§ 347, as follows: "When land is 270; Baltimore v. Frick, 82 Md. 77;
sold by reference to a plan upon Canton Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md.
which several streets and avenues 69; Glasgow v. St. Louis, 107 Mo.
are laid out, the grantee does not • 198, 17 S. W. 743, S Am. E. R. &
necessarily acquire an easement in Corp. Rep. 192; Matter of Twenty
all such streets or ways. He ac- Ninth bt., 1 Hill 189; Eeis v. New
quires an easement in the street or York, 188 N. Y. 58, 80 N. E; 573,
way upon which his lot is .situated, affirming S. C. 113 App. Div. 464,
and in such other streets or ways 99 N. Y. S. 291.
as are necessary or convenient to <8Patterson v. Duluth, 21 Minn.
enable him to reach a highway. He 493.
acquires no easement in a street or . 4 9K;imballv. Homan, 74 Mich. 699,
way which his land does not touch, 42 N. W. 167. And see Shauburt v.
and which does not lead to a high- St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 21 Minn. 502.
way; and he is not entitled to an But the principle of estoppel might
injunction or other remedy by rea- apply here in some cases.
368 ' eminejst domain. § 198
there is sucb a way, that, so far as the grantor is concerned
it shall be continued, that the grantee, his heirs and assigns, shall
have the benefit of it and that the grantee is entitled as purchaser
to have the space of ground left open forever as a street, and
to the right of using the way for every purpose that may be usual
and reasonable for the accommodation of the granted premises.''"
Manifestly the grantee in such a case would get the same right
as in case of platted streets. So when land is conveyed as
bounded on a public highway of which the grantor owns the
fee and though the fee of the highway is excluded from the
grant.^^ But if the grantor does not own the fee of the high-
way his deed of land bounded thereon is held to convey no
j)rivate rights therein. ^^ Where one dedicates a highway whoily
on his own land but contiguous to the land of another, the latter
acquires no private right in the way.^^ But if the highway
was accepted and the latter should improve his property with
reference to the highway or should sell to a third party, a
right to have the way kept open might arise by estoppel.
Just what private rights abutters have in streets and high-
ways established by prescription or condemnation, it is some-
what difficult to determine. But it would seem that both the
public and those claiming the fee should be estopped from deny-
ing the existence of a private right of access and of light and
air, as to those who have purchased or improved abutting prop-
erty on the faith of the advantages afforded by the street or
highway and that this private right of access should be held
to include an outlet in both directions to the general system of
eoTeasley v. Stanton, 136 Ala. 641, Pittsburg etc. E. R. Co., 36 Pa. St.
33 So. 823, 96 Am. St. Rep. 88; 99.
Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; Louis- eiHolloway v. Southmayd, 139
ville etc. E. R. Co. v. Hennin, 14 Ky. N. Y. 390, 34 N. E. 1047; Holloway
L.E. 526; Witsonv.Gutman,79Md. '*'• Delano, 64 Hun 27; Holloway v.
405, 29 Atl. 608, 24 L.R.A. 403; Par- Delano, 64 Hun 34. See Dodge v.
ker V. Smith, 17 Mass. 413; Parker P^'^"' ^- ^- ^°-' *^ ^- J- ^1- 351;
y. Framingham, 8 Met. 260; White ^- ^•/'^™f ' /^ ^- ^- ^l" ^*"''
^ Wheeler v. Clark, 58 N. Y. 267.
V. Tide Water Oil Co., 50 N. J. Eq.
1, 25 Atl. 199; White's Bank v.
6 2 Wheeler v. Clark, 58 N. Y. 267;
Kings County Fire Ins. Co. v. Stev-
Nichols, 64 N. Y. 65; Matter of ^^^^ ^^^ ^_ y. 411, 5 N. E. 353.
Opening Eleventh Ave., 81 N. Y. 6 3 Attorney General v. Sherry, 20
436; Davis v. Morris, 132 N. C. 435, ^ i_ 43^ 37 ^tj 344 £„( ^^^ Oliver
43 S. E. 950; In re Melon St., 182 Schlemmer Co. v. Steinman & M.
Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl. 482, 28 L.R.A. Furn. Co., 2 Ohio N. P. (N.S.) 293;
275; Clymer v. Roberts, 220 Pa. St. S. C. affirmed, 7 Ohio C. C. (N.S.)
162, 69 Atl. 548. Compare Mercer v. 468.
§ 198 EOADS AND STEEETS. 369
streets. Many cases hold that these private rights exist in
favor of every abutting owner, without considering how the
street was established or how such owner obtained title to his
property. "Every owner of ground on any street in Lexing-
ton," says the supreme court of Kentucky, "has a right, as in-
violable as it is indisputable, to the common and unobstructed
use of the contiguous highway, so far as it may be necessary
for affording him certain incidental easements and services,
and a convenient outlet to other streets. And of this right the
legislature cannot deprive him, without his consent, or a just
compensation in money. The extent of this appurtenant right,
dependent upon circumstance, may not, in a particular case,
be easily definable with mathematical precision. As far as it
exists, however, it partakes of the character of private property,
and is therefore protected by the fundamental law as property.
But it cannot, as to each proprietor of ground, be coextensive
with all the streets and alleys of the city. As a private right,
it must, like that of vicinage, be limited by its own nature and
end — ^that is chiefly by the necessity of convenient access to, and
outlet from, the ground of each proprietor." ^*
Where a street is opened or extended by condemnation and
abutting property is specially assessed for benefits on account
of the improvement, it would seem just that the payment of
such assessment should secure to the property the advantages
54Transylvania University v. Lex- v. Central I. & S. Co., 158 Ind. 218,
ington, 3 B. Mon. 25, 38 Am. Dec. 63 N. E. 302, 92 Am. St. Rep. 305,
173. "The owners of lots bordering 57 L.E.A. 508; Long v. Wilson, 119
upon a public street have an ease- la. 267, 93 N. W. 282, 97 Am. St.
ment of way in the street, in addi- Eep. 315, 60 L.R.A. 720; Hiller v.
tion to the use of it in common with Railroad Co., 28 Kan. p. 628 ; Lex-
the people generally. This addition- ington etc. R. R. Co. v. Applegate,
al right of way is private property, 8 Dana 289, 33 Am. Dec. 497 ; Gar-
within the protection of the law, as gan v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 89
much as if it were corporeal prop- Ky. 212, 12 S. W. 259; Bannin v.
erty, and cannot be taken for public Rohmeiser, 90 Ky. 48, 13 S. W. 444;
use without just compensation.'' Plumer v. Johnston, 63 Mich. 165,
Anderson v. Turbeville, 6 Coldw. 150. 29 N. W. 687; Diamond Match Co.
To same effect: Smith v. McDowell, v. Ontonagon, 72 Mich. 249, 40 N.
148 111. 51, 35 N. E. 141; Field v. W. 448; Pearsall v. Board of Super-
Barling, 149 111. 556, 37 N. E. 850, visors, 74 Mich. 558, 42 N. W. 77;
10 Am. R. E. & Corp. Rep. 707; Heinrich v. City of St. Louis, 125
World's Columbian Exposition v. Mo. 424, 28 S. W. 626; Strader v.
Brennan, 51 III. App. 128; Rensse- Cincinnati, 1 Handy, 446; Ante,
laer v. Leopold, 106 Ind. 29; O'Brien §§ 120, 121.
Em. D.— 24.
370 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 191)
paid for, wliicli are none other than the easements of access,
light and air. Some of the authorities so hold^° but others take
a different view."**
§ 199. What is special damage from the obstruction
of a street. When a specific statute gives compensation for
property damaged by the vacation or discontinuance of a street
or highway or other public work or a constitution in general
terms guarantees compensation for property damaged or injured
for public use, the rule, almost universally applied, is "that
those damages can be recovered which could have been recovered
at common law, had the acts which caused them been done
without statutory authority." ®^ Some courts hold that the
words in question mean more but we believe that none hold that
they mean less.^* When a street or highway is closed or ob-
structed without statutory authority a public nuisance is cre-
ated, and actionable damage depends upon the question of
special or peculiar injury resulting from the nuisance. One
line of cases holds that if the obstruction is not in front of the
plaintiff's property and does not cut off his access, so that he
can still get from his property to the general system of streets
and highways, then he does not suffer any special or peculiar
damage, though access in one direction may be cut off or inter-
fered with and though his property, by reason of the obstruction,
is rendered less valuable to use or to sell.®^ The reasoning is
6 5Wormser v. Brown, 72 Hun 93, and Canals v. Nashua etc. E. E. Co.,
25 N. Y. S. 553; Oliver Schlemmer 10 Cush. 385; Willard v. Cambridge,
Co. V. Steinman & M. Furn. Co., 2 3 Allen, 574; Stanwood v. Maiden,
Ohio N. P. (N.S.) 293. 157 Mass. 17, 31 N. E. 702, 16 L.E.A.
66Chicago V. Union Building Ass., 591; Shaw v. Boston etc. E. R. Co.,
102 111. 379, 397, 398, 40 Am. Eep. 159 Mass. 597, 35 N. E. 92; Daven-
598; Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union port v. Dedliam, 178 Mass. 382, 59 N.
Ey. Co., 141 Ind. 604, 39 N. E. 223, E. 1029; Davenport v. Hyde Park,
50 Am. St. Eep. 343, 34 L.E.A. 709, 178 Mass. 385, 59 N. E. 1030 ; Eobin-
11 Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 249; Kean son v. Brown, 182 Mass. 266, 65 N.
V. Elizabeth, 54 N. J. L. 462, 24 Atl. E. 377; Hyde v. Fall River, 197'
495; S. C. affirmed 55 K J. L. 337, Mass. 4; Shawburt v. St. Paul etc. E.
26 Atl. 939. See quotation from lat- E. Co., 21 Minn. 502; Eochette v.
ter case in note 34, § 121. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., 32 Minn. 201 ,
B'Stanwood v. Maiden, 157 Mass. 20 N. W. 140; Barnum v. Minn.
17, 31 N. E. 702, 16 L.R.A. 691; Transfer Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 365, 23
Coster v. Albany, 43 N. Y. 399. Minn. 538 ; Lakkie v. St. Paul etc.
6 8See post, § 365. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 438, 46 N. W. 912;
BsGuttery v. Glenn, 201 111. 275, Enders v. Friday, 78 Neb. 510; Gray
66 N. E. 305; Proprietors of Locks v. Greenville etc. Ry. Co. 59 N. J.
§ 199
EOADS AND STBEETS.
371
that the diminution in value of the property is due to the fact
that the owner or occupier of the property and those who desire
to reach or do business with him suffer delay and inconvenience
in consequence of the obstruction, that such delay and inconven-
ience are not actionable and therefore the damage to the property
which results because of such delay and inconvenience is not
actionable."" On the other hand, another line of cases holds
Eq. 372, 46 Atl. 638; Coster v. Al-
bany, 43 N. Y. 399.
The subject of special damages is
also much discussed in the following
eases which relate to the vacation
of streets and highways; Whitsett
V. Union Depot & R. E. Co., 10 Colo.
243, 15 Pac. 339; Newton v. New
York etc. E. E. Co., 72 Conn. 420,
44 Atl. 813; Chicago %. Union Bldg.
Ass., 102 111. 379, 40 Am. Eep. 598;
East St. Louis v. O'Flynii, 119 111.
200, 59 Am. Eep. 795; Dantzer v.
Indianapolis Union Ey. Co., 141 Ind.
604, 39 N. E. 223, 50 Am. St.
Rep. 343, 34 L.E.A. 769, 11 Am. E.
E. & Corp. Eep. 249; Smith v. Bos-
ton, 7 Cush. 254; Castle v. Berk-
shire, 11 Gray 26; Davis v. County
Comrs., 153 Mass. 218, 26 N. E. 848,
11 L.R.A. 750; Hammond f. County
Comrs., 154 Mass. 509, 28 N. E. 902;
Nichols V. Richmond, 162 Mass. 170,
38 N. E. 501 ; Buhl v. Fort St. Union
Depot Co., 98 Mich. 596, 57 N. W.
829, 23 L.R.A. 392; Bailey v. Culver,
84 Mo. 531, affirming 12 Mo. App.
175; Glasgow v. St. Louis, 107 Mo.
198, 17 S. W. 743, 3 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 192; Cram v. Laconia, 71
N. H. 41, 51 Atl. 635, 57 L.E.A. 282;
Kean v. Elizabeth, 54 N. J. L. 402,
24 Atl. 495 ; S. C. affirmed, 55 N. J.
L. 337, 26 Atl. 939; Kinnear Mfg.
Co. v. Beatty, 65 Ohio St. 264, 62
N. E. 341, 87 Am. St. Rep. 000, re-
versing S. C. sub. nom. Beatty v.
Kinnear Mfg. Co. 21 Ohio C. C. 384;
Ponischil v. Hoquiam S. & D. Co.,
41 Wash. 303, 83 Pac. 316; Mottman
V. Olympia, 46 Wash. 301, 88 Pac.
579; Montreal v. Drummond, L. R.
1 H. L. 384.
eolbid. See especially Proprietors
of Locks and Canals v. Nashua etc.
R. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385; Stanwood
V. Maiden, 157 Mass. 17, 31 N. E.
702, 16 L.R.A. 591 ; Cram v. Laconia,
71 N. H. 41, 51 Atl. 635, 57 L.R.A.
282. In the case first cited the court
says : "Why is the market value of
an estate, thus situated diminished?
Is it not because whenever a pur-
chaser in seeking a home, or a lot
to build one on, he perceives at a
glance that in passing from his
home to the places he will have most
occasion to frequent, he must en-
counter the inconveniences of an in-
tervening railroad, such as passing
over an embankment, danger of de-
tention by trains, exposure of child-
ren to accident, and tlie like, consid-
erations which render the houses less
eligible and attractive? Such a view
applies itself to the tastes, motives
and inducements of purchasers. Now
the inconveniences of crossing a rail-
road track, elevated or depressed,
or at grade, the possible detention
by trains, the noise and smoke and
frightening of liorses, the danger to
persons, especially to children, are
those which the whole community
suffer alike, in a greater or less de-
gree; but it cannot be contended that
every member of such community, or
even those so situated as to feel
them in a greater degree than others,
can maintain a claim against tiie
company for damages on this ac-
count. Is then the apprehension of
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 199
that if the wrongful closing or obstruction of a street impairs
access to property whereby it is diminished in value, the owner
suffers a special damage for which he may recover.®^ So if
property is depreciated in value by a structure in the street
these inconveniences, which might
tend to alarm purchasers, and deter
or discourage them from buying, a
more tenable ground to support a
claim for damages? We think not.
They are common to the whole com-
munity, to be borne by the public
in consideration of the greater pub-
lic good to be acquired." Proprie-
tors of Locks & Canals v. Nashua
etc. K. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385.
siCabbell v. Williams, 127 Ala.
320, 28 So. 405; Birmingham Ry. L.
& P. Co. V. Moran, 151 Ala. 187, 44
So. 152; Davis v. Epstein, 77 Ark.
221, 92 S. W. 19; Harvey v. Ga.
Southern etc. R. R. Co., 90 Ga. 66,
15 S. B. 783; Southern Cotton Oil
Co. V. Bull, 116 Ga. 776, 43 S. E. 52;
Savannah etc. Ry. Co. v. Gill, 118
Ga. 737, 45 S. E. 623; Chicago v.
Pulcyn, 129 111. App. 179; Danville
etc. E. R. Co. v. Tidrick, 137 111.
App. 553 ; Martin v. Marks, 154 Ind.
549, 57 N. E. 249; O'Brien v. Central
I. &S. Co., 158 Ind. 218,63 N. E. 308,
92 Am. St. Rep. 305, 57 L.R.A. 508;
Pennsylvania Co. v. Stanley, 10 Ind.
App. 421, 37 N. E. 288, 38 N. E.
421 ; Park v. C. & S. W. R. R. Co.,
43 la. 636; Dairy v. la. Cent. Ry.
Co., 113 la. 716, 84 N. W. 688;
Young v. Rothrock, 121 la. 588, 96
N. W. 1105; Dyche v. Weichselbaum,
9 Kan. App. 360, 58 Pac. 126; Rich-
ardson v. Davis, 91 Md. 390, 46 Atl.
964; Brauer v. Baltimore Refrigerat-
ing etc. Co., 99 Md. 367, 58 Atl. 21,
105 Am. St. Rep. 304, 66 L.R.A. 403 ;
Brakken v. Minneapolis etc. Ry. Co.,
29 Minn. 41, 11 N. W. 124; S. C. 31
Minn. 45, 16 N. W. 459 and 32 Minn.
425, 21 N. W. 414; Hayes v. Chicago
etc. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 349, 49 N. W.
61 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164,
53 N. W. 1072; Fitzer v. St. Paul
City Ry. Co., 105 Minn. 221, 117 N.
W. 434; Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch
brewing Co., 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W.
707, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 420;
Autenrieth v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 36 Mo. App. 254; Dries v. St.
Joseph, 98 Mo. App. 611,. 73 S. W.
723; Ellis v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
131 Mo. App. 395; Morris etc. Dredg-
ing Co. V. Jersey City, 64 N. J. L.
587, 46 Atl. 609; Buchholz v. New
York etc. R. R. Co., 148 N. Y. 640,
43 N. E. 76; Gillender v. New York,
127 App. Div. 612; Tise v. Whataker-
Harvey Co., 144 N. C. 507, 57 S. E.
210; Mellor v. Philadelphia, 160 Pa.
St. 614, 28 Atl. 991; Robbins v.
Scranton, 217 Pa. St. 577, 66 Atl.
977; Richardson v. Lone Star Salt
Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 486, 49 S. W.
647; Tilley v. Mitchell & Davis Co.,
121 Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am.
St. Rep. 1007 ; Milwaukee Boiler Co.
V. Wadham, 0. & G. Co., 126 Wis.
32, 105 N. W. 312; McCarthy v. Met.
Board of Works, L. R. 7 C. P. 508;
S. C. affirmed, L. R. 8 C. P. 191 and
L. R. 7 Eng. & I. App. 243; Cale-
donia Ry. Co. V. Walker's Trustees,
L. R. 7 App. Cas. 259; McQuade v.
The King, 7 Can. Exch. 318; Mac-
arthur v. The King, 8 Can. Exch.
245; Cook V. Bath, L. R. 6 Eq. Cas.
177.
See also the following cases which
arose out of the vacation, or at-
tempted, vacation of streets; Tex-
arkana v. Leach, 66 Ark. 40, 48 S.
W. 807, 74 Am. St. Rep. 68; Coker
v. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co., 123 Ga. 483,
51 S. E. 481 ; Chicago v. Burcky, 158
111. 103, 42 N. E. 178, 49 Am. St. Rep.
§ 199
KOADS AND STEEETS.
373
wliich obstructs the light, air or view to and from the property.®"
In case of an obstruction -which interferes with access to prop-
erty, the effect upon the property is quite distinct from the de-
lay and inconvenience which the owner suffers in consequence
of being unable to use the street. The latter is common to the
public Avhile the former is not. The right to use the public
streets and to have them kept open as a means of access to
property has a special and peculiar value to the owner of the
property, which is entirely distinct from his right to use the
streets as one of the public, and this special and peculiar inter-
est extends to so much of the streets and system of streets as are
necessary to afford convenient access to the property and as
give value thereto and when a street is closed or obstructed so
near the property as to affect its value there is an impairment
of this special and peculiar right or interest and a special and
peculiar injury results.
The matter is well put by the supreme court of Iowa in a
case which arose out of the following facts: A railroad com-
pany crossed the street near the plaintiff's property upon an
embankment which blocked the street at that point. The plain-
142, 29 L.R.A. 568; Chicago v. Webb,
102 111. App. 232; Chrisman v. Oma-
ha etc. Ry. & B. Co., 125 la. 133,
100 N. W. 63; Leavenworth etc. Ey.
Co. V. Curlan, 51 Kan. 432, 33 Pac.
297; Hayden v. Stewart, 71 Kan. 11,
80 Pac. 43; Gargan v. Louisville etc.
Ry. Co., 89 Ky. 212, 12 S. W. 259, 6
L.R.A. 340 ; Bannon v. Eohmeiser, 90
Ky. 48, 13 S. W. 444, 29 Am. St. Rep.
355 ; Van Witsen v. Gutman, 79 Md.
405, 29 Atl. 608, 24 L.R.A. 403 ; Horton
V. Williams, 99 Mich. 423, 58 N. W.
369; Dean v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co.,
137 Mich. 459, 100 N. W. 773; Van-
derburgh V. Minneapolis, 98 Minn.
329, 108 N. W. 480, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.)
741; Foust V. Penn. R. R. Co., 212
Pa. St. 213 61 Atl. 829; Walsh v.
Scranton, 23 Pa. Supr. 276 ; Hagger-
ty V. Scranton, 23 Pa. Supr. 279;
Chicago V. Baker, 86 Fed. 753, 30 C.
C. A. 364; Chicago v. Baker, 98 Fed.
830, 39 C. C. A. 318; Ante, §§ 174,
191, post, § 354.
6 2First Nat. Bank v. Tyson, 133
Ala. 459, 32 So. 144, 91 Am. St.
Rep. 46, 59 L.R.A. 399; S. C. 144
Ala. 457, 39 So. 560; Field v. Bar-
ling, 149 111. 556, 37 N. E. 850, 41 Am.
St. Rep. 311, 10 Am. R. E. & Corp.
Rep. 707; People v. Harris, 203 111.
272, 67 N. E. 785, 96 Am. St. Rep.
304; Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md.
537, 49 Atl. 629, 86 Am. St. Rep.
441, 52 L.R.A. 409; Bischof v. Mer-
chants' Nat. Bank, 75 Neb. 838, 106
N. W. 996, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 486;
Beecher v. Newark, 64 N. J. L. 475,
46 Atl. 168; S. C. affirmed 65 N. J.
L. 307, 47 Atl. 466; Ackerman v.
True, 175 N. Y. 353, 67 N. E. 629;
Ackerman v. True, 56 App. Div. 54,
66 N. Y. S. 6; McMillan v. Klaw &
Erlanger Constr. Co., 107 App. Div.
407, 95 N. Y. S. 365; Tilley v. Mit-
chell & Lewis Co., 121 Wis. 1, 98 N.
W. 969, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1007. See
Sauttee v. Utica City Nat. Bank, 45
Misc. 15, 90, N. Y. S 838.
3Y4 EMINEM-T DOMAIIT. § 199
tiff's property was lessened in value and his business damaged.
In a suit against the railroad for the damages sustained the
court aflSrmed a judgment for the plaintiff and, after discussing
the question of special damage from a public nuisance, pro-
ceeded as follows : "That the obstruction of a highway, whereby
the property of an individual is rendered less valuable as a
place of business, affords a ground of action for damage is
clearly within the principles above stated, we cannot doubt.
The right to the enjoyment of property is an individual right,
which in no manner pertains to the public; it is held distinct
and separate from the rights possessed on account of the indi-
vidual being a member of society. He travels the highway in
exercise of the rights he possesses in common with the public.
If deprived of that right he could not maintain an action.
Therefore he could base no claim for damages on the ground of
being deprived of the use of the highway by an obstruction.
But if the highway gives value to his property by affording
access thereto by himself and others, he is deprived of an indi-
vidual right to the enjoyment of property in its most useful
condition by a nuisance which obstructs travel upon it. This
illustration serves to point out the distinctions between such
injuries resulting from a nuisance for which an action will lie,
and those that are not actionable." ®*
6 3 Park V. C. & S. W. K. R. Co., ial damage and were entitled to
43 la. 636, 639. And see especially maintain the suit. The court says:
Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, "As before indicated, a person whose
53 N. W. 1072; In re Melon St., 182 lot abuts upon the particular piece
Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl. 482, 28 L.R.A. of street which is unlawfully closed
275; Tilley v. Mitchell & Lewis Co., or obstructed is universally held to
121 Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. be specially and peculiarly injured,
St. Rep. 1007. In the latter case though he may have other access to ,
the city narrowed a 60 foot street his lot; but many of the cases draw
to a 20 foot street by vacating strips an arbitrary line at this point, and
on each side, at the instance of the maintain that when the plaintiff's
defendant company which owned the lot fronts upon another part of the
property on both sides and which street no such injury is shown. Cer-
was also given permission to con- tainly the distinction is illogical,
nect its buildings by a bridge across The man whose lot fronts upon the
the unvacated part of the street. In next block may be fully as deeply
a suit by property owners in the injured in the decreased value, rent-
next and remoter blocks to restrain ability and desirability of his lot as
the obstruction of the street by the man whose lot fronts on the block
building on the vacated strip, or by which is closed. One may suffer as
erecting the connecting bridge, the great damage in his estate as the
court held that they suffered a spec- other. True there may be many
§200
EOADS AND STREETS.
375
§ 200. Vacating or closing street in front of property.
When a street or alley is vacated and closed in front of prop-
erty there is a taking of the appurtenant easements and the own-
er is entitled to compensation. •** In one of the cases cited it is
said: "It may be of no importance to the general public
whether a particular street is vacated or not. It is important to
the individual owner of abutting property that he shall be able to
get to and from his residence or business, and that the public
shall have the means of getting there for social or business
purposes. In such a case access to thoroughfares connecting his
such individual owners, but that
cannot affect individual rights.
There may be twenty or there may
be fifty of them, but if each has suf-
fered great damage to his estate by
the unlawful closing of a street, why
shall not each have his action.
Neither twenty men nor fifty men
constitute the general public. The
general public is composed of the
great mass of individuals who own
no property in the vicinity and who
may wish to pass over the street
or not, and who, if they do, simply
suffer the trifling inconvenience of
being obliged to make » circuitous
trip. The man who owns a lot in
the next block, and whose lot has
lost a great part of its value by rea-
son of the closing of the street, man-
ifestly suffers some injury different
in its nature from the mere incon-
venience suffered by the general
public. There are at least two plain-
tiffs in the present case who own
lots fronting on Eighth street — one
in the next block to the east, and the
other two blocks to the west of the
block attempted to be vacated. The
complaint alleges distinctly that the
property of each will be greatly de-
preciated in value by the proposed
vacation and occupation of the
street. We hold this to be a sufficient
allegation of special and peculiar in-
jury to entitle them to maintain an
action of this kind, and we do not
find it necessary to go further or
sritically examine the rights of the
remaining plaintiffs." pp. 7, 8.
6 4Bigelow V. Ballerino, 111 Cal.
559, 44 Pac. 307; Pennsylvania Co.
V. Bond, 202 111. 95, 66 N. E. 941;
Chicago V. Webb, 102 111. App. 232;
Long V. Wilson, 119 la. 267, 93 N.
W. 282, 97 Am. St. Rep. 315, 60
L.R.A. 720; Eidgeway v. Osceola,
(la.) 117 N. W. 974; Louisville etc.
E. R. Co. V. Hannen, 14 Ky. L. R.
526; Pearsall v. Eaton County, 71
Mich. 438, 39 N. W. 578; Pearsall v.
Eaton County, 74 Mich. 558, 42 N.
W. 77, 4 L.R.A. 193; Wendt v. Board
of Supervisors, 87 Minn. 403, 92 N.
W. 404; Laurel v. Rowell, 84 Miss.
435, 36 So. 543; Heinrich v. St.
Louis, 125 Mo. 424, 28 S. W. 626,
46 Am. St. Rep. 490; Lindsay v.
Omaha, 30 Neb. 512, 46 N. W. 627,
27 Am. St. Rep. 415; Grinnell v.
Portage Co. Comrs., 6 Ohio C. C.
(N.S.) 180; Oliver Sehlemmer Co.
V. Steinman-M. Furn. Co. 2 Ohio N.
P. (N.S.) 293; S. C. affirmed, 7 Ohio
C. C. (N.S.) 468; Pence v. Bryant,
54 W. Va. 263, 46 S. E. 275; John-
ston V. Lonstorf, 128 Wis. 17, 107 N.
W. 459. See HoUoway v. South-
mayd, 139 N. Y. 390, 34 N. E. 1047;
Holloway v. Delano, 64 Hun 27;
Same v. Same, 64 Hun 34; Pettibone
V. Hamilton, 40 Wis. 402; James v.
Darlington, 71 Wis. 173.
3T6 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 200
property with other parts of the town or city has a peculiar
A'alue to him; apart from that shared in by citizens generally,
and his right to the street as a means of enjoying the free and
convenient use of his property has a value quite as certainly as
the property itself. If this special right is of value, — and it is
of value if it increases the worth of his abutting premises, —
then it is property, regardless of the extent of such value. Sure-
ly no argument is required to demonstrate that the depriva-
tion of the use of property is to that extent the destruction of its
value. Under the allegations of the petition, then, shutting
off the approach to the plaintiff's homestead was the taking of
his property." ^^ It is no answer that the plaintiff may still use
his own half of the street or alley for the purposes of access.*®
As already shown the right of access extends to the full width
of the street."^ So one is entitled to compensation who has a
private right of way terminating on the vacated part, as the
right of way is rendered useless.®* Where land was platted so
that the only access to certain lots was over a space marked
"Public Square," and the city vacated a part of this square
so as to destroy access to the lots, the owners were held entitled
to compensation.®'
Contrary decisions have been made in " Pennsylvania'''' and
lowa.^^ In the Iowa case referred to, the plaintiff owned two
lots upon Kossuth street, in Oskaloosa. The lots and street
were platted by one White. The fee of the street was in the
public, the reversion in White. The plaintiff's lots were im-
proved, at an expense of several thousand dollars, with dwellings
occupied by tenants. The Central Railroad Company procured
a quitclaim from White, of Kossuth street, secured from the
City Council an ordinance vacating the street, and then pro-
ceeded to cut down the grade six feet and fill it with railroad
tracks constructed and used in such manner as to prevent access
to the plaintiff's premises and preclude all travel on the street
ssLong V. Wilson, 119 la. 267, Mass. 421, 67 N. E. 312; People T.
269, 93 N. W. 282, 97 Am. St. Rep. Highway Comrs., 35 Mich. 15.
315, 60 L.R.A. 720. csBorghart v. Cedar Rapids, 126
"I-Ieinrich v. St. Louis, 125 Mo. la. 313, 101 N. W. 1120, 68 L.R.A.
424, 28 S. W. 636, 46 Am. St. Rep. 306.
490. 7opaul V. Carver, 24 Pa. St. 207,
eTAnte, §§ 120, 201. 64 Am. Dec. 649.
esWebster v. I^owell, 142 Mass. 'iBarr v. Oskaloosa, 45 la. 275.
324, 8 N. E. 54; Munn v. Boston, 183
§ 201 EOADS AND STREETS. 377
by the plaintiff or the public. The value of plaintiff's property
was almost wholly destroyed. In a suit against the city and
railroad company the plaintiff set up the foregoing facts, the
defendants demurred, and the demurrer was sustained. It was
held that, on vacation of the street, the title vested in the rail-
road company under its deed from White, that plaintiff ceased
to have any rights in the soil of the street, and could no more
complain of the building of the railroad upon it than he could
if it had been built on an adjacent lot. But, according to the
great weight of authority, any interest which White had in the
street was burdened with private easements in favor of the
plaintiff^^ and even if the city was held to take an absolute fee,^*
it yet in effect invited the public to buy and improve property
on the street and should have been held estopped to deny to the
plaintiff the right to those easements which were indispensable
to the enjoyment of the property. The case has been much
cited but has been virtually overruled by the later Iowa cases
cited in this section.^*
§ 201. Narrowing street in front. It has often been
laid down as the law that one who buys property on a street
has a right to have the street kept open to its full width. '^^ It
would follow that a street could not be narrowed without com-
pensation to the abutting owner. But the authorities are not
uniform. Property was platted with a street along a river.
The legislature vacated all of the street but fifty feet adjacent
to the abutting lots. The act was held void and an owner of
one of the lots was held entitled to recover damages against one
i2Ante, §§ 120, 198. 571; Cole v. Shannon, 1 J. J. Marsh.
'SThia seems to be the law in 218; Campbell Turnpike Co. v. Dye,
Iowa. See Dempsey v. Burlington, 18 B. Mon. 761 ; Stanwood v. Mal-
66 la. 387, 24 N. W. 508; Lake City den, 157 Mass. 17, 31 N. E. 702, 16
V. Fulkerson, 122 la. 569, 98 N. W. L.R.A. 591; Nichols v. Richmond,
376; Harrington v. la. Central Ky. 162 Mass. 170, 38 N. E. 501; Nichol-
Co., 126 la. 388, 102 N. W. 139. son v. Stockett, Walker, Miss. 67 ;
''*See especially Ridgeway v. Os- I«ighton v. Concord etc. R. R. Co.,
ceola, (la.) 117 N. W. 974. See also 72 N. H. 224, 55 Atl. 938; Kakeldy
the following cases on the subject of t. Columbia etc. R. R. Co., 37 Wash,
his section: Levee District v. Far- 075, 80 Pac. 205.
mer, 101 Cal. 178, 35 Pac. 569, 23 7 5Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38;
L.R.A. 388; Marrietta Chair Co. v. White v. Tidewater Oil Co., 50 N. J.
Henderson, 121 Ga. 399, 49 S. E. 312, Eq. 1, 25 Atl. 199; Moose v. Carson,
104 Am. St. Rep. 156; Fesser v. 104 N. C. 431, 10 S. E. 689; Madden
Achenbach, 29 111. App. 373; Ells- v. Penn. R. R. Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 73;
worth V. Chickasaw County, 40 la. Ante, § 123.
378 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 202
building on the vacated part in front of his lotJ" Other cases
are to the same effect.^'' But where the north thirty-one feet
of street was vacated it was held in California that the prop-
erty on the opposite side of the street was neither taken nor
damaged within the constitution and that its owners had
no standing to contest the proceeding^* In an Iowa case
a city proposed to vacate twelve feet off the east side of
a street fifty-three and one half feet wide and give the
same to the adjacent owners on condition that they would give
a like amount off the rear of their lots to widen another street.
It was held that those on the opposite side of the street would
suffer no actionable damage and could not prevent the con-
summation of the scheme. ''*'' Where a city was laid out pursuant
to act of Congress which reserved a space along a river for pub-
lic highways and other public uses, it was held that part of the
space next the river could be devoted to railroad purposes
and that abutting owners could not prevent it.'® Where dam-
ages are given by statute when a street is vacated or discontin-
ued, the statute is held to apply to the narrowing of a street, in
favor of those abutting on the narrowed part.*" It is held that
one three blocks away from the narrowed part may not enjoin,
though his property is depreciated.*^
§ 202. Vacating or closing street so as to cut off access
to property in one direction. Whether one may recover com-
pensation when the street in front of his property is closed or
vacated between his property and the next connecting street on
one side, so as to cut off access in that direction, while leaving
access in front and in the other direction unimpaired, is one
76Haynea v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38. 427, where a 99-foot street was nar-
77Hyde V. Fall River, 197 Mass. 4; rowed by vacating 2 feet on each
Stehr V. Mason City etc. Ry. Co., 77 side. And see Patton v. Rome, 124
Neb. 641, 110 JT. W. 701; Lawrence Ga. 525, 52 S. E. 742.
V. New York, 2 Barb. 577; People v. TSaWilliams v. Gary, 73 la. 194,
Commissioners of Highways, 53 34 N. W. 813.
Barb. 70; Egerer v. New York Cent. 'sBurlington Gas Lt. Co. v. Bur-
etc. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 108, 29 N. liugton etc. R. R. Co., 91 la. 470, 59
E. 95, 14 L.R.A. 381, 5 Am. R. R. N. W. 292; S. C. affirmed 165 U. S.
& Corp. Rep. 245; Moose v. Carson, 370.
104 N. C. 431, 10 S. E. 689. soRensselaer v. Leopold, 106 Ind.
7 8Brown v. San Francisco, 124 29; Morris v. Philadelphia, 199 Pa.
Cal. 274, 57 Pac. 82. See also Mt,
Carmel v. Shaw, 155 III. 37, 39 N. E
584, 40 Am. St. Rep. 311, 27 L.R.A
580, reversing S. C. 52 111. App. 429
and Mt. Carmel v. Bell, 52 111. App
St. 357, 49 Atl. 70.
siCummings Realty & Inv. Co. v.
Deere & Co., 208 Mo. 66, 108 S. W.
496, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 822.
§ '^'^^ EOADS AI^'D STEEETS. 379
of the vexed questions of the law. A leading case on the ques-
tion is that of Smith v. Boston,®^ decided by the supreme court
of Massachusetts. The street on which the plaintiff abutted
was vacated near to but not in front of his property. He had
access in the other direction. The case was a petition for dam-
, ages under the statute, which was as follows : — "If damage shall
be sustained by any t: arson in their property, by the laying out
altering or discontinuing any highway, the commissioners shal",
estimate the amount of damage, sustained by such persons, and,
in their return, shall state the share of each separately." "In
estimating the damages sustained by any person in his prop-
erty, by the laying out, altering or discontinuing of any high-
way, the jury shall take into consideration all the damage done
to the complainant, whether by talcing his property, or by in-
juring it in any manner: and they shall also allow by way of
set-off, the benefit, if any, to the property of the complainant,
by reason of such laying out, alteration or discontinuance." ®^
The laneruage of the statute could hardly be more compreheu'
sive but the court hold that the plaintiff did not sustain dam-
age within the meaning of the statute, though his property was
depreciated in value by the discontinuance of the street. Th*
basis of the decision is that the statute contemplated actionable
damage and that the plaintiff's damage would not have been ac-
tionable, if the street had been closed without legal authority.
"The inconvenience of the petitioner is experienced by him,"
says the court, "in common with all the rest of the members
of the commimity. He may feel it more, in consequence of
the proximity of his lots and buildings ; still it is a damage
of like kind, and not in its nature peculiar or specific." ®*
This case has been approved and followed in many subsequent
cases in the same court involving similar facts^® and has
exerted a marked influence upon the law of the country. It is
now the settled doctrine in Massachusetts that property is not
827 Cuah. 254. 153 Mass. 218, 26 N. E. 848, 11
8 3Kev. Stats. Mass. 1836, c. 24, L.R.A. 750; Hammond v. County
§§ 11, 35. Comrs., 154 Mass. 509, 28 N. E. 902;
siSmith V. Boston, 7 Gush. 254. Stanwood v. Maiden, 157 Mass. 17,
ssproprietors of Locks & Canals 31 N. E. 702, 16 L.R.A. 591; Nicliols
V. Nashua etc. K. R. Co., 10 Gush. v. Richmond, 162 Mass. 170, 38 N.
385 ; Castle v. Berkshire, 11 Gray E. 501 ; Putnam v. Boston etc. R. R.
26; Hartshorn v. South Reading, Co., 182 Mass. 351, 65 N. E. 790:
3 Allen, 501 ; Willard v. Cambridge, Hyde v. Fall River, 189 Mass. 439,
3 AUen 574; Davis v. County Comrs., 75 N. E. 953, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 269-
380
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 202
damaged within the statute by the vacation of a street or high-
way, unless it abuts upon the part of the street vacated or i? cut
oiT altogether from the general system of highways. T'le doc-
trine is admitted to be harsh in some cases but is adhered to as
affording a definite and practical rule and on the groimd of
sta"e decisis and the acquiescence of the legislature.*® Many
otlier courts follow the Massachusetts doctrine and hold that,
when access to property is cut off in one direction by the vaea-
t'on or closing of the street upon which it abuts but may be
had in the other direction, the property is not tiJien or damaged
within the meaning of constitutions or statutes giving comp en-
sation.*^
On the other hand there are many cases which 'hold a co:i-
+rary doctrine. A statute of Pennsylvania, local to Phila
delphia, gave comprnsatioii in general terms for damage to
property by the vacatmg of roads and streets in that city.**
8 6 "Although the doctrine may
sometimes be rather harsh in its ap-
plication to special cases, there are
sound reasons on which it rests.
The chief of these reasons are, that
to hold otherwise would be to en-
courage many trivial suits; that it
would discourage public improve-
ments if a whole neighborhood were
to be allowed to recover damages for
such injuries to their estates and
that the loss is of a kind which pur-
chasers of land must be held to have
contemplated as liable to occur, and
to have made allowance for in the
price which they paid." Davis v.
County Comrs., 153 Mass. 218, 224,
225, 26 N. E. 848, 11 L.E.A. 750.
"None of the considerations which
have been urged seem to us to war-
rant our overruling a construction of
a, statute which has been settled for
forty years, seemingly to the satis-
faction of the legislature, and
which has been followed elsewhere
by courts of the highest respectabili-
ty." Stanwood v. Maiden, 157 Mass.
17, 31 N. E. 702, 16 L.II.A. 591.
s'Newton v. New York etc. R. E.
Co., 72 Conn. 420, 44 Atl. 813; Ells
worth V. Chicasaw County, 40 la.
571; Brady v. Shinkle 40 la. 576;
Dempsey v. Burlington, 66 la. 387.
24 N. W. 508; Harrington v. Xa.
Cent. By. Co., 126 la. 388, 102
N. W. 139; Bailey v. Culver, 84 Mo.
531, affirming S. C. 12 Mo. App.
531; Cram v. Laconia, 71 N. H. 41,
51 Atl. 635, 57 L.R.A. 282; Herbert
v. Penn. E. E. Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 21 ;
Coster V. Albany, 43 N. Y. 399;
Wheeler v. Clark, 58 N. Y. 267;
Kings Co. Fire Ins. Co. v. Stevens,
101 N. Y. 411, 5 N. E. 353; Buch-
holz V. New York etc. E. E. Co., 14!:
N. Y. 640, 43 N. E. 76; Buchholz v.
New York etc. E. E. Co., 71 App.
Div. 452, 75 N. Y. S. 824; S. C.
affirmed, 177 N. Y. 550, 69 N. E.
1121; Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty, 65
Ohio St. 264, 62 N. E. 341, 87 Am.
St. Rep. 600, reversing S. C. 21
Ohio C. C. 384; Scrutchfield v. Choc-
taw etc. E. E. Co., 18 Okl. 308, 88
Pac. 1048, 9 L.E.A.(N.S.) 496; Pon-
ischil V. Hoquiam S. & D. Co., 41
Wash. 303, 83 Pac. 316; Montreal v.
Drummond, L. E. 1 H. L. 384.
8 8The statute was as follows:
"That it shall be the duty of juries
§ 202 EOADS AND STEEETS. 381
lu a case under the statute, the plaintiff owned property on
Melon street in the block between 9th and 10th streets. A
part of Melon street was closed next to 9th street, leaving the
plaintiff upon a cul de sac. He was cut off from 9th street
but the street in front of his property was undisturbed and he
had access to the general system of streets, via 10th street as
before. His property was depreciated and it was held that he
was entitled to recover. The court says: "Where the part
of a street in front of a property is vacated the owner's right to
compensation is conceded, but the right is denied unless there
is an actual vacation and closing of the part of the street on
which the property abuts. It is evident, however, that without
the impairment of the owner's outlet in one direction his prop-
erty may be rendered entirely worthless by a change in the
physical condition of a street. To draw the line between own-
ers who may and owners who may not recover, at the point
where the deprivation of access is total, is to draw it arbitrarily.
The abutting owner's special right in a street as a means of
access to his property is not limited to the part of the street
on which his property abuts. Such a limitation of his right
would deny him compensation if all of the street except that
part immediately in front if his property were vacated. His
right is the right of access in any direction which the street
pennits. As affecting this right no distinction can be drawn
between a partial and a total deprivation of access ; the impair-
ment of the right is a legal injury differing in degree only from
its total destruction. If the street is vacated on both sides of
his property so as to cut him off from other streets, his means
of access is as effectually destroyed as if the entire street were
vacated. If the street is vacated on one side only and his prop-
erty is left at the end of a cul de sac, if the street is decreased in
width so as to be impassable to vehicles; or if one means of
access is taken away by the closing of a back street or alley, his
injury may be less, but the difference is one of degree only. In
either case he has sustained a loss by the destruction of an im-
portant element in the market value of his property, and he has
selected to assess damages for the second, to ascertain and apportion
opening, widening or vacating of the same among and against such
roads or streets, within said city, to owners of land as shall be benefited
ascertain and report to the court: by such opening, widening or vacat-
first, what damages the parties ing any such road or street" — P. L.
claiming the same are entitled to; 18.58, p. 385.
382
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 202
been injured in a legal sense." *' This view is also supported
by many decisions in Pennsylvania and other states involving
similar facts.®" In Illinois vrhere the plaintiff's property abut-
ted upon an alley ■which was vacated and closed at one end but
a new alley at right angles was opened to a connecting alley, so
that the plaintiff could use the alley in front of his property
as before but would have to go further to reach certain points,
it was held that the plaintiff's property, though depreciated,
was not taken or damaged for pijblic use."^ But where the
plaintiff's property was on the corner of Sixty-first and Stat^
streets in Chicago and Sixty-first street was vacated just beyond
the line of his property, it was held that the plaintiff could re-
cover for the depreciation of his property.®^ This and other
8 9In re Melon St., 182 Pa. St. 397,
403, 404, 38 Atl. 482, 28 L.K.A. 275,
reversing S. C. 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 63.
soO'Brien v. Central I. & S. Co.,
158 Ind. 218, 63 N. E. 302, 92 Am.
St. Rep. 305, 57 L.E.A. 508; Penn-
sylvania Co. V. Stanley, 10 Ind. App.
421, 37 N. E. 288, 38 K. E. 421;
lieavenworth etc. Ry. Co. v. Curlan,
51 Kan. 432, 33 Pac. 297; Hayden
V. Stewart, 71 Kan. 11, 80 Pac. 43;
Highbarger v. Milford, 71 Kan. 331,
80 Pac. 633; Louisville etc. R. R.
Co. V. Finly, 86 Ky. 294, 5 S. W.
753; Gargan v. Louisville etc. Ey.
Co., 89 Ky. 212, 12 S. W. 259, 6
L.R.A. 340; Martin v. Louisville, 97
Ky. 30, 29 S. W. 864; Bannon v.
Rohmeier, 90 Ky. 48, 13 S. W. 444,
29 Am. St. Rep. 355; Louisville v.
Bannon, 99 Ky. 74, 35 S. W. 120;
Van Witsen v. Gutman, 79 Md. 405, 29
Atl. 608, 24 L.E.A. 403; Goss v.
Highway Commissioner, 63 Mich.
608, 30 N. W. 197; Horton v. Wil-
liams, 99 Mich. 423, 58 N. W. 369;
Dean v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 137
Mich. 459, 100 N. W. 773; Kaje v.
Chicago etc. Ry. Co. 57 Minn. 422,
59 N. W. 493; Vanderburgh v.
Minneapolis, 98 Minn. 329, 108 N.
W. 480, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 741; Dries
V. St. Joseph, 98 Mo. App. 611, 73
S. W. 723; Mellor v. Philadelphia,
160 Pa. St. 614, 28 Atl. 991; Foust
V. Pa. R. R. Co., 212 Pa. St. 213,
61 Atl. 829; Robbins v. Scranton,
217 Pa. St. 577, 66 Atl. 977; Walsh
V. Scranton, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 276;
Haggerty v. Scranton, 23 Pa. Super.
Ct. 279; Ruscomb St., 33 Pa.
Super. Ct. 148; S. C. 30 Pa. Super.
Ct. 476; Black v. Pittsburg etc. St.
Ey. Co., 34 Pa. Super. 416; John-
ston V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 18 R.
I. 642, 29 Atl. 594, 49 Am. St. Rep.
800; Tilley v. Mitchell & L. Co., 121
Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. St.
Eep. 1007; Chicago v. Baker, 86
Fed. 753, 30 C. C. A. 364; Chicago
V. Baker, 98 Fed. 830, 39 C. C. A.
318; Mason City etc. E. E. Co. v.
Wolf, 148 Fed. 961, 78 C. C. A. 589;
McQuade v. The King, 7 Can. Exch.
318; Maeartlmr v. The King, 8 Can.
Exch. 245; Cook v. Bath, L. R. 6
Eq. Cas. 177.
siParker v. Catholic Bishop, 146
111. 158, 34 N. E. 473, affcrming S. C.
41 111. App. 74.
3 2Chicago V. Burcky, 158 111. 103,
42 N. E. 178, 49 Am. St. Rep. 142,
29 L.R.A. 568, affirming S. C. under
title of Lake v. Burcky, 57 111. App.
647.
§ 203
KOADS AND STEEETS.
38?
cases place Illinois in line with the courts which hold that there
may be a recovery when access to property is cut off in one
direction by the vacation or closing of a street.®* This seems
to the writer to be the correct view and is in accordance with
previous conclusions as to rights of abutting owners and special
damage.**
§ 203. When the vacated part is beyond the next cross
street from the plaintiff's property. The cases already con-
sidered are where the vacation is in front of the plaintiff's prop-
erty or in the same block, so that his access is cut off entirely
or in one direction. The case now to be considered is where
the vacation is in the next or some remoter block and the plain-
tiff has left access in both directions to the system of streets.
To reach certain points in the direction of the vacation the
plaintiff must make a detour and this fact and the diversion
of travel and the loss of a thoroughfare depreciate the value of
his property. The decisions are nearly unanimous to the effect
that in such case the plaintiff's property is not taken or damaged
and that he cannot prevent the closing of the street or recover
damages therefor.®^ While this conclusion may be correct so
9 3Rigney v. Chicago, 102 111. 64;
Winnetka y. Clifford, 201 111. 475,
66 N. E. 384; Chicago v. Pulcyn,
129 111. App. 179 ; Danville etc. R. R.
Co. V. Tidrick, 137 111. App. 553.
SiSee ante, §§ 197, 199. When
a street is wrongfully closed or ob-
structed so as to cut off access to
property in one direction there is
special damage and a right of re-
covery. Birmingham Ry. L. & P.
Co. V. Moran, 151 Ala. 187, 44 So.
152; Texarkana v. Leach, 60 Ark.
40, 48 S. W. 807, 74 Am. St. Rep.
68; Park v. C. & S. W. R. R. Co.,
43 la. 636; Dairy v. la. Cent. Ry.
Co., 113 la. 716, 84 N. W. 688; Van-
deburgh v. Minneapolis, 93 Minn. 81,
100 N. W. 668; Glaessner v. Anheu-
ser-Busch Brew. Co., 100 Mo. 508,
13 S. W. 707, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 420; Longworth v. Sedevic, 165
Mo. 221, 65 S. W. 260: And see
Commissioners of Highways v.
Quinn, 136 111. 604, 27 N. E. 186;
Taylor v. Commissioners of High-
ways, 88 111. 526; Whitman v.
Comrs. of Highways, 96 111. 292;
Petition of Concord, 50 N. H. 530;
Buchholz v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 148 N. Y. 640, 43 N. E. 76;
Buchholz V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
71 App. Div. 452, 75 N. Y. S. 824;
S. C. affirmed, 177 N. Y. 550, 69 N.
E. 1121.
ssDennis v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co.,
137 Ala. 649, 35 So. 30, 97 Am. St.
Rep. 69; Little Rock etc. R. R. Co.
V. Newman, 73 Ark. 1, 83 S. W. 653,
108 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; Polack v. S. F.
Orphan Asylum, 48 Cal. 490; Sy-
mons V. San Francisco, 115 Cal. 555,
42 Pac. 913, 47 Pac. 453; Whit-
sett V. Union Depot & R. R. Co.,
10 Colo. 243, 15 Pac. 339; Chicago
Union Bldg. Ass., 102 111. 379, 40
Am. Rep. 598 ; East St. Louis v. 0'-
Flynn, 119 111. 200, 59 Am. Rep.
795; Guttery v. Glenn, 201 111. 275,
66 N. E. 305; Dantzer v. Indian-
384
EMINENT DOMAIIT.
§ 204
far as the question of a taking is concerned, its correctness may
be questioned when, by virtue of the constitution or a statute,
compensation is given for property damaged or injured.""
§ 204. When the property is cut off entirely, though
street is left intact in front. By the vacation or closing of
apolis Union Ry. Co., 141 Ind. 604,
39 N. E. 223, 50 Am. St. Rep. 343,
34 L.R.A. 769, 11 Am. R. K. & Corp.
Rep. 249; Hall v. Lebanon, 31 Ind.
App. 265, 67 N. E. 703; Gray v.
Iowa Laud Co., 26 la. 387; Mo-
Lachlan v. Gray, 105 la. 259, 74 N.
W. 773; Hiller v. Atchison etc. R. R.
Co., 28 Kan. 625; Arnold v. Weiker,
55 Kan. 510, 40 Pac. 901; Leaven-
worth V. Douglass, 59 Kan. 416, 53
Pac. 123; Cole v. Shannon, 1 J. J.
Marsh. 218; Pearson v. Allen, 151
Mass. 79, 23 N. E. 731, 21 Am. St.
Rep. 426; Putnam v. Boston etc.
R. R. Co., 182 Mass. 351, 65 N. E.
790; People v. Ingham Co., 20 Mich.
95; Kimball v. Homan, 74 Mich. 699,
42 N. W. 167; Buhl v. Fort St. Un-
ion Depot Co., 98 Mich. 596, 57 N.
W. 829, 23 L.R.A. 392, 9 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 173 ; Baudistel v. Jack-
son, 110 Mich. 357, 68 N. W. 292;
Baudistel v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co.,
113 Mich. 687, 71 N. W. 1114; Beu-
tel V. West Bay City Sugar Co.,
132 Mich. 587, 94 N. W. 202; Glas-
gow V. St. Louis, 107 Mo. 198, 17
S. W. 743, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 192; Knapp, Stout & Co. v. St.
Louis, 153 Mo. 560, 55 S. W. 104;
Knapp, Stout & Co. v. St. Louis, 156
Mo. 343, 56 S. W. 1102; Cummings
Realty & Inv. Co. v. Deere & Co.,
208 Mo. 66, 106 S. W. 496, 14 L.R.A.
(N. S.) 822; Dodge v. Penn. R. R.
Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 351 ; S. C. affirmed,
45 N. J. Eq. 366; Kean v. Elizabeth,
54 N. J. L. 462, 24 Atl. 495; S. C.
affirmed, 55 N. J. L. 337, 26 Atl.
939; Fearing v. Irwin, 55 N. Y. 486;
Matter of Grade Crossing Comrs.,
160 N. Y. 69, 59 N. E. 706 ; Reis v.
New York, 188 N. Y. 58, 80 N. E.
573, affirming S. C. 113 App. Div.
464, 99 N. Y. S. 291; McGee's Ap-
peal, 114 Pa. St. 470, 8 Atl. 237;
Cherry v. Rock Hill, 48 S. C. 553,
26 S. E. 798; State v. Taylor, 107
Tenn. 455, 64 S. W. 766; Smith v.
St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 39 Wash. 355,
81 Pac. 840, 1(J9 Am. St. Rep. 889,
70 L.R.A. 1018; Mottman v. Olym-
pia, 45 Wash. 361, 88 Pae. 579;
Kimball v. Kenosha, 4 Wis. 321;
Tilley v. Mitchell & Lewis Co., 121
Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. St.
Rep. 1007.
The following, though not cases of
vacation, are to the same effect:
Davenport v. Dedham, 178 Mass.
382, 59 N. E. 1029; Davenport v.
Hyde Park, 178 Mass. 385, 59 N. E.
1030; Patterson v. Duluth, 21 Minn.
493; Rochette v. Chicago etc. Ry.
Co., 32 Minn. 201, 20 N. W. 140;
Lakkie v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 44
Minn. 438, 46 N. W. 912; Shaubut
v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 21 Minn.
502; Barnum v. Minn. Transfer Ry.
Co., 33 Minn. 365, 23 N. W. 538;
Schuster v. Lemond, 27 Minn. 253,
6 N. W. 802; State v. Barton, 36
Minn. 145, 30 N. W. 454; State v.
Holman, 40 Minn. 369, 41 N. W.
1073; Gray v. Greenville etc. Ry. Co.,
59 N. J. Eq. 372, 46 Atl. 638; In
re C- N. 0. & S. P. Ry. Co., 19 Ohio
C. C. 308.
sofifee post, §§ 353, 354, 363.
Coker v. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co., 123
Ga. 483, 51 S. E. 481; Glasgow v.
St. Louis, 87 Mo. 678, affirming 15
Mo. App. 112; Madden v. Penn. Ry.
Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 73.
§ 204 EOADS AND STEEETS. 385
part of a street, property may be cut off altogether from access
to the general system of streets, though the street in front of
the propery remains open as before. It is pretty generally held
that in such case the owner of the property so isolated is en-
titled to compensation, either under the constitution or statute.®^
The Massachusetts court, which enforces a very strict rule of
liability as against the property owner, in cases of the vacation,
closing or obstruction of streets, says: "Ordinarily on discon-
tinuance of a street, only those persons whose property abuts
on the part discontinued, suffer special and peculiar damages.
Commonly such persons are the only ones whose property is
cut off from access to the world outside. If this access is only
made less convenient by the necessity of using some other part
of the highway, instead of the part discontinued, their incon-
venience in that particular is of the same kind as that of the
public generally. But if their access to their property to the
general system of public highways of the city or town is cut off
altogether the case is different. It has repeatedly been recog-
nized that in such a case they may suffer special and peculiar
damages. * * * It never has been held that one whose
access to a general system of public streets in a city or town
is entirely cut off, suffers only the same kind of damage by the
discontinuance of a street as one of the public who is merely
obliged to travel further through public streets to reach his
destination." ®®
svButterworth v. Eartlett, 50 Ind. etc. Ey. Co., 32 Minn. 425, 21 N. W.
537; Cook v. Quick, 127 Ind. 477, 26 414; Hayes v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co.,
N. E. 1007; MacGinnitie v. Silvers, 46 Minn. 349, 49 N. W. 61; Auten-
167 Ind. 321, 78 N. E. 1013 ; Putnam rieth v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 36
V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 182 Mass. Mo. App. 254.
351, 65 N. E. 790 ; Plummer v. John- The contrary is held in the follow-
ston, 63 Mich. 165, 29 N. W. 687; ing cases where country roads were
McQuigg V. Cullins, 56 Ohio St. 649, discontinued or closed. Atwood v.
47 N. E. 595; Strader v. Cincinnati, Partree, 56 Conn. 80; Campbell
1 Handy 446; Mellor v. Philadel- Turnpilce Co. v. Dye, 18 B. Mon. 761.
phia, 160 Pa. St. 614, 28 Atl. 991; ssputnam v. Boston etc. R. R.
Smith V. Mitchell, 21 Wash. 536, 58 Co., 182 Mass. 351, 354, 65 N. E.
Pac. 667, 75 Am. St. Rep. 858. 790. Where a street was wrongfully
To the same effect, though not obstructed by private parties so as
cases of vacation: Brakken v. to cut off the plaintiff's outlet to
Minneapolis etc. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. the system of streets, the damage
41, 11 N. W. 124; Brakken v. Minne- was held to be actionable. Cushing-
apolis etc. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 45, 16 Wetmore Co. v. Gray, 152 Cal. 118,
N. W. 459; Brakken v. Minneapolis 92 Pac. 70. After speaking of the
Em. D.— 25.
38.6
EMINENT DOMAIN.
.§..205
§ 205. Vacation and discontinuance of country high-
ways. Some authorities make a distinction between country
highways and city streets as respects the rights of abutting own-
ers.^® But we believe the true rule to be that the legal rights
of the abutter are the same, when the mode of establishment is
the same. The question has already been sufficiently discussed.-^
A number of cases hold that where a highway is discontinued
which affords the only outlet to one's farm, or the only prac-
ticable outlet, he is entitled to compensation.^ Perhaps an equal
number hold the contrary and that the damage in such cases is
neither the taking nor damaging of property for public use.^
But where the plaintiff does not abut upon the vacated part of
the highway and is not cut off from access to a public highway,
it is generally held that he cannot recover, though he may have
to go further to reach certain points and this may affect the
right of access, the court
"This right of property is as much
invaded by obstructions which have
the eflfect of absolutely preventing
access to the premises along the
street as it is by obstructions pre-
venting access from the premises to
the street immediately in front of the
land. As to the latter, it is thor-
oughly established that the obstruc-
tion constitutes a private as well
as a public nuisance. The attempt-
ed distinction between the two cases
appears to us to be too technical to
afford a sufficient basis for a rule
granting the relief in the one case
and denying it in the other."
9 9"Xhe distinction is this: Ordin-
ary highways, or what are termed
county roads, are created by law for
the public, and the land or its use tak-
en from the owner in the first place
by paying him its value; or there
may be some times such a dedica-
tion by the individual owner and an
acceptance of the county court, as
will create this easement without
compensation. The streets of a,
town or city are acquired by grant
with the implied right of ingress
and egress to the abutting lot own-
er, the grantor, or the party making
the dedication, saying to the owners
of lots, this right of ingress and
egress you shall have. But not so
with an ordinary public road. The
state creates the easement for the
entire public; its use is that of the
public, one citizen having as much
right to this use as another, and
when its abandonment or non-use
is deemed necessary for the public
good, the county court may discon-
tinue it altogether." Bradbury v.
Walton, 94 Ky. 163, 167, 21 S. W.
869.
lAnte, § 120.
2Butterworth v. Bartlett, 50 Ind.
537; Cook v. Quick, 127 Ind. 477, 26
N. E. 1007 ; People v. Highway Com-
missioners, 35 Mich. 15; Pearsall v.
Eaton County, 71 Mich. 438, 39 N.
W. 578; Pearsall v. Eaton County,
74 Mich. 558, 42 N. W. 77, 4 L.R.A.
193 ; Wendt v. Board of Supervisors,
87 Minn. 403, 92 N. W. 404; Mc-
Quigg V. Cullins, 56 Ohio St. 649,
47 N. E. 595; Grinnell v. Portage
Co. Comrs., 6 Ohio C. C. (N. S.)
180.
sLevee District v. Farmer, 101
Cal. 178, 35 Pac. 569, 23 L.R.A. 388;
§ 206 KOADS AT^D STItEETS. 387
value of his farm.* But where a highway was discontinued
which afforded the only access to the plaintiff's farm and a new
one laid out which afforded access but which was very incon-
venient and impracticable, it was held that the new road was no
reasonable substitute for the old, that the plaintiff was en-
titled to compensation and that, as the statute provided for
none, the closure of the old road should be enjoined.^
§ 206. When damage by the vacation or closing of
streets and highways amounts to a taking. It is manifest
that when a street or highway is vacated there is no physical
interference with the possession of property. On the other
hand property is thereby relieved of a public burden, and it
would at first blush seem that property is restored instead of
taken. But assuming that the vacation or discontinuance of
a street or highway amounts to its closure, the act of vacation
destroys such private rights of passage and of light and air
as may exist in the vacated street. To the extent that si:ch
private rights are interfered with or destroyed there is a taking
of property within the constitution.'' The nature and extent
of these private rights have already been discussed. '^ They
differ in different states and with the manner in which the
street is established. ISTearly all the authorities agree that
there are such rights and that their impairment or destruction
for public use is a taking of property within the constitution.
According to the better reason and the weight of authority, there
is a taking when the street or highway upon which property
abuts is vacated and closed in front of the property or when
by the vacation and closure property is cut off from access to the
general system of streets and highways, though the street in
front remains intact.® Where by the vacation and closure of a
Ellsworth V. Chicasaw County, 40 sMeQuigg v. Culling, 56 Ohio St.
la. 571; (irove v. Allen, 92 la. 519, 649, 47 N. E. 595. See also the fol-
61 N. W. 175; Coflfey County v. lowing which relate to the discon-
Venard, 10 Kan. 95 ; Campbell Turn- tinuance of country highways ; Fes-
pike Co. v. Dye, 18 B. Mon. 761; ser v. Achenbach, 29 111. App. 373;
Bradbury v. Walton, 94 Ky. 163, 21 Goss v. Highway Comr's., 63 Mich.
S. W. 869. 608, 30 N. W. 197; Petition of Con-
4Brady v. Shinkle, 40 la. 576 ; Mc- cord, 50 N. H. 530 ; People v. Comrs.
Lachlan v. Gray, 105 la. 259, 74 N. of Highways, 53 Barb. 70.
W. 773; Cole v. Shannon, 1 J. J. «Ante, § 65.
Marsh. 218; People v. Ingham Co., lAnte, §§ 120-124, 197.
20 Mich. 95; Hamman v. County sHaynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38;
Comrs. 154 Mass. 509, 28 N. E. 902. Butterworth v. Bartlett, 50 . Ind.
388'
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 206
street access to property is cut off in one direction but remains
unimpaired in the other, the majority of courts hold there is
no taking and no constitutional right to compensation.® As'
537; Rensselsier v. Leopold, 106 Ind.
29; McGinnitie v. Silvers, 167 Ind.
321, 78 N. E. 1013; Long v. Wilson,
119 la. 267, 93 N. W. 282, 97 Am. St.
Rep. 315, 60 L.R.A. 720; Borghart
V. Cedar Rapids, 126 la. 313, 101
N. W. 1120, 68 L.R.A. 306; Leaven-
worth etc. Ry. Co. v. Curlan, 51 Kan.
432, 33 Pac. 297; Lexingtpn etc. R.
R. Co. V. Applegate, 8 Dana, Ky.
289, 33 Am. Dec. 497; Transylvania
University v. Lexington, 3 B. Mon.
25, 38 Am. Dec. 173; Louisville etc.
R. R. Co. V. Hennen, 14, Ky. L. R.
526; People v. Highway Comr., 35
Mich 15; Pluraer v. Johnston, 63
Mich. 165, 29 N. W. 687 ; Pearsall v.
Eaton Co., 71 Mich. 438, 39 N. W.
578; Pearsall v. Eaton Co. 74 Mich.
558, 42 N. W. 77, 4 L.R.A. 193; Kaje
V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 57 Minn.
422, 59 N. W. 493; Vanderburg v.
Minneapolis, 98 Minn. 329, 108 N.
W. 480, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 741; Laurel
V. Rowell, 84 Miss. 435, 36 So. 543;
Leighton v. Concord etc. R. R. Co.,
72 N. H. 224, 55 Atl. 938; Holloway
v. Southmayd, 139 N. Y. 390, 34 N.
E. 1047; Holloway v. Delano, 64
Hun 27; Holloway v. Delano, 04
Hun 34; Lawrence v. New York, 2
Barb. 577; Moose v. Carson, 104 N.
C. 431, 10 S. E. 689; McQuigg v.
Cullins, 56 Ohio St. 649, 47 N. E.
595; Strader v. Cincinnati, Handy,
446; Madden v. Pennsylvania R. R.
Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 73; Grinnell v.
Portage Co. Comrs., 6 Ohio C. C.
(N. S.) 180; Anderson v. Turbeville,
6 Coldw. 150; Johnston v. Lonstorf,
128 Wis. 17, 107 N. W. 459.
The contrary is held in Barr v.
Oskaloosa, 45 la. 275, as respects
the vacation and closing of a city
street. So in the following which
relate to country roads: Levee Dis-
trict V. Farmer, 101 Cal. 178, 35
Pac. 569, 23 L.R.A. 388; Atwood v.
Partree, 56 Conn. 80; Ellsworth v.
Chicasaw Co., 40 la. 571; Brady v.
Shinkle, 40 la. 576; Grove v. Allen,
92 la. 519, 61 N. W. 175; McLachlan
V. Gray, 105 la. 259, 74 N. W. 773;
Coffey Co. v. Venard, 10 Kan. 95;
Campbell etc. Turnpike Co. v. Dye, 18
B. Mon. 761.
9Newton v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 72 Conn. 420, 44 Atl. 813; Dant-
zer V. Indianapolis Union Ry. Co.,
141 Ind. 604, 39 N. E. 223, 50 Am.
St. Rep. 343, 34 L.R.A. 769, 11 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 249; Dempsey v.
Burlington, 66 la. 387, 24 N. W.
508; Harrington v. la. Cent. Ry.'
Co., 126 la. 388, 102 N. W. 139;
Hammond v. County Comrs., 154
Mass. 509, 28 N. E. 902; People v.
Ingham Co., 20 Mich. 95; Kimball
v. Homan, 74 Mich. 699, 42 N. W.
167; Buhl v. Fort St. Union Depot
Co., 98 Mich. 596, 57 N. W. 829, 23
L.R.A. 392, 9 Am. & Corp. Rep.
173; Bailey v. Culver, 84 Mo.
531, affirming S. C. 12 Mo. App. 531;
Cram v. Laconia, 71 N. H. 41, 51
Atl. 635, 57 L.R.A. 282; Coster v.
Albany, 43 N. Y. 399; Fearing v.
Irwin, 55 N. Y. 486; Wheeler v.
Clark, 58 N. Y. 267 ; Kings Co. Fire
Ins. Co. V. Stevens, 101 N. Y. 411, 5
N. E. 353; Buchholz v. New York
etc. R. R. Co., 71 App. Div. 452,
75 N. Y. S. 824; S. C. affirmed, 177
N. Y. 550, 69 N. E. 1121; Matter of
Grade Crossing Comrs. 166 N. Y. 69,
59 N. E. 706; Reis v. New York,
188 N. Y. 58, 80 N. E. 573, affirming
113 App. Div. 464, 99 N. Y. S. 291;
Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty, 65 Ohio
St. 264, 62 N. W. 341, 87 Am. St.
§ 206 EOADS AND STREETS. 389
the courts which hold this doctrine concede that to cut one oif
altogether from access is a taking, it follows that the right of
access is a floating right, a right of access in one direction or
the other, until it is cut off in one direction, when it becomes
a fixed and absolute right in the other. This seems a very
unreasonable position and is contrary to all the decisions in
controversies between private parties touching the rights of lot
owners in platted and dedicated streets.'" The more reason-
able rule is that the owner of a lot on a street in a city or town
has a private right of access in both directions which extends
as far, at least, as the next connecting highway. "-^ "While we
do not think," says the court in one case "that when one pur-
chases a parcel of ground bounded by a laid out and dedicated
street, in a given platted parcel of land, he thereby becomes
vested for all time with the right to travel over and along all of
the streets and alleys of such platted parcel of ground, or even
all of the streets that it would be convenient for him to use
we do think that he obtains the right to the use of such streets
as are reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the land
so purchased by him. These streets are ordinarily such as
bound the block in which his land is situated, or such as furnisli
access to his property from either direction." '^ It follows
that when access is cut off in one direction or partially by the
vacation or closing of a street, there is a taking of the private
right of access in that direction and that there is a right to com-
pensation for the damage thereby inflicted upon the property.*^
When the vacated part is beyond the next connecting highway
from the plaintiff's property, so that he has access in both
directions, there it is held by all the authorities that there is no
Eep. 600, reversing S. C. Beatty v. 71 Kan. 331, 80 Pac. 633; Louisville
Kinnear Mfg. Co., 21 Ohio C. C. etc. R. R. Co. v. Finley, 86 Ky. 294,
384; Scrutchfield v. Choctaw etc. R. 53 S. W. 753; Gargan v. Louisville
R. Co., 18 Okl. 308, 88 Pac. 1048, 9 etc. Ry. Co., 89 Ky. 212, 12 S. W.
L.R.A.(N.S.) 496; Gerhard v. See- 259, 6 L.R.A. 340; Bannon v. Roh-
konk River Bridge Comrs., 15 R. I. meier, 90 Ky. 48, 13 S. W. 444, 29
334; Cherry v. Rock Hill, 48 S. C. Am. St. Rep. 355; Louisville v. Ban-
553, 26 S. E. 798. non, 99 Ky. 74, 35 S. W. 120; VanWit-
lOSeeante, §§ 121-123, 197. sen v. Gutman, 79 Md. 405, 29 Atl.
lllhid. 608, 24 L.R.A. 403; Horton v. Wil-
i2Highbarger v. Milford, 71 Kan. liams, 99 Mich. 423, 58 N. W. 369;
331, 340, 80 Pac. 633. Tilley v. Mitchell & Levfis Co., 121
isRidgevvay v. Osceola (la.) 117 Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. St.
N. W. 974; Highbarger v. Milford, Rep. 1007.
390
EMU^ENT DOMAIN'.
§ 207
taking- of the plaintiff's property, though the closing of the
street at the point in question, renders his property Jess valu-
able, i*
§ 207. When depreciation of value from the vacation
and closing of streets amounts to damage or injury within
constitutions and statutes. When access to property is cut
off entirely by the vacation and closing of a street in front of
the property or elsewhere, there is no question but what it' is
damaged or injured within constitution and statutes giving
compensation for property damaged or injured by the vacation
and discontinuance of streets and highways.''^ So where a pri-
vate right of way is cut off or obstructed, by the vacation and
i4polack V. S. F. Orphan Asylum,
48 Cal. 490; East St. Louis v. 0'
Flynn, 119 111. 200, 59 Am. Rep.
795; Hall v. Lebanon, 31 Ind. App.
265, 67 N. E. 703; Gray v. la. Land
Co., 26 la. 387 ; Williams v. Gary, 73
la. 194, 34 N. W. 813; Hiller v.
Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 28 Kan. 625;
Arnold v. Weiker, 55 Kan. 510, 40
Pac. 901 ; Leavenworth v. Douglass,
59 Kan. 416, 53 Pac. 123; Cole v.
Shannon, 1 J. J. Marsh 218; Bau-
distel V. Jackson, 110 Mich. 357, 68
N. W. 292; Beutel v. West Bay City
Sugar Co., 132 Mich. 587, 94 N. W.
202; Dean v. Ann Arbor K. R. Co.,
137 Mich. 459, 100 N. W. 773; Her-
bert V. Penn. R. R. Co., 43 N. J. Eq.
21; Dodge v. Penn. R. R. Co., 43
N. J. Eq. 351; S. C. affirmed, 45
N., J. Eq. 366; Kean v. Elizabeth, 54
N. J. L. 462, 24 Atl. 495; S. C. af-
firmed, 55 N. J. L. 337, 26 Atl. 939 ;
In re Cincinnati etc. Ry. Co. 19
Ohio C. C. 308 ; State v. Taylor, 107
Tenn. 455, 64 S. W. 766.
isBigelow V. Ballerino, 111 Cal.
559, 44 Pac. 307; Butterworth v.
Bartlett, 50 Ind. 537 ; Cook v. Quick,
127 Ind. 477, 26 N. E. 1007; Put-
nam V. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 182
Mass. 351, 65 N. E. 790; Wendt v.
Board of Supervisors, 87 Minn. 403,
92 N. W. 404; Smith v.TVIitchell, 21
Wash. 536, 58 Pac. 667, 75 Am. St.
Rep. 858. The contrary is held with
respect to a country highway in
Levee District v. Farmer, 101 Cal.
178, 35 Pac. 569, 23 L.R.A. 388,
wherein the court says: "The crea-
tion of highways by use, or under
the statute, creates an easement for
the benefit of the public for such
time only as the public necessities
and convenience may require, and
creates no covenant or obligation in
favor of an abutter that it shall al-
ways exist; but, on the contrary, the
statutes, while providing for the es-
tablishment and maintenance of
highways, also provide for vacating
the same, and abutters must be
held to have acquired and improved
their property in view of that fact,
and hence no one can acquire a
legal interest in it other than that
which is common to all, and this
common interest the authority re-
lied upon by appellant concedes does
not entitle an abutter to damages
upon the vacation of the road. The
public use ceases upon such vaca-
tion; and any injury to appellant
consequent upon such ending of the
use cannot be held to be a, taking or
damaging for a public use." pp. 186,
187. See also Fesser v. Achenbach,
29 111. App. 373.
§207
EOADS AND STEEETS.
391
closing of tlie street witli which it connects.^* So in the case
of corner lots, if one of the streets is vacated." So if a street
is narrowed.^* It seems equally clear to the writer that prop-
erty is damaged within the meaning of the law when access
thereto is cut off in one direction, but the authorities are con-
flicting.^' Where the vacated part of the street is still more
remote from the property in question, as when it is in the next
block, or farther, or beyond the next intersecting street, it is
generally held that there is no damage or injury within the legal
16 Webster v. Lowell, 142 Mass.
324, 8 N. E. 54; Munn v. Boston,
183 Mass. 421, 67 N. E. 312; Peo-
ple V. Highway Commissioner, 35
Mich. 15.
I'Kidgeway v. Osceola (la.) 117
N. W. 974; Heinrich v. St. Louis,
125 Mo. 424, 28 S. W. 626, 46 Am.
St. Eep. 490.
isHyde v. Fall River, 197 Mass.
4; Stehr v. Mason City etc. Ky. Co.,
77 Neb. 641, 110 N. W. 701; ante,
§ 201. But in California where a
street one hundred feet wide was
narrowed by the vacation of the
north thirty one feet, it was held
that the property on the opposite
side of the street was not damaged
within the constitution. Brown v.
San Francisco, 124 Cal. 274, 57 Pac.
82.
I9ln favor of right to compensa-
tion; Chicago V. Burkey, 158 111.
103, 42 N. E. 178, 49 Am. St. Eep.
142, 29 L.R.A. 568, affirming Lake v.
Burcky, 57 111. App. 547; Winnetka
v. Clifford, 201 111. 475, 66 N. E.
384; Chicago v. Webb, 102 111. App.
232; Gargan v. Louisville etc. Ry.
Co., 89 Ky. 212, 12 S. W. 259, 6
L.R.A. 340; Bannon v. Eoluneier, 90
Ky. 48, 13 S. W. 444, 29 Am. St.
Rep. 355; Louisville v. Bannon, 99
Ky. 74, 35 S. W. 120; Vanderburgh
v. Minneapolis, 98 Minn. 329, 108
N. W. 480, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 741;
Mellor v. Philadelphia, 160 Pa. St.
614, 28 Atl. 991; In re Melon St.,
182 Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl. 482, 28
L.R.A. 275; Foust v. Penn. R. R.
Co., 212 Pa. St. 213, 61 Atl. 829;
Robbins v. Scranton, 217 Pa. St.
577, 66 Atl. 977; Black v. Pittsburg
etc. St. Ry. Co., 34 Pa. Super. Ct.
416; Johnston v. Old Colony E. R.
Co., 18 R. I. 642, 29 Atl. 594, 49 Atl.
800; Tilley v. Mitchell & Lewis Co.,
121 Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am.
St. Rep. 1007; Chicago v. Baker, 86
Fed. 753, 30 C. C. A. 364; Chicago
V. Baker, 98 Fed. 830, 39 C. C. A.
318; Mason City etc. R. R. Co. v.
Wolf, 148 Fed. 961, 78 CCA. 589;
McQuade v. The King, 7 Can. Exch.
318; Macarthur v. The King, 8 Can.
Exch. 245; Cook v. Bath, L. R. 6
Eq. Cas. 177. Where a new way was
opened so as to afford access in the
same direction as that cut off by the
vacation, it was held there could be
no recovery, £5iough the new 'way
was less convenient: Parker v. Cath-
olic Bishop, 146 111. 158, 34 N. E.
473, affirming 41 111. App. 74; How-
ell V. Morrisville, 212 Pa. St. 349,
61 Atl. 932.
Contra: Smith v. Boston, 7 Cush.
254; Castle v. Berkshire, 11 Gray,
26; Hartshorn v. South Reading, 3
Allen 501 ; Davis v. County Comrs.,
153 Mass. 218, 26 N. E. 848, 11
L.R.A. 750; Nichols v. Richmond,
162 Mass. 170, 38 N. E. 501; Hyde
V. Fall River, 189 Mass. 439, 75 N.
E. 953, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 269; Buhl
T. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 98
392
EMIIJENT DOMAIN.
§ 207
meaning of those terms.*" "Where a short street which termin-
ated opposite the plaintiff's property, was vacated and closed,
it was held that the property was damaged within the constitu-
tion, if it was thereby depreciated in value.*^
We have endeavored to show elsewhere, that if property is
lessened in value by an interference under statutory authority
with a right, public or private, which the owner is entitled to
make use of in connection with such property, then he is en-
titled to recover for such loss in value under constitutions and
statutes giving compensation for property damaged or injured
for public use.** Under this rule, if property is diminished in
value by the vacation and closing of a street, whether at a point
near or remote he is entitled to compensation under the consti-
tutions and statutes referred to.
The rule usually applied in interpreting these constitutional
and statutory provisions is "that those damages can be recovered
which could have been recovered at common law, had the acts
Mich. 596, 57 N. W. 829, 23 L.R.A.
392 9 Am. R. E. & Corp. Rep. 173;
Glasgow V. St. Louis, 107 Mo. 198,
17 S. W. 743, 3 Am. R. E. Corp.
Eep. 192; Cram v. Laconia, 71 N.
H. 41, 51 Atl. 635, 57 L.E.A. 282;
Smith V. St. Paul etc. Ey. Co., 39
Wash. 355, 81 Pac. 840, 109 Am.
St. Rep. 889, 70 L.E.A. 1018; Ponis-
chil V. Hoquiam Sash & Door Co., 41
Wash. 303, 83 Pac. 316; Mottman
V. Olympia, 45 Wash. 361, 88 Pac.
579; Montreal v. Drummond, L. E.
1 H. L. 384. See Eodgers v. Parker,
9 Gray, 445, where the statute pro-
vided that "the right of way of any
lot owner should not be impaired"
by the vacation, and it was held not
to enlarge the right to compensation.
Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty, 65 Ohio
St. 264, 62 N. E. 341, 87 Am. St.
Eep. 600, reversing Beatty v. Kin-
near Mfg. Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 384.
20Dennis v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co.,
137 Ala. 649, 35 So. 30, 97 Am. St.
Eep. 69; Little Eock etc. E. E. Co.
V. Newman, 73 Ark. 1, 83 S. W. 653,
108 Am. St. Rep. 653; Symons v.
San Francisco, 115 Cal. 555, 42 Pac.
913, 47 Pac. 453; Whitsett v. Union
Depot & E. R. Co., 10 Colo. 243, 15
Pac. 339; Chicago v. Union Bldg.
Ass., 102 111. 379, 40 Am. Eep. 598;
East St. Louis v. O'Flynn, 119 III.
200, 59 Am. Eep. 795; Pearson v.
Allen, 151 Mass. 79, 23 N. E. 731,
21 Am. St. Eep. 426; Stanwood v.
Maiden, 157 Mass. 17, 31 N. E. 702,
16 L.E.A. 691; Knapp, Stout & Co.
V. St. Louis, 153 Mo. 560, 55 S. W.
104; Same v. Same, 156 Mo. 343, 56
S. W. 1102; Cummings Eealty &Imp.
Co. v. Deere & Co., 208 Mo. 66, 106 S.
W. 496, 14 L.E.A.(N.S.) 822; Mc-
Gees Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 470, 8 Atl.
237; Lawrence v. Philadelphia, 154
Pa. St. 20, 25 Atl. 1079; Eockafel-
ler V. Northern Central Ey. Co.,
212 Pa. St. 485, 61 Atl. 960; Eus-
comb Street, 30 Pa. Super. Ct. 476;
S. C. 33 Pa. Super. Ct. 148.
2iCoker v. Atlanta etc. Ey. Co.,
123 Ga. 483, 51 S. E. 481. Directly
the contrary is held in Stanwood v.
Maiden, 157 Mass. 17, 31 N. E. 702,
16 L.E.A. 591.
Impost, § 363.
§ 208 KOADS AND STEEETS. 393
■which caused them been done -without authority of statute." ^*
This brings us to the question of special damages from a public
nuisance, for if a street is closed or obstructed without authority
of law the act is a public nuisance. We have already endeav-
ored to show that if property is so situated that it is depreciated
in value by such public nuisance, the owner suffers a special
damage, though in his attempt to travel the street he suffers only
the same kind of inconvenience as the general public.'** Ac-
cordingly, if property is depreciated in value by the vacation
and closing of a street or highway, the owner is entitled to re-
cover therefor under constitutions giving compensation for prop-
erty damaged or injured for public use, or under statutes giving
compensation for property damaged by the vacation or discon-
tinuance of streets and highways.
§ 208. Pennsylvania decisions as to taking and damag-
ing by the vacation of streets. The decisions in Pennsyl-
vania are somewhat peculiar and require special mention. It
was held in an early case, where a street was vacated by an act
of the legislature, that there was no taking of the property of
abutting owners and that they had no remedy.^' In 1874 the
constitution of the State was amended by adding the following
with reference to the eminent domain power: "Municipal and
other corporations and individuals invested with the privilege
of taking private property for public use shall make just com-
pensation for property taken, injured or destroyed, by the con-
struction or enlargement of their works, highways or improve-
23Stanwood v. Maiden, 157 Mass. to vacate it, the consequential loss if
17, 31 N. E. 702, 16 L.E.A. 591. there be any, must be borne by those
2* Ante, % 199. who suffer it, just as they bear what
zsPaul V. Carver, 24 Pa. St. 207, might result from a refusal to make
64 Am. Dec. 649. The court says: it in the first place. It is true that
"Surrendering the right of way over there is much property in the com-
a public road to the owners of the monwealth whose principal value
soil, is not taking private property would be taken away by closing the
for public use, and the proprietors of avenues which lead to it ; and we arc
other land incidentally injured by the warned that if we do not declare it
discontinuance of the road are not unconstitutional, an act may be
entitled to compensation. A private passed to vacate Chestnut street. If
road is private property, and an act the possible abuse of power were sufli-
of assembly to close it up without cient to prove that the legislature
paying for it, would be depriving the cannot have it, theii it would also
owner of Ms property. But a public prove that it does not exist at all ;
road belongs to nobody but the State ; and this would bring us to the absurd
and when the government sees proper conclusion that there is no authority
394
EMINENT DOMAIN.
20D
ments, "whicli compensation shall be paid or secured before
such taking, injury or destruction." ^® Since the adoption of
this amendment it has been repeatedly held that the vacation
of a street was not a taking, injury or destruction of prop-
erty within the provision, and that there could be no re-
covery in the absence of a statute giving compensation in such
eases.^'^ "Vacating a street takes no property from anyone.
* * * There is no constitutional right to damages even on
the ground of injury under the present constitution." ^* A
statute exists applicable to Philadelphia, giving compensation
for the vacation of streets, and cases under this statute have
already been cited. ^®
§ 209. Purpose and motive of the vacation. In Iowa
the fee of streets in cities and towns is in the municipality and
it has been repeatedly held that the municipality may vacate a
street and devote the land to any use it pleases, whether public
or private, and that abutters whose access is destroyed or im-
paired have no remedy. It has been so held where a street was
vacated and turned over to a railroad company for its depot or
anywhere in the State to vacate a
useless road and substitute a better
one in its place. Every function of
government may be injudiciously
exercised, but still we must trust it
with somebody. That of vacating
roads is as necessary as any other;
and while we cannot promise that
everybody's interests will be taken
care of, we have faith enough in our
system to believe that no atrocious
wrong will be done." pp. 211, 212.
2 64nie, § 49.
2 7McGee's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 470,
8 Atl. 237 ; Lawrence v. Philadelphia,
154 Pa. St. 20, 25 Atl. 1079 ; Wetherill
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 195 Pa. St. 156, 45
Atl. 658; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania
R. R. Co., 195 Pa. St. 160, 45 Atl. 685;
Daughters of Am. Rev. v. Schenley,
204 Pa. St. 572, 54 Atl. 366 ; Howell
v. Morrisville, 212 Pa. St. 349, 61
Atl. 932; Rockafeller v. Northern
Central Ry. Co., 212 Pa. St. 485, 61
Atl. 960; Nocton v. Penn. R. R. Co.,
32 Pa. Super. Ct. 555.
2 8 Wetherill v. Penn. R. R. Co., 195
Pa. St. 156, 45 Atl. 658. And in the
late case of Howell v. Morrisville,
212 Pa. St. 349, 61 Atl. 932, the Court
says: "It must therefore be ac-
cepted as se+tled law, that the vaca-
tion of a highway or street is not an
injury to abutting landowners within
the provisions of the constitution re-
quiring compensation, and in the ab-
sence of special legislative provision
for damages, none can be recovered."
p. 352.
See the following: Foust v. Penn.
R. R. Co., 212 Pa. St. 213, 61 Atl. 829 ;
Robbins v. Scranton, 217 Pa. St. 577,
66 Atl. 977; Walsh v. Scranton, 23
Pa. Supr. Ct. 276 ; Haggerty v. Scran-
ton, 23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 279 ; Carroll v.
Asbury, 28 Pa. Supr. Ct. 354; Black
V. Pittsburg etc. St. Ry. Co., 34 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 416.
29Mellor V. Philadelphia, 160 Pa.
St. 614, 28 Atl. 991 ; In re Melon St.,
182 Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl. 482, 28 L.R.A.
275, reversing 1 Pa. Supr. Ct. 63;
Ruscomb St., 30 Pa. Supr. Ct. 476;
S. C. 33 Pa. Supr. Ct. 148.
§ 209 EOADS AND STKEETS. 395
tracks.®" So where a street was vacated and given over to the
adjacent owner to be built upon or otherwise employed for his
private use.*^ In the cases cited the vacation was directly at-
tacked on the ground that it was for a private purpose. In
som« of the cases it is intimated that equity will interfere to
prevent an abuse of the power.® ^
The general rule is that the power to vacate streets and high-
ways is a power to be exercised from considerations of public
policy and for the purpose of promoting the public welfare and
not for the benefit of private individuals and corporations.®®
"A city cannot barter away strfeets and alleys, nor can it do
indii-ectly, by invoking its power of vacating ways what it
cannot do directly. Streets and alleys are not to be vacated
at the instance of individuals interested only in the acquisition
of the vacated property, and the exercise of legislative discre-
tion in such matters must, at least upon the face of the record,
be free from affirmative evidence that such discretion was in-
voked for individual gain, and its exercise influenced by an offer
to divide the property acquired." ®* Accordingly when it ap-
pears upon the face of the proceedings, as from the petition or
ordinance, or from some contract or arrangement between the
parties, that the object of the vacation is to promote private in-
terests it will be declared void at the suit of parties affected.®^
But the mere fact that upon vacation the bed of the street
reverts to private parties and is put to private uses, does not
soBarr v. Oskaloosa, 45 la. 275; Corp. Rep. 192; Laurel v. Howell, 84
Spitzer v. Runyan, 113 la. 619, 85 N. Miss. 435, 36 So. 543; Pence v. Bry-
W. 782; Harrington v. la. Cent. Ry. ant, 54 W. Va. 263, 46 S. E. 275;
Co., 126 la. 388, 102 N. W. 139. cases cited in the following notes.
siMarshalltown v. Forney, 61 la. siHorton v. Williams, 99 Mich.
378, 16 K. W. 740; Dempsey v. Bur- 423, 430, 58 N. W. 369.
lington, 66 la. 387, 24 N. W. 508; • ssSmith v. McDowell, 148 111. 51,
Williams v. Carey, 73 la. 194, 34 X. 35 N. E. 141, 22 L.R.A. 393; DeLand
W. 813. On vacation the city gets an v. Dixon Power & Lt. Co., 225 111. 212,
absolute title to the property. Lake 80 N. E. 25; Louisville v. Bannon, 99
City V. Fulkerson, 122 la. 569, 98 N. Ky. 74, 35 S. W. 120; Van Witsen v.
W. 376. Gutman, 79 Md. 405, 29 Atl. 608, 24
szwilliams v. Carey, 73 la. 194, L.R.A. 403; Horton v. Williams, 99
197, 34 N. W. 813; McLachlan v. Mich. 423, 58 N. W. 369; People v.
Gray, 105 la. 259, 74 N. W. 773. Comrs. of Highways, 53 Barb. 70;
ssWeage v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., Ashland v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 105
227 111. 421, 81 N. E. 424, 11 L.R.A. Wis. 398, 80 N. W. 1101 ; Ashland v.
(N.S.) 589; Glasgow v. St. Louis, 107 No. Pac. Ry. Co., 119 Wis. 204, 96
Mo. 198, 17 S. W. 743, 3 Am. R. R. & N. W. 688.
396
EMIISTENT DOMAIN.
§ 209
show that the power of vacation was exercised for a private and
not for a public purpose.^® Such reversion is, in most cases, a
necessary incident of the vacation and if that fact vitiated the
proceeding the power to vacate would be nugatory. The motives
of a common council or local legislative body in vacating a street
or highway are not the subject of judicial inquiry ^'' and, unless
it appears on the face of the proceedings or from some record or
writing in connection with the matter, that the purpose was to
benefit private parties, the vacation^ will be sustained.*®
3 6Meyer v. Teutopolis, 131 111. 552,
23 N. E. 651; Parker v. Catholic
Bishop, 146 111. 158, 34 N. E. 473,
affirming S. C. 41 111. App. 74 ; People
V. Wieboldt, 233 111. 572, 84 N. E. 646 ;
Kensselaer v. Leopold, 106 Ind. 29;
Ponischil v. Hoquiam Sash & D. Co.,
41 Wash. 303, 83 Pac. 316; Tilley v.
Mitchell & Lewis Co., 121 Wis. 1, 98
N. W. 969, 105 Am. St. Eep. 1007.
3 7Meyer v. Teutopolis, 131 111. 552,
556, 23 N. E. 651 ; Amboy v. 111. Cent.
R. R. Co., 236 111. 236, 86 N. E. 238;
Rensselaer v. Leopold, 106 lud. 29;
Glasgow V. St. Louis, 107 Mo. 198,
17 S. W. 743, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 192; Bellevue v. Bellevue Imp.
Co., 65 Neb. 52, 90 N. W. 1002; En-
dres V. Friday, 78 Neb. 510; Tilley v.
Mitchell & Lewis Co., 121 Wis. 1, 98
N. W. 969, lOS Am. St. Rep. 1007;
1 Dill. Munic. Corp. § 311.
alhid. The question arose in
State V. City of Elizabeth, 54 N. J. L.
462, 24 Atl. 495, and the court dis-
posed of it as follows: "Nor do I
find any substance in the point that
the vacation was made to subserve a
private interest. It is true that the
proceedings for vacation were taken
immediately after a petition for such
vacation had been presented by the
trustees of the Trumbull estate. The
vacated portion of the street had
been laid over the Trumbull lands.
There appears to have been an oppor-
tunity to sell a tract of said land to a
company which would locate ex-
tensive works upon it, and so in-
crease the prosperity of that portion
of the city. The required piece of
land could not have been obtained
without a vacation of this part of
York street. This was probably the
principal inducement to the action
of the common council. But the mo-
tives which induce municipal pro-
ceedings of this kind are always of a
mixed character. Regard for private
interests are necessarily intertwined
with public interests. The size of
lots for building purposes is a proper
factor to be taken into consideration
in the vacation of, as well as in the
laying out or altering, streets. If the
motive of a common council in exer-
cising the power conferred upon it
by the legislature can ever be ques-
tioned is doubtful. If the courts can
enter into the motives of the munic-
ipal legislature in respect to acts of
this kind in any case, it must be one
in which the public interests have
been glaringly sacrificed to subserve
private ends. Nothing of this sort
appears in this case. The vacated
portion of the street runs through
salt meadows, and crosses an un-
bridged creek, and there is not a
house or building along the line of it.
Between the property of the prosecu-
trix and the vacated part of the
street, York street is crossed by
Schiller street, which is open and
built upon. Under all the circum-
stances, the action of the commoD
§ 209 EOADS AKD STJREEXS. 397
In one of the cases cited the defendant company owned the
blocks on opposite sides of the street in question, which was 60
feet wide. On petition of the defendant the city vacated the
north 25 feet and south 15 feet of this street through the block
and also authorized the defendant to connect its premises by a
bridge across that part of the street not vacated. The defendant
had a manufacturing plant and proposed to occupy with its
buildings the vacated strips and connect them by a bridge over
the street, as provided in the ordinance. Property owners in
the vicinity filed a bill to enjoin such use of the vacated or un-
vacated parts of the street, averring among other things that the
street was not vacated in the public interest but solely for the
benefit of the defendant company. The ordinance recited that
the vacation was made because the parts vacated were of no
public utility and because the public interests required it. No
fraud or corruption was charged. The statute provided for
compensation to those damaged by the vacation. On demurrer
to the bill it was held that it showed no ground for equitable re-
lief so far as the vacation was concerned and on the question of
the vacation being void because for a private purpose, the court
says: "The sole claim is that the council have vacated a part
of a street for a private use when it was needed by the public.
This means that the motives of the councilmen were wrong
and their judgment unsound. We think the courts will not
entertain an inquiry into the truth of these charges. * * *
It was within the power of the council to vacate the street, when
in its judgment the public interest required such action, and
even though the council may have been wrong in its judgment,
or may have mistaken a private interest for a public one, our
conclusion is that the courts cannot arrest the operation of the
ordinance for these reasons, and hence that no cause of action
is stated in the first count of the complaint." ^* It is not un-
common for a party, owning property on both sides of a street
or alley, to procure the vacation of the part of the street or
alley, which separates his property, so as to make the property
continuous and to occupy the whole with a building or plant.
council is not properly the subject of 178; Amboy v. 111. Central R. R.
a suspicion of being influenced by any Co., 236 111. 236, 86 N. E. 238.
considerations other than to conserve ssTilley v. Mitchell & Lewis Co.,
the best interests of the city." This 121 Wis. 1, 12, 13, 98 N. W. 969, 1.Q5
case was affirmed in 55 N. J. L. 337, Am. St. Rep. 1007.
26 Atl. 939. See also ante, §§ 138,
398
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 20&
But where nothing more appears than that the vacation has been
made on the request of the party benefited, it has been sus-
tained.**'
The abolition of grade crossings/^ the construction or im-
provement of railroad depots and terminals,*^ and the re-ar-
< "Marietta Chair Co. v. Henderson,
121 Ga. 399, 49 S. E. 312, 104 Am. St.
Eep. 156; Chicago v. Union Bid.
Ass'n, 102 111. 379, 40 Am. Rep. 598;
Parker v. Catholic Bishop, 146 111.
158, 34 N. E. 473, affirmmg 41 111.
App. 74; People v. Friend, 233 111.
572, 84 N. E. 646; Marshalltown v.
Eaney, 61 la. 578, 16 IST. W. 740;
Bailey v. Culver, 84 Mo. 531, affirm-
ing 12 Mo. App. 531; Glasgow v. St.
Louis, 107 Mo. 198, 17 S. W. 743, 3
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 192 ; Knapp,
Stout & Co. V. St. Louis, 156 Mo.
343, 56 S. W. 1102; Kinnear Mfg. Co.
V. Beatty, 65 Ohio St. 264, 62 jST. E.
341, 87 Am. St. Rep. 600, reversing
S. C. Beatty v. Kinnear Mfg. Co., 21
Ohio C. C. 384 ; Ponischil v. Hoquiam
S. & D. Co., 41 Wash. 303, 83 Pac.
316; Tilley v. Mitchell & Lewis Co.,
121 Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. St.
Rep. 1007. In Knapp, Stout & Co.
V. St. Louis, 153 Mo. 560, 55 S. W.
104, it is held that an ordinance va-
cating a street may be annulled for
fraud and corruption but that an
averment that the ordinance was not
passed for any public purpose but
solely to give a private corporation
the use of the property, did not show
fraud.
Where a consideration was paid, the
vacation was held void, as for a pri-
vate purpose. Louisville v. Bannon,
99 Ky. 74, 35 S. W. 120; Horton v.
Williams, 99 Mich. 423, 58 N. W. 309.
So where the same purpose was evi-
dent from recitals in the proceed-
ings. Smith v. McDonald, 148 111.
51, 35 N. E. 141, 22 L.R.A. 393; De-
Land V. Dixon P. & L. Co., 225 111.
212, 80 N. E. 25 ; Van Witsen v. Gut-
man, 79 Md. 405, 29 Pac. 608, 24
L.R.A. 403.
iiNewton v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 72 Conn. 420, 44 Atl. 813 ; Chi-
cago v. Burcky, 158 111. 103, 42 N. E.
178, 49 Am. St. Rep. 142, 29 L.R.A.
568, affirming S. C. sub nom. Town
of Lake v. Burcky, 57 111. App. 547;
People V. Atchison etc Ry. Co., 217
111. 594, 75 N. E. 573; Spitzer v.
Runyan, 113 la. 619, 85 N. W. 782;
Davis V. County Comrs., 153 Mass.
218, 26 N. E. 848, 11 L.R.A. 750;
Nichols V. Richmond, 162 Mass. 170,
38 N. E. 501 ; Dodge v. Penn. R. R.
Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 351 ; S. C. affirmed,
45 N. J. Eq. 366 ; Dean v. Ann Arbor
etc. R. R. Co., 137 Mich. 459, 100 N.
W. 773; Buchholz v. New York etc.
R. R. Co., 71 App. Div. 452, 75 N.
Y. S. 824; S. C. affirmed, 177 N. Y.
550, 69 N. E. 1121; Matter of Grade
Crossing Comrs., 166 N. Y. 69, 59
N. E. 706; Foust v. Penn. R. R. Co.,
212 Pa. St. 213, 61 Atl. 829; Chicago
V. Baker, 98 Fed. 830, 39 C. C. A.
318.
4 2Dennis v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co.,
137 Ala. 649, 35 So. 30, 97 Am. St.
Rep. 69; Whitsett v. Union Depot &
R. R. Co., 10 Colo. 243, 15 Pac. 339 ;
East St. Louis v. O'Flynn, 119 111. 200,
59 Am. Rep. 795 ; Amboy v. 111. Cent.
R. R. Co., 236 111. 236, 86 N. E. 238;
Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union Ry.
Co., 141 Ind. 604, 39 N. E. 223, 50
Am. St. Rep. 343, 34 L.R.A. 769, 11
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 249; Leaven-
worth etc. Ry. Co. v. Curlan, 51 Kan.
432, 33 Pac. 297; Leavenworth v.
Douglass, 59 Kan. 416, 53 Pac. 123;
Spetzer v. Runyan, 113 la. 619, 85 N.
W. 782; Buhl V. Fort St. Union
210
EOADS AST) STEEETS,
399
rangement of streets to secure a more regular and harmonious
system, are public purposes for -which the power of vacation may
properly be exercised.'*® So where the vacation is for public
or quasi public buildings or grounds.**
§ 210. Exercise and construction of the statutory au-
thority. Power to lay off, open, widen, straighten, establish
and improve streets does not confer power to vacate them.*'
So of a power "to open, lay out, widen, straighten or otherwise
change" streets and alleys.*® But the latter provision was held
sufficient to narrow a street for a short distance by vacating
a strip, so as to make the street of uniform width.* ^ And gen-
erally the power to vacate streets has been held to authorize the
narrowing of a street by vacating a part longitudinally.*® Un-
der a statute which provides that any alley or highway which
has become useless may be vacated, a part of a street which has
become useless may be vacated.*' A statute provided that a
road which had been laid out and "opened in part," could be
vacated ; held that the statute would apply if 84 feet had been
opened and made fit for travel.^" The statutory authority must
Depot Co., 98 Mich. 596, 57 N. W.
829, 23 L.R.A. 392, 9 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 173; Kaje v. Chicago etc.
Ry. Co., 57 Minn. 422, 59 N. W. 493;
Vanderburgh v. Minneapolis, 93
Minn. 81, 100 N. W. 668; Vander-
burgh V. Minneapolis, 98 Minn. 329,
108 N. W. 480, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 741.
And see Coker t. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co.,
123 Ga. 483, 51 S. E. 489; Kakeldy
V. Columbia R. R. Co., 37 Wash.
675, 80 Pac. 205; Columbus v.
Union Pac. R. R. Co., 137 Fed. 869,
70 C. C. A. 207. In Wisconsin it has
been held that a city had no power
to vacate a street and turn it over to
a railroad company in consideration
of improvements to be made on other
streets by the company. Ashland v.
C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 105 Wis. 398,
80 N. W. 1101 ; Ashland v. No. Pac.
Ry. Co., 119 Wis. 204, 96 N. W. 688.
4 3Lindsay v. Omaha, 30 Neb. 512,
46 N. W. 627, 27 Am. St. Rep. 415;
Matter of New York, 28 App. Div.
143.
4<For a college or school. Meyer
v. Teutopolis, 131 111. 552, 23 N. E.
651; Cherry v. Rock Hill, 48 S. C.
553, 26 S. E. 798. For a hospital or
asylum. Polack v. S. F. Orphan
Asylum, 48 Cal. 490; Reis v. New
York, 188 N. Y. 58, 80 N. E. 573,
affirming 113 App. Div. 464, 99 N. Y.
S. 291. For a State Capitol. Mott-
man v. Olympia, 45 Wash. 361, 88
Pac. 579.
4 5Texarkana v. Leach, 66 Ark. 40,
48 S. W. 807, 74 Am. St. Rep. 68.
< 6 Coker v. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co.,
123 Ga. 483, 51 S. E. 481.
4 7Patton V. Rowe, 124 Ga. 525, 52
S. E. 742.
■isBrown v. San Francisco, 124 Cal.
274, 57 Pac. 82 ; Mt. Carmel v. Shaw,
155 111. 37, 39 N. E. 584, 46 Am. St.
Rep. 311, 27 L.R.A. 580, reversing
S. C. 52 111. App. 429.
4 9In re Swanson street, 163 Pa. St.
323, 30 Atl. Rep. 207.
BOUnion Township Road, 10 Pa.
Co. Ct. 433.
400
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 210
be substantially complied -with as to petition, notice and pro-
cedure generally, or the attempted vacation will be ineffectual.®^
Where a statute provided that a city should not vacate a street
"when objected to by property owners adjacent thereto or by
those having a direct or substantial interest therein," it was
held that one just outside of the city limits, at whose land the
street terminated, was not within the statute, and consequently
could not defeat the vacation by objecting.®^ But where it was
proposed to narrow a street by vacating a strip on one side, it
siGreist v. Amrhyn, 80 Ooim. 280;
People V. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 217
111. 594, 75 N. E. 573; Small v. Bin-
ford, 41 Ind. App. 440; Hayes v.
Tyler, 85 la. 126, 52 N. W. 116;
Devoe v. Smeltser, 86 la. 385, 53 N.
W. 287; Harris v. Board of Super-
visors, 88 la. 219, 55 N. W. 324;
Mills V. Board of Comrs., 50 Kan.
635, 32 Pac. 361 ; Martin v. City of
Louisville, 97 Ky. 30, 29 S. W. 864;
Big Sandy Ry. Co. v. Boyd County,
125 Ky. 345; Goss v. Highway Com-
missioner, 63 Mich. 608, 30 N. W.
197 ; Price v. Stagray, 68 Mich. 17, 35
N. W. 815; Pearsall v. Eaton Co., 71
Mich. 438, 39 N. W. 578 ; Pearsall v.
Eaton Co., 74 Mich. 558, 42 N. W. 77,
4 L.R.A. 193; Kimball v. Homan, 74
Mich. 699, 42 N. W. 167; Davis v.
Board of Supervisors, 89 Mich. 295,
50 N. W. 862; Curry v. Rosell, 99
Mich. 524, 58 N. W. 472; Hatt v.
Napoleon, 144 Mich. 266, 107 N. W.
1058; Miller v. Corinna, 42 Minn.
391, 44 N. W. 127; Nicholson v.
Stoekett, Walker, Miss., 67 ; In re Big
Hollow Road, 111 Mo. 326, 19 S. W.
947; Letherman v. Hauser, 77 Neb.
731, 110 N. W. 745; DeForest v.
Wheeler, 7 Ohio St. 286; Latimer v.
Tillamook County, 22 Or. 291, 29
Pac. 734 ; Road in Ross Township, 36
Pa. St. 87; Chartier's Township
Road, 48 Pa. St. 314; Vacation of
Henry Street, 123 Pa. St. 346, 16
Atl. 785; In re Vacation of Union
Street, 140 Pa. St. 625,. 21 Atl. 406;
In re Vacation of Public Road, 160
Pa. St. 104, 28 Atl. 649; In re Swan-
son St., 163 Pa. St. 323, 30 Atl. 207;
Matter of Vacation of Certain
Streets, 17 Phil. 660; Union Town-
ship Road, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 433 ; Yates
v. West Grafton, 33 W. Va. 507, II
S. E. 8; Pettibone v. Hamilton, 40
Wis. 402; James v. City of Darling-
ton, 71 Wis. 173, 36 N. W. 834;
Schroeder v. Klipp, 120 Wis. 245, 97
N. W. 909; Johnston v. Lonstorf, 128
Wis. 17, 107 N. W. 459; Morris v.
Edwards, 132 Wis. 91„ 112 N. W. 248.
As to who are parties "inter-
ested" in case of a vacation, or who
are entitled to notice or to object or
appeal see Commissioners of High-
ways v. Quinn, 136 111. 604, 27 N. E.
186; Brandenburg v. Hittel (Ind.)
37 N. E. 329; Linning v. Barnett, 134
Ind. 332, 33 N. E. 1098; Arnold v.
Weiker, 55 Kan. 510, 40 Pac. 901;
Bradbury v. Walton, 94 Ky. 163, 12
S. W. 869; Roxedale v. Seip, 32 La.
Ann. 435; Kimball v. Homan, 74
Mich. 699, 42 N. W. 167; Baudistel
V. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 113 Mich,
687, 71 N. W. 1114; Schuster v.
Lemond, 27 Minn. 253, 6 N. W. 802;
State V. Barton, 36 Minn. 145, 30 N.
W. 454; State v. Hohman, 40 Minn.
369, 41 N. W. 1073; State v. Sne-
deker, 30 N. J. L. 80; Gay v. West
Streets, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 217; Yates v.
Grafton, 33 W. Va. 507.
B2House V. Greensburg, 93 Ind. 533.
§ 210 ROADS AND STKEETS. 401
was held that abutters on the opposite side were adjacent within
the statute.°^ Where a statute forbade the closing of public
roads without the consent of the contiguous property owners,
it was held to mean those who abutted on the part closed.^* Un-
der some statutes a road may be discontinued before it has been
actually opened. ^° But where county commissioners had duly
ordered a road opened, it was held that they could not at a
subsequent session reconsider their vote, and so in effect vacate
the road, without complying with the statute in that regard.^"
An alteration of a highway is held to work a discontinuance of
such parts of the old way as are not included in the new loca-
tion.^'^ It has been held that a highway could not be discon-
tinued during the pleasure of the authorities, reserving the
right to open it again without paying any damages,^* also that
a city could not vacate a street for twenty years, during which
it was to be put to private use.''* In an Illinois case it appeared
that a certain railroad company had occupied certain streets
with its tracks under due authority for twenty years or more.
The city passed an ordinance requiring the company to elevate
its tracks in order to abolish grade crossings and providing that
the streets so far as occupied by the tracks and embankment
should be discontinued and vacated. Thereupon the persons
entitled to the reversion in the streets filed a bill to prevent
the occupation of their property without compensation. The
court held, construing the entire ordinance, that its effect was
to give to the railroad company the exclusive use of the streets
so far as necessary to accomplish the elevation and not to vacate
the streets so as to catise a reversion of the bed of the streets.""
63Lowe V. Lawrenceburg Roller Co., 72 N. H. 224, 55 Atl. 938; Road
Mills Co., 161 Ind. 495, 69 N. B. 148. in Manlieim Tp., 12 Pa. Super. Ct.
But see Rensselaer v. Leopold, 106 279.
I°<i- 29- 5 8 Cheshire Turnpike v. Stevens, 10
5 4Roxedale v. Seip, 32 La. Ann. j^ jj jgg
^^- sDGlasgow V. St. Louis, 87 Mo. 678,
5=Millett v. County Comrs., 80 Me. g_ ^ jg -^^ ^j^.
427, 15 Atl. Rep. 24; Seuter v. Pugh, ,„,,^ " „ . j. i, r. n
' i, „, , , „ eoWeage v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
9Gratt. 260. BmJ «ee Webb v. Town f oi -kt v aoa ii r -o ^
, „ , TT.,, „, ^ A^a 227 111. 421, 81 N. E. 424, 11 L.R.A.
of Rocky Hill, 21 Conn. 468. ,^^„^ ^ ' ^, ' ^^ ^
.,TT-,, -KT 1, /-. i Kn Tr„„ (N.S.) 589. The court says that
5 6Mills V. Neosho County, 50 Kan. ^ ' ■'
„„^ oo p „ -jfli when elevation becomes necessary for
67City and County of San Fran- the public safety and convenience "we
Cisco V. Burr, 108 Cal. 460, 41 Pae. are of opinion the city council has
482; Commonwealth v. Boston & A. the right to authorize the use by the
R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 174, 22 N. E. railroad company of such portions of
913; Leighton v. Concord etc. R. R. its streets as may be necessary for
Em. D.— 26.
402
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 211
Where the vacation of a street was procured by a county for
the purpose of erecting public buildings thereon, whereby a
drain belonging to a city was destroyed, it was held the city was
entitled to compensation.^^
§ 211. EfEect of vacation on private rights in street.
As we have seen streets and highways cannot be discontinued
except by the legislature or by its authority."^ Sometimes the
statute authorizing the vacation or discontinuance of streets and
highways provides for compensation for property damaged there-
by, and sometimes it is silent on the subject. In the former
case, it would seem that the intent of the statute was to provide
for extinguishing private rights and for closing the street and
that damages should be assessed on this basis. Most of the
cases apparently proceed upon this theory.** The contrary has
that purpose, and that such use of
the streets is not a diversion of
them to an unauthorized or unlaw-
ful purpose. In this ease the de-
fendant in error had been given a
perpetual easement in the street for
its tracks and the operation of its
trains thereon. The city council had
not the power to take this right from
it, but it did have authority to re-
quire it to elevate its tracks. In the
judgment of the council such eleva-
tion made necessary the occupation
of portions of the street its entire
width by the embankment and struc-
ture upon which the tracks were to
be laid. Defendant in error's tracks
would, when elevated, still be in the
street, and its right to continue to
use the street was not terminated by
the adoption of the ordinance. It
would still lawfully occupy and use
the street as a street. The necessity
for the defendant in error occupying
the whole or part of the street for
the purpose of complying with the
ordinance necessitated the exclusion
of the general public therefrom.
This was the purpose and effect of
the ordinance. The exclusion of the
public from the use of the street and
the continuation of its use by the
defendant in error did not have
the effect of causing a reversion to the
dedicators, as would have been the
case had the street been vacated for
the purpose of abandoning its use
entirely as a street. * * » By
the passage of the track elevation
ordinance, therefore, the city did not
divest defendant in error of the right
to use and occupy the streets, and
there was no reversion to the dedi-
cators, their heirs, devisees and
grantees." pp. 427, 430.
As to construction of statutes re-
lating to vacation of street, see also
Madison Road, 37 Pa. St. 417;
Henry Street Vacation, 123 Pa. St.
340, 16 Atl. 785; Union Street Vaca-
tion, 140 Pa. St. 525, 21 Atl. 408;
Palo Alto Road, 160 Pa. St. 104, 2S
Atl. 649.
fiiCincinnati v. Hamilton County,
1 Disney 3.
62 Ante § 196.
6 3Winetka v. Clifford, 201 111. 475,
66 N. E. 384; Butterworth v. Bart-
lett, 50 Ind. 537; Rensselaer v. Leo-
pold, 106 Ind. 29; Cook v. Quick, 127
Ind. 477, 26 N. E. 1007 ; Webster v.
Lowell, 142 Mass. 324, 8 N. E. 54;
Stanwood v. Maiden, 157 Mass. 17,
31 N. E. 702, 16 L.R.A. 591; Put-
nam v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 182
Mass. 351, 65 N. E. 790; Munn v.
§ 211
EOADS AXD STKEETS.
403
been held in ISTew York. The legislature passed an act to alter
the map or plan of certain portions of ^ew York city. The
act provided that commissioners should make a new plan for such
portions of the city and should lay out and survey streets, ave-
nues and public places and should make and file maps of the
same, that all streets, avenues and roads not shown on the maps
should, from and after the time of making and filing the same
"cease to be or remain public streets, avenues, roads, squares or
public places," and that "all damages to any land or to any
building or other structure thereon" by reason of the closing of
such streets should be ascertained and paid in a manner specified.
It was held that the damages here p::ovided for related only to
the extinguishment of the public easement and that the private
rights of abutting owners were not affected by the discontinu-
ance of the street and the assessment and payment of damages
as provided in the statute."''
Boston, 183 Mass. 421, 67 X. E. 312 ;
Cram v. Laeonia, 71 N. H. 41, 51 Atl.
635, 57 L.R.A. 282; Matter of New
York, 28 App. Div. 143; Matter of
Vanderbilt Ave., 95 App. Div. 533,
88 N. Y. S. 769; Matter of Vander-
bilt Ave., 119 App. Div. 882, 104 N.
Y. S. 1133; In re Melon St., 182 Pa.
St. 397, 38 Atl. 482, 28 L.R.A. 275;
Ruscomb Street, 30 Pa. Supr. Ct. 476;
S. C. 33 Pa. Supr. Ct. 148.
6 4Holloway v. Southmayd, 139 N.
Y. 390, 34 N. E. 1047 ; S. C. HoUoway
v. Delano, 64 Hun 27; 64 Hun 34.
What is said by the Court of Ap-
peals on this subject is as follows:
"The appellant further contends that
these special easements, if acquired
by the abutting owner, were law- '
fully extinguished and condemned,
as the results of the proceedings
had under the act of 1867, providing
for the closing of the Bloomingdale
road. In that he is mistaken. The
purpose and the effect of that act,
it is plain from its language, were to
discontinue the road aa - a public
highway and, in so doing, to ex-
tinguish the public easement. The
legislature was not concerned with
private easements and rights in
land covered by the public highway.
Its action left these private ease-
ments as they were; the public had
no interest in their destruction.
The award of damages was to com-
pensate property owners who could
prove tliey had been injured by the
discontinuance of a public highway.
It is obvious that the presence of a
public highway in front of one's
premises, by reason of the many
public and general advantages it
offers, confers a, distinct value upon
them and that its proposed discon-
tinuance may result in a diminished
value to the owner. The situs of a.
parcel of land enters into its value.
If upon a public and prominent thor-
oughfare, it has a value which it
would not possess if the thoroughfare
were closed or changed. How great
the loss in value is, or if any is in
fact sustained, may turn upon a con-
sideration of the circumstances sur-
rounding the proposed alteration ;
but the legislature, in providing for
awards of damages, looks at the
general fact of a change being made,
which may affect injuriously land-
404
EMIU'EJS^T DOMAIN.
311
When the statute does not provide for compensation, the effect
of a vacation would seem to be to extinguish the puhlic right or
easement and to leave private rights unaffected. The private
rights of abutters, so far as they are recognized by law as pri-
vate property, are distinct from the public right and independ-
ent of it.®^ This being the case, it follows that the abandonment
of the public right, under' a statute making no provision for
compensation, leaves the private rights as before.*** Speating
of a dedicated street, the court in one case says: "The public
might reject or accept, or having accepted might renounce, the
public right involved in the transaction, but the action of the
public could not change the private right of the parties created
by their own contract," as between themselves and those claiming
under them." "'' According to this view, the abutting owner
may have his suit for injunction or damages against anyone
interfering with his private rights, as by closing or obstructing
the vacated street, and the fact of vacation would be no defense.*"*
owners and authorizes compensation
in such cases." 139 N. Y. 410.
esHaynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38;
Rensselaer v. Leopold, 106 Ind. 29;
Long V.' Wilson, 119 la. 267, 93 N. W.
282, 97 Am. St. Eep. 315, 60 L.R.A.
720; Borghart v. Cedar Eapids, 120
la. 313, 101 N. W. 1120, 68 L.R.A.
306; Highbarger v. Milford, 71 Kan.
331, 80 Pac. 633; Louisville etc. R.
R. C6. V. Hennen, 14 Ky. L. R. 526;
Holloway v. Southmayd, 139 N. Y.
390, 34 N. E. 1047 ; Smith v. Smith,
120 App. Div. 278, 104 N. Y. S. 1106;
McQuigg V. CuUins, 56 Ohio St. 649,
47 N. E. 595; Madden v. Penn. R. E.
Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 73; Stfader v. Cin-
cinnati, Handy 446; In re Melon
St., 182 Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl. 482, 28
L.R.A. 275; Carroll v. Asbury, 28
Pa. Supr. Ct. 354; Black v. Pittsburg
etc. St. Ry. Co., 34 Pa. Supr. Ct. 416 ;
Johnston v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 18
R. I. 642, 29 Atl. 594, 49 Am. St. Rep.
800; State v. Taylor, 107 Tenn. 455,
04 S. W. 766; Cook v. Totten, 49 W.
Va. 177, 38 S. E. 491, 87 Am. St. Rep.
792.
6 6lbid. Horton v. Williams, 99
Mich. 423, 58 N. W. 369; Heilscher v.
Minneapolis, 46 Minn. 529, 49 N. W.
287, 5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 115;
Johnson v. Cox, 42 Misc. 301, 86 N.
Y. S. 601; Oliver Schlemmer Co. v.
Steinman & M. Turn. Co., 2 Ohio N.
P. (N.S.) 293; S. C. affirmed, 7 Ohio
C. C. (N.S.) 468; State v. Taylor,
107 Tenn. 455, 64 S. W. 766.
6 7Carroll v. Asbury, 28 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 354, 360.
esHaynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38;
Long V. Wilson, 119 la. 267, 93 N. W.
282, 97 Am. St. Rep. 315, 60 L.R.A.
720; Chrisman v. Omaha etc. Ry. &
B. Co., 125 la. 133, 100 N. W. 63;
Borghart v. Cedar Rapids, 126 la.
313, 101 N. W. 1120, 68 L.R.A. 306;
Hay den v. Stewart, 71 Kan. 11, 80
Pac. 43; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v.
Hannen, 14 Ky. L. E. 526; Heilscher
V. Minneapolis, 46 Minn. 529, 49 N.
W. 287, 5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 115 ;
Longworth v. Sedevic, 165 Mo. 221,
65 S. W. 260; Holloway v. South-
mayd, 139 N. Y. 390, 34 N. E. 1047 ;
Holloway v. Delano, 64 Hun 27;
Holloway v. Delano, 64 Hun 34;
Johnson v. Cox, 42 Misc. 301, 86 N.
§ 212 EOADS AND STEEETS, 405
Where a highway was discontinued which afforded the only
practical access to the plaintiff's farm, the court enjoined the
owner of the fee from closing up the vacated part and in doing
so said: "The effect of the judgment of the trustees ordering
the road Yacated, is to relieve the public of any duty to keep it
in repair, but it does not authorize the trustees, or anybody
else, to close the road up, or obstruct it, and thus deprive Cullins
of the right to travel it." "" But some cases proceed upon the
theory that the effect of the vacation is to authorize the closure
of the street by those to whom the title reverts, that so far as
this would destroy or interfere with private rights there is a
taking of private property and that, if the statute makes no pro-
vision for compensation, it is void and of no effect.'''' Thus the
supreme court of California holds that "the vacation of a high-
way, when duly and legally effected, involves something more
than a mere constructive closing which would leave the street
still a street, but no longer subject to municipal control. It
involves a physical closing as well, which entitles the owner of
the soil once occupied by the highway to take full and complete
possession of their land." ""^
§ 212. Remedies. When the proceedings to vacate or dis-
continue a street or highway are void for want of statutory au-
thority, or because the conditions prescribed have not been com-
plied with, or because taken for a private purpose, or for any
other reason, equity will enjoin the closure or obstruction of the
street at the suit of one who would be specially damaged there-
by.''^ If the act provides for compensation and the proceed-
Y. S. 601; McQuigg v. Cullins, 56 'OBannon v. Rohmeier, 90 Ky. 48,
Ohio St. 649, 47 N. E. 595; Strader 13 S. W. 444, 29 Am. St. Rep. 355;
V. Cincinnati, Handy 446; Madden Pearaall v. Eaton Co., 71 Mich. 438,
V. Penn. R. R. Co., 21 Ohio C. C. 73; 39 N. W. 578; Pearsall v. Eaton Co.,
Beatty v. Kinnear Mfg. Co., 21 Ohio 74 Mich. 558, 42 N. W. 77, 4 L.R.A.
C. C. 384; Oliver Schlemmer Co. v. 193. See Leighton v. Concord etc. R.
Steinman & M. Turn. Co., 2 Ohio N. R. Co., 72 N. H. 224, 55 Atl. 938;
P. (N.S.) 293; S. C. affirmed, 7 Ohio Grinnell v. Portage Co. Comrs., 6
C. C. (N.S.) 468; Carroll v. Asbury, Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 180.
28 Pa. Supr. Ct. 354; Black V. Pitts- 7iBigelow v. Ballerino, 111 Cal.
burg etc. St. Ry. Co., 34 Pa. Supr. Ct. 559, 565, 44 Pac. 307.
416; Smith v. Mitchell, 21 Wash. 536, 72Texarkana v. Leach, 66 Ark. 40,
58 Pac. 667, 75 Am. St. Rep. 858; 48 S. W. 807, 74 Am. St. Rep. 68;
Johnston v. Lonstorf, 128 Wis. 17, Coker v. Atlanta, etc. Ry. Co., 123
107 N. W. 459. Ga. 483, 51 S. E. 481 ; DeLand v.
GSMcQuigg V. Cullins, 56 Ohio St. Dixon P. & L. Co., 225 HI. 212, 80 N.
649, 654, 47 N. E. 595. B. 125; Louisville v. Bannon, 99 Ky.
406
EMINEITT DOMAIN.
§ 212
ings are regular, injunction will not lie.''* And where the con-
stitution requires compensation for property damaged or injured
for public use, it is held that one damaged by the vacation of
a street has an adequate remedy at law in an action for damages
and that an injunction will not be granted.^* In some jurisdic-
tions the order or ordinance declaring the vacation may be re-
viewed by writ of certiorariJ^
74, 35 S. W. 120; Van Witsenv. Gut-
man, 79 Md. 405, 29 Atl. 608, 24 L.R.A.
403; Horton v. Williams, 99 Mich.
423, 58 N. W. 369; Laurel v. Rowell,
84 Miss, 435, 36 So. 543; Coleman v.
Holden, 88 Miss. 798, 41 So. 374;
Glasgow V. St. Louis, 87 Mo. 678,
affirming S. C. 15 Mo. App. 112;
Letherman v. Hauser, 77 Neb. 731,
110 N. W. 745; Lawrence v. New
York, 2 Barb. 577 ; Pence v. Bryant,
54 W. Va. 263, 46 S. E. 275; Pet-
tibone v. Hamilton, 40 Wis. 402;
James v. Darlington, 71 Wis. 173.
See Ashland v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co.,
105 Wis. 398, 80 N. W. 1101 ; Ashland
V. No. Pac. Ry. Co., 119 Wis. 204, 96
N. W. 088. Where plaintiff has ac-
quiesced for twenty years in the vaca-
tion, he has waived any invalidity.
Morris etc. R. R. Co. v. Prudden, 20
N. J. Eq. 530, reversing S. C. entitled.
Attorney General v. Morris etc. R. R.
Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 386 ; Yates v. West
Grafton, 33 W. Va. 507.
'sparker v. Catholic Bishop, 146
111. 158, 34 N. E. 473, affirming S. C.
41 111. App. 74; Lindsay v. Omaha, 30
Neb. 512, 46 N. W. 627, 27 Am. St.
Rep. 415; Morris v. Philadelphia, 199
Pa. St. 357, 49 Atl. 70; Tilley v.
Mitchell & Lewis Co., 121 Wis. 1, 98
N. W. 969, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1007.
7 4Dennis v. Mobile etc. Ry. Co.,
137 Ala. 649, 35 So. 30, 97 Am. St.
Rep. 69; Ridge way v. Osceola, (la.)
117 N. W. 974; Vanderburg v. Minne-
apolis, 98 Minn. 329, 108 N. W. 480,
6 L.R.A.{N.S.) 741; Vanderburgh v.
Minneapolis, 93 Minn. 81, 100 N. W.
668. See Marietta Chair Co. v. Hen-
derson, 121 Ga. 399, 49 S. E. 312, 104
Am. St. Rep. 156; Kakeldy v. Colum-
bia etc. R. R. Co., 37 Wash. 675, 80
Pac. 205. Contra: Bigelow v. Bal-
lerino. 111 Cal. 559, 44 Pac. 307.
7 6Brown v. San Francisco, 124 Cal.
274, 57 Pac. 82; McLachlan v. Gray,
105 la. 259, 74 N. W. 773; People v.
Ingham Co., 20 Mich. 95; Goss v.
Highway Commissioner, 63 Mich. 608,
30 N. W. 197 ; Kimball v. Homan, 74
Mich. 699, 42 N. W. 167 ; Baudistel v.
Jackson, 110 Mich. 357, 68 N. W. 292;
Spitzer v. Runyan, 113 la. 619, 85 N.
W. 782; Kean v. Elizabeth, 54 N. J.
L. 462, 24 Atl. 495 ; S. C. affirmed, 55
N. J. L. 337, 26 Atl. 939. For other
remedies see Atwood v. Partree, 56
Conn. 80 ; People v. Atchison etc. Ry.
Co., 217 111. 594, 75 N. E. 573; Smith
V. McDowell, 148 111. 51, 35 N. E. 141,
22 L.R.A. 393; People v. Wieboldt,
233 111. 572, 84 N. E. 646; Rodgers v.
Parker, 9 Gray 445.
CHAPTEE VI.
OTHER CASES OF TAKING.
§ 213 (135). Impairing franchises. A franchise may
be defined as a privilege or authority vested in certain persons
by grant of the sovereign, to exercise powers or to do and per-
form acts -which without such grant they could not do or per-
form.* The right to construct, maintain and operate a toll-
bridge, ferry, turnpike, railroad, canal and the like is a fran-
chise, which must emanate directly or indirectly from the sov-
ereign power. ^ The property in connection with which the fran-
chise is made available, and the franchise itself, are of course,
subject to the power of eminent domain like all other property.*
When a part of the property or the whole property and franchise
are taken for public use there is no doubt as to the nature of
iTuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuekahoe
etc. R. R. Co., U Leigh (Va.) 42, 36
Am. Dec. 374; Wilmington Water
Power Co. v. Evans, 166 111. 548, 40
N. E. 1083.
2Dyer v. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2
Porter (Ala.) 296, 27 Am. Dec. 655;
Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford &
New Haven R. R. Co., 17 Conn. 63, 42
Am. Dec. 716; Binghamton Bridge, 3
Wall. 51, 81 ; Chicago City R. R. Co.
V. People, 73 111. 541 ; Lytle v. Breck-
enridge, 3 J. J. Marsh. 663; McRob-
erts V. Washburue, 10 Minn. 23 ; New
York V. Starin, 106 N. Y. 1.
3La Fayette Plank Road Co. v.
New Albany & Salem R. R. Co., 13
Ind. 90; Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v.
Hartford & New Haven R. R. Co., 17
Conn. 40, 454, 42 Am. Dec. 716 ; State
v. Noyes, 47 Me. 189; White River
Turnpike Co. v. Vermont Central R.
R. Co., 21 Vt. 590 ; Brainard v. Miss-
isiquoi R. R. Co., 48 Vt. 107; West
407
River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507,
543; Powell v. Sammon, 31 Ala. 552;
Ft. Wayne L. & I. Co. v. Maumee
Avenue Gravel R. R. Co., 132 Ind. 80,
30 N. E. 880, 15 L.R.A. 651 ; McRob-
crts V. Washburne, 10 Minn. 23 ; New
York V. Starin, 108 N. Y. 1; In re
City of Brooklyn, 143 N. Y. 596, 38
N. E. 983, 26 L.R.A. 270. The legis-
lature may repeal the charter of a
corporation, where the right to do so
is reserved, and may authorize a new
company to take any of the property
of the old upon making compensa-
tion. Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105
U. S. 13. The expiration of a fran-
chise to construct and operate a rail-
road in a street, gives the munici-
pality no right to appropriate or
grant the track and its equipment
without compensation. Cleveland
Elec. Ry. Co. v. Cleveland etc. Ry.
Co., 204 U. S. 116, 27 S. C. 202.
408
EM.INE^'T DOMAIN.
214
the act or the right to compensation.* But toll-bridges, ferries,
turnpikes, railroads and the like are often very seriously in-
jured by the construction of competing lines which draw away
patronage and impair the value of the franchise. The question
arises under what circumstances, if at all, the owners of the
franchise so impaired may claim compensation, as a matter of
constitutional right.
§ 214 (136). When the franchise is not exclusive.
The grant of a franchise may be exclusive, or the grant may be
silent in that respect. A toll-bridge or ferry is often granted
with a provision that no other bridge or ferry shall be erected
within a certain distance above or below the one granted, and
this exclusiveness may be limited or unlimited in its duration.
So a railroad, turnpike, canal or other means of travel or com-
munication may be granted between two points with a proviso
excluding any similar grant. As all grants by the sovereign are
construed in favor of the sovereign, the grant of a franchise will
not be deemed exclusive unless so expressed.^ Where the grant
^Matter of Flatbush Avenue, 1
Barb. 286; Seneca Road Co. v. Au-
burn & Rochester R. R. Co., 5 Hill
170; Boston Water Power Co. v.
Boston & W. R. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360;
Matter of Hamilton Avenue, 14 Barb.
405; Chicago General R. R. Co. v.
Chicago City R. R. Co., 62 111. App.
502. See post, § 214, note 8.
^Montgomery Lt. & W. P. Co. v.
Citizens' Lt. H. & P. Co., 142 Ala.
462, 38 So. 1026; Phoenix Water Co.
V. Phoenix, 9 Ariz. 430, 84 Pac. 1095 ;
Green v. Ivey, 45 Fla. 338, 33 So. 711 ;
Town of Golconda v. Field, 108 III.
419; Crowder v. Town of Sullivan,
128 Ind. 486, 28 N. E. 94, 13 L.R.A.
647; City of Rushville v. Rush-
ville Nat. Gas Co., 132 Ind.
575, 28 N. E. 853, 15 L.R.A.
321; People's Elec. L. & P.
Co. V. Capital Gas & Elec. Lt. Co.,
116 Ky. 76, 75 S. W. 280; North
Baltimore Pass. R. R. Co. v. Balti-
more, 75 Md. 247, 23 Atl. 470 ; Revere
Water Co. v. Winthrop, 192 Mass.
455, 78 N. E. 497; Lake v. Va. &
Truckee R. R. Co., 7 Nev. 294; Power
V. Village of Athens, 99 N. Y. 592;
S. C. 26 Hun 282; Syracuse Water
Co. V. City of Syracuse, 116 N. Y.
167, 22 N. E. 381; In re City of
Brooklyn, 143 N. Y. 596, 38 N. E. 98?,
affirming S. C. 73 Hun 499, 26 N. Y.
Supp. 198; Skancateles W. W. Co. v.
Skaneateles, 161 N. Y. 154, 55 N. E.
S62, 46 L.R.A. 687; Columbus v.
Columbus Gas. Co., 76 Ohio St. 309,
81 N. E. 440 ; Johnson v. Crow, 87 Pa.
St. 184; Titusville Elec. Lt. & P. Co.
V. Titusville, 196 Pa. St. 3, 46 Atl.
195; Boyertown Water Co. v. Boyer-
town, 200 Pa. St. 394, 50 Atl. 189;
Hastings Water Co. v. Hastings, 216
Pa. St. 178, 65^ Atl. 403; Newport
News etc. Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Hampton
Roads Ry. & Elec. Co., 102 Va. 795,
47 S. E. 839 ; North Springwater Co.
v. Tacoma, 21 Wash. 517, 58 Pac. 773,
47 L.R.A. 214; Wood v. Seattle, 23
Wash. 1, 62 Pac. 135, 52 L.R.A. 369;
State V. Taylor, 36 Wash. 607, 79 Pac.
286; Clarksburg Elec. Lt. Co. v.
Clarksburg, 47 W. Va. 739, 35 S. E.
994, 50 L.R.A. 142; Sistersville Ferry
Co. V. Russell, 52 W. Va. 356, 43 S. E.
§ 214
OTHEE CASES OE TAKING.
409
is not by its terms exclusive, the legislature or municipality is not
precluded from granting a similar franchise or erecting a rival
way or structure, the result of which may be to greatly impair
or even totally destroy the value of the former grant, and such
damage is not a taking of the former franchise which entitles its
owner to compensation. This principle was settled in the lead-
ing case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge,® and has
been confirmed by numerous decisions.'^ Of course, if any prop-
107, 59 L.R.A. 513 ; Janesville Bridge
Co. V. Stoughton, 1 Pinney, 667;
Mills V. St. Clair County, 8 How. 569;
Thompson-Houston Electric Co. v.
City of Newton, 42 Fed. 723 ; Helena
V. Helena W. W. Co., 122 Fed. 1, 58
C. C. A. 381; Tillamook Water
Co. V. Tillamook City, 150 Fed.
117, 80 C. C. A. 71; Franklin
Trust Co. V. Peninsular Pure Water
Co., 161 Fed. 855, 89 C. C. A. 49.
67 Pick. 233, affirmed in 11 Pet.
420.
'Dyer v. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2
Porter (Ala.) 296; Phoenix Water
Co. V. Phoenix, 9 Ariz. 430, 84 Pac.
1095; Bartram v. Central Turnpike
Co., 25 Cal. 283; Salem v. Hamburg
Turnpike Co. v. Town ojE Lyme, 18
Conn. 451 ; Green v. Ivey, 45 Fla.
335, 33 So. 711; General Elec. R. K.
Co. V. Chicago City R. R. Co., 66 111.
App. 362; East St. Louis Connecting
Ry. Co. V. East St. Louis Union Ry.
Co., 108 HI. 265; Bush v. Peru
Bridge Co., 3 Ind. 21; LaFayette
Plank Road Co. v. New Albany &
Salem R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 90; Piatt v.
Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co., 8
Bush. 31 ; Phelps v. Parish of More-
house, 12 La. An. 649; Day v. Stet-
son, 8 Me. 365; State v. Noyes, 47
Me. 189; Washington & Bait. Turn-
pike Road V. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co.,
10 G. & J. 392; Bait. & Havre de
Grace Turnpike Co. v. Union R. R.
Co., 35 Md. 224 ; Revere Water Co. v.
Winthrop, 192 Mass. 455, 78 N. -E.
497 ; Long v. City of Duluth, 49 Minn.
280, 51 N. W. 913, 32 Am. St. Rep.
547 ; Fort Plain Bridge Co. v. Smith,
30 N. Y. 44; Syracuse Water Co. v.
City of Syracuse, 116 N. Y. 167, 22
N. E. 381 ; Skaneateles W. W. Co. v.
Skaneateles, 161 N. Y. 154, 55 N. E.
562, 46 L.R.A. 687; Oswego Falls
Bridge Co. v. Fish, 1 Barb. Ch. 547 ;
Empire City Subway Co. v. Broad-
way etc. R. R. Co., 87 Hun 279, 33 N.
Y. Supp. 1055; State ex rel. v. City
of Hamilton, 47 Ohio St. 52, 23 N. E.
Rep. 935, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
60; Bridgewater Ferry Co. v. Sharon
Bridge Co., 145 Pa. St. 404, 22 Atl.
1039; Boyertowu Water Co. v. Boyer-
town, 200 Pa. St. 394, 50 Atl. 189;
Hastings Water Co. v. Hastings, 216
Pa. St. 178, 65 Atl. 403; Hydes Ferry
Turnpike Co. v. Davidson County, 91
Tenn. 291, 18 S. W. Rep. 626; City of
Houston V. Houston City R. R. Co.,
83 Tex. 548, 19 S. W. 127, 6 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 106; Sommerville v.
Wimbush, 7 Gratt. 205; Newport
News etc. Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Hamp-
ton Roads Ry. & Elec. Co., 102 Va.
795, 47 S. E. 839; North Springs
Water Co. v. Tacoma, 21 Wash. 517,
58 Pac. 773, 47 L.R.A. 214; Wood v.
Seattle, 23 Wash. 1, 62 Pac. 135, 52
L.R.A. 369; State v. Taylor, 36
Wash. 607, 79 Pac. 286; Clarksburg
Elec. Lt. Co. V. Clarksburg, 47 W.
Va. 739, 35 S. E. 994, 50 L.R.A. 142;
Janesville Bridge Co. v. Stoughton,
1 Pinney 667 ; Hamilton G. & C. Co.
V. City of Hamilton, 146 Ui S. 258,
13 S. C. Rep. 90, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 76; Skaneateles W. W. Co. v.
Skaneateles, 184 U. S. 354, 22 S. C.
410
EMISTEJS^T DOMAIIf.
§ 215
erty is taken, compensation must be made.* The grant of a
franchise and its acceptance by acting upon it or otherwise,
creates a contract and the franchise cannot be recalled or re-
voked.®
§ 215 (137). When the franchise is exclusive. There
is no doubt as to the power of the legislature to grant, or to
authorize the granting, of exclusive privileges and franchises,
when the same is not forbidden by the constitution.'" But
municipal corporations cannot grant exclusive franchises unless
400; Helena W. W. Co. v. Helena,
195 U. S. 383, 25 S. C. 40; Knoxville
Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U. S. 22,
26 S. C. 224; Thompaon-Houston El.
Co. V. City of Newton, 42 Fed. 723;
Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 49
Fed. 114, 1 C. C. A. 183; Helena v.
Helena W. W. Co., 122 Fed. 1, 58 C.
C. A. 381 ; Meridian v. Farmer's L.
& T. Co., 143 Fed. 67, 74 C. C. A.
221; Tillamook Water Co. v. Tilla-
mook City, 150 Fed. 117, 80 C. C. A.
71. In Fort Plain Bridge Co. v.
Smith, 30 N. Y. 44, the plaintiff had
a toll bridge across the Mohawk
River, and defendant erected a free
bridge within forty-nine feet of it,
the effect of which was totally to de-
stroy the value of the plaintiff's fran-
chise. It was held that the plaintiff
was without remedy.
It makes no difference that the
State itself is largely interested in
the management and profits of the
new enterprise. Illinois & Mich.
Canal Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
14 111. 314; Matter of Hamilton, 14
Barb. 405; Brooklyn City etc. R. R.
Co. V. Coney Island etc. R. R. Co., 35
Barb. 364; New York & Harlem R.
R. Co. v. Fortj'-second Street R. R.
Co., 50 Barb. 285; affirmed same, p.
309; S. C. 26 How. Pr. 68; White
River Turnpike Co. v. Vermont Cen-
tral R. R. Co., 21 Vt. 590; Tuckahoe
Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe etc. R. R.
Co., 11 Leigh 42; Turnpike Co. v.
State, 3 Wall. 210.
Contra: Hall v. Ragsdale, 4 Stew
& Porter, 252; Newburg Turnpike
Co. V. Miller, 5 Johns. Ch. 101;
Franklin & Columbia Turnpike Co. v.
County Court, 8 Humph. 342. And
see Hudson etc. Del. Canal Co. v. N.
Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 9 Paige 323 ; Ben-
nett Water Co. v. Miljvale, 200 Pa.
St. 613, 50 Atl. 155.
sLa Fayette Plank R. Co. v. New
Albany & Salem R. R. Co., 13 Ind.
90; Baltimore etc. Co. v. Union R. R.
Co., 35 Md. 224; Matter of Flatbush
Avenue, 1 Barb. 286; Seneca Road
Co. V. Auburn & Rochester R. R. Co.,
5 Hill 170; Pittsburg & Lake Erie
R. R. Co. V. Jones, 111 Pa. St. 204;
Moses v. Sanford, 11 Lea 731.
9 People V. Central Union Tel. Co.,
192 111. 307, 61 N. E. 428, 85 Am. St.
Rep. 338; Chicago Telephone Co. v.
N. W. Telephone Co., 199 111. 324, 65
N. E. 329; Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo
H. L. & P. Co., 124 Mich. 74, 82 N.
W. 811; Columbus v. Columbus Gas
Co., 76 Ohio St. 309, 81 N. E. 440;
ante, § 195; post, § 215, note, 18.
lOLivingston v. Van Ingen, 9
Johns. 507, 573; Muncy Elec. L. H.
6 P. Co. v. People's Elec. L. H. & P.
Co., 218 Pa. St. 636, 67 Atl. 956;
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 66 ;
New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana
Light Co., 115 U. S. 650; New Or-
leans Water Works Co. v. Rivers, 115
U. S. 674 ; Louisville Gas Co. v. Citi-
zens' Gas Co., 115 U. S. 683; St. Tam-
many Water Works v. New Orleans
Water Works, 120 U. S. 04; Note to
Ford V. Chicago Milk Shippers'
§ 215
OTTIEE CASES OF TAKIXO.
411
expressly authorized so to do.^^ Grants will be construed in
favor of the public and against the exclusive right. -^^ A statute
forbidding a county court from granting the right to operate a
ferry within half a mile of an existing ferry, does not prevent
the legislature from authorizing a ferry within the prohibited
limits.'^
When the grant of a franchise is exclusive, this is but a cir-
cumstance which increases its value without changing its es-
sential character. It- is still property, and subject to the power
of eminent domain.^* The power to take a franchise for pub-
lic use will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.-'^ The question
now is, what impairment of its value or interference with its
exercise or enjoyment will amount to a taking. In so far as it
Assn., 11 Am. R. E. & Corp. Rep. 433,
448.
Where the constitution prohibits
the granting of exclusive rights,
privileges and immunities an ex-
clusive ferry privilege cannot be
granted. Carroll v. Campbell, 110
Mo. 557, 19 S. W. 809. The granting
of an exclusive ferry franchise is not
a taking of the property of those on
the banks of the stream above or be-
low. Murray v. Mefee, 20 Ark. 561.
In State v. Tower, 84 Me. 444, 24 Atl.
898, it was held that the State could
grant an exclusive privilege of fish-
ing within the waters of the State
whether tidal or otherwise.
iiMontgomery Gas Light Co. v.
City Council, 87 Ala. 245, 6 So. 113;
Citizens' Gas etc. Co. v. Elwood, 114
Ind. 332; Crowder v. Town of Sulli-
van, 128 Ind. 486, 28 N. E. 94; City
of Newport v. Newport Light Co., 84
Ky. 166; Long v. City of Duluth, 49
Minn. 280, 51 N. W. 913, 32 Am. St.
Rep. 547; St. Louis Gas Light
Co. v. St. Louis Gas, Fuel & Power
Co., 16 Mo. App. 52 ; State v. Cincin-
nati Gas Co., 18 Ohio St. 202; Okla-
homa Ter. V. Oklahoma Gas & Elec.
Co., 13 Okl. 454, 74 Pac. 98; Mead-
ville Nat. Gas Co. v. Meadville Fuel
Gas Co., 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 448; Jackson
County H. R. R. Co. v. Inter-State
Rapid Transit Ry. Co., 24 Fed. Rep.
306; Grand Rapids E. L. & P. Co. v.
Grand Rapids E. L. & G. Co., 33 Fed.
Rep. 659; Hutchinson W. L. & P. Co.
v. Hutchison, 144 Fed. 256; 11 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep., p. 463, and cases
cited.
i2Knovxille Water Co. v. Knox-
ville, 200 U. S. 22, 26 S. C. 224.
13 Williams v. Wingo, 177 U. S.
001, 20 S. C. 793; Fanning v. Gre-
goire, 16 How. 524. The existence of
two ferries within a mile may be good
ground for refusing a license to a
third between the two. Sistersville
Ferry Co. v. Russell, 52 W. Va. 356,
43 S. E. 107, 59 L.R.A. 513.
i^iPost, §§ 438, 439; Mason v. Har-
per's Ferry Bridge Co., 17 W. Va.
396 ; Salem & Hamburg Turnpike Co.
V. Lyme, 18 Conn. 451 ; Piscataqua
Bridge Co. v. N. H. Bridge Co., 7 N.
H. 35; La Fayette Plank Road Co.
V. New Albany & Salem R. R. Co., 13
Ind. 90; Boston & Lowell R. R. Co.
V. Salem & Lowell R. R. Co., 2 Gray
1; Boston Water Power Co. v. Bos-
ton & W. R. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360;
Philadelphia & Gray's Ferry Pas-
senger Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 102 Pa. St.
123.
lePos*, §§ 438, 439.
412
EMINENT DOMAI^r.
§ 215
is exclusive, it will be protected by the law. The exclusive
right is property, -which cannot be interfered veith, except for
public use and upon Just compensation made.^® The exercise
of a rival franchise within the express terms of the grant is
a taking, and may be enjoined unless compensation is provided.*^
An act granting a franchise is a contract between the grantee
and the State, and any subsequent act impairing its obliga-
tion is void.-'* If the original grant is not exclusive, but is
made exclusive by a subsequent, act without any consideration,
such subsequent act is not binding upon the State and m,ay be
disregarded.^'' It is otherwise if there is a consideration for
such subsequent act.^° An exclusive frajichise or privilege in
a matter of public concern can be created only by the sovereign
power. It cannot be secured by contract with individuals or
corporations. Thus the grant by a railroad company of the ex-
clusive right of maintaining a telegraph line along its right
of way,^^ or the grant by an individual of the exclusive right
ispiscataqua Bridge Co. v. N. H.
Bridge Co., 7 N. H. 35.
iTGa. Northern Ry. Co. v. Tifton
etc. Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 762, 35 S. E.
104; People's Elec. Lt. & P. Co. v.
Capital Gas & Elec. Lt. Co., 116 Ky.
76, 75 S. W. 280; Hatten v. Furman,
123 Ky. 844; Peru v. Barrett, 100
Me. 213, 60 Atl. 968, 109 Am. St. Rep.
494, 70 L.R.A. 567 ; Boston & Lowell
R. R. Co. V. Salem & Lowell R. R.
Co., 2 Gray 1 ; St. Louis R. R. Co. v.
N. W. St. Louis Ry. Co., 69 Mo. 65 ;
Piscataqua Bridge Co. v. N. H.
Bridge Co., 7 N. H. 35 ; Power v. Vil-
lage of Athens, 99 N. Y. 592; S. C. 26
Hun 282; Muney Elec. Lt. H. & P.
Co. V. People's Elec. Lt. H. & P. Co.,
218 Pa. St. 636, 67 Atl. 956 ; Turnpike
Co. V. Davidson Co., 106 Tenn. 258,
61 S. W. 68; Binghamton Bridge, 3
Wall. 51; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg
W. W. Co., 202 U. S. 453, 26 S. C.
660, and cases cited in following sec-
tion.
isDartmouth College v. Wood-
ward, 4 Wheat. 625; Binghamton
Bridge, 3 Wall. 51; Powell v. Sam-
mon, 31 Ala. 552; Chicago Municipal
Gas L. Co. V. Town of Lake, 130 111.
42, 22 N. E. 616.
19 Johnson v. Crow, 87 Pa. St. 184;
Wheeling Bridge Co. v. Wheeling &
B. Bridge Co., 34 W. Va. 155, 11 S.
E. 1009, affirmed, 138 U. S. 287, 11 S.
C. 301.
2 0East Hartford v. Hartford
Bridge Co., 17 Conn. 79, S. C. 16
Conn. 149, 10 How. 511.
21 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Am.
Union Tel. Co., 65 Ga. 160, 38 Am.
Rep. 781 ; Baltimore & Ohio Tel. Co.
V. Western Union Tel. Co., 24 Fed.
319; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bur-
lington ■ etc. R. R. Co., 3 McCrary
130, 11 Fed. 1; Western Union Tel.
Co. V. Am. Tel. Co., 9 Biss. 72; West-
ern Union Tel. Co. v. B. & O. Tel. Co.,
19 Fed. 660 ; Western Union Tel. Co.
V. B. & 0. Tel. Co., 23 Fed. 12; Pacific
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Western
Union Tel. Co.,50 Fed. 493 ; Mercantile
Trust Co. V. Atlantic & P. R. R. Co.,
63 Fed. 910. Coniro; Western Union
Tel. Co. V. A. & P. Tel. Co., 7 Biss.
367; Canadian Pac. R. R. Co. v.
Western Union Tel. Co., 17 Can. Sup.
Ct. 151 ; and see Western Union Tel.
§ 21G
OTIIEE CASES OF TAKI^s'O.
413
of constructing pipe lines over his land for the transportation
of oil is void as against public policy. ^^
§ 216 (138). What is an interference with an exclusive
franchise? Bridges and ferries. The grant of the right to
maintain a toll-bridge with a provision that no other bridge or
ferry shall be allowed for a certain distance above or below the
same, is not violated by the erection of a railroad bridge with-
in the specified limits which is used exclusively for the passage
of trains as a part of the general line of the road.^^ In such
case there is no taking and no right to compensation. But such
grant is, of course, violated by the erection of a bridge for ordi-
nary travel.^* An exclusive franchise to maintain a ferry will
be protected from infringement, and a rival bridge or ferry can
only be established by an exercise of the eminent domain pow-
er. ^^ The grant of an exclusive privilege being in derogation of
common right and tending to create monopolies, should receive
The grant of "the exclusive right and
a strict construction.^®
Co. V. Chicago & P. R. R. Co., 86 111.
246, 29 Am. Rep. 28.
2 2West Virginia Transportation
Co. V. Ohio River Pipe Line Co., 22
W. Va. 600.
2 3Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica &
Schenectady R. R. Co., 6 Paige 554;
Thompson v. New York & Harlem R.
R. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 025; McRae v.
Wilmington R. R. Co., 2 Jones Law,
186; McLeod v. Savannah, Albany &
Gulf R. R. Co., 25 Ga. 445; Bridge
Co. V. Hoboken Land & Improvement
Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 81, affirmed in Court
of Errors and Appeals ; Same, p. 503,
affirmed in Supreme Court of United
States, 1 Wall. 116; Lake v. Vir-
ginia & Truckee R. R. Co., 7 Nev.
294.
Contra : Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v.
Hartford & New Haven R. R. Co., 17
Conn. 40, 42 Am. Rep. 716.
2 4Piscataqua Bridge Co. v. New
Hampshire Bridge, 7 N. H. 35; Bing-
hamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51 ; Horrell
V. Ellsworth, 17 Ala. 576; Nicon v.
Tallahassee Bridge Co., 47 Ala. 052;
Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 49
Fed. 114, 1 C. C. A. 183. AtuI see
Hartford Bridge Co. v. Union Ferry
Co., 29 Conn. 210; Townsend v.
Blewett, 5 How. (Miss.) 503.
25Blanchard v. Abraham, 115 La.
989, 40 So. 379; Peru v. Barrett, 100
Me. 213, 60 Atl. 968, 109 Am. St. Rep.
494, 70 L.R.A. 567; McRoberts v.
Washburn, 10 Minn. 23; New York
V. Starin, 106 N. Y. 1; Riverton
Ferry Co. v. McKeesport &, D. Bridge
Co., 1 Pa. Supr. Ct. 587. And see
Lindsay v. Lindjy, 20 Ark. 573;
Haynes v. Wells, 26 Ark. 464; Gales
V. Anderson, 13 111. 413; Patterson
V. Wollmann, 5 N. D. 608, 67 N. W.
1040, 33 L.R.A. 536.
2eShorter v. Smith, 9 Ga. 517; Sa-
vannah V. Vernon Shell Road Co., 88
Ga. 342, 14 S. E. 610; Long v. City of
Duluth, 49 Minn. 280, 51 N. W. 913,
32 Am. St. Rep. 547; New York v.
Starin, 106 N. Y. 1 ; State v. City of
Hamilton, 47 Ohio St. 52, 23 N. E.
Rep. 935, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
60, 67 ; Emerson v. Commonwealth,
108 Pa. St. Ill ; Parkersburg Gas Co.
V. Parkersburg, 30 W. Va. 435; Sis-
tersville Ferry Co. v. Russell, 52 W.
Va. 356, 43 S. E. 107, 59 L.R.A. 513;
414 EMINENT D03VIAIN. § 217
privilege of building and maintaining a bridge across the Kan-
sas Eiver at the city of Lawrence for the period of twenty-one
years," was held not to be violated by the establishment of a
ferry at the same place.^'^ The converse of this proposition is
denied in two cases in which it is held that the exclusive right
of maintaining a ferry within certain limits is violated by the
erection of a toll-bridge within those limits.^* A licensed bridge
or ferry, though having no exclusive right, will be protected from
competition by an unlicensed bridge or ferry. ^^
§ 217 (139). Same: Other franchises. While, in the
absence of any exclusive right, the construction of free public
roads, the effect of which may be to diminish tolls, is not action-
able,^" yet the construction of such roads for the express pur-
pose of enabling the traveling public to avoid toll-gates is an act
of bad faith and will be enjoined.^ ^ The operation of a steam
railroad alongside a turnpike is held not to be an unwarrantable
interference with the franchise of the turnpike company.^ ^ A
United States mail contractor cannot use a toll road without pay-
ing toll, nor could the government itself.^* The extension of
the limits of a city, so as to embrace a toll road, does not deprive
the company of the right to take tolls, and such right can only
be taken by virtue of the eminent domain power^^*
Where a railroad is authorized between two places with a pro-
vision that no other road shall be authorized between the same
Stein V. Bienville Water Supply Co., siHall v. Rugsdale, 4 Stew. &
34 Fed. 145. Porter, 252; Franklin & Columbia
2 'Parrott V. Lawrence, 2 Dill. 332; Turnpike Co. v. County Court of
see also Bush v. Peru Bridge Co., 3 Maury, 8 Humph. 342; Hydes Ferry
Ind. 21 ; and see, in support of the Turnpike Co. v. Davidson County, 91
general proposition, Hartford Bridge Tenn. 291, 18 S. W. 626; Turnpike
Co. V. Union Ferry Co., 29 Conn. 210. Co. v. Davidson, 108 Tenn. 258, 61
28Gates v. McDaniel, 2 Stew. 211; S. W. 68.
19 Am. Dec. 49; and Mason v. Har- 3 2Bordentown etc. Turnpike Co. v.
per's Ferry Bridge Co., 17 W. Va. Camden & Amboy E. E. Co., 17 N. J.
396; see also Queen v. Cambrian Ry. L. 314.
Co., 40 L. J. Q. B. 169. ssDickey v. Maysville Road Co., 7
2 9Green v. Ivey, 45 Fla. 338, 33 So. Dana, 113.
711; Blackwood v. Tanner, 112 Ky. 34Ft. Wayne L. & I. Co. v. Mau-
672, 06 S. W. 500; Carroll v. Camp- mee Ave. Gravel Road Co., 132 Ind.
Ibell, 108 Mo. 550, 17 S. W. 884; Ca- 80, 30 N. E. 880, 15 L.R.A. 651; and
tawba Toll Bridge Co. V. Flowers, 110 see Highland Park v. Detroit etc.
N. C. 381, 14 S. B. 918. Road Co., 95 Mich. 489, 55 N. W. 382.
aoDerry Tp. Road, 30 Pa. Supr. Ct.
538.
§ 217 OTHEK CASES OF TAKISa. ilS
places for thirty years, the formation of a continuous line be-
tween the two places by an arrangement between three distinct
companies is a violation which will be enjoined.^'' The exclu-
sive right of constructing a railroad is not violated by the con-
struction of a horse railway within the specified limits.^" The
exclusive privilege of transporting passengers between certain
points is not interfered with by a road for merchandise only.^'^
A dummy railroad upon a street was held to be an interference
with the exclusive privilege of operating a horse railroad on the
same street.^* But such exclusive privilege is not violated by the
construction of another horse railroad on the same street for a
short distance only, merely as a connecting link.^® The city
of Des Moines granted to the Des Moines Street K. R. Co. the
exclusive right for thirty years to use all the streets of the city
for street cars, to be operated by animal power only, with a pro-
vision that "the said city of Des M<?ines shall not, until after
the expiration of said tenn, grant to or confer upon any person
or corporation any privileges which will impair or destroy the
rights and privileges herein granted to said company." It was
held that a grant of the right to use the streets for electric cars
was no infringement of the first grant.*" A competing omnibus
line will not be allowed to use the track of a horse railroad
company;*^ and, although a horse railroad company has no
3 6 Boston & Lowell R. R. Co. v. public conveyance, would impair the
Salem & Lowell R. R. Co., 2 Gray 1. revenue of the Narrow-Gauge Com-
S6Louiaville & P. R. R. Co. v. pany, and thus impair its rights
Louisville City Ry. Co., 2 Duvall 175. vmder this ordinance. Its right is
"Richmond etc. R. R. Co. v. to operate a horse railroad. It is en-
Louisa R. R. Co., 13 How. 71. titled to the exclusive right to do so,
3 8Denver & S. Ry. Co. v. Denver and to use all improvements that
City Ry. Co., 2 Col. 673. may be made thereto ; but to nothing
3 9Street Railway Co. of Grand more. The city cannot impair that
Rapids V. West Side Street Railway right; but it does not follow that it
Co., 48 Mich. 433. may not authorize other means of
^oTeachout v. Des Moines Broad street travel. It did not undertake
Gauge St. R. R. Co., 75 la. 722, 38 to confer upon the company the right
N. W. Rep. 145. The court says : to carry all the passengers who might
"It may well be questioned whether desire to travel by public conveyance
the city had any power to contract upon the streets; and it did not, by
that no other means of public travel the ordinance, contract that new and
should be allowed upon the streets of improved and undiscovered methods
the city except by cars drawn by of travel might not be adopted as the
horses for the period of thirty years. public wants might demand."
If so, the establishment of hack-lines 4 1 Citizens' Coach Co. v. Camden
or omnibus-lines, or other means of II. R. R. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 267, 36 Am.
416 EilliVEXT DOilAIN, § 217
exeulsive right in a street, a new company will not be allowed
to lay down its tracks so that one rail of the new track will be
between the two rails of the old track, without compensation.*^
It does not seem to have been customary to grant exclusive
rights to canal companies. At least no cases appear in the re-
ports based upon such a right. A competing railroad impairing
the franchise of a canal is not a taking,*^ but it has been inti-
mated that a railroad within a few feet of a canal might produce
actionable injury, if, by frightening the horses, or otherwise, it
materially injured the rights and property of the company.**
An exclusive right to furnish gas or water to a city or village,
or to use the streets for that purpose, will be protected by injunc-
tion.*'' But an exclusive privilege of lighting with gas is not
infringed by the grant of a privilege to light with electricity
in the same territory.*^ An exclusive franchise "to supply
heat to the public from gas within the city of Pittsburgh," was
held not to preclude a franchise to supply heat to the same public
from natural gas brought from without the city.*'^ So an exclu-
sive right to supply a city with water from "Three Mile Creek"
is not interfered with by a grant to supply water derived from
other sources.** "Where the exclusive right of furnishing water
within a certain borough was granted by statute to a private com-
pany, the construction and operation of works by the borough
itself was held to be no infringement of the grant.*® But it has
Eep. 542, affirming S. C. 31 N. J. Eq. 4 4Hudson & Delaware Canal Co. v.
525. In Camden Horse E. K. Co. v. A'. Y. & Erie E. E. Co., 9 Paige 323.
Citizens' Coach Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 145, 4 5Metropolitau Gas Co. v. Hyde
wliich is the same case, a preliminary Park, 27 111. App. 361 ; City of New-
injunction was granted, but was set port v. Newport Light Co., 84 Ky.
aside in Citizens' Coach Co. v. Cam- 166; White v. Meadville, 177 Pa. St.
den H. E. E. Co., 29 N. J. Eq.*299, on 643, 35 Atl. 695, 34 L.E.A. 567; Vicks-
grounds not affecting the merits of burg v. Vicksburg W. W. Co., 202 U.
the case. S. 453, 26 S. C. 660. And see Citizens'
4 2HamiIton etc. Traction Co. v. Water Co. v. Bridgeport Hydraulic
Hamilton etc. Elec. Traction Co., 69 Co., 55 Conn. 1.
Ohio St. 402, 69 N. E. 991; Union leParkersburg Gas Co. v. Parkers-
Passenger Ey. Co. V. Continental Ey. burg, 30 W. Va. 435.
Co., 11 Phil. 321; Fidelity Trust etc. 4 7Emerson v. Commonwealth, 108
Co. V. Mobile St. E. E. Co., 53 Fed. Pa. St. 111.
687. 4sStein v. Bienville Water Supply
* slllinois & Michigan Canal Co. v. Co., 34 Fed. 145.
C. & E. I. E. E. Co., 14 111. 314; Tuck- 4 9Lehigh Water Co.'s Appeal, 102
alioe Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe etc. E. E. Pa. St. 515.
Co., 11 Leigh 42, 30 Am. Eep. 374.
§ yi8 OTHEE OASES OF TAKING. 417
been held in the same State that, -where a city had power to con-
struct municipal waterworks and also to contract with a private
corporation for a water supply, it could not do both and that,
after contracting for a supply it could not establish municipal
works during the period of the contract.®" A city made a con-
tract with a private company to supply water within the city
for thirty years and stipulated not to grant to any other person
or corporation, any contract .or privilege to furnish water with-
in the city during such period. It was held that the contract
was to be construed in favor of the public and, as there was no
stipulation against municipal works, the city could establish
them within the thirty years.® ^
The forfeiture of a franchise is not a taking of property with-
in the constitution.®* Under the right reserved to amend the
charter of a plank-road company, the legislature cannot re-
quire it to remove its gates within a populous city so as to
throw open to the free use of the public two and a half miles
of its road.®^ This would be to deprive the company of its
property without due process of law.
§ 218 (139a). Electrical franchises and electricalinter-
ference. A telegraph or telephone line upon a street may be
damaged by the construction and operation of an electric rail-
way on the same street. Such damage may arise, both from in-
duction and conduction. Some courts have held that the grant
to a telegraph or telephone company is subject to the use of the
street for all legitimate street purposes, that the electric rail-
way is such in purpose, and, therefore, that the telegraph or
telephone company has no remedy for damage caused by the
railroad company, unless it is due to negligence.®* In Tennes-
B»White V. Meadville, 177 Pa. St. 54Cincinnati Inclined Plane E. K.
643, 35 Atl. 695, overruling Howard's Co. v. City & Suburban Tel. Assn., 48
Appeal, 162 Pa. St. 374, 29 Atl. 641, Ohio St. 390, 27 N. E. 890, 12 L.R.A.
and Fingal v. Millvale, 162 Pa. St. 534, 4 Am. R. E. & Corp. Hep. 533 ;
393, 29 Atl. 644; Bennett Water Co. Hudson Riv. Tel. Co. v. Watervliet
V. Millvale, 200 Pa. St. 613, 50 Atl. T. & R. R. Co., 135 N. Y. 393, 32 N. E.
155; S. C. 202 Pa. St. 616, 51 Atl. 148, 31 Am. St. Rep. 838, 17 L.R.A.
1098. 674, 6 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 619,
BiKnoxville Water Co. v. Knox- reversing 61 Hun 140; Cumberland
ville, 200 XJ. S. 22, 26 S. C. 224. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United Electric R.
52State Bank v. State, 1 Blackf. R. Co., 42 Fed. 272, 12 L.R.A. 544;
267, 12 Am. Dec. 234. National Tel. Co. v. Baker, L. R.
BSDetroit v. Detroit & Howell (1893) 2 Oh. D. 186.
Plank Road Co., 43 Mich. 140.
Em. D.— 27.
418 EMIJSTENT DOMAIN. § 218
see it has been held that if the railroad company places its poles
and wires so as to interfere with those of the telephone company,
the former will be liable for damage occasioned ; also that injury
to the telephone company by conduction or the escape of elec-
tricity through the ground to the telephone wires, both compa-
nies using the ground as a return circuit, was such a damage as
amounted to a taking of the telephone company's property, for
which compensation must be made ; but that the injury by induc-
tion, being one which inevitably resulted from the exercise of
its right by the railroad company, was one which must be borne
or obviated by the telephone company.^^ In Missouri, where tel-
egraph and telephone lines are held to be legitimate street uses, a
light company was restrained from placing its wires within eight
feet of the wires of a telegraph company.*® An electric rail-
road will be prevented by injunction from any unnecessary in-
terference with a telephone company.*'^ The grant to an elec-
trical company to use the streets for poles and wires confers no
exclusive right and the like privilege may be granted to others.^*
The first company will be protected from any unnecessary or
unreasonable interference and no further.'* "As between two
corporations exercising similar franchises upon the same street,
priority, though it does not create monopoly, carries superiority
of rights, and equity will adjust conflicting interests, as far as
possible, controlling them, so that each company may exercise
56Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. 178, 100 Am. St. Rep. 53; Newport
United Electric R. R. Co., 93 Tenu. News etc. Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Hamp-
492, 29 S. W. 104, 27 L.R.A. 236, 10 ton Roads Ry. & Elec. Co., 102 Va.
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 549. See also 795, 47 S. E. 839.
Cefitral Pa. Tel. & Supply Co. v. 5 9Montgomery Lt. & W. P. Co. v.
Wilkes-Barre etc. R. R. Co., 11 Pa. Citizens' L. H. & P. Co., 142 Ala.
Co. Ct. 417. 462, 38 So. 1026; Chicago Telephone
56VVestern Union Tel. Co. v. Elec- Co. v. N. W. Telephone Co., 199 111.
trie Light Co., 46 Mo. App. 120. See 324, 65 N. E. 329; N. W. Telephone
also Nebraska Tel. Co. v. York Gas Exch. Co., v. Twin City Telephone Co.,
etc. .Co., 27 Neb. 284, 43 N. W. 126; 89 Minn. 495, 95 N. W. 460; Western
Paris Elec. L. & R. R. Co. v. S. W. Union Tel. Co. v. Elec. Lt. & P. Co.,
Tel. & Tel. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 178 N. Y. 325, 70 N. E. 866, reversing
S. W. 902; Western Union Tel. Co. v. S. C. 81 App. Div. 655; Cumberland
Los Angeles Elec. Co., 76 Fed. 178. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Louisville Home
5 'Birmingham Traction Co. v. Tel. Co., 110 Fed. 593; Same v. Same,
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 119 110 Fed. 596. See East Tenn. Tele-
Ala, 144, 24 So. 731. phone Co. v. Anderson Telephone
i«i^ni. Tel. & Tel. Co, v. Morgan Co., 115 Ky. 488, 74 S. W. 218.
County Tel. Co., 138 Ala. 597, 30 So.
§ 219 OTHEK OASES OE TAKING. 419
its own franchise as fully as is compatible with the necessary
rights of another. " ®° A company lawfully using the street
may prevent interference by a second company having no lawful
right to use the street.^ ^
§ 219 (140). Change of use, or an additional use.
We have already discussed this subject, in some of its aspects, in
the chapter upon streets and highways.** We have there shown
that land taken for a street could not be devoted to any addi-
tional use, distinct from its use as a highway, without compen-
sation to the abutting owner for any interference with his rights.
It may be laid down as a general proposition that, where an
easement only is taken, the land will revert to the owner of the
fee when it ceases to be used for the particular purpose for which
it was taken.** The soil cannot be devoted to a different use,
whether more or less onerous, vnthout a new condemnation and
compensation paid.** When a fee simple estate is taken for pub-
lic use, it may be either absolute or qualified. If absolute, then
no individual has any interest in the land or its use, and it may
be devoted to any purpose in the discretion of the legislature, or
even sold to private parties.*^ A qualified fee is one which is
held in trust, as it were, for some particular public use or uses,
the execution of which affects the value or enjoyment of particu-
lar property. In such case the owners of the property so affected
have a right to the faithful execution of the trust, in the nature
of an easement in the property so held in trust, and the legisla-
ture cannot divert it to a different use without compensation
to the owners of the property affected. Thus lands taken for
an asylum, jail or school-house are usually held by a fee simple
absolute, while lands acquired for streets and public grounds,
though held in fee, are nevertheless held in trust for the use
specified. The nature of this trust, where the land is held for
street purposes, and the rights or easements of abutting owners
therein have been considered in the last chapter.** As a gen-
eral rule, land dedicated for a public park or square, may not be
6 ON. W. Telephone Exch. Co. v. 6 4 See cases cited in following
Twin City Telephone Co., 89 Minn. notes, also ante, §§ 149-193; and
495, 95 N. W. 460. State v. Laverack, 34 N., J. L.
siMerchants P. & D. Tel. Co. v. 201; Jackson v. Big Sandy etc. R. R.
Citizens Telephone Co., 123 K.y. 90, Co., 63 W. Va. 18.
93 S. W. 642. esPost, § 858.
624m*e, chap. v. oeAnte, §§ 120-124.
<S3Post, §§ 861, 862.
420
BMINEITT DOMAIISr.
§ 219
diverted to other uses, such as a jail,®'' court-house or public office
building^*® or otherwise,®* and those having property adjacent
to such square or public ground, have a right in the nature of
an easement that the trust attached to such public grounds shall
be faithfully executed. ''" Public parks may be used for build-
ings in aid of the purpose for which they are established, such
as museums, art galleries, casinos and the like.'^^ Also for free
STFlaten v. City of Moorhead, 51
Minn. 518, 53 N. W. 807, 19 L.R.A.
195; Corporations of Sequin v. Ire-
land, 57 Tex. 183.
6 8McIntyre v. EI Paso County, 15
Colo. App. 78, 61 Pae. 237;Prinee-
ville V. Auten, 77 111. 325 ; Rowzee v.
Piercers Miss. 846, 65 Am. St. Rep.
625, 40 L.R.A. 402; Fesaler v. Union,
67 N. J. Eq. 14, 56 Atl. 272; Foster
V. City of Buffalo, 64 How. Pr. 127.
In Pennsylvania it is held that the
great square of a county town may
be used for a court-house, but when
a new court-house has been built the
old one cannot be retained and rented
in part for private purposes and used
in part for a treasurer's office. Com-
monwealth V. Bowman, 3 Pa. St. 202.
69Douglass V. Montgomery, 118
Ala. 599, 24 So. 745, 43 L.R.A. 376;
Gordon Co. v. Calhoun, 128 Ga. 781,
58 S. E. 360; Riverside v. MacLain,
210 111. 308, 71 N. E. 408, 102 Am. St.
Rep. 164, 66 L.R.A. 288; Ocean City
Land Co. v. Ocean City, 73 N. J. L.
493, 63 Atl. 1112; Clercq v. Galli-
polis, 7 Ohio, pt. 1, 217 ; Morrow v.
Highland Grove Traction Co., 219 Pa.
St. 619, 69 Atl. 41; Stumer v.
County Court, 42 W. Va. 724, 36
L.R.A. 300; Gihuan v. City of Mil-
waukee, 55 Wis. 328; United States
V. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 2 Biss.
174; Davenport v. Buffington, 97
Fed. 234, 38 C. C. A. 453, 46 L.R.A.
377; Murray v. Allegheny, 136 Fed.
57, 69 C. C. A. 65; Attorney General
V. Sunderland, L. R. 2 Ch. Div. 634.
And see State Historical Assn. v.
Lincoln, 14 Neb. 336.
TORiverside v. MacLain, 210 111.
308, 71 N. E. 408, 102 Am. St. Rep.
164, 66 L.R.A. 288 ; Fessler v. Union,
67 N. J. Eq. 14, 56 Atl. 272; Ocean
City Land Co. v. Ocean City, 73 N.
J. L. 493, 63 Atl. 1112; Foster v.
Buffalo, 64 How. Pr. 127 ; Conrad v.
West End Hotel & Land Co., 126 N.
C. 776, 36 S. E. 282 ; Morrow v. High-
land Grove Traction Co., 219 Pa. St.
619, 69 Atl. 41, But see Anderson v.
Rochester etc. R. R. Co., 9 How Pr.
553; Clark v. City of Providence, 16
R. L 337, 15 Atl. Rep. 763; Mowry
V. City of Providence, 16 R. I. 422, 16
Atl. Rep. 511. In the latter cases the
city of Providence was authorized by
the legislature to discontinue a pub-
lic park and sell the lands at pleas-
ure. It was held that owners of land
in the vicinity could not enjoin the
carrying into effect of the act. In
Manson v. South Bound R. R. Co.,
64 S. C. 120, 41 S. E. 838, it was held
that one who did not abut on a pub-
lic park had no interest to maintain
a bill to enjoin its use as a railway
station. But some cases hold a resi-
dent and taxpayer may have a bill
to enjoin a diversion in such cases.
Mclntyre v. El Paso County, 15 Colo.
App. 78, 61 Pac. 237; Davenport v.
Buffington, 97 Fed. 234, 38 C. C. A.
453, 46 L.R.A. 377.
'1 "Public parks have come to be
recognized as not only the natural
place for walks and drives, afoot,
awheel or with horse and carriage,
for boating, skating and other out-
door athletics, but also as the appro-
priate and most effective location for
§ 219
OTHEK CASES OF TAKING.
421
public libraries/^ monuments and statuary.'^* Land conveyed
to a town for a market cannot be used for a court-bouse/* and
land dedicated for a court-bouse cannot be used for otber pur-
posesJ^ Railroads may be laid in public parks, for tbe pur-
pose of facilitating tbe enjoyment and use of the park.'^® As
monuments and statues, either to his-
toric heroes or to pure art, fountains,
flower displays, botanical and zoolog-
ical gardens, museums of nature and
art, galleries of paintings and sculp-
ture, music stands and music halls,
and all other agencies of aesthetic
enjoyment of eye and ear." Laird
V. Pittsburg, 205 Pa. St. 1, 6, 54 Atl.
324, 61 L.K.A. 332. Also Ross v.
Long Branch, 73 N. J. L. 292, 63 Atl.
609.
'sSpires v. Los Angeles, 150 Cal.
64, 87 Pac. 1026; Laird v. Pittsburg,
205 Pa. St. 1, 54 Atl. 324, 61 L.K.A.
332; Attorney General v. Sunder-
land, L. R. 2 Ch. Div. 634. In the
Pennsylvania case the city of Pitts-
burg sought to condemn property for
an addition to Schenley park. The
Carnegie Free Library, containing a
library, museum and music hall, oc-
cupied a site in the park. A part of
the addition was to be used for an
enlargement of the library. It was
held that such a library was a proper
use of the park and that the condem-
nation could be made. The court
says: "The Free Library Building
as already said contains an art gal-
lery, museum and music hall besides
a free library. The latter is as much
devoted to the public recreation as
the other parts. It affords a place of
resort and entertainment for the
public at large in rainy and inclem-
ent weather, and at all times for
those who prefer quiet study to sight-
seeing or more active amusement. It
may be conceded as argued by ap-
pellants that a library in itself is not
an integral part of a park, and were
the taking here complained of a tak-
ing directly and solely for a library
site, a different question would be
presented. But a library occupying
only a very small fraction of the
park area, not interfering at all sub-
stantially with its open air and free
space, does not differ in legal effect
from the museums, picture galleries,
music stands and other incidental
meins of promoting the entertain-
ment and pleasure of the people.
Should the city, therefore, decide to
devote the land now in controversy
to the enlargement of the free library
building it could not be fairly said to
be a use outside of what is legiti-
mately implied in the authority to
take for a public park." pp. 6, 7.
7 3Parsons v. Van Wyck, 56 App.
Div. 329, 67 N. Y. S. 1054.
7 4 Attorney General v. Goderich, 5
Grant (U. C.) 402.
7 6Lamar County v. Clements, 49
Tex. 348. Where land was dedicated
for a court-house and standing room
for wagons, etc., it was held that the
city could not lay it out into grass
plats, walks, etc. Board of Super-
visors V. City of Wincheifer, 84 Va.
467, 4 S. E. 844.
7 6People V. Park etc. E. E. Co., 76
Cal. 156; Philadelphia v. Commis-
sioners of Fairmount Park, 16 Pa.
Co. Ct. 625; Philadelphia v. Mc-
Manes, 175 Pa. St. 28, 34 Atl. 331.
Where a city had only an easement in
lands held for park purposes, a, rail-
road through the park was held an
additional burden for which the fee
owner was entitled to compensation.
Newton v. Manufacturers Ey. Co.,
115 Fed. 781, 53 C. C. A. 599.
422
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 220
to what use may be made of land along a river or water front
dedicated to public use, there is considerable doubt under the
authorities.'''^ A city condemned a strip of land for laying
water pipes. It was held that a telephone line thereon, connect-
ing the pumping station with the central fire station and for
the exclusive use of the city, was an additional burden.'®
§220(141). Change of use: Instances. The differ-
ent kinds of toll-roads are public highways, in the same sense,
and to the same extent, as ordinary roads. The only difference
is as to the manner of maintaining them.''® Consequently, when
a turnpike is laid out over a common highway,®" or when a turn-
pike is made a common highway, to be maintained at the pub-
lic expense,®^ the owner of the fee is entitled to no compensa-
tion. There has, in fact, been no change of use, nor any addi-
7 7Platt V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
74 la. 127, 37 N. W. 107 ; McNeil v.
Hicks, 34 La. An. 1090; Attorney
General v. Tarr, 148 Mass. 309, 19 N.
E. 358, 2 L.R.A. 87 ; In re Mayor etc.
of New York, 135 N. Y. 253, 31 N. E.
1043; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Cin-
cinnati, 76 Ohio St. 48*1, 81 N. B. 893 ;
Portland & Willamette Valley R. R.
Go. V. Portland, 14 Or. 188; Memphis
V. Wright, 6 Yerg. 497; Williams v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 110 Tenn. 442,
75 S. W. 1026; Union Ry. Co. v. Chic-
asaw Cooperage Co., 116 Tenn. 594,
95 S. W. 171 ; Burlington Gas Light
Co. V. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 165
U. S. 370, 17 S. C. 359; Illinois etc.
R. & C. Co. V. St. Louis, 2 Dill. 70.
7 8Spoka'ne v. Colby, 16 Wash. 610.
7 9State V. Maine, 27 Conn. 641, 71
Am. Dec. 89, and cases cited in the
following notes.
soTurner v. Rising Sun etc. Turn-
pike Co., 71 Ind. 547; Stratton v.
Elliott, 83 Ind. 425; Danville etc.
Road Co. V. Campbell, 87 Ind. 57;
Palmer v. Logansport etc. Gravel R.
Co., 108 Ind. 137 ; Douglass v. Boons-
borough Turnpike Co., 22 Md. 219,
85 Am. Dec. 647; Morgan v. Mon-
mouth Plank Road Co., 26 N. J. L.
99; Wright v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 76;
Walker v. Caywood, 31 N. Y. 51;
Benedict v. Goit, 3 Barb. 459; Chag-
rin Falls & Cleveland Plank Road Co.
v. Cane, 2 Ohio St. 419; Nolensville
V. Baker, 4 Humph. 315; Panton
Turnpike Co. v. Bishop, II Vt. 198.
But see, as involving a contrary doc-
trine, Williams v.. Natural Bridge
Plank Road, 21 Mo. 580, and Cape
Girardeau etc. Road Co. v. Renfroe,
58 Mo. 265, 274. Where a public road
is taken by a turnpike company the
erection of a toll-house on the road is
an additional burden. Wright v.
Carter, 27 N. J. L. 76, and remarks
on this case in State v. Laverack, 34
N. J. L. at p. 207. Same point as to
toll-house, Stratton v. Elliott, 83 Ind.
425 ; Danville etc. Road Co. v. Camp-
bell, 87 Ind. 57; Perkins v. Moores-
town etc. Turnpike Co., 48 N. J. Eq.
499, 22 Atl. 180.
81 State v. Maine, 27 Conn. 641, 71
Am. Dec. 89 ; Murray v. Commission-
ers of Berkshire, 12 Met. 455; Hing-
ham & Quincy Bridge Co. v. County
of Norfolk, 6 Allen 353; Pierce v.
Somersworth, 10 N. H. 369 ; Barclay
V. Lebanon, 11 N. H. 19; Heath v.
Barman, 49 Barb. 496; Heath v. Bar-
more, 50 N. Y. 302; Pittsburgh etc.
R. R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 104 Pa.
St. 583.
§ 220 OTHER OASES OF TAKING. 423
tional burden cast upon the land. Where a highway is taken by
a turnpike company, the company has the same right to repair
and improve it, by changing the grade or otherwise, that the
public had, and will not be liable for consequential damages re-
sulting therefrom.*^ Nor in such case is the town entitled to
compensation for the expense of making the road in the first
instance.®* It is generally held that a ferry landing upon a
highway is an additional burden for which the owner of the fee
is entitled to compensation.** If or can a ferry landing be es-
tablished upon a turnpike without compensation to the owner
of the franchise.*® Where by agreement between an electric
power company and a trolley company a new line of poles, higher
and with longer arms, and carrying the wires of both companies,
was to be substituted in a street for the poles and wires of the
trolley company, it was held that the new line would impose an
additional burden on the fee and that the owner could enjoin the
proposed construction until the right was acquired in the manner
provided by law.*^ Land taken for a turnpike cannot be trans-
ferred to a railroad company without compensation to the own-
er of the fee.*^ But a turnpike may be condemned for a rail-
road when authorized by the legislature, and in such case the
owner of the fee is only entitled to compensation for the addi-
tional burden upon his soil, if any.** It has been held that a
street railroad may be laid over a toll-bridge, under such terms as
will protect the rights of the bridge company and the traveling
public, without compensation to the bridge company.*® A rail-
82Benedict v. Goit, 3 Barb. 459; v. Wynns, 2 Dev. (N.C.) 402; Cham-
Douglass V. Boonesborough Turnpike bers v. Farry, 1 Yeates 167 ; Chess v.
Co., 22 Md. 219, 85 Am. Dec. 64; lut Manown, 3 Watts 219.
«ee Williams V. Natural Bridge Turn- ssLexington etc. Turnpike Co. v.
pike Co., 21 Mo. 580. McMurtry, 3 B. Mon. 516. Contra:
ssTown of Barnet v. Passumpsic Clarke v. White, 5 Bush 353.
Turnpike Co., 15 Vt. 757; see also s 6 Young \. York Haven Elec.
Monmouth County v. Red Bank etc. Transmission Co., 15 Pa. Diat. Ct.
Turnpike Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 91 ; Water- 843.
bury River Turnpike Co. v. Litch- sTMahon v. New York Central R.
field, 26 Conn. 209. Upon the repeal R. Co., 24 N. Y. 658 ; Ellicottville etc.
of a turnpike charter the pike does Plank Road Co. v. Buffalo etc. R. R.
not become a public highway, which Co., 20 Barb. 644.
the public are bound to keep in re- ssBrainard v. Missisquoi R. R. Co.,
pair. State v. New Boston, 11 N. H. 48 Vt. 107; Miffin v. Railroad Com-
407. pany, 16 Pa. St. 182.
84Prosser v. Wappello, 18 la. 327; sspittsburgh etc. Pass. R. R. Co.
Prosser v. Davis, 18 la. 367; Pipkin v. Point Bridge Co., 165 Pa. St. 37,
424 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 220
road on a canal bank is an additional use.®" Where a railroad
company is authorized to condemn a canal, it has been held
that the land does not revert to the owner of the fee, but the pub-
lic easement is transferred to the railroad company, and the
owner of the fee is only entitled to such damages as are occa-
sioned by the new use.®^ But, if the public easement is volun-
tarily abandoned, the soil reverts to the owner of the fee. This
right of reversion is property, of which the owner cannot be de-
prived without compensation. Accordingly, where a railroad ■
company has an easement only, and transfers its right of way
to a municipal corporation for a street, pursuant to an authority
given by the legislature, and takes up and removes its track,
the land reverts to the owner of the fee, and he can maintain
ejectment therefor.^^ So where an easement is taken for a
canal which is abandoned and the right of way transferred to a
railroad company.*^ Land which is subject to a ferry landing
may be used for a bridge without further compensation.®* Prop-
erty abutting on an alley cannot be said to be damaged by
taking the alley for a street, as the street affords the same
privileges as the alley. ®^ A third-class road, on which the owner
of the fee is allowed to maintain gates, cannot be changed to a
second-class road, on which gates are not allowed without further
compensation.'® Nor can a private road be made a public way
30 Atl. 511, 26 L.E.A. 323. And see 636, 53 N. W. 853, it ia said that even
County of Floyd v. Rowe Street R. R. if a canal company has a fee in its
Co., 77 6a. 614. Contra: New York right of way, it cannot transfer the
etc. R. R. Co. V. Fair Haven etc. R. same to a railroad company, so as to
R. Co., 70 Conn. 610. authorize its use for railroad pur-
9 0La Fayette, Muncie & B. R. R. poses, without compensation to those
Co. V. Murdock, 68 Ind. 137; Vought to whom the land would revert. And
V. Columbus etc. R. R. Co., 58 Ohio see Whitney v. State of New York, 96
St. 123. N. Y. 240.
siHatch V. Cincinnati & Indiana s^Hudson v. Cuero Land & Emi-
R. R. Co., 18 Ohio St. 92; Chase v. gration Co., 47 Tex. 56, 26 Am. Rep.
Sutton Manufacturing Co., 4 Cush. 289.
152. But see note 93. ssFagan v. Chicago, 84 111. 227.
9 2Heard v. Brooklyn, 60 N. Y. 242; ssBounds v. Kirven, 63 Tex. 159;
Strong V. Same, 68 N. Y. 1. Compare Woodbridge v. Eastland Co., 70 Tex.
cases cited in last note. 680, 8 S. W. Rep. 503 ; Parker County
ssPittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. v. Jackson, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 36, 23 S.
Co. V. Bruce, 102 Pa. St. 23. In Tay- W. 924.
lor V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 83 Wis.
§ 221
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
425
without consent or compensation.®'^ Where an irrigation canal
is enlarged and causes new damage an action will lie.**
§ 221 (141a). New burdens on railroad right of way.
A line of telegraph or telephone on a railroad right of way is
an additional burden, for which compensation must be made to
the owner of the fee,®* unless the line is constructed for the use
of the railroad company in the operation of its road and dispatch
of its business.^ A railroad company may, from time to time,
construct as many tracks and sidetracks on its right of way as
it deems necessary for the transaction of its business.^ But
where a right of way is acquired for main line only, sidetracks
cannot be laid thereon without additional compensation.^ IsTor
can a railroad company grant a part of its right of way to the
use of another company as against the owner of the fee.* But
it has been held that one railroad company may grant the joint
use of its tracks to another company, without imposing any
additional burden on the land or entitling the owner to com-
pensation.' Where a right of way was condemned through a
3 'Indianapolis v. Kingsbury, 101
Ind. 200, 51 Am. Rep. 749. But see
Clayton v. County Court, 58 W. Va.
253, 52 S. E. 103, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.)
598.
ssClear Creek Land & Ditch Co. v.
Kilkenny, 5 Wyo. 38.
9 9 American Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Smith, 71 Md. 535, 18 Atl. 910, 1 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 73; Phillips v.
Postal Tel. Cable Co., 130 N. C. 513,
41 S. E. 1022, 89 Am. St. Rep. 868;
Hodges V. Western Union Tel. Co.,
133 N. C. 225, 45 S. E. 572; Pittoek v.
Central Dist. & Print. Tel. Co., 31 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 589. And see Atlantic & P.
Tel. Co. V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 6
Biss. 158; Mercantile Trust Co. v.
Atlantic & P. R. R. Co., 63 Fed. 513.
iWestern Union Tel. Co. v. Rich,
19 Kan. 517. In this case it was held
that a telegraph was indispensable
for the safe and proper operation of
ii railroad, and that it made no dif-
ference that the telegraph was being
constructed by a distinct company
and for the joint use of the two cor-
porations.
2East Tenn. V. & G. R. R. Co. v.
Telford's Exrs., 89 Tenn. 293, 14 S.
W. 776, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
364 ; Borough of Pottsville v. People's
R. R. Co., 148 Pa. St. 175, 23 Atl. 900;
White V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 122
Ind. 317, 23 N. E. 782, 7 L.R.A. 257,
2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 138.
sDounisthorpe v. Fremont etc. R.
R. Co., 30 Neb. 142, 46 N. W. Rep.
240, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. R«p. 172.
4Ft. Worth etc. R. R. Co. v. Jen-
nings, 76 Tex. 373, 13 S. W. 270, 8
L.R.A. 180, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
121; Blakely v. Chicago etc. R. R.
Co., 34 Neb. 284, 51 N. W. 767, 6 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 262; Piatt v.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 43 Ohio St.
228; Pennsylvania Co. v. Piatt, 47
Ohio St. 336, 25 N. E. 1028.
BMiller v. Green Bay etc. R. R. Co.,
59 Minn. 169, 60 N. W. 1006, 11 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 246, 26 L.R.A. 443.
And this is especially true where the
statute in force at the time of con-
demnation provides for a joint use
upon making compensation to the
first company. Stevens v. St. Louis
426 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 222
tract of land abutting on a river, and the railroad company was
afterwards authorized to build a bridge, with approaches, both
for railroad and highway traffic, it was held that the latter use
was an additional burden on the soil, entitling the owner to
compensation.® The substitution of electricity for steam as a
motive power imposes no additional burden on the right of way.'^
The rights of the railroad company in its right of way, generally,
are treated in another connection.®
§ 222 (141b). Joint use of tracks. It has never been
intimated that one commercial railroad could acquire the right
to use the tracks of another such railroad, except by agreement
or an exercise of the eminent domain power. And no such right
can be condemned without express legislative authority.' But
it has been claimed that the legislature may provide for the joint
use of street car tracks under the police power. ^^ This is un-
doubtedly a mistaken view. For any damage or inconvenience
resulting from a legitimate exercise of the police power, no com-
pensation can be had.-^^ The tracks and franchises of a street
railroad company are private property, and are protected by the
constitution, the same as any other property.-'* It necessarily
follows that to authorize one company to use the tracks of an-
other, is to take the property of the latter, and this cannot be
Merchants Bridge T. Ry. Co., 152 Mo. R. R. Co. v. Southern R. R. Co., 105
212, 53 S. W. 1066. Mo. 562, 16 S. W. 920, 4 Am. R. R. &
sPayne v. Kansas etc. R. R. Co., Corp. Rep. 622.
46 Fed. 546; Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v, uPost, § 243.
Payne, 49 Fed. 114, 1 C. C. A. 183; izTown of Areata v. Areata & M.
Kansas etc. R. R. Co. v. Le Flora, 49 R. R. Co., 92 Cal. 639, 28 Pae. 676;
Fed. 119, 1 C. C. A. 192. Citizens' Horse R. R. Co. v. City of
7Howley v. Central Valley R. R. Belleville, 47 111. App. 388; City of
Co., 213 Pa. St. 36, 62 Atl. 109. Belleville v. Citizens' Horse R. R. Co.,
sPost, §§ 845-860. 152 111. 171, 38 N. E. 584, 26 L.R.A.
9Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. 681; Chicago General R. R. Co. v.
V. Minneapolis & W. R. R. Co., 61 Chicago City R. R. Co., 10 Nat. Corp.
Minn. 502, 63 N. W. 1035. And see Rep. 651; Covington St. R. R. Co. v.
State V. Jacksonville Terminal Co., Covington & Cinn. St. R. R. Co.
41 Fla. 377, 27 So. 225. (Ky.), 19 Am. Law Reg. (N.S.) 265;
loBooth street Ry. Law, §§ 110, S. C, 1 Ky. Law Rep. 341; Canal &
115; Covington St. R. R. Co. v. Cov- C. R. Co. v. Orleans R. R. Co., 44 La.
ington & Cinn. St. R. R. Co. (Ky.), An. 54, 10 So. 389; People v. O'Brien,
19 Am. L. Reg. (N.S.) 765; Canal & 111 N. Y. 1, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684, 2
C. St. R. R. Co., v. Crescent City L.R.A. 255; Brooklyn Central R. R.
R. R. Co., 41 La. An. 561, C So. Co. v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 32
849; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Wade, 91 Barb. 358; Kinsman St. R. R. Co. v.
Cal. 449, 27 Pao. 768 ; Union Depot Broadway & iST. St. R. R. Co., 36 Ohio
§ 222
OTHEK OASES OF TAKING.
427
done without compensation.^^ In many cases the right is re-
served when the original grant is made, to permit other com-
panies to use the tracks, on specified terms and conditions.^*
In Pennsylvania it is held that a joint use of street car tracks
cannot be authorized, as it is taking the property of one corpo-
ration to be devoted to the same public use by another corpora-
tion.-'^ In case of a corporation organized to provide depot and
terminal facilities to railroads in Jacksonville, it was held by
the supreme court of Florida, that it could be compelled to furn-
St. 239; Toledo Consolidated St. R.
R. Co. V. Toledo Electric St. E. R.
Co., 50 Ohio St. 603, 36 N. E. 312; S.
C. 6 Ohio C. C. 362; Jersey City &
Hoboken Horse R. R. Co. t. Jersey
City & Bergen R. R. Co., 21 N. J. Eq.
550; S. C. 20 N. J. Eq. 61; Camden
Horse R. R. Co. v. Citizens' Coach
Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 145; S. C. 29 N. J.
Eq. 299, 31 N. J. Eq. 525, 33 N. J. Eq.
267; Union Pass R. R. Co. v. Conti-
nental R. R. Co., 11 Phila. 321; City
of Houston V. Houston City St. R. R.
Co., 83 Tex. 548, 19 S. W. 127, 6 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 106. Compare Lake
Roland El. R. R. Co. v. City of Balti-
more, 77 Md. 352, 26 Atl. 510, 20
L.R.A. 126, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
619; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Wade, 91
Cal. 449, 27 Pac. 768, 25 Am. St. Rep.
201.
isCovington St. R. R. Co. v. Cov-
ington & Cinn. St. R. R. Co. (Ky.),
19 Am. L. Reg. (N.S.) 765; Louis-
ville City R. R. Co. v. Central Pass.
R. R. Co., 87 Ky. 223, 8 S. W. 329;
Canal & C. St. R. R. Co. v. Crescent
City R. R. Co., 41 La. An. 561, 6 So.
849 ; Canal & C. R. R. Co. v. Orleans
R. R. Co., 44 La. An. 54, 10 So. 389;
Canal & C. R. R. Co. v. St. Charles
St. R. R. Co., 44 La. An. 1069, 11 So.
702; Canal & C. R. R. Co. v. Crescent
City R. R. Co., 44 La. An. 485, 10 So.
888; New Orleans & C. R. R. Co. v.
Canal & C. R. R. Co., 47 La. An. 1476,
17 So. 834, 12 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
590; Crescent City R. R. Co. v. New
Orleans etc. R. R. Co., 48 La. An. 856,
19 So. 868; Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 63 Md.
263; North Baltimore Pass. R. R. Co.
V. North Ave. R. R. Co., 76 Md. 233,
23 Atl. 466; Jersey City & Hoboken
Horse R. R. Co. v. Jersey City & Ber-
gen R. R. Co., 21 N. J. Eq. 550; S. C.
20 N. J. Eq. 61 ; Sixth Ave. R. R. Co.
V. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330; Sixth Ave. R.
R. Co. V. Kerr, 45 Barb. 138; Brook-
lyn Central R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn
City R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 358; Kins-
man St. R. R. Co. V. Broadway & N.
St. R. R. Co., 36 Ohio St. 239; Toledo
Consol. St. R. R. Co. v. Toledo Elec-
tric St. R. R. Co., 50 Ohio St. 603, 36
N. E. 312; S. C. 6 Ohio C. C. 362;
Union Pass. R. R. Co. v. Continental
R. R. Co., 11 Phila. 321 ; 2 Dill. Mun.
Corp. § 727.
"Grand Ave. R. R. Co. v. Lindell
R. R. Co., 148 Mo. 637; Grand Ave.
R. R. Co. v. Citizens' R. R. Co., 148
Mo. 665. The subject of the joint use
of tracks will be found treated in its
various phases in note to Grand Ave.
R. R. Co. V. People's R. R. Co., 12
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 594, 603.
isPhiladelphia etc. St. Ry. Co.'s
Petition, 203 Pa. St. 354, 53 Atl. 191 ;
Commonwealth v. Uwchlan St. Ry.
Co., 203 Pa. St. 608, 53 Atl. 513.
So one company cannot be authorized
to straddle the tracks of another.
Commonwealth v. Bond, 214 Pa. St.
307, 63 Atl. 741, 112 Am. St. Rep.
745.
428 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 223
ish its facilities to a particular railroad upon a compensation
fixed by the railroad commissioners, and that this was an exer-
cise of the police power and not of the eminent domain, and that
the compensation need not be fixed by twelve men as required by
the constitution in case of an appropriation to public use.^®
§ 223 (142). Interfering with an easement. We have
already seen that to interfere with or destroy any right appurte-
nant to property is a taking within the constitution.-^'^ We have
heretofore treated only of those natural rights appurtenant to
land which may be interfered with by works upon adjacent
land. But one may have annexed to his land easements in the
land of others, derived by grant or prescription. Such ease-
ments cannot be destroyed or impaired by public works without
compensation.^* This principle is well illustrated by the case
of Arnold v. Hudson River R. R. Co.^® Arnold was the o-wner
of a factory, with the right to take water from a pond at some
distance from his factory and convey it thereto, over the land
of another, in a race way or trunk, either over or under the
ground. For this purpose Arnold had built and had in use a
trunk some six feet above the ground. The defendant, having
acquired title to a portion of the intervening lands, took down
the trunk, laid it beneath the ground and its tracks, and then
raised the water by means of a penstock into the old trunk.
Arnold permitted this to be done on the assurance of the com-
pany's agent that it would make the watercourse as good as for-
merly, and also keep the same in repair. The water power was
impaired, and the expense of repairs was increased. It was
held that the easement was property within the constitution,
and that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. The prin-
1 estate v. Jacksonville Terminal Ann Arbor R. E. Co.,141 Mich. 84, 104
Co., 41 Fla. 377, 27 So. 225. N. W. 375; Detroit Leather Specialty
T-TAnte, § 65. Co. v. Mich. Cent. E,. E. Co., 149
isstricklerv. Colorado Springs, 18 Mich. 588, 113 N. W. 14; Willey v.
Col. 61, 26 Pac. 313, 25 Am. St. Rep. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 96 N. C.
245; Spencer v. New York etc. E. E. 408; NeflF v. Penn. E. E. Co., 202 Pa.
Co., 62 Conn. 242, 25 Atl. 350; In- St. 371, 51 Atl. 1038; Alexandria etc.
dianapolis & Cumberland Gravel E. E. Co. v. Faunce, 31 Gratt 761.
Eoad Co. V. Belt Ey. Co., 110 Ind. 5 ; See Kingsland v. New York, 110 N.
De Lander r. Baltimore Co., 94 Md. Y. 569, 18 N. E. Rep. 435.
1, 50 Atl. 427; Munn v. Boston, 183 1955 N. Y. 661. See aUo, for corn-
Mass. 421, 67 N. E. 312; Levi v. ments on same ease. Story v. N. Y.
Worcester Consol. St. Ry. Co., 193 Elevated R. R. Co., 90 N. Y., p. 149,
s. 116, 78 N. E. 853; Hyman v. 43 Am. Rep. 146.
§ 224
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
429
ciple of this case will apply to all easements.^" One who has a
mere parol license to hunt and fish over lands has no such inter-
est as entitles him to compensation for interference by a railroad
company. ^^
§ 224. Restrictive covenants. When one conveys a tract
of land upon condition that it shall not be used in a certain way
and this condition is imposed for the benefit of the remaining
lands of the grantor, the latter has an interest in the tract con-
veyed in the nature of an easement and may prevent a violation
of the condition.^^ And where the owner of a tract conveys dif-
ferent portions to different grantors and imposes the same re-
striction upon the use in each conveyance, not only does the
grantor have an interest in each part conveyed, appurtenant to
the part not conveyed, but each purchaser acquires a similar in-
terest in all the other tracts so conveyed and may enforce the
restriction as to such tracts.^' When property subject to a re-
strictive covenant is taken for public use, the owner of the prop-
erty for whose benefit the restriction is imposed, is entitled to
compensation. Thus where the owners of lots covenant that
certain portions of the lots shall not be built upon or occupied
soSo of rights appurtenant, as the
right obtained from a city to extend
a pier into navigable water. Matter
of New York, 193 N. Y. 503, reversing
121 App. Div. 702. See, in this con-
nection, Boston Gas Light Co. v. Old
Colony & Newport Ey. Co., 14 Allen
444; McSweeney v. Commonwealth,
185 Mass. 371, 70 N. E. 429.
2iBird V. Great Eastern Ry. Co.,
34 L. J. C. P. 366.
2 2Trustees of Colimibia College v.
Lynch, 70 N. Y. 440; Same v.
Thatcher, 87 N. Y. 311; Hodge v.
Sloan, 107 N. Y. 244; Rowland v. Mil-
ler, 139 N. Y. 93, 34 N. E. 765, 22
L.R.A. 182; Meigs v. Milligan, 177
Pa. St. 66, 35 Atl. 600.
2 3In Evans v. Foss, 194 Mass. 513,
80 N. E. 587, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1039,
which was a bill to enforce a restrict-
ive covenant against carrying on any
business offensive to the occupants of
dwelling houses, the court says; "It
is a familiar principle of law, which
has been applied in many cases, that
when one makes deeds of different
portions of a tract of land, each con-
taining the same restriction upon the
lot conveyed, which is imposed as a
part of a general plan for the benefit
of the several lots, such restriction
not only imposes a liability upon the
grantee of each lot as between him
and the grantor, but it gives him a
right in the nature of an easement, .
which will be enforced in equity
against the grantee of one of the
other lots, although there is no direct,
contractual relation between the two.
Through the common character of the
deeds the grantees are given an in-
terest in a contractual stipulation
which is made for their common bene-
fit." p. 515. To same effect: Simp-
son V. Mikkelsen, 196 111. 575, 63 N.
E. 1036; Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass.
448; Jeffries v. Jeffries, 117 Mass.
184; Sanborn v. Rice, 129 Mass. 387;
Jackson v. Stevenson, 156 Mass. 496.
430 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 225
with buildings above a certain height, each acquires an easement
of light, air and prospect in the lots of the other covenantors, and
when some are taken for a court-house free of any easements, the
owners of the others are entitled to compensation.^* In another
case a man owning a tract of land opened a street through it and
laid out the part on one side for a private park or recreation
ground and on the other into building lots. These lots were
sold to divers parties subject to a covenant not to erect or permit
to be erected thereon any erection or -building of. any kind nearer
to the street than a certain building line and not to erect any
buildings on the land conveyed other than dwelling houses
fronting on the street of a specified value. A railroad com-
pany took the lots and built an embankment thereon for its
tracks which encroached on the building line. It was held that
the grantor was entitled to compensation for the destruction of
the restrictive covenants and a very substantial judgment was
affirmed.^® In case of land platted and sold for summer resi-
dences on the seashore, the deeds contained restrictive covenants
which forbade the use of the property for many objectionable
trades and businesses specified by name or for any other noxious,
dangerous or offensive trade or business whatever. In a pro-
ceeding by the United States to condemn a part of the lots for
the public defense, it was held that the covenants related to
private uses and would not be infringed by the use proposed. ^^
In the same case, some squares or grounds dedicated as public
parks were taken, and it was held that lot owners who had a
right to insist upon the preservation of the parks, were entitled
to compensation.*'^
§ 225 (143). Possessory rights in public lands. One
having the mere naked possession of public lands is not entitled
to compensation when the same are taken for public use.**
The fact that such a person has a right to pre-empt or intends
2 4Ladd V. Boston, 151 Mass. 585, 112 Fed. 622; Wharton v. United
24 N. E. 858, 21 Am. St. Rep. 585. States, 153 Fed. 876, 83 C. C. A. 58.
2ELong Eaton Recreation Grounds 27fifee 11 Cyc. 1051.
Co. V. Midland Ry. Co. (1902) K. B. 2 8Allard v. Loban, 3 Martin, La.
574. "There is in this case a nega- N. S. 293 ; Doran v. Central Pacific R.
tive easement adding to the monetary R. Co., 24 Cal. 245 ; Hobart v. Ford,
value of the estate. Why that should * Nev. 77; Rosa v. Missouri, Kansas
not be the subject of compensation it & Texas Ry. Co., 18 Kan. 124.
is difficult to conceive." Mathew L. Contra: Cal. Northern R. R. Co. v.
J., p. 585. Gould, 21 Cal. 254.
2 6United States v. Certain Lands,
§ 226 OTHEE CASES OS' TAKING. 431
to do SO, is immaterial, unless he has actually taken steps, by
entry and payment, to secure his right.^^ If the right of way
through public lands is granted to a railroad company, one sub-
sequently acquiring title thereto takes subject to such right of
way.^" But it has been held that one having growing crops
upon public lands is entitled to compensation for injury there-
to."
§ 226 (144). Mapping Territory into streets and
blocks for future improvements. It has been a common prac-
tice in the older cities for the legislature to authorize the public
authorities to make a map of vacant lands, indicating the loca-
tion of streets, alleys and public grounds for future improve-
ment, and to provide that when the streets are opened they shall
be opened as designated on the map, and that no improvements
shall be placed upon the parts designated as streets or public
grounds. It is evident that, if such an act is valid, the owner
would be deprived or at least greatly restricted in the enjoyment
of one of the most valuable rights of property, without any com-
pensation, viz. : the right of user. Consequently, so much of
such an act as restricts the right to make improvements is void,
and when such streets are opened the owners of property taken
are entitled to compensation precisely the same as though the
streets had not been previously designated.^ ^ The mere making
of such a map or plat does not affect any right of property, and
ssWestem Pacific R. R. Co. v. 419; Baltimore v. Hook, 62 Md. 371;
Kerr, 41 Cal. 489; Hamilton v. State v. Carragan, 36 N. J. L. 62;
Spokane etc. R. R. Co., 2 Idaho 898, Forster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577, 32 N.
28 Pac. 408. See Denver etc. R. R. E. 976, 18 L.R.A. 543, affirming S. C.
Co. V. Wilson, 28 Colo. 6, 62 Pac. 843; 60 N. Y. Supr. 313; In re 44th St., 7
Union Pae. R. R. Co. v. Harris, 76 Pa. Co. Ct., 69; Warren v. Bunnell,
Kan. 255, 91 Pac. 68; Jamestown etc. 11 Vt. 600; Paine Lumber Co. v. City
R. R. Co. V. Jones, 7 N. D. 619, 76 of Oshkosh, 86 Wis. 397, 56 N. W.
N. W. 227; Slaight v. Mo. Pac. Ry. 1088; and see Beidler's Appeal, 1
Co., 39 Wash. 576, 81 Pac. 1062. Monaghan (Pa. Supm. Ct.) 336; Ger-
soDavis V. East Tenn. & Ga. R. R. man-American Real Est. Co. v.
Co., 1 Sneed 94. Meyers, 32 App. Div. N. Y. 41.
siGillan v. Hutchinson, 16 Cal. Such an act waa held valid in
K3 ; Rosa v. Missouri, Kansas & New York on the ground that it was
Texas Ry. Co., 18 Kan. 124. passed before there was any limita-
3 2Terrill v. Town of Bloomfield tion in the constitution of that State
(Ky.), 21 S. W. 1041; Moale v. Bal- upon the power of eminent domain,
timore, 5 Md. 314, 61 Am. Dec. 276; and compensation fbr improvements
Stewart v. Baltimore, 7 Md. 500 ; Bal- placed within the lines of a proposed
timore v. St. Agnes' Hospital, 48 Md. street was denied, although the atvee!;
432
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 226
is not a taking.*^ l^or does the filing of such a map under such
a statute constitute any incumbrance upon the land designated
as a street, and a vendee cannot successfully object to the title
on that ground.** If the owner conveys with reference to such
map or plat, he thereby adopts the same and dedicates for public
use so much of his land as is thereon designated for streets and
public places,*® and when they are afterwards opened for use
is entitled only to nominal damages.*® The failure of a city
to open streets which have been projected does not render it
liable to one who has built on the supposition that that would
be done.*^
was not actually laid out until seven-
teen years after the map was made.
Matter of Furman Street, 17 Wend.
649. This case was followed in Penn-
sylvania without noticing the ground
on which it rested. Forbes Street, 70
Pa. St. 125; see also District of City
of Pittsburgh, 2 W. & S. 320; In re
Sedgeley Avenue, 88 Pa. St. 509;
Matter of Snyder Avenue, 14 Phil.
346; Matter of 127th Street, 56
How. Pr. 60.
ssDistrict of Columbia v. Armes, 8
App. Cas. D. C. 393; State v. Sey-
mour, 35 N. J. L. 47 ; New York Cen-
tral etc. R. R. Co. V. HafiFen, 90 Hun
260, 35 N. Y. Supp. 806; Singer v.
New York, 47 App. Div. 42, 62 N. Y.
S. 347; S. C. affirmed, 165 N. Y. 658,
59 N. E. 1130; District of City of
Pittsburgh, 2 W. & S. 320; Burch v.
City of McKeesport, 166 Pa. St. 57,
30 Atl. 1023; South Twelfth Street,
217 Pa. St. 362, 66 Atl. 568. But see
State V. Hudson County Ave. Corns.,
37 N. J. L. 12.
3 4Forster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577,
32 N. E. 976, 18 L.E.A. 543, affirming
S. C. 60 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 313; Singer
V. New York, 47 App. Div. 42, 62 N.
Y. S. 347; S. C. affirmed, 165 N. Y
658, 59 N. E. 1130. In the opinion of
the Court of Appeals in the former
case it is said : "Whenever a law de-
prives the owner of the beneficial use
and free enjoyment of his property.
or imposes restraints upon such use
and enjoyment that materially affect
its value, without legal process or
compensation, it deprives him of his
property, within the meaning of the
constitution. All that is beneficial in
property arises from its use and the
fruits of that use, and whatever de-
prives a person of them deprives him
of all that may be desirable or valu-
able in the title or possession. It is
not necessary, in order to render a
statute obnoxious, to the restraints
of the constitution, that it must, in
terms or in effect, authorize an actual
physical taking of the property or the
thing itself, so long as it affects its
free use and enjoyment, or the power
of disposition at the will of the
owner. • • • As the plaintiff in
the case at bar was virtually de-
prived of the right to build upon his
lot by the statute in question, and as
this circumstance obviously impaired
its value, and interfered with his
power of disposition, it was to that
extent void as to him, and created no
incumbrance upon it."
sBClark v. City of Elizabeth, 37 N.
J. L. 120; Matter of Furman Street,
17 Wend. 649.
ziSee cases in last note and post,
§ 743; and see Morris Canal Co. v.
Jersey City, 12 N. J. Eq. 252; Same
on appeal, p. 547.
3 7Collins V. Savannah, 77 Ga. 745.
§ 228 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING. 433
§ 227 (144a). Establishing building lines. The at-
tempt by statute or ordinance to establish building lines on a
street, whereby the abutting owners are prohibited from placing
any building within a specified distance of the street line, is
similar to the practice noticed in the last section. Such a law
deprives the owner of the lawful use of his property, and
amounts to a taking thereof within the meaning of the consti-
tution, and, consequently, can only be carried out by making
provision for the compensation of the owner.^* In commenting
upon such an ordinance, the supreme court of Missouri, in the
case cited, says : "The day before the ordinance went into opera-
tion defendant had the unquestionable right to build at will on
his lot. The day afterwards he was as effectually prevented
from building on the forty feet strip, except under the peril of
punishment, as if the city had built a wall around it, and this,
too, without any form of notice, any species of judicial inquiry,
or any tender of compensation. If this is not a 'taking' by mere
arbitrary edict, it is difficult to express in words the meaning
which should characterize the act of the city."
§ 228 (145). Justifiable entries. One of the constituent
rights of property in land is the right of exclusion, that is, the
right to exclude others from its possession and enjoyment. This
right, however, is not absolute, but is subject to certain overrul-
ing necessities. Thus an entry upon land will be justified, not
only without consent of the owner, but even against his positive
prohibition, if necessary to escape bodily harm or secure prop-
erty which is found there without the privity or fault of its
owner. If a highway is impassable, one may go round the
obstruction on private property.*® All such entries, however,
are limited by the necessities of the case and must be made with
the least possible injury, and continued for only a reasonable
time.** A somewhat similar necessity justifies an entry on
private property for the purpose of making preliminary surveys.
See also Funke v. City of St. Louis, 3 9Morey v. Fitzgerald, 56 Vt. 487,
122 Mo. 132, 26 S. W. 1034. 56 Am. Eep. 538; Campbell v. Race, 7
asCity of St. Louis v. Hill, 116 Cush. 408, 54 Am. Dec. 728; 2 Bl.
Mo. 527, 22 S. W. 861, 8 Am. R. R. & Com. 37 ; Ball v. Herbert, 3 T. R. 253 ;
Corp. Rep. 422; People v. Calder, 89 Ruch v. New Orleans, 43 La. An. 275,
App. Div. 503, 85 N. Y. S. 1015; 9 So. 473.
Hawkins v. Pittsburg, 220 Pa. St. 7, 40Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590.
69 Atl. 283. See Byrnes v. Riverton,
64 N. J. L. 210, 44 Atl. 857.
Em. D. — 28.
434: EMINENT DOMAIN. § 228
Unless this was allowable it would be almost impossible to con-
struct a public work, such as a railway or canal. It has accord-
ingly been held that an entry for preliminary surveys is not a
taking, but may be justified on the ground of necessity.*^ Such
an entry has been held not to be a taking for which compensation
must be first made.*^ If possession be continued an unreason-
able time, or any unnecessary damage is done, the persons mak-
ing or authorizing the entry become trespassers ai> initio.*^
The possession gained by such entry cannot be continued for the
purpose of construction,** or the prosecution of experimental
works.*^ And so, on the same ground, and subject to the same
limitations, an entry upon private property is justifiable for
the purpose of measuring or establishing public boundaries,*®
or for making coast surveys by the general government.*'^ But
this right does not justify the inflicting of substantial and per-
manent damage. And where an act provided for the survey
and marking of the boundary between two counties and the
state engineer, in pursuance of the act, entered upon a large
estate and cut a path through the forest from five to twenty-five
feet wide and more than three miles long, to be used as a base
line in determining the boundary, it was held that the damage
was such as could not be inflicted without compensation and as
the act made no provision therefor, the engineer and his assist-
ants were held liable in trespass.** It has been held in Penn-
sylvania that the temporary occupation of private property ad-
jacent to a railroad by shanties, stables, shops, etc., during the
construction of the road, was justifiable without compensation.*®
In the opinion of the court, the question is treated as one of
4lCushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247; Cal. 528; Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me.
Orr V. Quimby, 54 IST. H. 590, 596; 247.
Polly V. Saratoga etc. K. E. Co., 9 < SMorris & Essex E. E. Co. v. Hud-
Barb. 449; Bonaparte v. Camden & son Tunnel E. E. Co., 25 N. J. Eq.
Amboy E. E. Co., Bald. 205, 225; 384, 388.
Stuart V. Baltimore, 7 Md. 500, 516; "Winslow v. Gifford, 6 Gush. 327;
State V. Seymour, 35 N. J. L. 47, 53; Litchfield v. Pond, 186 N. Y. 66, 78
Walther v. Warner, 25 Mo. 277. N. E. 719, reversing S. C. 105 App.
42State V. Simons, 145 Ala. 95, 40 Div. 229, 93 N. Y. S. 1016.
So. 662. -4 70rr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590, 596,
iiSee last note; also Bellingham isLitchfield v. Pond, 186 N. Y. 66,
Bay E. & N. Co. v. Loose, 2 Wash. 78 N. E. 719, reversing S. C. 105 App.
500, 27 Pac. 174. Div. 229, 93 N. Y. S. 1016.
4 4Davis V. San Lorenzo E. E. Co., 4 9Landerbrun v. Duffy, 2 Pa. St.
47 Cal. 517 ; California & Pacific E. 398.
E. Co. V. Central Pacific E. E. Co., 47
229
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
435
statutory construction merely. It seems to us that such an in-
trusion is prohibited by the constitution.''*'
§ 229 (146). Injuries by blasting. It is a common prac-
tice in the construction of a railroad or other public "work to
resort to blasting, in consequence of which fragments of rock
are frequently projected beyond the limits of the company's
land. Casting rock upon a man's land is a violation of his right
of exclusion. All the authorities agree that there must be com-
pensation for such damages. But some cases hold that such com-
pensation is included in the original award, and that a separate
action therefor will not lie.°^ Other cases hold the contrary
doctrine, which seems to us the better rule."^ One from whom
no land has been taken, and who consequently has received no
award of compensation, would be entitled to recover for such
damages within the principle of either class of cases.^^ Debris
50St. Peter v. Denison, 58 N. Y.
416, 17 Am. Rep. 258.
eiSabin v. Vermont Central E. R.
Co., 25 Vt.- 363; Dodge v. County
Commissioners of Essex, 3 Met. 380;
Brown v. Providence, Warren &
Bristol R. R. Co., 5 Gray 35; White-
house V. Androscoggin R. R. Co., 52
Me. 208; see also Tibbetts v. Knox &
Lincoln R. R. Co., 62 Me. 437 ; Eaton
V. E. & N. A. Ry. Co., 59 Me. 520, 8
Am. Rep. 430. In Blackwell v.
Lynchburg & D. R. R. Co., Ill N. C.
151, 16 S. E. 12, 32 Am. St. Rep. 786,
which was a suit for injury to plain-
tiff by a rock projected 200 yards
from the place of the blast, the court
says: "Excavating by blasting is
one of the approved methods of con-
structing a railway, and the prudent
use of such an agency in removing
hard material is always deemed to
have been in contemplation when the
damage was assessed for the right of
way, as a necessai-y incident to the
privilege. But when damage is done
to the land of the owner, adjacent to
that within the condemned boundary,
if it results from managing or hand-
ling explosive material carelessly or
unskillfully, or from the unnecessary
use of such as is so powerful that the
injury might be expected to follow as
a natural or probable consequence,
the corporation is answerable in a
new action. « * » We do not
think that the privilege of throwing
stones through the air 200 or more
yards, and beyond the right of way,
so as to endanger the lives of the
owners of adjacent land and of the
members of their families, when en-
gaged in their domestic duties in and
around their dwelling house, passes
with the right of way, as a necessary
incident to the casement." The same
observations would apply in ease of
injury to property.
52Hay V. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159,
51 Am. Dec. 284; S. C. 3 Barb. 42;
Tremain v. Same, 2 N. Y. 163; St.
Peter v. Denison, 58 N. Y. 416, 17 Am.
Rep. 258; Carman v. Indiana R. R.
Co., 4 Ohio St. 399. As to the lia-
bility of the company for such dam-
ages where the work is done by a eon-
tractor, compare last case holding
that it is, and last two cases of last
note holding that it is not.
5 3FitzSimons & Connell Co. v.
Braun, 199 111. 390, 65 N. E. 249, 59
L.R.A. 421; Chicago v. Murdock, 212
436 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 229
thus cast upon adjoining land must be removed in a reasonable
time, even though there is no liability for the original intru-
sion.®* In a recent Hew York case, brought for injuries to
the plaintiff's house caused by jarring and concussion, resulting
from blasting on the right of way of defendant, through and near
the plaintiff's lot, the court of appeals adjudicated the follow-
ing propositions: 1. The powers granted to said road corpora-
tions are construed as privileges conferred, but upon the under-
standing that they shall be exercised in strict conformity to
private rights, and under the same responsibility as though the
acts done in the execution of such powers were done by an indi-
vidual. 2. The test of the permissible use of one's own land
is not whether the use causes damage to his neighbor, but the
inquiry is, was the use a reasonable exercise of the dominion
which the owner of property has by virtue of his ownership over
his property, having regard to all interests affected, his own and
those of his neighbors, and having in view also public policy.
3. A railroad company which, having to do blasting on its own
land in order to lay its tracks, exercises due care in doing it,
and uses charges of no greater force than are necessary for the
purpose, is not liable for injury to adjoining property arising
merely from the incidental jarring. 4. If the damage in such
case results from the failure of the railroad company to use due
care, it will be liable.®^ The question as to whether injuries
111. 9, 72 N. E. 46, 103 Am. St. Rep. 73. According to these authorities
221 ; Dodge v. County Commissioners the question resolves itself into an
of Essex, 3 Met. 380 ; Carman v. In- inquiry as to what is a reasonable use
diana R. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 399 ; of one's own land. Undoubtedly every
Gossett V. Southern Ry. Co., 115 owner of land may make a reasonable
Tenn. 376, 89 S. W. 737, 112 Am. St. use of his laud. So every owner
Rep. 846, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 97; Far- of land has a right not to be injured
nandis v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 41 in its use or enjoyment by an unrea-
Wash. 486, 84 Pac. 18, 111 Am. St. sonable use of adjoining land. These
Rep. 922, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1086. mutual rights and obligations are
BiSabin v. Vermont Central R. R. elaborately discussed in Thompson v.
Co., 25 Vt. 363 ; St. Peter v. Denison, Androscoggin River Improvement
58 N. Y. 416, 17 Am. Rep. 258. Co., 54 N. H. 545, and Eaton v. Rail-
55Booth V. Rome etc. R. R. Co., road Co., 51 N. H. 504, 12 Am. Rep.
140 N. Y. 267, 35 N. E. 592, 9 Am. 147. What is a reasonable or un-
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 92, 37 Am. St. reasonable use of one's land is largely
Rep. 552, 24 L.R.A. 105. To same a question of fact. Any use may be
effect: Holland Hoare Co. v. Baird, declared reasonable when, though it
169 IST. Y. 136, 62 N. E. 149, reversing may in some cases injuriously affect
S. 0. 49 App. Div. 180, 63 N. Y. S. adjoining property, the right to make
§ 231 OTIIEE CASES OF TAKING. 437
from blasting should be included in tbo estimate of damages
will be considered hereafter.'"
§ 230 (147). Injury to business. All damages which
result from the proper construction, use and operation of public
works, where no right of property is taken or interfered with,
are not a taking and are not actionable. ^^ So, too, are all such
loss and inconvenience as result from temporarily obstructing the
uSe of public highways by land or water in consequence of the
construction of improvements therein by the public authorities.'*
This results from the fact that the use of such highways in con-
nection with private property is subordinate to the right of the
public to make such improvements. For damage to business
carried on in whole or in part upon property taken, the reader
is referred to the chapter on damages.'^
§ 231 (148). Highways laid out adjacent to but not
taking one's land. AMiere a highway is laid out alongside of
a person's land, but without taking any of it, it is held that he
is not entitled to compensation, although the duty of maintain-
ing the whole fence on his front is cast upon him, when before
that he was only obliged to maintain half."" All the authori-
ties are one Avay upon this question, but their correctness is
questionable. Where by law the burden of maintaining a divi-
such use would tend to the "highest 5 7Hooker v. New Haven & North-
enjoyment of land by the entire com- ampton Co., 15 Conn. 312, 319;
munity of proprietors." See Thomp- Bailey v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 182
son V. Androscoggin River Improve- Mass. 537, 66 N. E. 203.
ment Co., 54 X. H. 545. This is not csAdair v. Atlanta, 124 Ga. 288,
materially different from the test 52 S. E. 739; Brooks v. Boston, 19
laid down in the New York case. Pick. 174; Troy & Boston R. R. Co.
Now it may be seriously doubted v. Northern Turnpike Co., 16 Barb,
whether the right to use explosives 100; Plant v. Long Island R. R. Co.,
in excavating upon one's land in such 10 Barb. 26; Linton Pharmacy v.
manner as to shake down or greatly McDonald, 48 Misc. 125, 90 N. Y. S.
impair buildings on adjoining prop- 675; Acker v. Knoxville, 117 Tenn.
erty, is one which, on the whole, will 224, 96 S. W. 973 ; Northern Trans-
conduce to the highest enjoyment of portation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S.
land by the entire community. In 635; S. C. 7 Biss. 45.
other words, it would seem more to sspast, § 727.
the advantage of the whole commu- soHoag v. Switzer, 61 111. 294;
nity that one who desired to excavate People v. Supervisors of Oneida
rock on his land should be required to County, 19 Wend. 102; Kennett's
do so in such manner as not to ma^ Petition, 24 N, H. 139.
terially injure adjoining property.
sepost, % 828; and see Matter of
Thompson, 43 Hun 416.
438 EMIIfEIfT DOMAIiq^. § 232
sion fence is cast equally upon adjoining proprietors, there are
mutual rights and obligations attached to the respective estates.
Each has a right to compel the other to contribute his proportion.
This right is appurtenant to the estate, for it passes with it.
Likewise the obligation. When the adjoining estate is taken
for a highway, this right is taken with it, and compensation to
the extent of the loss should be made. A city bought a lot ad-
jacent to plaintiff's and laid it out as a street. The plaintiff
sued for damages on account of being deprived of privacy and
rendered liable for assessments for the improvement of the new
street. It was held that plaintiff's property was neither taken
nor damaged, within the meaning of the constitution.®^
§ 232 (149). Interfering with the right of exclusion.
Any invasion of property, except in case of necessity as hereto-
fore explained, either upon, above or below the surface, and
whether temporary or permanent, is a taking: as by construct-
ing a ditch through it,®^ passing under it by a tunnel,®* laying
gas, water or sewer pipes in the soil,®* or extending structures
over it, as a bridge or telephone wire.®® Even a temporary occu-
pation, as for an annual training,®" or a road during sleighing
time,®'' can only be made pursuant to law, for a public use and
upon compensation made.®^ ISTor can public authorities inter-
fere with the control or use of a private way, except upon mak-
siPeel V. City of Atlanta, 85 Ga. 64Sinith v. Atlanta, 92 Ga. 119, 17
138, 11 S. E. 582, 2 Am. R. R. & S. E. Rep. 981; Noon v. Scranton
Corp. Rep. 413. See also Eunice v. City, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 123.
City of St. Louis, 122 Mo. 132, 26 S. esMetropolitan W. S. El. R. R. Co.
W. 1034; Wells v. Harris, 137 Mo. v. Springer, 171 111. 170, 49 N. E. 416;
612. Butler v. Frontier Telephone Co., 186
62Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood N. Y. 486, 79 N. E. 716, 116 Am. St.
County, 8 Ohio St. 333; Watson v. Rep. 563, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 920, affirm-
Trustee, 21 Ohio St. 667; People v. ing S. C. 109 App. Div. 217, 95 N. Y.
Haines, 49 N. Y. 587; Plummer v. S. 684; Bass v. Met. W. S. El. R. R.
Sturtevant, 32 Me. 325. A statute Co., 82 Fed. 857, 27 C. C. A. 147.
in force since before the Revolution, And see Western Union Tel. Co. v.
permitting the surveyors of highways Moyle, 51 Kan. 185, 32 Pac. 895 ;
to enter upon land adjoining the way. Drainage Comrs. v. Knox, 237 111.
for the purpose of constructing 148.
drains, but providing for no compen- eeRrigham v. Edmonds, 7 Gray
sation, was held void in Ward v. 359.
Peck, 49 N. J. L. 42. 6 7Holcomb v. Moore, 4 Allen 529;
esSparrow v. Oxford, Worcester & Holden v. Cole, 1 Pa. St. 303.
Wolverhampton Ry. Co., 2 DeG. McN. i^See Markham v. Brown, 37 Ga.
& G. 94; Farmer v. Waterloo & City 277.
R. R. Co., L. R. (1895) 1 Ch. D. 527.
§ 233 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING. 439
ing compensation.®^ An encroachment upon abutting property
in filling a street or building a railroad embankment, or by
means of earth throAvn out from an excavation, is actionable and
if authorized by law would be a taking. '"' And where a city
built a wall along a school lot, which was pressed out by the
filling so as to overhang the adjoining lot, it was held an action-
able nuisance.''^ Where coal underlying the surface, is owned
separately from the surface, it will be protected from intrusion
the same as other property.'^* The legislature cannot authorize
the use of private property for a ferry landing without compen-
sation."* A statute of Montana provided that in case of a suit
concerning the title to mining claims or for damages thereto
the court might by order allow either party to inspect, survey
and measure, the underground workings of the mine for pur-
poses pertaining to the litigation. It was held that the statute
was valid and that an entry under it was not a taking or dam-'
aging of property within the constitution.'^*
§ 233 (ISO), Easement of levee in Louisiana. Kipa-
rian property upon the Mississippi, in the State of Louisiana,
is subject to the easement of levee, that is, the right of the State
to use so much as may be necessary for the construction of proper
levees and to repair or re-locate the same from time to time as
69Morse v. Stocker, 1 Allen, 150. TiMiles v. City of Worcester, 154
lOAnte, § 140; Wichita & W. K. R. Mass. 511, 28 N. E. 676.
Co. V. Fechheimer, 49 Kan. 643, 31 7 2Penn Gas Coal Co. v. Versailles
Pac. 127; Schneider v. Brown, 142 Fuel Gas. Co., 131 Pa. St. 522, 19 Atl.
Mich. 45, 105 N. W. 13; Tegeler v. 933; Eobbins v. Guffy, 20 Phila. 400.
Kansas City, 95 Mo. App. 162, 68 S. 7 3Blake v. McCarthy, 56 Miss. 654.
W. 953; Pinnix v. Lake Drummond 7 estate v. District Court, 28 Mont,
etc. Canal Co., 132 N. C. 124, 43 S. E. 528, 73 Pac. 230. Says the Court:
578; Cherry v. Lake Drummond etc. "Every citizen has the right to the
Canal Co., 140 N. C. 422, 53 S. E. 138, exclusive enjoyment of his property,
111 Am. St. Rep. 850; Davis v. Silver- without interruption or evasion; yet
ton, 47 Ore. 171, 82 Pac. 16; Bigham this general rule of right must, under
V. Pitts Construction Co., 29 Pa. the circumstances of the case, yield to
Supr. Ct. 86; O'Donnell v. White, 23 the higher right of public necessity,
R. I. 318, 50 Atl. 333; Sims v. Ohio that equal justice may be admin-
Riv. etc. Ry. Co., 56 S. C. 30, 33 S. E. istered upon conflicting rights of dif-
746; Bunker v. Hudson, 122 Wis. 43, ferent citizens. Every citizen holds
99 N. W. 448 ; McCullough v. Camp- his property subject to this burden,
bellsport, 123 Wis. 334, 101 N. W. and when the necessity arises his pri-
709; Williams v. Hudson, 130 Wis. vate right must give way to this
297, 110 N. W. 239. higher law." p. 545.
440
E5IINENT DOMAIIT.
§ 234
the public exigencies may require.''^ And this is true though
the title to the property is derived from the United States and
belongs to a citizen of another state.''® This servitude "was at-
tached to the land at the time of its original grant.^'' But the
land only is so subject, and if buildings are destroyed in con-
structing a levee, the owner is entitled to compensation. ''* ]N"or
does the servitude extend to the case where the necessity for the
levee -is created by some collateral or distinct improvement, such
as the closing of a bayou.''* This servitude is peculiar to the
law of Louisiana.*" Where a city instituted proceedings to
condemn property for use for levee purposes which proceeded
to judgment, it was held that it could not recede from the judg-
ment and construct the levee without compensation by virtue of
the servitude.*^
§ 234 (151). Interfering with the right of support.
■ Every owner of land has a right to the lateral support of his
soil in its natural condition, and no person is entitled to so exca-
vate upon his own land as to deprive the soil of his neighbor
of its natural support and thereby cause it to slide into the
excavation.®^ This right extends only to the soil, and not to
'BMithoff V. Town of CarrolUon,
12 La. An. 185; Bass v. State, 34 La.
An. 494; Ruch v. City of New Or-
leans, 43 La. An. 275, 9 So. 473;
Peart v. Meeker, 45 La. An. 421, 12
So. 490; Hart v. Board of Levee
Comrs., 54 Fed. 559.
ToEldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S.
452, 16 S. C. 345.
7 7Mitlioflf V. Town of CarroUton,
12 La. An. 185.
7SCash V. Whitworth, 13 La. An.
401; Mithoff v. CarroUton, 12 La.
An. 185; contra; Dubose v. Levee
Comrs., 11 La. An. 165; Hanson v.
La Fayette, 18 La. 295.
vsCash V. Whitworth, 13 La. An.
401. But see Egan v. Hart, 45 La.
An. 1358, 14 So. 244.
«oSee Richardson v. Levee Comrs.,
58 Miss. 539, 9 So. 351.
siln re City of New Orleans, 20 La.
An. 394.
82Stimmel v. Brown, 7 Houst. 219,
30 Atl. 996; Guest v. Reynolds, 09
111. 478, 18 Am. Rep. 570; Moellering
V. Evans, 121 Ind, 195, 22 N. E. 989,
6 L.R.A. 449; Clemens v. Speed, 93
Ky. 284, 19 S. W. 660, 19 L.R.A. 240;
Boothby v. Androscoggin R. R. Co.,
51 Me. 318 ; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.
v. Reaney, 42 Md. 117; Thurston v.
Hancock, 12 Mass. 220, 7 Am. Dec.
57; Gilmore v. DriscoU, 122 Mass.
199, 201, 23 Am. Rep. 312; Gilder-
sleeve V. Hammond, 109 Mich. 431,
67 N. W. 519, 33 L.R.A. 46; Nichols
V. City of Duluth, 40 Minn. 389, 42
N. W. 84, 12 Am. St. Rep. 743; Mc-
Cullough V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
52 Minn. 12, 53 N. W. 802, 47 Am.
St. Rep. 630 ; Charless v. Rankin, 22
Mo. 566; McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J.
L. 356; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige
169, 25 Am. Dec. 524; Farrand v.
Marshall, 19 Barb. 380; Mosier v.
Ore. Nav. Co., 39 Ore. 256, 64 Pac.
453, 87 Am. St. Rep. 652; Novotney
V. Danforth, 9 S. D. 301, 68 N. W.
749; Beard v. Murphy, 37 Vt. 99;
§ 234
OTHER CASES OF TAKING.
441
improvements placed upon it which increase the weight.^^ If,
in the execution of public works under authority of law, excava-
tions are made and the soil of an individual gives Avay in con-
sequence of being deprived of its lateral support, there is a
taking to the extent of such deprivation, and the individual is
entitled to compensation for the resulting damage. The right
of lateral support is a part of his property in the land, as much
so as his right of user, or of exclusion. When he is deprived
of it his property is taken just as much as if his property was
invaded.** "The right of a landowner to have his property
protected against an excavation which will cause it to subside
is a part of his property in the land, alike in nature and im-
portance to the right of user and exclusion, and the depriva-
tion of the right is a taking of property as much as an actual
appropriation of the soil." ®^ Notwithstanding the clear justice
and logic of this position, there is, perhaps, as much authority
against it as for it. It has been held that, where a railroad
company excavated upon its own land, so that the plaintiff's
soil slid into the excavation, the plaintiff was entitled to recover
damages.*® The contrary doctrine has been held in prescisely
Stearns' Exrs. v. City of Eielimond,
88 Va. 992, 14 S. E. 847, 6 Am. R. K.
& Corp. Rep. 247; Damkoehler v.
Milwaukee, 124 Wis. 144, 101 N. W.
706; Washburn on Easements, pp.
614-516; Wood on Nuisances, § 172,
and cases cited below. In Gilmore v.
DriscoU, the court (Gray, C. J.,)
says: "Every owner of land is en-
titled, as against his neighbor, to
have the earth stand and the water
flow in its natural condition. * » ♦
In the case of land, which is fixed in
its place, each owner has the absolute
right to have his land remain in its
natural condition, unaffected by any
act of his neighbor; and, if the
neighbor digs upon or improves his
own laud so as to injure this right,
he may maintain an action against
him, without proof of negligence."
8 3Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige 169;
City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 111. 231 ;
Wood on Nuisances, § 175; Moeller-
ing V. Evans, 121 Ind. 195, 22 N. E.
989, 6 L.E.A. 449.
8* Quoted and followed in Hosier
V. Ore. Nav. Co., 39 Ore. 256, 64 Pac.
453, 87 Am. St. Rep. 652.
ssDamkoehler v. Milwaukee, 124
Wis. 144, 151, 101 N. W. 706.
s^Dickinson v. Pere Marquette R.
R. Co., 148 Mich. 461, 111 N. W. 1078;
Kopp V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 41
Minn. 310, 43 N. W. 73 ; McCullough
V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 52 Minn.
12, 53 N. W. 802; Church of Holy
Communion v. Pateraon etc. R. R.
Co., 66 N. J. L. 218, 49 Atl. 1030,
55 L.R.A. 81, reversing S. C. 63 N.
J. L. 470, 43 Atl. 696; S. C. on second
appeal, 68 N. J. L. 399, 53 Atl. 1079 ;
Ludlow v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6
Lans. 128 ; Ruppert v. West Side Belt
R. R. Co., 25 Pa. Supr. Ct. 613;
Richardson v. Vermont Central R.
R. Co., 25 Vt. 465, 60 Am. Dec. 459 ;
and see New Orleans, Baton Rouge
etc. R. E. Co. V. Brown, 64 Miss. 479.
442 EMUSrEIfT DOMAIN. § 234
similar cases in Maine and Kentucky.*'^ In both these cases the
railroad companies obtained title by deed, in the usual form.
In Maine- a recovery was denied, on the ground that the act of
the legislature was an authority and license to the company to
construct the road in the manner it did, and, as it had not been
guilty of negligence, no action would lie. The court says : "It
is a principle of the common law that a man must not dig so
near the land of another as thereby to withdraw the natural sup-
port of the soil, and render it liable to break away and slide
down of its own weight; but this principle does not apply to
excavations made in pursuance of a license ; and a license from
the legislature, if within its constitutional limits, affords as
ample protection as a license from the injured party." The
right of support was thus conceded to exist. This right was
property, and the legislature could not license a railroad com-
pany to take away the plaintiff's property without an equivalent
as required by the constitution. Such a license was not "within
its constitutional limits." In the Kentucky case a recovery was
denied, on the ground that the plaintiff sold the right of way to
the company for use as a right of way, and it must be presumed
that he estimated and obtained the damages which would result
from such use. But the grant of land even to be excavated for
materials does not authorize the grantee to deprive the adjoin-
ing land of the grantor of its support.** The grant of land
for a railroad or other public use is simply a grant of the land,
as land, and it is still subject to the same obligations in respect
to adjacent or neighboring land as if granted to a private indi-
vidual for private use.**
Where the grade of a street is cut down and the soil of the
abutting owner slides into the street, he is entitled to recover.®"
8 7Boothby v. Androscoggin & 90 Aurora v. Fox, 78 Ind. 1; Dyer
Kennebec R. E. Co., 51 Me. 318; v. St. Paul, 27 Minn. 457 ; Armstrong
Hortsman v. Covington & Lexington v. St. Paul, 30 Minn. 299; Nichols
R. R. Co., 18 B. Mon. 218. Compare v. Duluth, 40 Minn. 389, 42 N. W.
City of New Westminster v. Brig- 84; Moore v. Albany, 98 N. Y. 396;
house, 20 Duvall 520, where a city Columbus v. Willard, 7 Ohio C. C.
was held liable for taking away the 113; Keating v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio
support of plaintifiF's soil in lowering St. 141 ; Stearns Exrs. v. City of
the grade of a street. Richmond, 88 Va. 992, 14 S. E. 847, 6
ssRyekmau v. Gillis, 6 Lans. 79; Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 247; Damr
Ludlow V. Hudson River R. E. Co., koehler v. Milwaukee, 124 Wis. 144,
6 Lans. 128. 101 N. W. 706 ; Dahlman v. Mil-
itPost, §§ 820, 824. waukee, 131 Wis. 427, 110 N. W. 479,
§ 235 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING. 443
But this question, so far as it relates to streets, is discussed
elsewhere. ^"^ Where a city excavated in the bed of a river,
to form, a basin for the settling of sewerage, and thus deprived
plaintiff's land of its support, it was held liable.^^ So where
the city in digging a sewer removes quicksand by pumping and
damages the abutting property by depriving it of support."^
Some cases hold that a city is not liable for damage to property
by subsidence or otherwise, resulting from the digging of a sewer
in a street, in the absence of negligence, misconduct or want of
skill on the part of its servants or agents.®* Where a telephone
company, in setting a pole, interfered with the lateral support
of the plaintiff's building, it was held liable for the damages."'
So when the subsidence is caused by the excavation of a tunnel
in the street or near the property.®® In case of interfering
with the right of support, the action accrues when the damage
results, and not when the excavation is made.®''
§ 235 (151a). Consequential injuries to property by
the operation of a railroad : Noise, smoke, cinders, jarring,
vibrations, etc. When part of a tract of land is taken for a
railroad just compensation includes damage to the remainder
by reason of the use of the part taken for railroad purposes.®*
When such compensation has been paid the railroad company ac-
quires the right to operate its road in the usual way without any
further liability to the owner of such remainder for damage or
inconvenience resulting therefrom. But railroads are frequent-
ly constructed adjacent, or in close proximity, to land no part
of which has been taken. Such land may be damaged and de-
preciated by the proximity of the railroad, and by the noise,
111 N. W. 675; City of New West- Rep. 580, the city was held liable in
minster v. Brighouse, 20 Duvall 520. such case on the ground of negli-
Contra: Talcott Bros. v. Des Moines, gence.
134 la. 113, 109 N. W. 311, 120 Am. seCumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
St. Rep. 419. And see cases cited Foster, 117 Ky. 389, 78 S. W. 150.
ante, § 139. ssFitzSimmons & Connell Co. v.
91 Ante, % 139. Braun, 199 111. 390, 65 N. E. 249, 59
saPomroy v. Granger, 18 R. I. 624, L.R.A. 421 ; Chicago v. Rust, 117 III.
29 Atl. 690. -^VV- 427 ; Farnandis v. Great No.
3 3 Cabot V. Kingman, 166 Mass. Ry. Co., 41 Wash. 486, 84 Pac. 18,
403, 44 N. E. 344, 33 L.R.A. 45. Ill Am. St. Rep. 922, 5 L.R.A.
9 4Uppington v. New York, 165 (N.S.) 1086.
N. Y. 222, 59 N. E. 91, 53 L.R.A. 550; 9 7 Ludlow v. Hudson River R. R.
Fyfe V. Turtle Creek, 22 Pa. Supr. Co., 6 Lans. 128.
Ct., 292. In Gerst v. St. Louis, 185 9»Poat, § 686.
Mo. 191, 84 S. W. 34, 105 Am. St.
444 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 235
smoke, cinders, jarring, vibrations and other annoyances arising
from the operation of the road. According to the general prin-
ciples heretofore enunciated, if such damages would be action-
able but for the statutory authority, then they amount to a
taking, for which compensation must be made.'® But the au-
thorities are not harmonious upon this point. In a suit brought
to recover for damage to the plaintiff's property, no part of
which had been taken, caused by the noise, smoke, cinders, vi-
brations, etc., resulting from the use of railroad tracks on ad-
jacent property, the supreme court of Minnesota denied a re-
covery and state their reasons, as follows: "Railroads are a
public necessity. They are always constructed and operated
under authority of law. They bring to the public great bene-
fits; to some persons more, to other persons less. The operat-
ing them in the most skillful and careful manner causes to the
public necessary inconveniences, such as noise, smoke, cinders,
vibrations of the ground, interference with travel at the cross-
ings of roads and streets, and the like. One person may suffer
more from these than another. For instance, one whose prem-
ises lie within a hundred feet of the railroad will feel the
inconveniences in a greater degree than one whose premi-
ises are at the distance of a thousand feet ; and one who has to
pass many times a day along a street crossed by a railroad suffers
more inconvenience from it than one who seldom has occasion
to pass. But the difference is only in degree, not in kind. Such
inconveniences are common to the public at large. If each
person had a right of action because of such inconveniences, it
would go far to render the operating of railroads practically
impossible." ^ The question has recently received very elab-
orate consideration in ISTew Jersey. The railroad was in the
rear of plaintiff's lot upon elevated tracks. The complaint
was for nuisance in the use of the tracks, resulting from noise,
smoke, smells, etc., caused by switching, making and unmaking
trains, leaving cars standing in the vicinity loaded with stock
and the like. The company pleaded its statutory authority,
and alleged that its road was operated with no unnecessary in-
9Un*e, § 65. Rep. 644, 1 L.E.A. 493; Cameron v.
iCarroU v. Wis. Cent. R. R. Co., Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 42 Minn. 75,
40 Minn. 168, 41 N. W. 681. See also 43 N. W. 785; Kaje v. Chicago etc.
the following cases in the same court : R. R. Co., 57 Minn. 422, 59 N. W.
Adams v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 39 493.
Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629, 12 Am. St.
§ 235
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
445
jury to the plaintiff. The plea was held good on demurrer.^
It was conceded that the acts complained of amounted to an
actionable nuisance but for the statutory authority, but it was
held that the legislature had plenary control over the subject of
"incidental" or "consequential" damages, though the same
might amount to half the value of the property. The reason-
ing of the court cannot be better answered than by an opinion
of the same court in a prior case, in which the court by Dixon,
J., says: "An act of the legislature cannot confer upon indi-
viduals or private corporations, acting primarily for their own
profit, although for public benefit as well, any right to deprive
2Beseman v. Pennsylvania R. E..
Co., 50 N. J. L. 235, 13 Atl. 164. The
judgnaent of the supreme court was
affirmed by the court of errors and
appeals on the opinion of the former
court, so that the opinion has the
sanction of both courts. 52 N. J. L.
221, 20 Atl. 169 (1890). We quote
from the opinion as follows : "It is
a radical error to regard these cor-
porations as simply private. They
have a public as well as a private
aspect, and it is on this account that
the immunity in question belongs to
them. * * * These roads, in view of
their effect upon social and commer-
cial interests, are of vastly more im-
portance than are most of the public
highways, and it is on account of
this transcendent usefulness that
they, to a large extent, have been and
must be regarded as public agencies.
Looking at them in this light, it is
but following the ordinary path to
declare that they are not responsible
for those incidental damages that re-
sult from the proper exercise of their
functions. This is the settled rule.
The legislature may authorize the
altering the grade of a city street;
such act may occasion immense loss
to the owners of abutting property,
and such loss is damnum absque in-
juria, the reason being that the im-
provement is a matter of public con-
cern, and that each individual mem-
ber of the community, while he is en-
titled to its benefits, must submit to
its burthens. The attitude of a rail-
road company, so far as relates to
the application of legal principles, is
not dissimilar. They run their
trains by legislative authority for
the public benefit, and on that ac-
count, in doing such acts, they are
so far forth the representatives of
the body of the people. The defend-
ant alleges that it has kept entirely
within the limits of its chartered
rights in running its trains, and that
the plaintiff has suffered no damage
except such as is necessarily incident
to such transactions, and it seems to
me that if this be true this action
cannot be maintained." (pp. 240,
241.) * * * "Nor have I found any
serious constitutional difficulty with
reference to this question. It has not
been unobserved that it is said that
as the legislature cannot authorize,
by force of the constitution of the
State, property to be taken for public
use without compensation, it follows
that it cannot legalize an injury to
such property. The argument is that
to injure property for the public
benefit to the extent say, of one-half
of its value, is, in substance, to take
for that purpose a moiety of it. But
this line of reasoning excludes alto-
gether, as it appears to me, the legis-
lative control over the subject. As
44:6
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 235
persons of the ordinary enjoyment of their property, except
upon condition that just compensation be first made to the
owners. This principle rests upon the express terms of the
constitution. In declaring that private property shall not be tak-
already remarked, if the right of ac-
tion cannot be taken from the land-
owner when the injury to his prop-
erty is equal to one-half its value,
neither can this be done when it is
damaged to the extent of one-
twentieth part of its value, or in any
other actionable degree. To hold
otherwise would be not only illogical
but impracticable, for who would be
able to say to what degree the dam-
age must go in order to give the
right of action. In my opinion the
legislative power covers the entire
field of incidental injuries. In the
ease cited from the English reports
it was held that the burning of a hay-
stack by the engine of an unchartered
company was a loss that could be re-
dressed by action, without respect to
the question whether the fire had
been kept with proper care or not;
and yet the court declared, as has
always been judicially declared in
this State, that if such engine had
been used under legislative authority
such loss would have been remediless.
This, it is evident, was maintaining
a legislative right to deprive a person
of a right of action due to him at
common law for an injury resulting
in the esntire destruction of his prop-
erty, and this is the legal principle
that has practically been enforced in
this State from the existence of its
first railroad up to the present hour.
And it is the entire doctrine that
must be abrogated if we say that by
force of the constitution the legisla-
ture cannot exempt these companies
from responsibility for those things
that are the necessary concomitants
of the use of the road. When prop-
erty has been incidentally injured, no
matter to what extent, as an un-
avoidable result of a public improve-
ment, such loss has always been
deemed remediless, and it has never
been supposed that the property so
injured was taken, in the constitu-
tional sense, for the public use. All
the public improvements in the State
have been built and are now resting
on this foundation. For my part,
therefore, I find no embarrassment
in disposing of the present subject,
for I have put railroads in the cate-
gory of public agents, and have re-
garded them as possessed of all the
immunities, in the particular in
question, belonging to such an office;
for to me it does not appear to be
consistent with reason to declare
that these exemptions may be be-
stowed upon an inconsiderable turn-
pike company but cannot be given in
favor of these great highways con-
necting distant countries and ex-
tending over a continent." pp. 244-
246. In the prior cases of Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co. v. Angel, 41 N. J. Eq.
316, and Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v.
Thompson, 45 N. J. Eq. 870, 14
Atl. 897, 19 Atl. 622, both de-
cided by the court of errors and
appeals, similar injuries were held to
be actionable, but the tracks in these
cases were in a public street and the
use complained of was held to be in
excess of the authority granted to the
railroad company. Beideman v. At-
lantic City R. R. Co., 19 Atl. (N. J.
Ch.) 731 is similar to the Beseraan
Case, and is decided in accordance
therewith. Compare Costigan v.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 54 N. J. L.
233, 23 Atl. 810; Hennessey v. Car-
mony, 50 N. J. Eq. 616, 25 Atl. 374.
§ 235 OTHER CASES OF TAICING. 447
en without recompense, that instrument secures to owners, not
only the possession of property, but also those rights which ren-
der possession valuable. Whether you flood the farmer's fields
so that they cannot be cultivated, or pollute the bleacher's stream
so that his fabrics are stained, or fill one's dwelling with smells
and noise so that it cannot be occupied with comfort, you equally
take away the owner's property. In neither instance has the
owner any less of material things than he had before, but in each
case the utility of his property has been impaired by a direct
invasion of the bounds of his private dominion. This is a
taking of his property in the constitutional sense; of course,
mere statutory authority will not avail for such an interference
with private property." * But the authorities generally are
in accord with the later New Jersey cases.* In a Maryland case
the rear of the plaintiff's property abutted upon an open cut
connecting two tunnels. The operation of trains drew the
smoke and soot from the tunnels to the cut whence they were
cast upon the plaintiff's property. Complaint was also made
of the noise and vibration. The acts were held to amount to a
taking of the plaintiff's property and he was held entitled to
recover irrespective of negligence. **
In the case of railroads in streets there is a difference of opin-
ion, whether damages should be allowed for the annoyances
3Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Angel, Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E. 349, the
41 N. J. Eq. 316, 329, 7 Atl. 432, 56 court says: "Injuries which result
Am. St. Rep. 1 (Court of Errors and from the careful construction and
Appeals). operation of a railroad on the land
^Decker v. Evansville Suburban of another are common to all those
etc. R. R. Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E. whose lands are in close proximity
349; Densmore v. Central la. R. R. to such road, and for such injuries
Co., 72 la. 182; Atchison etc. Ry. Co. there can be no recovery, in the ab-
V. Armstrong, 71 Kan. 366, 80 Pac. sence of a statute entitling the owner
978, 114 Am. St. Rep. 474, 1 L.R.A. to maintain such action.'' Lincoln v.
(N.S.) 113; Werges v. St. Louis etc. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 368, 41 N.
R. R. Co., 35 La. An. 641 ; Davis v. E. Rep. 489 and Essex v. Local Board
Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 102 Md. for Acton, L. R. 14 H. L. 153 (S. C.
371, 62 Atl. 572; Emigrant Mission 14 Q. B. D. 753, 17 Q. B. D. 447),
Committee v. Brooklyn R. R. Co., though not relating to railroads, are
165 N. y. 604, 58 N. E. 756, affirming important in the general discussion
S. C. 20 App. Div. 596, 47 N. Y. S. of the points involved.
344; Thompson v. Seaboard Air Line sBaltimore Belt R. R. Co. v. Sat-
Ey.'co., 142 N. C. 318, 55 S. E. 205; tier, 100 Md.'306, 59 Atl. 654; S. C.
Cincinnati Connecting Belt R. R. Co. 102 Md. 595, 64 Atl. 507 ; Baltimore
V. Burski, 4 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 98. In Belt R. R. Co. v. Sattler, 105 Md. 264,
Decker v. Evansville Suburban R. R. 05 Atl. 752.
448
EMINENT DOMAIN,
235
occasioned by noise, smoke and vibrations.® In the New York
elevated railroad cases it is beld that sucli damages may be
recovered where the occupation of the railroad company is
wrongful, but cannot be considered in estimating the just com-
pensation to be paid for the permanent interference with the
abutter's easements.'^
Such damages may be recovered under constitutions or stat-
utes which give compensation for property damaged or injured
for public use, whether the railroad is on a public street or its
private property.®
6The following cases favor the
allowance of such damages: South
Carolina E. R. Co. v. Steiner, 44 6a.
546; Wilson v. Des Moines etc. R. R.
Co., 67 la. 509 ; Mix v. LaFayette etc.
R. R. Co., 67 111. 319; Elizabethtown
etc. R. R. Co. V. Combs, 10 Bush. 382;
Fulton V. Short Route R. Trans. Co.,
85 Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Am. St.
Rep. 619 ; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v.
Orr, 91 Ky. 109, 15 S. VV.Rep. 8;Mays-
ville & B. S. R. Co. v. Ingram, (Ky.)
30 S. W. 8. Contra: Werges v. St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co., 35 La. An. 641 ;
Adams v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 39
Minn. 286, 39 N. W. 629, 12 Am. St.
Rep. 644, 1 L.R.A. 493; Handle v.
Pacific R. R. Co., 65 Mo. 325; Parrott
V. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co., 10 Ohio
St. 624. And see post, §§ 735, 736.
'American Bank Note Co. v. New
York El. R. R. Co. 129 N. Y. 252, 29
N. E. 302, 5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
583; Messenger v. Manhattan R. R.
Co., 129 N. Y. 502, 29 N. E. 955;
Bischoff V. New York El. R. R. Co.,
138 N. Y. 257, 33 N. B. 1073; Sperb
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 137 N.
Y. 155, 32 N. E. 1050, 20 L.R.A. 752,
7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 554; Sperb
V. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co., 61 Hun
539, 41 N. Y. St. 155, 16 N. Y. Supp.
392; Sloan v. New York El. R. R.
Co., 63 Hun 300, 44 N. Y. St. 583, 17
N. Y. Supp. 769; Jordan v. Metro-
politan El. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y.
Supp. 385; Golden v. Metropoli-
tan El. R. R. Co., 1 Misc. 142, 20
N. Y. Supp. 630; Purdy v. Manhattan
R. R. Co., 3 Misc. 50, 22 N. Y. Supp.
943; Diehl v. Metropolitan El. R. R.
Co., 11 Misc. 14, 31 N. Y. Supp. 839.
sLake Erie & W. R. R. Co. v. Scott,
132 111. 429, 24 N. E. 78, 8 L.R.A.
330; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Darke,
148 111. 226, 35 N. E. 750, 9 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 73; Chicago etc. R.
R. Co. V. Leah, 152 111. 249, 38 N. E.
556; 111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Trustees
of Schools, 212 111. 406, 72 N. E. 39;
Wis. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Wieczorek,
51 111. App. 498; Met. West Side El.
R. R. Co. V. Goll, 100 111. App. 323;
Davenport etc. R. R. Co. v. Sinnet,
111 111. App. 75; 111. Cent. R. R. Co.
V. Trustees of Schools, 128 111. App.
Ill; Ball V. Marysville etc. R. R.
Co., 102 Ky. 486, 43 S. W. 731, 80
Am. St. Rep. 362; Willis v. Ky. &
Ind. Bridge Co., 104Ky. 186, 46 S. W.
488; Covington etc. R. R. & Bridge
Co. V. Kleymeier, 105 Ky. 609, 49 S.
W. 484; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v.
Geikel, 9 Ky. L. R. 813; Louisville
Southern R. R. Co. v. Cogar, 15 Ky.
L. R. 444; Louisville Southern R.
R. Co. V. Hooe, 18 Ky. L. R. 521,
35 S. W. 266, 38 S. W. 131;
Baker v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 183
Mass. 178, 66 N. E. 711 ; Chicago K.
& N. R. R. Co. V. Hazels, 26 Neb. 364,
42 N. W. 93; Omaha etc. R. R. Co. v.
Janecek, 30 Neb. 276, 46 N. W. 478,
27 Am. St. Rep. 399, 3 Am. R. R. &
§ 235
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
449
The maintaining and use of coal chutes or bins for coaling
engines, in the immediate vicinity of plaintiff's property, has
been held to be an actionable nuisance in Illinois, New York,
Worth Carolina and Texas,® but the contrary in lowa.^" The
maintenance of stock yards by a railroad company near the
plaintiff has been held an actionable nuisance in Iowa and
Missouri. ^^ In Wisconsin it is held that, if they are properly
located and properly managed, there can be no recovery for the
annoyances caused thereby.-^' If by reason of neglect and
Corp. Eep. 268; Omaha etc. R. R. Co.
V. Mosehel, 38 Neb. 281, 56 N. W.
875 ; Gainsville etc. R. R. Co. v. Hall,
78 Tex. 16, 14 S. W. 259, 9 L.K.A.
298, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 251 ;
Ft. Worth etc. R. R. Co. v. Downie,
82 Tex. 383, 17 S. W. Rep. 620; Gulf
etc. R. R. Co. V. Necco (Tex.) 15 S.
W. Rep. 1102; Stockdale v. Rio
Grande Western Ry. Co., 28 Utah,
201, 77 Pac. 849 ; Smith v. St. Paul
etc. Ry. Co., 39 Wash. 355, 81 Pac.
840, 109 Am. St. Rep. 889, 70 L.R.A.
1018; post, § 357.
The contrary is held in Georgia
and Pennsylvania. Austin v. Au-
gusta Terminal Ry. Co., 108 Ga. 671,
34 S. E. 852, 47 L.R.A. 755; Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co. V. Lippincott, 116
Pa. St. 472, 9 Atl. 871 ; Pennsylvania
R. R. Co. V. Marchant, 119 Pa. St.
541, 13 Atl. 690, 4 Am. St. Rep. 659;
Dooner v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
142 Pa. St. 36, 21 Atl. 755; Jones v.
Erie & W. R. R. Co., 151 Pa. St. 30,
25 Atl. 134, 31 Am. St. Rep. 722, 17
L.R.A. 758; Pennsylvania Co. for In-
surance V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. H.
Co., 151 Pa. St. 334, 25 Atl. 107.
oWiley v. Elwood, 134 111. 281, 25
N. E. 570; Spring v. Delaware etc.
R. R. Co., 88 Hun 385, 34 N. Y.
Supp. 810; Thomason v. Seaboard
Air Line R. R. Co., 142 N. C. 300, 55
S. E. 198; Daniel v. Ft. Worth etc.
Ry. Co., 96 Tex. 327, 72 S. W. 578.
So of a turntable. Garvey v. Long
Island R. R. Co., 9 App. Div. 254, 41
N. Y. Supp. 397; Garvey v. Long
Em. D.— 29.
Island R. R. Co., 159 N. Y. 323, 54
N. E. 57, 70 Am. St. Rep. 550. See
Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. v. Patterson,
67 111. App. 351.
lODunsmore v. Central la. R. R.
Co., 72 la. 182.
11 Shirley v. Cedar Rapids etc. R.
R. Co., 74 la. 169, 37 N. W. 133; Biel-
man v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 50 Mo.
App. 152. And see Pittsburgh etc.
Ry. Co. v. Crothersville, 159 Ind.
330, 64 N. E. 914.
i2Dolan V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co.,
118 Wis. 362, 95 N. W. 385. The
court says: "The railway company
must use all reasonable diligence in
the location of its yards, to avoid in-
jury to others, and must manage
them with approved methods, using
all reasonable skill to prevent their
becoming a nuisance. It cannot un-
necessarily or unreasonably locate its
yards in close proximity to dwellings
or business houses, to their injury,
without incurring liability. It must,
doubtless, in order to perform its
duty, place the yard in a reason-
ably practicable and convenient loca-
tion in the vicinity of its station, for
the reception and shipping of cattle,
but it must at the same time place
them where they will do the least
possible injury to others. If these
requirements be fulfilled, and if the
yards be operated without negligence,
and with that skill and diligence to
avoid noise and noxious smells there-
from which the importance of their
duty demands, there can be no liabil-
450
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 235
mismanagement the yards become a nuisance, the company -will,
of course, be liable.-'* Where a railroad company located -its
engine house and repair shops close to a church, it was held
a recovery could be had for the annoyances and damage caused
by the noise, smoke, cinders, etc.-'* But -where a railroad sta-
tion and terminal -was located across the street from a church,
-with tracks crossing the street near the church, it was held
that there could be no recovery for the nuisance caused by the
noise, smoke, smells and the lik^, which emanated therefrom.'"
On general principles, when railroad appurtenances such as a
round house, switch yards, repair shop or terminal plant cause
a nuisance to neighboring property by reason of noise, smoke,
cinders, vibrations, etc., there may be a recovery.** But there
are authorities to the contrary.-'''
In England there can be no recovery for such damages,
unless allowed by statute, because there is no higher law than
an enactment of the legislature.'* But an act of Parliament,
which authorizes what would otherwise be a nuisance, without
pro-viding for compensation to those injured, is declared by the
courts to be harsh legislation.'^
ity, even though injury may result to
others. Such injury, like many
others, is simply one of the penalties
we have to pay for the conveniences
of modern methods of transporta-
tion." pp. 365, 366.
And see London etc. R. R. Co. v.
Truman, L. R. 11 H. L. 45.
isAnderson v. Burlington etc. Ry.
Co., 82 Minn. 293, 84 N. W. 145, 1021 ;
Anderson v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co.,
85 Minn. 337, 88 N. W. 1001.
14 Baltimore & P. R. R. Co. v. Fifth
Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317; Balti-
more & P. R. R. Co. V. Fifth Baptist
Church, 137 U. S. 588, 11 S. C. 185.
To same effect: Chicago Gt. West-
ern Ry. Co. v. First M. K. Church,
102 Fed. 85, 42 C. C. A. 178, 50 L.R.A.
488. In Porterfield v. Bond, 38 Fed.
Rep. 391, the plaintiff recovered for
damages caused by vibrations pro-
duced by trains running past his
premises at a prohibited speed.
iBTaylor v. Seaboard Air Line R.
R. Co., 145 N. C. 400, 59 S. E. 129.
leKuhn v. III. Cent. R. R. Co., Ill
111. App. 323; Louisville etc. Ter-
minal Co. V. Jacobs, 109 Tenn. 727,
72 S. W. 954, 61 L.R.A. 188; Louis-
ville etc. Terminal Co. v. Lellyett,
114 Tenn. 368, 85 S. W. 881, 1
L.R.A.(N.S.) 49; Rainey v. Red
River etc. Ry. Co., 99 Tex. 276, 89
S. W. 768, 90 S. W. 1096; St. Louis
etc. Ry. Co. v. Shaw, 99 Tex. 559, 92
S. W. 30; Tisxas etc. Ry. Co. v.
Edrington, 100 Tex. 496, 101 S. VV.
441, 9L.R.A.(N.S.) 988.
i7Ga. R. R. & Banking Co. v. Mad-
dox, 116 Ga. 64, 42 S. E. 315; Fried-
man V. New York etc. R. R. Co., 89
App. Div. 38, 85 N. Y. S. 404; S. C.
affirmed, 180 N. Y. 550, 73 N. E. 1123;
Ross V. Cincinnati etc. Ry. Co., 5
Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 565.
isfi'ee ante, § 103.
19"I do not think there can be any
doubt that if on the true construc-
tion of a statute it appears to be the
intention of the legislature that
powers should be exercised, the
proper exercise of which may occa-
§ 23G
OTHEK CASES OF TAKIXG.
451
§ 236 (152). Polluting the atmosphere. The owner of
land has a right that the air which comes upon his premises shall
come in its natural condition, free from artificial impurities.^"
This right has its correlative obligation, Avhich is that one must
not use his own premises in such a manner as to discharge into
the atmosphere of his neighbor dust, smoke, noxious gases or
other foreign matter which substantially affect its wholesome-
ness.^^ This right is very fully treated by Mr. Wood in his
work on Jfuisances, and a reference thereto will suffice.^ ^ The
right to pure air is property, and to interfere with the right
for public use is to take property.^^ "There can be no question
sion a nuisance to the owners of
neighboi'ing land, and that this
should be free from liability to an
action for damages, or an injunction
to prevent the continued proper exer-
cise of these powers, effect must be
given to the intention of the legisla-
ture. No doubt when compensation
is not given to those interested in the
neighboring land, this is, as against
them, harsh legislation." Black-
burne, J. in London etc. R. E. Co. v.
Truman, L. R. 11 H. L. 45, 60. See
also Essex v. Local Board for Acton,
L. R. 14 H. L. 153; S. C. 14 Q. B. D.
753, 17 Q. B. D. 447 ; Rex v. Pease, 4
B. & A. .30, 24 E. C. L. R. 24; Attor-
ney General v. Metropolitan R. R.
Co., L. K. (1894) 1 Q. B. D. 384.
2 0State V. Luce, 9 Houst. 396;
Ponder v. Quitman Ginnery, 122 Ga.
29, 49 S. E. 746; Susquehanna Fer-
tilizer Co. V. Malone, 73 Md. 268, 20
Atl. 900, 25 Am. St. Rep. 595, 9
L.R.A. 737 ; Bohan v. Port Jervis Gas
Light Co., 122 N. Y. 18, 25 X. E. 246,
9 L.R.A. 711, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 318; Wood on Nuisance, §§ 469,
494.
2ilbid.
2 2Wood on Nuisances, Chapters 13
and 14.
2 3Baltimore & Potomac R. R. Co.
V. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S.
317; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Angel,
41 N. J. Eq. 316; Cogswell v. New
York, New Haven & Hartford R. R.
Co., 103 N. Y. 10, 57 Am. Rep. 701 ;
Abendroth v. Manhattan El. Ry. Co.,
19 Abb. N. C. 247 ; Caro v. Same, 46
N. Y. Supr. Ct. 138. But see Briesen
v. Long Island R. R. Co., 31 Hun 112.
In Cogswell v. New York etc. R. R.
Co. the court intimated pretty clearly
that it would hold it a taking to fill
the atmosphere of one's premises
with smoke, soot, gases, etc., if called
upon to do so, but decide the case on
other grounds. In Pennsylvania R.
K. Co. V. Angel the court says : 'But,
secondly, an act of the legislature
cannot confer upon individuals or
private corporations, acting primar-
ily for their own profit, although for
public benefit, as well, any right to
deprive persons of the ordinary en-
joyment of their property, except
upon condition that just compensa-
tion be first made to the owners.
This principle rests upon the express
terms of the constitution. In de-
claring that private property shall'
not be taken without recompense;'
that instrument secures to owners,
not only the possession of property,
hut also those rights which render'
possession valuable. Whether you
flood the farmer's fields so that they
cannot be cultivated, or pollute the
bleacher's stream so that his fabrics
are stained, or fill one's dwelling
with smells and noise so that it can
452 EJCIXENT DOMAIN. § 236
that the erection of fas works, or the setting up of any other
noxious trade in the vicinity of my premises that emits noxious
odors, which are sent over my lands in quantity and volume, suffi-
cient to essentially interfere with the use of that air for the
ordinary purposes of breath and life, so as to constitute a legal
nuisance, is such a taking of my property as the legislature
may not permit without compensation. What possible dis-
tinction can there be between the actual taking of my property,
6r a part of it, and occupying it for the erection of a railroad
track or a gas house and invading it by an agency that operates
as an actual abridgment of its beneficial use and possibly a
complete and practical ouster? There certainly can be none.
By the' erection of such works a burden is imposed upon my
property ; the property itself is actually invaded by an invisible,
yet a pernicious, agency, that seriously impairs its use and en-
joyment, as well as its value. The impregnation of the atmos-
phere with noxious mixtures that pass over my land is an inva-
sion of a natural right, a right incident to the land itself, and
essential to its beneficial enjoyment. My right to pure air is
the same as my right to pure water ; it is an incident of the land,
annexed to and a part of it, and it is as sacred as my right to
the land itself. Therefore, I apprehend that the legislature has
no power to shield one from liability for all the consequences of
the exercise of an occupation that produces such results any more
than it has to authorize the flooding of my lands or the perma-
nent diversion of a stream." ^* Legislative authority to carry
on a business does not authorize it to be carried on in such a
manner or at such a place that it will be a nuisance to neighbor-
ing property.^^ An act which authorized a particular business
at a particular place which necessarily defiled the air so as to
not be occupied in comfort, you 2 < Wood on Nuisances, 1st Ed.
equally take away the owner's prop- § 755.
erf^r. In neither instance has the 2 6N. W. Fertilizer Co. v. Hyde
owner any less of material things Park, 70 111. 634; S. C. affirmed, 97
than he had before, but in each case U. S. 659 ; Churchill v. Burlington
the utility of his property has been Water Co., 94 la. 89, 62 N. W. 646;
impaired by a direct invasion of the Payne v. Wayland, 131 la. 659, 109
bounds of his private domain. This la. 203; Baltimore v. Fairfield Imp.
is the taking of his property in a Co., 87 Md. 352, 39 Atl. 1081, 67 Am.
constitutional sense. Of course, St. Rep. 344, 40 L.R.A. 494; Bacon
mere statutory authority will not v. Boston, 154 Mass. 100, 28 N. E. 9;
avail for such an interference with Matthews v. Stillwater G. & E. L.
private property." p. 329. Co., 63 Minn. 493, 65 N. W. 947;
§ 236
OTHER CASES OF TAKING.
453
create a nuisance would be void unless it was for public use, and,
if for public use, such as manufacturing gas for a city, would
be subject to the constitutional limitation of making compen-
sation.^^ Where a city discharges sewerage into a pond or
stream or otherwise, so as to create a nuisance, it will be liable. ^^
So a garbage dump,^^ a garbage crematory,^® or sewerage dis-
posal plant,^" or a sewerage farm^^ may be a nuisance and, if
so, will be enjoined. So where a railroad company so constructs
King V. Vicksburg Ry. & Lt. Co., 88
Miss. 456, 42 So. 204, 117 Am. St.
Kep. 749, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1036;
Board of Health v. Lederer, 52 N. J.
L.. 675, 29 Atl. 444; Bohan v. Port
Jervis Gas Lt. Co., 122 N. Y. 18, 25
N. E. 246, 9 L.R.A. 711; Louisville
etc. Terminal Co. v. Jacobs, 109 Tenn.
727, 72 S. W. 954, 61 L.R.A. 188;
Rainey v. Red River etc. Ry. Co., 99
Tex. 276, 89 S. W. 768, 90 S. W.
1096; Townsend v. Norfolk Ry. & Lt.
Co., 105 Va. 22, 52 S. E. 970, 115 Am.
St. Rep. 842, 4 L.R.A. (JST.S.) 87.
2 6 Wood on Nuisances, § 750; King
V. Vicksburg Ry. & Lt. Co., 88 Miss.
456, 42 So. 204, 117 Am. St. Rep.
749, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1036; Rainey v.
Red River etc. Ry. Co., 99 Tex. 276,
89 S. W. 768, 90 S. W. 1096. And
generally where, in the construction
and operation of public works, a,
nuisance is created, an action will
lie. Central R. R. Co. v. English, 73
Ga. 366; Quinn v. Chicago B. & Q.
R. R. Co., 63 la. 510; Gould v. Roch-
ester, 105 N. Y. 46; Morgan v. Bing-
hamton, 32 Hun 602; Suffolk v.
Parker, 79 Va. 660.
2 7Lind v. City of San Luis Obispo,
109 Cal. 340, 42 Pac. 437 ; Piatt Bros.
& Co. v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 531, 45
Atl. 154, 77 Am. St. Rep. 335, 48
L.R.A. 691; Waterbury v. Piatt
Bros. & Co., 75 Conn. 387, 53 Atl.
958, 96 Am. St. Rep. 229; Water-
bury v. Piatt Bros. & Co., 76 Conn.
435, 56 Atl. 856; Augusta v. Marks,
124 Ga. 365, 52 S. E. 539; Dierks v.
Comrs. of Highways, 142 HI. 197, 31
N. E. 496; City of Jacksonville v.
Doan, 145 HI. 23, 33 N. E. 878; City
of Champaign v. Forrester, 29 111.
App. 117; City of Jacksonville v.
Doan, 48 111. App. 247; Loughran v.
Des Moines, 72 la. 382; Randolph v.
Bloomfield, 77 la. 50, 41 N. W. 562,
14 Am. St. Rep. 268 ; Middlesex Co.
V. City of Lowell, 149 Mass. 509, 21
N. E. 872; Bacon v. Boston, 154
Mass. 100, 28 N. E. 9 ; Edmundson v.
City of Moberly, 98 Mo. 523, 11 S.
W. 990; Pierce v. Gibson Co., 107
Tenn. 224, 64 S. W. 33, 89 Am. St.
Rep. 946, 55 L.R.A. 477; Winchell v.
Waukesha, 110 Wis. 101, 85 N. W.
668, 84 Am. St. Rep. 902. And see
Seufferle v. Macfarland, 28 App. Cas.
D. C. 94; Bloomington v. Costello, 65
111. App. 407 ; Robb v. Village of La
Grange, 57 111. App. 386 ; Barrett v.
Mt. Greenwood Cem. Assn., 57 111.
App. 401 ; Titus v. City of Boston,
161 Mass. 209, 36 N. E. 793 ; Lincoln
V. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 368, 41
N. E. 489; Owens v. Lancaster, 182
Pa. St. 257, 37 Atl. 858; Essex v.
Local Board for Acton, L. R. 14 H.
L. 153; S. C. 14 Q. B. D. 753, 17 Q.
B. D. 447.
2 8Shreck v. Coeur D'Alene, 12 Ida.
708, 87 Pac. 1001; Stephenville v.
Brown, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 384, 68 S.
W. 833.
2SKobbe v. New Brighton, 23 App.
Div. 243.
soGerow v. Liberty, 106 App. Div.
357, 94 N. Y. S. 949.
3iSorivner v. Paris, 26 Tex. Civ.
App. 196, 62 S. W. 1075.
454
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 236
its road as to create a stagnant pool, whicli becomes a nuisance
to adjacent property.*^ Where a city used land of its own for
crushing stone and injured the plaintiff by the dust sent into
his atmosphere and deposited upon his land, it was held liable.*^
But where a city acquired land across the street from the plain-
tiff and built thereon an embankment and bridge from which
dust and dirt were projected upon the plaintiff's lot, the city
was held not liable, the court treating the question as one of
statutory construction only.** But this case has been over-
niled.*^ Where a water, light or power plant creates a nuisance
by reason of gas, smoke, cinders, etc., an action will lie.*® And
if the same is authorized by law for a public purpose the dam-
age is a taking.*'^ A town having power to establish a cemetery
may not locate it where it would be a nuisance.** A hospital or
pest house may be enjoined as a nuisance,*® but the erection of
ssLouisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Fin-
ley, 86 Ky. 294, 5 S. W. 753; Atlanta
& F. R. R. Co. V. Kimberly, 87 Ga.
101, 13 S. E. 277; Lockett v. Ft.
Worth & R. G. R. R. Co., 78 Tex. 211,
14 S. W. 564.
ssWaldron v. Haverhill, 143 Mass.
582. See Chicago-Virden Coal Co. v.
Wilson, 67 111. App. 443.
3 4Rand v. City of Boston, 164
Mass. 354, 41 N. E. 484. See Sadlier
V. New York, 104 App. Div. 82, 93 N.
Y. S. 579; S. C. affirmed, 185 N. y.
408, 78 N. E. 272; Sadlier v. New
York, 40 Misc. 78, 81 N. Y. S. 308.
3 5Hyde v. Fall River, 189 Mass.
439 ; McKean v. New England R. R.
Co., 199 Mass. 292, 295.
3 6Hyde Park T. H. Light Co. v.
Porter, 167 111. 276, 47 N. E. 206; S.
C. 64 111. App. 152; Chicago North
Shore St. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 192 111.
239, 61 N. E. 467 ; Churchill v. Bur-
lington Water Co., 94 la. 69, 62 N.
W. 646; Matthews v. Stillwater G.
& E. L. Co., 63 Minn. 493, 65 N. W.
947 ; King v. Vicksburg Ry. & Lt. Co.,
88 Miss. 456, 42 So. 204, 117 Am.
St. Rep. 749, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1036;
Chamberlain v. Mo. Elec. Lt. & P.
Co., 158 Mo. 1, 57 S. W. 1021; Bly v.
Edison Elec. 111. Co., 172 N. Y. 1, 64
N. E. 745; Pritchard v. Edison Elec.
111. Co., 179 N. Y. 364, 72 N. E. 243,
affirming 8. C. 92 App. Div. 178, 87
N. Y. S. 225 ; Miller v. Edison Elec.
III. Co., 184 N. Y. 17, 76 K E. 734,
3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1060, reversing S. C.
97 App. Div. 638 ; Bly v. Edison Elec.
III. Co., Ill App. Div. 170, 97 N. Y.
S. 592; S. C. affirmed 188 N. Y. 82, 81
N. E. 1160; Gauster v. Met. Elec.
Co., 214 Pa. St. 628, 64 Atl. 91;
Greenville v. Alland (Tex. Civ.
App.) 27 S. W. 292; Townsend v.
Norfolk Ry. & Lt. Co., 105 Va. 22,
52 S. E. 970, 115 Am. St. Rep. 842, 4
L.R.A.(N.S.) 87.
STIbid. See especially King v.
Vicksburg Ry. & Lt. Co., 88 Miss.
456, 42 So. 204, 117 Am. St. Rep.
749, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1036; Gauster
v. Met. Elec. Co., 214 Pa. St. 628, 64
Atl. 91.
ssPayne v. Wayland, 131 la. 659,
109 N. W. 203. And see Elliott v.
Ferguson, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 40.
ssDeaconness Home & Hospital v.
Bontjes, 207 111. 553, 69 N. E. 748, 64
L.R.A. 215 ; Cherry v. Williams, 147
N. C. 452.
§ 237 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING. 455
one •will not be enjoined, as it cannot be told in advance whether
it will be a nuisance or not.*" Likewise an open sewer,* ^ or
noxious mill dam*^ may be abated as nuisances.*^
§ 237 (152a). Where the public use of land produces
a physical or structural injury to adjacent land. Disturb-
ance of the soil by pressure, vibration, flooding or perco-
lation. In Hennessey v. Carmony,** the vice-chancellor says :
"Upon reason and authority I think there is a clear distinction
between that class of nuisances which affect air and light merely,
by way of noises and disagreeable gases, and obstruction of light,
and those which directly affect the land itself, or structures upon
it." But it may be doubted whether there is any good ground,
either in legal principles or physical science, for such a distinc-
tion. A land owner's right in the space above the surface are
quite as important and valuable as his rights in or below the
surface, or in structures upon the land. In order to be se-
cure in the enjoyment of his property he needs the same pro-
tection for the one sort of rights as for the other. What valid
distinction can be made between discharging smoke or noxious
gases into the atmosphere, which find their way into the air of
the adjoining lot and cause a nuisance, and the discharge of
water or noxious liquids which flow upon adjoining property
or percolate through its soil so as to create a nuisance upon the
land ? *^ The operation of machinery may communicate vibra-
loManning v. Bruce, 186 Mass. "50 2Sr. J. Eq. 616, 25 Atl. 374.
282, 71 N. E. 537. And see Arnold v. And see Costigan v. Pennsylvania R.
Stanford, 113 Ky. 852, 69 S. W. 726; R. Co., 54 N. J. L. 233, 23 Atl. 810.
Barry v. Smith, 191 Mass. 78, 77 N. "In Hauck v. Tide Water Pipe
E. 1099, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1028; Lorain Line Co., 153 Pa. St. 368, 26 Atl. 644,
V. Rolling, 3 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 660. 34 Am. St. Rep. 710, 20 L.R.A. 642,
4iRand Lumber Co. v. Burlington, which was a suit for damages caused
122 la. 203, 97 N. W. 1096. by oil which had escaped from the
4 2Richards v. Dougherty, 133 Ala. pipes of the defendant and perco-
569 31 So. 934. lated through the soil to the plain-
4 3 As to nuisance of fertilizing tiff's springs, the court says: "The
plant see Swift v. Broyles, 115 6a. appellant attempted to distinguish
885, 42 S. E. 277, 58 L.R.A. 390; N. this case from Robb v. Carnegie, by
W. Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 70 the fact that in the latter case the
111. 634; S. C. affirmed, 97 U. S. 659 ; smoke and gases from the works were
Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Ma- carried by the wind, and lodged upon
lone, 73 Md. 268, 20 Atl. 900, 25 Am. the plaintiff's land; while in the lat-
St. Rep. 595, 9 L.R.A. 737 ; Susque- ter ease the escaping oil merely per-
hanna Fertilizer Co. v. Spangler, 86 colated through the soil until it
Md. 562, 39 Atl. 270, 63 Am. St. Rep. reached plaintiffs springs. The
533^ essential difference between being
-156 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 237
lions to the air which make life a burden to those in the neigh-
borhood by reason of the noise so produced, and at the same time
may communicate vibrations to the land, which crack the walls
and shake down the plaster of the houses in which they live.
How can a distinction be made between the two, when both
kinds of injury go to the extent of materially impairing the use
and enjoyment of the property ?
Where a railroad company builds an embankment on its own
land, which, owing to the yielding nature of the subsoil, settles,
and, by lateral pressure, causes an upheaval of the adjacent land,
it will be liable for the damage.*^ "Where a city erected a pump-
ing station, upon a lot adjoining plaintiff's, which damaged his
property by noise and vibrations, it was held the city was liable,
not on the ground of a taking, but on the ground that the legisla-
tive authority did not authorize the works where they would be
a nuisance, and, therefore, that the city should have selected a
different location or acquired more land.*^ A recovery has been
allowed for vibrations caused by an electric light plant.** Where
a railroad company builds a fence upon its own land to protect
its tracks from snow, it is not liable for an accumulation of snow
on the adjoining land caused by the same fence.*® Injuries
to land by flooding it with water, by interfering with the flow of
water, or by the percolation of noxious substances, have been
considered in a former chapter.^"
carried through the air and Braun, 199 III. 390, 65 N. E. 249, 59
percolating through the soil has not L.R.A. 421 ; Chicago v. Murdock, 212
been made to appear. We regard it 111. 9, 72 N. E. 46, 103 Am. St. Rep.
as a distinction without a diflference." 221 ; Gossett v. Southern Ey. Co., 115
■lOHerbert v. Pennsylvania R. R. Tenn. 376, 89 S. W. 737, 112 Am. St.
R. Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 21, 10 Atl. 872; Rep. 846, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 97; Far-
Costigan v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., nandis v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 41
54 N. J. L. 233, 23 Atl. 810; Roush- Wash. 486, 84 Pac. 18, 11] Am. St.
lange v. Chicago & A. R. R. Co., 115 Rep. 922, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1086.
Ind. 106, 17 N. E. 198. 4 8Shelfer v. City of London Elec-
4 7Morton v. New York, 140 N. Y. trie Lighting Co., L. R. (1895), 1
207, 35 N. E. 490, 22 L.R.A. 241, af- Ch. D. 287.
firming 65 Hun 32, 47 N. Y. St. 64, 19 ^sCarron v. Western R. R. Co., 8
N. Y. Supp. 603. But temporary an- Gray 423.
noyances of the same kind, while ^oSee chap, iv; also Athens Mfg.
building a tunnel, were held to be Co. v. Rucker, 80 Ga. 292; Stone v.
damnum absque injuria, in Lester v. Augusta, 46 Me. 127; Bacon v. Bos-
New York, 79 Hun 479, 29 N. Y. ton, 154 Mass. 100, 28 N. E. Rep. 9 ;
Supp. 1000, though they were con- Rise v. City of Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 34
tinued for nearly three years. But N. W. Rep. 719; Mundy v. New York
see Fitz Simmons & Connell Co. v. etc. R. R. Co., 75 Hun 479, 27 N. Y.
§ 238 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING. 457
§ 238 (152b). If the use of property for public pur-
poses produces a nuisance, those injured are entitled to
compensation. This proposition is sustained by many of the
cases cited in the preceding sections. It is immaterial whether
the particular use of the property in question is authorized by
the legislature or not. The right not to be injured by a nuisance
on adjoining land cannot be taken without compensation. This
seems to us the only logical conclusion.''^ The Massachusetts
court has held that "the legislature may authorize small nui-
sances without compensation, but not great ones."®^ But where
is the line to be drawn ? The courts of New Jersey, perceiving
this difficulty, have held that it cannot be drawn anywhere, and
have hence concluded that the legislature can authorize all nui-
sances, both great and small.^^ But it is certainly more logical,
more just and more in keeping with the trend of modern deci-
sions to hold that no right of property can be taken, destroyed
or materially impaired, without compensation. Numerous deci-
sions, cited in this and the last three chapters, support this con-
clusion, and it is unnecessary to repeat them. In a suit to re-
cover for the nuisance of noise, smoke, cinders, etc., caused by
a railroad company, the court says: "In legal effect, the nui-
sance resulting from the use made of these structures by the de-
fendant constitutes a partial taking of the plaintiff's property,
for which compensation must be made. If two private citizens
own adjacent lots, one cannot establish and maintain on his own
lot a nuisance which has the effect of depriving his neighbor
of any beneficial use of his lot without making compensation for
the injury; and no more can a private corporation erect and
maintain a nuisance on its own premises, or in a public street,
which has the effect to deprive an adjacent or abutting owner
of the beneficial use of his property, without making compensa-
Supp. 469 ; Hauck V. Tide Water Pipe 102, 28 N. E. 9. And see Davis v.
Line Co., 153 Pa. St. 366, 26 Atl. 644, Sawyei-, 133 Mass. 239; Common-
34 Am. St. Rep. 710, 20 L.R.A. 642; wealth v. Parks, 155 Mass. 531, 532,
Riddle's Exrs. v. Delaware County, 30 N. E. 174; Murtlia v. Lovewell, 166
156 Pa.St. 643, 27 Atl. Rep. 569; High Mass. 391, 44 N. E. 347; Levin v.
Bridge Lumber Co. v. United States, Goodwin, 191 Mass. 341, 77 N. E. 718,
69 Fed. Rep. 320, 16 C. C. A. 460; 114 Am. St. Rep. 616.
Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co., 7 BSBeseman v. Pennsylvania R. R.
De G. McN. & G. 436; Imperial Gas Co., 50 N. J. L. 235, 13 Atl. Rep. 164.
Co. V. Broadbent, 7 H. L. Cas. 600. See statement and quotations from
i'i-An.te, §§ 65 et seq., 235-237. the case, ante, § 235, note 2.
6 2Bacon v. Boston, 154 Mass. 100,
458 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 239
tion for the injury. There is no such thing as a natural person
or a private corporation having a 'lawful right' to invade the
premises of an abutting owner, and appropriate his property;
and there is no difference in principle between an actual physi-
cal invasion of one's property and the creation and maintenance
of a nuisance which has the effect to deprive him of its beneficial
use."«*
§ 239 (153). Miscellaneous decisions as to what con-
stitutes a taking. A leasehold interest in public property
derived from the State cannot be taken without compensation.^"
A right to recover for flowage is a valuable right of property,
within the protection of the constitution.^" But one has no
such, vested right in an award of damages for property taken
for public use as will prevent the legislature from authorizing ,
a court to set it aside for good cause shown.^'' The unauthorized
use of a patented machine by the government is not a taking,
but a mere infringement of a patent right.®* Fixing the maxi-
mum of fees to be allowed an attorney for defending a pauper
charged with crime, does not violate the constitution as to the
taking of private property for public use.®® One who furnishes
books to a State under a contract for less than they are worth,
has no claim against the State for the difference on the ground
that his property has been taken for public use.®"
An act authorizing the sale of lands held in joint tenancy,
tenancy in common and coparcenary," ■■■ or the real estate of
minors,"^ is not invalid. Where land is held in trust or for life
with remainder over, it has been held that the legislature may
authorize the sale of the land and the application of the proceeds
according to the rights of the parties."^ A law giving an occu-
pying claimant the option of purchasing the land or selling the
improvements, after judgment against him in ejectment, was
s^Chicago Gt. Western Ry. Co. v. ssgamuels v. County of Dubuque,
First M. E. Clmrcli, 102 Fed. 85, 91, 13 la. 536.
42 C. C. A. 178, 50 L.R.A. 488. eoshoals v. State, 2 Chand. Wis.
5 5McCauley v. Waller, 12 Cal. 500 ; 182.
Same v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 11. siRichardson v. Munson, 23 Conn.
BSNeponset Meadow Co. v. Tileson, 94.
133 Mass. 189. 62Rice v. Parkman, 16 Mass. 326.
5 'Matter of Widening Broadway, esNorris v. Clymer, 2 Pa. St. 277;
61 Barb. 483. Sohier v. Mass. General Hospital, 3
5 8 Pitcher v. United States, 1 Ct. Gush. 483, 496; Lindsay v. Hubbard,
of CI. 7. 44 Conn. 109. .
§ 239 OTIIEE CASES OF TAKIISTG. 459
held invalid as a taking/'* So of a law authorizing a court to
confirm and make valid a deed previously executed by a married
woman, which was not properly acloiowledged."' The legisla-
ture has no power to authorize the sale of private property, for
other than public uses, Avithout the consent of the owner, except
in cases of necessity, arising from the infancy, insanity, or other
incompetency of those in whose behalf it acts."" An act com-
pelling the city of Boston to transfer a cemetery to a private
corporation was held invalid.®^ The property of a private elee-
mosynary institution cannot be taken away from it by the legis-
lature.®* An act that, when a town is divided, part of the prop-
erty of the old town shall belong to the new, does not violate the
constitution.®* An act allowing the building of a party wall
partly on the adjoining land of another is not a taking.''"' The
legislature may provide that the lien of a special assessment shall
take precedence of a prior mortgage.^ ^ Where vessels, being
suspected of being about to sail on a marauding expedition, are
detained in accordance with the provisions of a statute, there is
no taking within the constitution.''^ The discontinuance of a
railroad is not a taking of the property of those who are damaged
thereby.^^ So where the laying out of a new highway diverts
travel from past the plaintiff's property and renders it less valu-
able.''* An act establishing the Torrens system of land trans-
fers was held to be invalid for the reason, among others, that its
operation would take private property for private use and witli-
6 4McCoy V. Grandy, 3 Ohio St. 463. 7 2Graham v. United States, 2 Ct.
ssPearce's Heirs v. Patton, 7 B. of Claims, 327. Where the Govern-
Mon. 162, 167. ment had possession of a vessel under
6 6Powers V. Bergen, 6 N. Y. 358. a charter party, which gave an option
6 ^Proprietors of Mt. Hope Ceme- to purchase at an appraised value,
tery v. City of Boston, 158 Mass. 509, and during such possession the vessel
33 N. E. 695. See also People v. Por- is destroyed by the Government, it is
ter, 26 Hun 622 ; Board of Regents v. to be deemed a taking under the con-
Painter, 102 Mo. 464, 14 S. W. 938; tract and not under the eminent do-
Webb v. New York, 64 How. Pr. 10. main power. Bogert v. United States,
ssBoard of Education v. Bakewell, 2 Ct. of Claims, 159.
122 HI. 339. 7 3Kinealy v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
6 9Bristol v. New Chester, 3 N. H. Co., 69 Mo. 658.
533. 7 4Huflf V. Donehoo, 109 Ga. 638, 34
TOHunt V. Arnbruster, 17 N. J. Eq. S. E. 1035.
208.
TiMurphy v. Beard, 138 Ind. 560,
39 N. E. 33.
460 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 239
out compensation.''^ The lessee of a stall in a city market was
held to have no such estate therein as would enable him to main-
tain trespass against a railroad company taking possession under
the power of eminent domain^" The legislature authorized
a dam across the outlet of a creek in which the tide ebbed and
flowed. The dam was built and maintained by the owners of
meadows thereby reclaimed from overflow. After being main-
tained for nearly a hundred years, the legislature declared the
creek navigable and ordered the removal of the dam. It was
held that the dam was private property and could not be taken
without compensation.''^ Drawing down a mill dam in order
to repair a highway or bridge is not a taking.^® A statute giving
double damages for loss by reason of negligent fires is not uncon-
stitutional, as taking the property of one person for the benefit
of another without compensation.''® Imposing a fine upon a
corporation in obedience to a state law for a refusal to produce
books and papers in a judicial proceeding, is neither a taking
of property for public use without compensation or a taking
without due process of law.^" When, in case of emergency,
property is seized temporarily for use as a pest house ^^ or for a
military camp,^^ the owner is entitled to compensation. Pre-
venting a turnpike company from taking tolls after its franchise
has expired is not. a taking of property for public use.^^ Ex-
cepting certain parts of a county from the operation of a general
stock law is not a taking as to such parts, though the effect is to
turn them into a common pasture.** Biit requiring the owners
of such parts to fence the same is a taking for private use and
forbidden by the constitution.*'' An act providing that unsilb-
divided tracts of land might, for the purpose of spreading assess-
75State V. Guilbert, 56 Ohio St. soConsolidated Eendering Co. v.
575. But see People v. Crissman, 41 Vermont, 207 U. S. 541, 28 S. C. 178.
Colo. 450; People v. Simon, 176 111. siBrown v. Pierce County, 28
165, 52 N. E. 910. Wash. 345, 68 Pae. 872,
76Strickland v. Pennsylvania R. R. s2Chicago v. Chicago League Ball
Co., 154 Pa. St. 348, 26 Atl. 431. Club, 97 111. App. 637.
7 7Glover v. Powell, 10 N. J. Eq. 8 3 State v. Scott County Road Co.,
211. 207 Mo. 54, 105 S. W, 752.
7 8East Montpelier v. Wheelock, 70 siGoodale v. Sowell, 62 S. C. 516,
Vt. 391, 41 Atl. 432; Aitken v. Wells 40 S. E. 970.
River, 70 Vt. 309, 40 Atl. 829, 67 Am. alUd.
St. Rep. 672, 41 L.R.A. 566.
7 9 Allen V. Bainbridge, 145 Mich.
366, 108 N. W. 732.
§ 241 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING, 461
ments for house drains and water service pipes, be divided into
lots of tvpenty-five feet frontage each, was held void as depriving
the owner of dominion over his land and thereby taking it fro
tanto without due process of law.*®
§ 240 (154). Damages from negligence. Damages re-
sulting from negligence are always actionable. Consequently a
recovery may be had for all damages which result from the negli-
gent or improper construction or operation of public works.*^
Such damages are, of course, not a taking, and are not included
in the award of compensation.**
§ 241. Public property not within the constitutional
provision. An act of Illinois provided for the organization of
drainage districts and the construction by the district of ditches,
drains and levees, and authorized the drainage commissioners
to remove any bridge, culvert or embankment, if found necessary
in their judgment, and required the proper corporate authorities
to reconstruct or replace the same at their own expense. In case
of a district organized under the act, the commissioners found
it necessary to enlarge a creek and, in order to do so, removed
a county bridge over the same. The counties owning the
bridge sued for damages and the court held that the bridge was
public property and not within the protection of the constitu-
tion, that the acts of the defendants were within the authority of
the statute and that they were not liable.*" In a proceeding by
the United States to condemn a portion of the town of ISTahant
ssChicago V. Wells, 23G 111. 129. Counties, 193 111. 439, 62 N. E. 201,
8 TTerre Haute & Indiana R. E. Co. 58 L.R.A. 353. The court says : "We
V. MoKinley, 33 Ind. 274; Blood v. are unable to see that this eonstitu-
Nashua & Lowell R. E. Co., 2 Gray tional provision relates in any way
137, 61 Am. Dec. 444; Estabrooks v. to the question in controversy. The
Peterborough & Shirley R. E. Co., bridge in question in this case was
12 Cush. 224; Bungenstock v. Nish- not private property, but belonged to
nabotna Dr. Dist., 163 Mo. 198, 64 S. the public. In no legal sense can it
W. 149; Johnson v. Atlantic & St. be said that roads and bridges in
Lawrence R. R. Co., 35 N. H. 569; counties are private property.
Delaware etc. Canal Co. v. Lee, 22 N. Counties are but political subdi-
J. L. 243; Bellinger v. Kevv York Cen- visions of the State, and are subject
tral R. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 42 ; Eobinson to the full control of the State acting
V. New Y'ork & Erie R. R. Co., 27 through the legislature by general
Barb. 512; Waterman v. Connecticut law, and the property they hold is
etc. R. E. Co., 30 Vt. 610. not private but public property. * * *
ssCases in last note. Post, §§ 714, Such being the law, it is clear that
829; Board of Comrs. v. State, 147 the constitutional provision involved
Ind 476. ^^^ ^° application to this case, and
saHeffner v. Cass and Morgan that the legislature has full power to
i62 EMIlfENT DOMAIN. § 242
for defensive purposes, including all roads, -ways and avenues
included within the description and all buildings and structures
thereon, the town made a claim for compensation for the streets,
street improvements, water pipes and sewers taken and for
damage to the water and sewerage systems by the taking. The
State of Massachusetts had given its consent to the appropria-
tion. It was assumed that the State might have taken all of this
property without compensation to the town but it was held that
its consent to the taking did not have the eifect to transfer this
right to the federal government and that the town was entitled to
compensation for all the items claimed, except the soil of the
streets.®"
§ 242 (155). Taking under the guise of taxation.
We have already distinguished the eminent domain power from
that of taxation.®^ Many attempts have been made to invalidate
a tax on the ground that it was a violation of the constitutional
provision prohibiting the taking of private property for public
use without just compensation. But, with a few exceptions,
it has generally been held that this limitation has no application
to the taxing power. The limitations upon that power are to be
found in the nature of the power itself, and in other provisions
of the constitution having express reference to taxation.*^ Ac-
cordingly it has been held that a water tax,®* a tax to pay boun-
ties to soldiers,®* or a tax in aid of a railroad or similar public
works,®' or upon the franchises or business of a corporation,®* is
authorize another public corporation Opinion of Justices, 190 Mass. Oil,
to remove a public bridge over a 77 N. E. 820.
stream which runs across a public sBQibbons v. Mobile & Great
highvfay without compensation, al- Northern R. R. Co., 36 Ala. 410;
though such bridge may have been stein v. Mobile, 24 Ala. 591 ; Presi-
constructed by the county." pp. 448, dent & Comrs. of Revenue v. State,
**9- 45 Ala. 399; Aurora v. West, 9 Ind.
soNahant v. United States, 136 74 Stewart v. Supervisors of Polk
Fed. 273, 70 C. C. A. 641, 69 L.R.A. bounty, 30 la. 9, 1 Am. Rep. 238;
Clarke v. Rochester, 24 Barb. 446;
Grant v. Courter, 24 Barb. 232; Gib-
son V. Mason, 5 Nev. 283, 303; C. W.
723; United States v. Nahant, 153
Fed. 520, 82 C. C. A. 470. See ante,.
§ 175.
^T-Ante, § 4.
9 2Cooley on Taxation, chap. 3. ^t"" ^- ^- ^°- ^- '^1''^*°° C^^^^^' ^
9 3Allenv. Drew,44Vt. 174. ^hio St. 101-2; Norris v. City of
9 estate v. Demarest, 32 N. J. L. Waco, 57 Tex. 635; Oilman v. Sheboy-
528; Booth v. Woodbury, 32 Conn. t)an, 2 Black 510; Pine Grove v. Tal-
118. Such a tax held invalid as being cott, 19 Wall. 666; County of Mobile
for a private purpose. Opinion of v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.
Justices, 186 Mass. 603, 72 N. E. 95; seHorn Silver Min. Co. v. New
§ 342 OTUEE CASES OF TAKING. 463
not a taking of private property under the eminent domain
power. The only instances in which a proposed tax has been
held to be a taking, and so within the limitations imposed upon
the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the legislature,
are special assessments for local improvements and the taxation
of farming lands for municipal purposes.*''
The question as to special assessments has been discussed in
a former chapter.®* It has been held in many cases that a spe-
cial assessment upon property for a local improvement in excess
of the benefits accruing to the property therefrom, is as to such
excess a taking of property for public use without compensa-
tion.'® The supreme court of Nebraska says that "it is ele-
mentary constitutional law that the only foundation for a local
assessment lies in the special benefits conferred by the improve-
ment, and that a local assessment beyond the special benefits con-
ferred is a taking of private property for public use without
compensation." ^ On the other hand the Supreme Court of the
United States has recently sustained a statute of Missouri which
required the whole cost of a local improvement to be assessed
upon the abutting property according to frontage and which
made no provision for determining the question of benefits.^
And many other cases in the same and other courts have held
the same view.* Where part of a lot or tract is taken for opening
York, 143 U. S. 305, 12 S. C. 403. A Commissioners, 173 Mass. 350, 53 N.
tax on telegraph poles in streets, is E. 138; Dexter v. Boston, 176 Mass.
valid. St. Louis v. Western Union 247, 57 N. E. 379, 79 Am. St. Rep.
Tel. Co., 148 U. S. 92, 13 S. C. 485, 306; Lorden v. Coffey, 178 Mass. 489,
7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 589; St. 60 N. E. 124; Edwards v. Bruorton,
Louis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 184 Mass. 529, 69 N. E. 328; State v.
U. S. 465, 13 S. C. 990; Postal Tel. Pilsbury, 82 Minn. 359, 85 N. W.
Cable Co. v. Baltimore, 79 Md. 502, 175; Cain v. Omaha, 42 Neb. 120, 60
29 AtL 819, 24 L.R.A. 161. See N. W. 368 ; King v. Portland, 38 Ore.
Hodges V. Western Union Tel. Co., 402, 63 Pac. 2, 55 L.R.A. 812; Hutch-
72 Miss. 910, 18 So. 84, 29 L.R.A. inson v. Storrie, 92 Tex. 685, 51 S.
770. W. 848, 45 L.R.A. 289; Lathrop v.
91 See, as to license tax, Living- Racine, 119 Wis. 461, 97 N. W. 192.
ston V. Paducah, 80 Ky. 656. iCain v. Omaha, 42 Neb. 120, 60 N.
ssAnte, § 5. W. 368.
99Adams v. Shelbyville, 154 Ind. 2Freneh v. Barber Asphalt Paving
467, 57 N. E. 114, 77 Am. St. Rep. Co., 181 U. S. 324, 21 S. C. 625.
484, 49 L.R.A. 797; Ijouisville v. sMontgomery v. Moore, 140 Ala.
Bitser, 115 Ky. 359, 73 S. W. 1115; 638, 37 So. 291; Barfield v. Gleason,
Weed V. Boston, 172 Mass. 28, 51 N. Ill Ky. 491, 63 S. W. 964; Voight v.
E. 204, 42 L.R.A. 642 ; Sears v. Street Detroit, 123 Mich. 547, 82 N. W. 253 ;
464
EMIXEIfX DOMAIN.
§ 242
or widening a street, it has been held that the cost of the part
taken cannot be assessed upon the part remaining to an amount
exceeding the special benefits to such part by the opening or
widening of the street.* And where the constitution forbids
the consideration of benefits in case of property taken for public
use, no part of the cost of the property taken can be assessed
back upon the part not taken.^ A sale of property to pay a
special assessment or any other tax is not a taking.^
Goodrich v. Detroit, 123 Mich. 559,
82 N. W. 255; Cass Farm Co. v. De-
troit, 124 Mich. 433, 83 N. W. 108;
Wilzinski v. Greenville, 85 Miss. 393,
37 So. 807; Edwards House Co. v.
Jackson, 91 Miss. 429, 45 So. 14;
Prior V. Buehler etc. Co., 170 Mo.
439, 71 S. W. 205; McMillan v. Butte,
30 Mont. 220, 76 Pac. 203; People v.
Pitt, 169 N. y. 521, 62 N. E. 662, 58
L.R.A. 372, affirming S. C. 64 App.
Div. 316, 72 N. Y. S. 191; Webster v.
Fargo, 9 N. D. 208, 82 N. W. 732, 56
L.R.A. 156; Harrisburg v. McPher-
ran, 200 Pa. St. S43, 49 Atl. 988;
Wight V. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371,
21 S. C. 616; Tona\¥anda v. Lyon, 181
U. S. 389, 21 S. C. 609; Webster v.
Fargo, 181 U. S. 394, 21 S. C. 645;
Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U. S.
396, 21 S. C. 644; Detroit v. Parker,
181 U. S. 399, 21 S. C. 645; Wormley
v. District of Columbia, 181 U. S.
402, 21 S. C. 609; Shumate v. Heman,
181 U. S. 402, 21 S. C. 645; Schaefifer
V. Werling, 188 U. S. 516, 23 S. C.
449; Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310,
24 S. C. 88; Cleveland etc. Ky. Co. v.
Porter, 210 U. S. 177, 28 S. C. 647.
And see Harton v. Avondale, 147
Ala. 458, 41 So. 934; CoflFman v. St.
Francis Dr. Dist., 83 Ark. 54, 103 S.
W. 179; State v. Robert P. Lewis
Co., 72 Minn. 87, 75 N. W. 108, 42
L.R.A. 639; Sperry v. Flygare, 80
Minn. 325, 83 N. W. 177, 81 Am. St.
Rep. 261, 49 L.R.A. 757; State v.
Robert P. Lewis Co., 82 Minn. 390, 85
N. W. 207, 86 N. W. 611, 53 L.R.A.
421; State v. Macalester College, 87
Minn. 165, 91 N. W. 484.
^Davidson v. Wight, 16 App. Cases
D. C. 371; Cain v. Omaha, 42 Neb.
120, 60 N. W. 368; Hutchinson v.
Storrie, 92 Tex. 685, 51 S. W. 848,
45 L.R.A. 289; Norwood v. Baker,
172 U. S. 269 ; Martin v. District of
Columbia, 205 U. S. 135, 27 S. C.
440. "The courts will not permit
municipalities to evade the provision
of the constitution that the property
of no person shall be taken or dam-
aged for public use without just com-
pensation by paying the compensa-
tion, and then, under the guise of
taxation, taking it back from the
person entitled." Cain v. Omaha, 42
Neb. 120, 60 N. W. 368. But in City
of Covington v. Worthington, 88 Ky.
206, 10 S. W. 790, 11 S. W. 1038, a
street was extended through the
plaintiff's property, and he was as-
sessed for benefits more than the
amount of his damages, and the as-
sessment was sustained. And see
Turner v. City of Detroit, 104 Mich.
326, 62 N. W. 405. A statute author-
izing a personal judgment for special
assessments was held invalid as per-
mitting a taking without compensa-
tion. Raleigh v. Peace, 110 N. C. 32,
14 S. E. 521, 17 L.R.A. 330.
E Cincinnati etc. Ry. Co. v. Cincin-
nati, 62 Ohio St. 465, 57 N. E. 229,
49 L.R.A. 566; Dayton v. Bauman,
66 Ohio St. 379, 64 N. E. 433.
eWilliams v. Cammack, 27 Miss.
209.
§ 242
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
465
It has been held in Kentucky that lands used simply for
agricultural purposes cannot be annexed to a city and subjected
to the payment of municipal taxes, for the reason that such a
tax is an attempt to take private property for public use without
just compensation, and is therefore voidJ These decisions have
been followed in Iowa* and in an early case in Nebraska," which
latter case however was subsequently overruled. ■''' The prin-
ciple has been extended to a railroad bridge within the limits of
a city but separated from the built-up part by a mile of farming
lands.^^ An act authorizing a city to tax farming land outside
of its limits, which was so situated as not to be benefited by the
expenditure of the tax, was held void as an attempt to take prop-
erty for public use without compensation.^^
TCheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Mon. 330,
344; Covington v. Southgate, 15 B.
Mon. 491; Sharp v. Dunavan, 17 B.
Mon. 223 ; Malthera v. Shields, 2 Met.
(Ky.) 553. In Arbegust v. City of
Louisville, 2 Bush 271, 275, 276, it is
said: "When in the judgment of the
legislature the interest of » subur-
ban population demands local regu-
lations, and the peace, tranquility,
and order of the public indicates that
such is necessary, we cannot doubt
its constitutional power to so enact,
nor question its power to tax for
such purposes the real as well as the
personal estate of the people, nor the
large as well as the small lots in-
cluded therein; for it is more con-
sonant with the entire genius,
equality, and justice of our constitu-
tion and laws, that each should bear
the burdens of that government which
protects his person and property ac-
cording to the worth of his estate,
than to discriminate against the
small in favor of the large property-
holders. But whatever may be said
of the intrinsic justice of such meas-
ures, there is no power in the courtw
to control this when the taxing power
is conferred in good faith to uphold
local government, and give police
regulations to the population, and
not merely to embrace taxable prop-
Em. D.— 30.
erty for revenue purposes in
order to lighten the burdens of
others. And these are the prin-
ciples heretofore announced and ad-
hered to by this court through a train
of decisions including the cases of
Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. M. 330;
Sharp's Ex'r v. Dunaven, 17 B. M.
223; Maltus v. Shields, 2 Met. 553,
and Southgate v. Covington, 15 B. M.
291. It is sometimes difficult to de-
tennine from the facts whether local
government to a population or taxa-
tion for revenue purposes be the real
incentive to the enactment ; but when
this is clearly manifested, then the
proper application of the principle is
not embarrassing." See also Board
of Trustees v. Gill, 94 Ky. 138, 21 S.
W. 579.
sMorford v. Unger, 8 la. 82 ; Lang-
worthy v. Dubuque, 13 la. 86 ; Same
V. Same, 16 la. 271 ; Fulton v. Daven-
port, 17 la. 404; Buell v. Ball, 20 la.
282; O'Hare v. Dubuque, 22 la. 144;
Deiman v. Ft. Madison, 30 la. 542;
Taylor v. Waverly, 94 la. 661, 63 N.
W. 347.
sBradshaw v. Omaha, 1 Neb. 16.
lOTurner v. Althaus, 6 Neb. 54.
nArnd v. Union Pac. E. R. Co.,
120 Fed. 912, 57 C. C. A. 184.
i2Territory of Utah v. Daniels, 6
Utah 288, 22 Pac. 159.
46 G EMINENT DOMAIN. § 242
In Wisconsin it has been held that farming lands cannot be
annexed to a village for the sole purpose of increasing its tax-
able property, and that the act of annexation itself was void.'^
The current of authority, however, as well as the reason of the
matter, is clearly the other way.^* Municipal corporations,
their existence, extent, and powers, are entirely within the con-
trol of the legislature, unless restrained by other provisions of
the constitution than that relating to eminent domain. The
legislature may divide or consolidate them, expand or contract
their limits as it sees fit. These propositions are almost ele-
mentary and substantially undisputed. For the courts to say
what lands within a municipal corporation may be taxed for
municipal purposes, and what not, is clearly judicial legislation
and involves insuperable diiEculties. These are well pointed
out by the supreme court of IsTebraska in Turner v. Athaus,'"
from which we quote as follows: "The rule contended for is,
that the theory of compensation to the owner of property within
the corporate limits of a city by way of protection or benefit,
derived from the city government, applies to property used and
occupied for city purposes, and is co-extensive, only, with that
line or point where it ceases to operate beneficially to the pro-
prietor in a municipal point of view. Who is the arbiter to de-
fine this line — and where is it to be exactly found ? If the judi-
ciary is to act as such arbiter, then it seems clear that it must
do one of two things, either to pronounce the act unconstitutional
■ — -(as in Smith v. Sherry,)^" and upon such decision, as already
shown, the tax district will be destroyed — or it must, by legisla-
tive action, amend and change the law, and classify the prop-
erty within the city limits, so as to subject part thereof to taxa-
tion, and exempt the other part from taxation, and
this must be done by piecemeal as each case shall arise. But in
the adjudication of cases which must constantly arise under
the rule contended for, it seems impossible to discover any test,
or criterion, by which uniformity and certainty of decisions
may be obtained. The opinions of men are so diversified and
isSmitK V. Sherry, 50 Wis. 210. 6 Neb. 54; Kelley v. Pittsburgh, 85
i4Stiltz V. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. Pa. St. 170; Appeal of Hewitt, 88 Pa.
515; Logansport v. Seybold, 59 Ind. St. 55; Noris v. City of Waco, 57
225; Giboney v. Cape Girardeau, 58 Tex. 635; Forsythe v. City of Ham-
Mo. 141 ; Groflf v. Frederick City, 44 mond, 68 Fed. 774.
Md. 67; Martin v. Dix, 52 Miss. 53, 156 Neb. 54, 74.
24 Am. Eep. 661 ; Turner v. Althaus, 1650 Wis. 210.
§ 243 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING. 467
varied, that what to one mind may seem clearly right arid proper,
to another may clearly appear to be wrong and unjust. By one
court lands may be adjudged subject to taxation, and by another
the same lands, or lands similarly situated, may be adjudged
exempt from taxation. Which would be right? Who can de-
cide the question ? It therefore seems difficult to escape the
conclusion that the decision of each case, as it shall arise, must
depend upon the caprice of the arbiter who determines it, for
he cannot resolve the question upon any principle of legal
science. Hence the exercise of judicial power in apportioning
the taxes of a district affords no security against the abuse of
the taxing power ; but on the contrary, it may be fraught with
more danger, and result in greater injustice, than a uniform sys-
tem of taxation established by legislative enactment."
An act providing for fencing a large tract of land and levy-
ing a tax to build and maintain the fences, was held void as
being for a private purpose and as a taking of private proper-
ty, without compensation. ■'''
§ 243 (156). Taking under the guise of the police pow-
er. Regulating the use of property, the construction, re-
pair and height of buildings and the like. Fire limits.
While the theoretical distinction between the police power and
the power of eminent domain is clear and definite, it is not al-
ways easy to distinguish them in their practical application.
That is sometimes attempted under the police power which can
only be accomplished by an exercise of eminent domain. We
shall not go at length into this question, but advert briefly to
some of the cases in which the question has been made. All
property is subject to the police power of the State ^* and, under
this power, uses of property which are detrimental to the public
health, safety, morals and welfare, may be regulated and re-
strained.-'*
1 'Hancock Stock & Fence Law Co. 81 N. W. 200; Westport v. Mulhol-
V. Adams, 87 Ky. 417, 9 S. W. 246; land, 159 Mo. 86, 60 S. W. 77, 53
Fort V. Goodwin, 36 S. C. 445, 15 S. L.R.A. 442; Tenement House Dept.
E. 723. And see Cypress Pond Dr. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 72 N. E.
Co. V. Hooper, 2 Met. (Ky.) 350. 231, 103 Am. St. Rep. 910, 70 L.R.A.
islnreKelso, 147CaI. 609, 82Pac. 704.
241, 109 Am. St. Rep. 178, 2 L.R.A. ^^Ihid. Greenburg v. Western
(N.S.) 796; Chicago v. Jackson, 196 Turf Ass., 140 Cal. 357, 73 Pae. 1050;
HI. 496 63 N. E. 1013; Common- Same v. Same, 148 Cal. 126, 82 Pac.
wealth V. Alger, 7 Cush. 53; State v. 084; New Orleans v. Murat, 119 La.
St. Paul City Ry. Co., 78 Minn. 331, 1093, 44 So. 898; Belmont v. New
468
EMINENT DOMAIIT.
§ 243
Tire limits may be established and the manner of building
regulated with a view to preventing the spread of fires. ^^ The
erection or repairing of wooden buildings in cities may be pro-
hibited, and such a regulation is not a taking of a partially de-
stroyed building. ^^
The height of buildings may be limited, as very high build-
ings increase the danger to persons and property in case of fire
and may affect the public health by shutting out light, air and
sunshine. ^^ An act of Massachusetts limiting the height of
buildings in the business district of Boston to one hundred and
twenty-five feet and in the residence district to eighty feet and
providing for fixing the boundaries of the district by a commis-
sion was held valid as an exercise of the police power. ^* Statutes
of Massachusetts limiting the height of buildings around Cop-
ley Square in Boston and about the State House, made provi-
sion for compensation.^*
An act prohibiting the use of any building not "now" used
for that purpose, for slaughtering, rendering and the like, is
Eng. Brick Co., 190 Mass. 442, 77 N.
E. 504; St. Louis v. Gait, 179 Mo. 8,
77 S. W. 876, 63 L.R.A. 778; Western
Turf Ass. V. Greenburg, 204 U. S.
359, 27 S. C. 384; Halter v. Nebraska,
205 U. S. 34, 27 S. C. 419; Wilming-
ton Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 205 U. S.
60, 27 S. C. 412.
2 0Canepa v., Birmingham, 92 Ala.
358, 7 So. 180; Ex parte Fisher, 72
Cal. 125 ; Wadleigh v. Gilman, 12 Me.
403, 28 Am. Dec. 188; Salem v.
Maynes, 123 Mass. 372; Brady v.
Northwestern Insurance Co., 11 Mich.
425; Hubbard v. Medford, 20 Or. 315,
25 Pac. Rep. 640; Knoxville v. Bird,
12 Lea 121, 47 Am. Rep. 326; Roanol<e
V. Boiling, 101 Va. 182, 43 S. E. 343;
City of Olympia v. Mann, 1 Wash.
389, 25 Pac. 337, 12 L.R.A. 150;
Wheeler v. Aberdeen, 45 Wash. 63, 87
Pac. 1081.
ziFirst Nat'I Bank v. Sarlls, 129
Ind. 201, 28 N. b. 434, 5 Am. R. E.
& Corp. Rep. 77, 28 Am. St. Rep. 185,
23 L.R.A. 807; Brady v. Northwest-
ern Insurance Co., 11 Mich. 425;
State V. Johnson, 114 N. C. 846, 19
S. E. 599; Klinger v. Bickal, 117 Pa.
St. 326, 11 Atl. 555.
2 2 Attorney General v. Williams,
174 Mass. 476, 55 N. E. 77, 47 L.R.A.
314; Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass.
364, 79 N. E. 745, 118 Am. St. Rep.
523 ; Am. Unitarian Ass. v. Common-
wealth, 193 Mass. 470, 79 N. E. 878;
People V. D'Oench, 111 N. Y. 359, 18
N. E. 862.
2 3 Welch V. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364,
79 N. E. 745, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523.
This case affirmed by Supreme Court
of United States May 17, 1909.
2 4 Attorney General v. Williams,
174 Mass. 476, 55 N. E. 77, 47 L.R.A.
314; Parker v. Commonwealth, 178
Mass. 199, 59 N. E. 634; Attorney
General v. Williams, 178 Mass. 330,
59 N. E. 812; Cole v. Boston, 181
Mass. 374, 63 N. E. 1061; Williams
V. Boston, 190 Mass. 541, 77 N. E.
509; Am. Unitarian Ass. v. Com-
monwealth, 193 Mass. 470, 79 N. E.
878.
§ 243 OTIIEK CASKS OF TAKIXG. 469
not unconstitutional as interfering with private property with-
out compensation.^^ The use of property in certain localities for
carrying on unwholesome or objectionable manufactures or busi-
ness, may be prohibited. ^"^ And an act prohibiting the use of
property for certain purposes or the carrying on of a business
injurious to the public health or public morals, though author-
ized by tlie legislature and though it may destroy and greatly
impair the value of property, is neither a taking for public use
under the power of eminent domain, nor a violation of a con-
tract.^^ But such regulations must be reasonable in view of the
rights of property as well as the public welfare. In the month
of AugTist the city of Los Angeles passed an ordinance fixing the
limits within which gas works might be erected and carried on.
The plaintiff bought property within this district, obtained a per-
mit for the erection of gas works thereon and in September com-
menced the works. In November of the same year the city
amended the ordinance so as to exclude the plaintiff's property
from the district and thereby made it a penal offense for the
plaintiff to proceed and operate his works. The Supreme Court
of the United States, reversing the supreme court of California,
held that the amendment was not a proper police regulation
and amounted to a taking of the plaintiff's property without due
process of law.^* An ordinance making it a misdemeanor to
2 6Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. Park, 89 Md. 40G. In Lake View v.
315, 12 L.K.A. G94. Rose Hill Cemetery Co., 70 111. 191,
26Ex parte Lacey, 108 Cal. 326, 22 Am. Rep. 71, tliree of the seven
41 Pac. 411, 49 Am. St. Rep. 93, 38 judges dissenting, it was held that
L.R.A. 640; Green v. Savannah, 6 the Cemetery Company, having been
( !a. 1 ; Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. New authorized hj cliarter to acquire five
Iberia, 47 La. An. 863, 17 So. 343; hundred acres of land in Lake View,
City of Newark v. Watson, .56 N. J. to be used for cemetery purposes,
L. 667, 29 Atl. 487, 24 L.R.A. 843; could not be deprived of the priv-
State v. Pendergrass, 106 N. C. 664, ileges of using a portion of the land
10 S. E. 1002; City of Austin v. Aus- so acquired for cemetei-y purposes,
tin City Cem. Ass'n, 87 Tex. 330, 28 without compensation. See also New
S. W. 528, 47 Am. St. Rep. 114, 11 Orleans Water Works Co. v. St.
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 265. Tammany Water Works Co., 4 Wood
2 'Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. 134.
Hyde Park, 70 111. 634, affirmed, 97 2 8Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.
U. S. 6.59; Butchers' Union Co. v. S. 223, ^5 S. G. 18, reversing S. G. X3d
Crescent City Co., Ill U. S. 746, Cal. 179, 7'2 Pac. '970, 96 Am. St. Rep.
same case below, 4 Wood 96; Boyd 95; Daly v. Elton, 195 U. S. 242, 25
v. Alabama, 94 U. S. 045 ; Beer Co. v. S. C. i2, reversing S. C. Sub Norn.
Mas'salchusetts, 97 U. S. 25; Stone v. In re Daly, l39 Cal. 216, 72 Pac,
Mis.sissippi, 101 U. S. 814; Spring v. 1097.
470 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 243
maintain gas works in a sparsely settled district was held un-
reasonable and void.^® An act of Ifew York making it unlaw-
ful to carry on or continue in the borough of Brooklyn the
business of rendering garbage was held to be unconstitutional
as to the plaintiff's plant, situated upon an island and not a
nuisance or detrimental to health and representing an invest-
ment of half a million.^'*
The legislature may regulate the construction and use of
wharves and piers and prescribe dock lines,^"^ but cannot declare
a dock which has been rightly and properly built, a nuisance,
and abate it without compensation, because it projects beyond
a dock line afterwards established.*^ An act prohibiting the
taking of sand or gravel from a sea beach was held valid as a
proper regulation of the use of private property for the preser-
vation of Boston harbor, and a person violating the act was
found guilty though he owned the fee of the land whence he
took the sand.** But an act prohibiting a railroad company
from opening an embankment, which protected the shore from
the waves and tide, was held an unlawful restriction upon the
use of property.**
A statute prohibiting natural gas to be sent through pipes at
a greater pressure than 300 pounds to the square inch was held
to be a valid police regulation and not a taking.*^ A statute
to prevent the waste of natural gas or oil from wells is a
valid police regulation and not a taking of property without
compensation.*"
The construction and use of billboards upon private prop-
erty may be regulated so far as necessary to provide for the
29In re Smith, 143 Cal. 368, 77 siState v. Sargent, 45 Conn. 358;
Pac. 180. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53;
SQIST. Y. Sanitary Utilization Co. Eoosevelt v. Godard, 52 Barb. 533.
V. Dept. of Health, 61 App. Div. 106, 32Chieago v. Laflin, 49 111. 172;
70 N. Y. S. 510. For other regula- Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497;
tions held invalid as a taking or un- Ryan v. Brown, 18 Mich. 196, 100
lawful interference with private Am. Dec. 154.
property see George v. Chester, 59 3 3 Commonwealth v. Tewksbury, 11
Misc. 553; Heaton v. Chester, 59 Met. 55.
Misc. 558; Malone v. Williams, 118 3 4Koch v. Delaware etc. R. B.. Co.,
Tenn. 390 ; State v. Redmond, 134 53 N. J. L. 256, 21 Atl. 284.
Wis. 89, 114 N. W. 137. In the last sBjamieson v. Ind. Nat. Gas & Oil
case the upper berth law of Wis- Co., 128 Ind. 555, 28 N. E. 76, 12
consin was held invalid as a taking L.R.A. 652.
of private property for private use. ssState v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Ind.
§ 243
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
471
public safety and welfare and various regulations of this sort
have been sustained.^'' But an ordinance forbidding the erec-
tion of signs or billboards upon private property without regard
to any danger to the public was held void as an attempt to take
private property without compensation.^* So of an act or regu-
lation forbidding the use of private property in the vicinity of
parks and boulevards for such purposes.^' So of an ordinance
of Passaic forbidding the erection of billboards more than eight
feet high, or within ten feet of the street line or without a
permit from the building inspector.*" But a very similar or-
dinance was held valid in New York.*^ A game law of ISTew
York forbidding the possession of game during the closed sea-
son under a penalty, was held valid even as applied to game
brought from without the State.* ^
Fishing with a net or seine may be prohibited, even in pri-
vate waters.*^ An ordinance limiting the amount of land any
person or family may cultivate within a city is not void as a
21, 49 N. E. 809; Ohio Oil Co. v.
State, 150 Ind. 694, 49 N. E. 1107;
Ohio Oil Co. V. State, 150 Ind. 698,
50 N. E. 1124; Given v. State, 160
Ind. 552, 66 N. E. 750; Common-
•wealth V. Trent, 117 Ky. 35, 77 S. W.
390; Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U.
S. 190, 20 S. C. 576; Same v. Same,
177 U. S. 212, 20 S. C. 585 ; Same v.
Same, 177 U. S. 213, 20 S. C. 585. A
similar statute to prevent the waste
of water from artesian wells was
held void in Wisconsin. Huber v.
Merkel, 117 Wis. 355, 94 N. W. 354,
62 IcR.A. 589. See contra. Ex parte
Elam, 6 Cal. App. 233, 91 Pac. 811.
37Chicago V. The Gunning System,
214 111. 628, 73 N. E. 1035, 70 L.R.A.
230; Rochester v. West, 164 N. Y.
510, 58 N. E. 673, 79 Am. St. Rep.
659, 53 L.R.A. 548, affirming S. G.
29 App. Div. 125, 51 N. Y. S. 482;
Gunning System v. Buffalo, 75 App.
Div. 31, 77 N. Y. S. 987; In re Wil-
shire, 103 Fed. 620; Whitmier & F.
Co. V. Buffalo, 118 Fed. 773. And see
Gunning System v. Buffalo, 62 App.
Div. 497, 71 N. Y. S. 155.
ssBill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic
City, 71 N. J. L. 72, 58 Atl. 342.
2 3 Commonwealth v. Bo=ton Adver-
tising Co., 188 Mass. 348, 74 N. E.
601, 108 Am. St. Rep. 494, 69 L.R.A.
817; People v. Green, 85 App. Div.
400, 83 N. Y. S. 460.
lOPassaic v. Paterson Bill Posting
Co., 72 N. J. L. 285, 62 Atl. 267, 111
Am. St. Rep. 676, reversing S. C. 71
N. J. L. 75, 58 Atl. 343. And see
Crawford v. Topeka, 53 Kan. 756.
4iRochester v. West, 164 N. Y. 510,
58 N. E. 673, 79 Am. St. Rep. 659, 53
L.R.A. 548, affirming S. C. 29 App.
Div. 125, 51 N. Y. S. 482.
42New York v. Hesterberg, 211 U.
S. 31, affirming People v. Hesterberg,
184 N. Y. 126, 76 N. E. 1032.
"People V. Bridges, 142 111. 30, 31
N. E. 115, 16 L.R.A. 684; Common-
wealth V. Follett, 164 Mass. 477, 41
N. E. 676; Ex parte Fritz, 86 Miss.
210, 38 So. 722, 109 Am. St. Rep.
700; State v. Theriault, 70 Vt. 617,
41 Atl. 1030, 67 Am. St. Rep. 695.
472 EMINEISTT DOMAIN. § 243
taking.** Nor an ordinance imposing a penalty for permitting
water to run upon a street or alley from any well or spring.*''
The legislature may prohibit a use of property which violates
a duty that the owner owes to his neighbor or the State, and
hence may prohibit the owner of lands, delinquent for taxes,
from peeling bark or cutting timber thereon.*® Where a city
gave the plaintiff the exclusive right of boating and fishing on
its reservoir in part consideration of lands conveyed for its
water works, such use cannot be j)rohibited without compensa-
tion.*'' Private property cannot be seized and occupied as a
smallpox hospital under the police power.* ^ An act which
restricts one in the use of his property in a particular manner in
order that another may use his in that manner to greater ad-
vantage is void.** An act excepting certain tracts of land from
the operation of a law giving the right to distrain and impound
trespassing cattle, thus leaving such tracts to be trespassed upon
without redress, was held to deprive the owners of such tracts
of their property without due process of law.^" Pursuant
to a grant from a city, a railroad company laid down side tracks
in a street and used them for seventeen years for loading and
unloading ears. The city then passed an ordinance forbidding-
such use of the streets. It was held that the grant was a fran-
chise and irrevocable ; that the effect of the ordinance was to
destroy it, and that its enforcement should be enjoined.^^ An
act compelling railroad companies to permit the erection and
operation of elevators on their right of way at a nominal rental,
was held void, as a taking without compensation.^^ A law mak-
4 4Town of Summerville v. Press- ■'9 Commonwealth v. Bacon, 13
ley,' 33 S. C. 56, H S. E. 545, 8 Bush (Ky.) 210, 26 Am. Eep. 189.
L.R.A. 854, 3 Am. R. E. & Corp. Rep. The act prohibited any one within
101. "This power to restrain a pri- three hundred yards of a fair ground
vate injurious use of property is from furnishing feed and shelter for
very different from the right of emi- horses,
nent domain." 6 0 Smith v. Bivens, 56 Fed. 352.
<6Staggs V. City of Martinsville, Biport of Mobile v. Louisville etc.
140 Ind. 476, 39 N. E. 241. R. R. Co., 84 Ala. 115.
leprentice v. Weston, 111 N. Y. szMissouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Xe-
460, 18 M. E. 720. braska, 164 U. S. 403, 17 S. C. 130,
47Dunham v. New Britain, 55 reversing S. C. 29 Neb. 550; Chicago
Conn. 378. See Proprietors of Mills etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 50 Neb. 399 ;
V. Commonwealth 164 Mass. 227, 41 State v. Chicago etc. R. E. Co., 30
N. E. 280. Minn. 402.
4SMarkham v. Brown, 37 Ga. 277.
§ 243 OTHEE CASES OF TAKING. 473
ing it a misdemeanor to build or maintain a fence extending
more than three miles in the same general direction, without
providing a gateway of a specified kind, was held to violate the
eminent domain provision of the constitution. °^ The following
regulations were held not to be a taking in the respective cases
cited : Forbidding the taking of ice from Des Moines river in
Des Moines ; ^* forbidding use of national flag for advertis-
ing ; ^^ forbidding the interment of dead bodies within, or the
further use of a cemetery within, the city limits ; ^^ forbidding
the taking of oysters under a certain size ; °^ making it a penal
offense to permit noxious weeds to grow upon land ; ^^ making
it a penal offense to pollute the waters of a stream, spring or
pond.^* An ordinance forbidding the sale of milk in bottles
unless the capacity of the bottle is indicated thereon, is not a
taking of bottles which do not conform to the ordinance.®"
An ordinance of iN'ew Orleans prescribing limits outside of
which no woman of lewd character should dwell was held not
to deprive those within the district of any property right.® ^ A
statute of New Hampshire, which provided for designating and
marking ornamental and shade trees in the public highways
and for their care and preservation and which forbade their
injury or destruction under a penalty, was held void as taking
the property of the abutting owner without compensation.®^
The grant to a person of the exclusive right of disposing of the
5 3Dilworth v. State (Tex. Civ. S. 587, 20 S. C. 788, affirming S. C.
App.) , 36 S. W. 274. 51 La. An. 93.
54Board of Park Comrs. v. Dia- 62Bigelow v. Wliitcomb, 72 N. H.
mond lee Co., 130 la.. 603, 105 N. W. 473, 57 Atl. 680, 65 L.R.A. 676. The
203, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1103. court says: "An effective prohibition
5 5Halter v. State, 74 Neb. 757, against one's use and enjoyment of
105 N. W. 298. his property in a, usual and otlier-
5 60dd Fellows Cem. Ass. v. San wise appropriate manner deprives
Francisco, 140 Cal. 226, 73 Pac. 987 ; him of his property, as much as its
Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Fran- actual taking or asportation against
Cisco, 152 Cal. 464. his will." p. 479. A requirement
^'Windsor v. State, 103 Md. 611, that buildings to be erected shouhl
64 Atl. 288. conform in general character and ap-
5 8St. Louis v. Gait, 179 Mo. 8, 77 pearance with the buildings pre-
S. W. 876, 63 L.R.A. 778. viously erected in the same locality,
5 9 Commonwealth v. Emmers, 221 would be an unwarranted interfer-
Pa. St. 298. sJice with the rights of property.
eoChicago v. Bowman Dairy Co., Bostock v. Sams, 95 Md. 400, 52 Atl.
234 111. 294, 84 N. E. 913; 123 Am. 1130, 93 Am. St. Rep. 394, 59 L.R.A.
St. Rep. 100. 282.
siL'Hote V. New Orleans, 177 U.
474 EMINEBTT DOMAIIf. § 244
garbage of a city and an ordinance forbidding any garbage to
be placed or deposited elsewhere than at the works of such per-
son, are not void as taking the property of householders in the
garbage without compensation."^
The senate of Maine propounded to the justices of the supreme
court of that State the question whether a law to regulate or
restrict the cutting of trees, upon wild or uncultivated land
by the owner thereof, without making compensation to such
owner would be valid, and the justices answered the question
in the affirmative. The justices were of opinion that the word
taken in the constitution should be construed strictly as against
the police power of the State and say : "There are two reasons
of great weight for applying this strict construction of the con-
stitutional provision to property in land: (1) Such property
is not the result of productive labor, but is derived solely from
the State itself, the original owner; (2) the amount of land
being incapable of increase, if the owners of large tracts can
waste them at will without State restriction, the State and its
people may be helplessly impoverished and one great purpose of
government defeated.
"Kegarding the question submitted, in the light of the doc-
trine above stated (being that of Maine and Massachusetts at
least), we do not think the proposed legislation would operate
to 'take' private property within the inhibition of the consti-
tution. While it might restrict the owner of wild and unculti-
vated lands in the use of them, might delay his taking some of
the product, might defer his anticipated profits, and even there-
by might cause him some loss of profit, it would nevertheless
leave him his lands, their product, and increase untouched, and
without diminution of title, estate or quantity. He would still
have large measure of control and large opportunity to realize
values. He might suffer delay but not deprivation. While the
use might be restricted, it would not be appropriated or
'taken' " "*
§ 244 (156a). Legislative regulation and control of
railroads and other corporations. Imposing new liabilities.
Corporations may be made liable for consequential damages to
63Cal. Reduction Co. v. Sanitary 6<0pinion of the Justices, 103 Me.
Reduction Works, 199 U. S. 306, 26 506, 69 Ail. 627.
S. C. 100; Gardner v. Michigan, 199
U. S. 325, 26 S. C. 106; State v.
Robb, 100 Me. 180, 60 Atl. 874.
§ 2W
OTIIEE CASES Olf TAKIKG.
47i;
property by works or improvements thereafter constructed,
though they ha4 previously been exempt from such liability."^
Railroad companies may be made liable for wrongfully causing
the death of persons."* They may be made absolutely liable
for fires communicated by their locomotives,"'' and may be
compelled to fence their tracks, construct cattle guards, etc.,
and made liable for all injuries to stock resulting from a fail-
ure to comply with such regulations.®* Statiites imposing a
liability in such cases of double the value of the stock killed,""
or making the company liable for attorney's fees in suits brought
for such injuries, have been sustained.'"' But a statute mak-
ing railroad companies absolutely liable for stock killed or in-
jured, irrespective of negligence, is void, as depriving them
of their property without due process of law.''^ Requiring
railroad companies to contribute toward the expense of a State
railroad commission, is not a taking of their property contrary
to law.'^^ Railroad companies may be compelled to keep a flag-
ssPennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Miller,
132 U. S. 75, 10 S. C. 34.
6 6Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. State,
32 N. H. 215; Southwestern R. R. Co.
V. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356; Coosa Riv.
Steamboat Co. v. Barclay, 30 Ala.
130; Brown v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co.,
22 N. Y. 191 ; Commonwealth v. Bos-
ton etc. R. R. Co., 134 Mass. 211.
6 7McCandless v. Richmond & D.
R. R. Co., 38 S. C. 103, 18 S. E. 429,
18 L.R.A. 440, 7 Am. K. R. & Corp.
Rep. 366; Lipfeld v. Charlotte etc.
R. R. Co., 41 S. C. 285, 19 S. E. 497;
Regan v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 60
Conn. 124, 22 Atl. 503, 25 Am. St.
Rep. 306; Martin v. New York etc.
R. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 331, 25 Atl. 239.
csMinneapolis etc. R. R. Co. v.
Emmons, 149 U. S. 364, 13 S. C. 870,
7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 755; S.
C. 40 Minn. 133, 42 N. W. 789; Nel-
son V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 40
Minn. 131, 42 N. W. 788.
esLittle Rock etc. R. R. Co. v.
Payne, 33 Ark. 816, 34 Am. Rep. 55 ;
Cairo etc. R. R. Co. v. People, 92 111.
97, 34 Am. Rep. 112; Treadway v.
Railroad Co., 43 la. 527; Barnett v.
Railroad Co., 68 Mo. 56; Cummings
V. Railroad Co., 70 Mo. 570; Speal-
man v. Railroad Co., 71 Mo. 434;
Humes v. Railroad Co., 82 Mo. 221 ;
Humes v. Mo. Pae. R. R. Co., 115 U.
S. 512.
'oRailroad Co. v. Duggan, 109 111.
537; Perkins v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 103 Mo. 54, 15 S. W. 320, 11
L.R.A. 426. And see Cameron v. Chi-
cago etc. E. R. Co., 63 Minn. 384,
31 L.R.A. 553, 65 N. W. 652.
7iBirmingham Mineral R. R. Co.
V. Parsons, 100 Ala. 662, 13 So. 602;
Wadsworth v. Union Pac. R. R. Co.,
18 Colo. 600, 33 Pac. 515, 8 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 127; Denver etc. R. R.
Co. V. Outcalt, 2 Colo. App. 395, 31
Pac. 176; Denver etc. R. E. Co. v.
Davidson, 2 Colo. App. 443, 31 Pac.
181.
7 2 Charlotte etc. R. R. Co. v. Gibbs,
142 U. S. 386, 12 S. C. 255, 5 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 575; S. C. 27 S. C.
385, 4 S. E. 49.
4.76 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 245
man at crossings/* and street railroad companies to have a
driver and conductor on each car,''* to water their tracks,"*
and to so construct cars as to protect motormen from the weath-
er.'* Railroads and corporations may be subjected to many
other restrictions and requirements in the conduct of their busi-
ness and use of their property, without infringing their rights
of property. ''' Municipal corporations may be made liable for
property destroyed by mobs.''* A statute of Massachusetts re-
quired railroad companies to sell 1,000-mile passenger tickets
for twenty dollars and made such tickets good for passage on
any railroad in the State ; required each company to redeem the
tickets issued by it on presentation, and to accept for passage
tickets issued by other companies. It was held to be unconsti-
tutional, among other reasons, because by compelling one com-
pany to accept the tickets issued by other companies, its prop-
erty was taken for public use without any adequate provision
for compensation.''*
§ 245 (156b). Regulating or prohibiting businesses, oc-
cupations, contracts, and the like. It has been held that the
right to contract and the right to labor are property,*" and, in
this view, the right to carry on any kind of business or engage
Testate V. Cozzena, 42 La. An. City of Grand Rapids v. Grand
1069, 8 So. 268 ; Toledo etc. R. R. Co. Rapids Hydraulic Co., 66 Mich. 606,
V. Jacksonville, 67 111. 37, 16 Am. 33 N. W. 749; State v. Murphy, 130
Rep. 611 ; Lake Shore etc. R. R. Co. v. Mo. 10, 31 S. W. 594, 12 Am. R. R. &
Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St. 604. Corp. Rep. 370, 31 L.R.A. 798; New
7 4 South Covington etc. R. R. Co. v. York v. 23d St. R. R. Co., 113 N. Y.
Berry, 93 Ky. 43, 18 S. W. 1026, 40 311, 21 N. E. 60; McCoy v. Cincin-
Am. St. Rep. 161, 15 L.R.A. 604; nati etc. R. R. Co., 13 Fed. 3.
Trenton Horse R. R. Co. v. City of 'SFolsom v. City of New Orleans,
Trenton, 53 N. J. L. 132, 20 Atl. 1076. 28 La. An. 936; Darlington v. New
75City etc. R. R. Co. v. Savannah, York, 31 N. Y. 164, 88 Am. Dec. 248;
77 Ga. 731. Matter of Pennsylvania Hall, 5 Pa.
7 estate v. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. 88, St. 204; County of Allegheny v. Gib-
39 N. E. 22, 26 L.R.A. 317; State v. son, 90 Pa. St. 397, 35 Am. Rep. 670;
Smith, 58 Minn. 35, 59 N. W. 545, 25 Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S.
L.R.A. 759. 285.
7 7State V. New Haven etc. R. R. 7 9 Attorney General v. Boston & A.
Co., 43 Conn. 351 ; City of Indianap- R. R. Co., 160 Mass. 62, 35 N.' E. 252,
olis V. Consumers' Gas Trust Co., 140 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 569, 22
Ind. 107, 39 N. E. 433, 49 Am. St. L.R.A. 112.
Rep. 183, 27 L.R.A. 514; Boston etc. sC'Labor is property, and the
R. R. Co. V. Western R. R. Co., 14 laborer has the same right to sell his
Gray 253; Lexington etc. R. R. Co. labor, and to contract with reference
V. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 14 Gray 266; thereto, as has any other property-
§ 245
OTHER CASES OF TAKING.
477
in any occupation, is property.*^ Many laws prohibiting or re-
stricting the right to contract, or labor, or carry on business,
have been held void, because they deprived the citizen of his
property without due process of law. But whatever deprives a
citizen of his property without due process of law necessarily
takes his property, either for public or private use, without com-
pensation, and such laws are, therefore, also obnoxious to the
eminent domain provision of the constitution. "The legisla-
ture can no more destroy a business by statute, without provid-
ing for compensation, than it can authorize a corporation to
take a piece of real estate for public use, except upon compen-
sation." ®^ Under the police power such prohibitions and re-
strictions may be placed upon the right to contract and to labor,
as the public welfare demands. Thus the manufacture and
sale of intoxicating liquors may be prohibited altogether, though
the result of such prohibition may be to render buildings, ma-
chinery and fixtures used for that purpose, of little or no value.*®
owner. ♦ • » The right to acquire,
possess and protect property includes
the right to make reasonable con-
tracts, and when an owner is de-
prived of one of the attributes of
property, like the right to make con-
tracts, he is deprived of his property
within the meaning of the constitu-
tion." Kitchie v. People, 155 111. 98,
40 N. E. 454, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, 29
L.K.A. 79. And see Braceville Coal
Co. V. People, 147 111. 66, 35 N. E. 62,
37 Am. St. Rep. 206, 22 L.R.A. 340 ;
State V. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179, 10
S. E. 285, 25 Am. St. Rep. 863, 6
L.R.A. 621.
8i"A calling, business or profes-
sion, chosen and followed, is prop-
erty." State V. Chapman, 69 N. J.
L. 464, 466, 55 Atl. 94.
S2lUd.
sspeople V. Hawley, 3 Mich. 330,
342. In this case the court says : "In
the exercise of its police power .a
State has full power to prohibit,
under penalties, the exercise of any
trade or employment which is found
to be hazardous or injurious to its
citizens and destructive of the best
interests of society, without provid-
ing compensation to those upon
whom the prohibition operates."
Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623.
The latter is the decision sustaining
the prohibitory amendment to the
constitution of Kansas and the legis-
lation passed to carry it into effect.
The nature of the decision is so well
known that no extended comment
upon it is necessary. We quote the
following extract from the opinion
as particularly in point in this con-
nection: '"As already stated, the
present case must be governed by
principles that do not involve the
power of eminent domain, in the ex-
ercise of which property may not be
taken for public use without com-
pensation. A prohibition simply
upon the use of property for pur-
poses that are declared, by valid leg-
islation, to be injurious to the
health, morals, or safety of the com-
munity, eanot in any sense, be
deemed a taking or an appropriation
of property for the public benefit.
Such legislation does not disturb
the owner in the control or use of his
478
EMINENT DOMAIN,
§ 245
So the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine and other imita-
tions of butter may be prohibited, and the effect of such a stat-
ute is not to take property without compensation within the
eminent domain limitation.** A law prohibiting any but cor-
porations to carry on a banking business,*" or an insurance busi-
property for lawful purposes, nor
restrict his right to dispose of it, but
is only a declaration by the State
that its use by any one, for certain
forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to
the public interests. Nor can legis-
lation of that character come within
the Fourteenth Amendment, in any
case, unless it is apparent that its
real object is not to protect the com-
munity or to promote the general
well-being, but, under the guise of
police regulation, to deprive the
owner of his liberty and property,
without due process of law. The
power which the States have of pro-
hibiting such use by individuals of
their property as will be prejudicial
to the health, the morals, or the
safety of the public, is not — and,
consistently with the existence and
safety of organized society, cannot
be — ^burdened with the condition
that the State must compensate such
individual owners for pecuniary
losses they may sustain, by reason of
their not being permitted, by a
noxious use of Uieir property, to in-
flict injury upon the community.
The exercise of the police power by
the destruction of property which is
itself a public nuisance, or the pro-
hibition of its use in a particular
way, whereby its value becomes de-
preciated, is very different from tak-
ing property for public use, or from
depriving a person of his property
without due process of law. In the
one case, a nuisance only is abated;
in the other, unoffending property is
taken away from an innocent owner.
It is true, that, when the defendants
in these cases purchased or erected
their breweries, the laws of the State
did not forbid the manufacture of in-
toxicating liquors. But the State
did not thereby give any assurance,
or come under an obligation, that its
legislation upon that subject would
remain unchanged. Indeed, as was
said in Stone v. Mississippi, above
cited, the supervision of the public
health and the public morals is a
governmental power, 'continuing in
its nature,' and 'to be dealt with as
the special exigencies of the moment
may require;' and that, 'for this pur-
pose, the largest legislative discre-
tion is allowed, and the discretion
cannot be parted with any more than
the power itself.' So in Beer Co. v.
Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 32: If the
public safety or the public morals
require the discontinuance of any
manufacture or traffic, the hand of
the legislature cannot be stayed from
providing for its discontinuance by
any incidental inconvenience Which
individuals or corporations may suf-
fer,' " pp. 668-670. See also Kidd v.
Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 9 S. C. 6; Foster
V. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, 206; Peo-
ple V. McGann, 34 Hvin 358; Ingram
V. State, 39 Ala. 247; Dorman v.
State, 24 Ala. 216; State v. City
Council of Aiken, 42 S. C. 222, 20 S.
E. 221, overruling McCullough v.
State, 41 S. C. 220, 19 S. E. 458.
8 4Powell V. Pennsylvania, 127 U.
S. 678, 8 S. C. 992, 1257; Plumley v.
Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 15 S. C.
154. But see People v. Marx, 99 N.
y. 376.
8 5 State ex rel. Goodsell v. Wood-
manse, 1 N. D. 246, 46 N. W. 970, 1 1
L.R.A. 420. But the contrary is held
§ 245
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
479
ness,'® has been sustained. And generally the reasonable regu-
lation of a business or profession is not a taking of property
for public use without compensation.^''' An ordinance of the
city of ]!^'ew Orleans requiring vendors of milk to furnish gratu-
itously, on application of sanitary inspectors, samples of milk,
not exceeding one-half pint, for inspection and analysis, was
held not to take property for public use without compensation.*®
On the other hand laws prohibiting the payment of wages in
orders, scrip or evidences of indebtedness, not redeemable in
lawful money,*® or the employment of females in any factory
or workshop for more than eight hours in any one day,"" or
prohibiting the manufacture of cigars in tenement houses,*"^ or
forbidding the offering of gifts as an inducement to make pur-
chases,®^ and many similar laws have been held invalid, as an
in State v. Scougal, 3 S. D. 55, 51 N.
W. 858, 40 Am. St. Eep. 603, 25
L.E.A. 250, 6 Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep.
165.
8 6 Commonwealth v. Vrooman, 164
Pa. St. 306, 30 Atl. 217, 10 Am. E. E.
& Corp. Eep. 519, 44 Am. St. Eep.
756, 15 L.E.A. 477.
8 7State V. Eichcreek, 167 Ind. 217,
77 N. E. 1085, 119 Am. St. Eep. 491,
5 L.E.A.(N.S.) 874; State v. Chap-
man, 69 N. J. L. 464, 55 Atl. 94. Pure
food laws upheld: Grossman v. Lur-
man, 171 N. Y. 329, 63 N. E. 1097, 98
Am. St. Eep. 599, affirming S. C. 57
App. Div. 393, 68 N. Y. S. 311; Peo-
ple V. Eierecker, 169 N. Y. 53, 61 N.
E. 990, 88 Am. St. Eep. 534, 57 L.E.A.
178, affirming S. C. 58 App. Div. 391,
68 N. Y. S. 1067; State v. Capital
City Dairy Co., 62 Ohio St. 350, 57 N.
E. 62, 57 L.E.A. 181 ; Commonwealth
V. Kevin, 202 Pa. St. 23, 51 Atl. 594,
90 Am. St. Eep. 613.
8 8 State V. Dupaquier, 46 La. An.
577, 15 So. 502, 26 L.E.A. 162. An
ordinance of same city prohibiting
the sale of lottery tickets held valid.
State V. Dobard, 45 La. An. 1412, 14
So. 253.
8 9Leep V. St. Louis etc. E. E. Co.,
58 Ark. 407, 25 S. W. 76, 23 L.E.A.
264, 9 Am. E. R. & Corp. Eep. 185;
Ramsey v. People, 142 III. 380, 32 N.
E. 364, 17 L.E.A. 853; Braceville
Coal Co. v. People, 147 111. 66, 35 N.
E. 62, 37 Am. St. Eep. 206, 22 L.E.A.
340; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307,
22 S. W. 350, 21 L.R.A. 789; God-
charles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St. 431,
6 Atl. 354; State v. Fire Creek C. &
C. Co., 33 W. Va. 188, 10 S. E. 288,
25 Am. St. Eep. 891 ; State v. Good-
will, 33 W. Va. 179, 10 S. E. 285, 25
Am. St. Eep. 863, 6 L.E.A. 621.
soEitchie v. People, 155 111. 98, 40
N. E. 454, 46 Am. St. Eep. 315, 29
L.E.A. 79.
91 In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am.
Eep. 636.
9 2Montgomery v. Kelly, 142 Ala.
552, 38 So. 67, 110 Am. St. Eep. 43,
70 L.E.A. 209; Hewin v. Atlanta, 121
Ga. 723, 49 S. E. 765, 67 L.E.A. 795;
Long V. State, 74 Md. 565, 22 Atl. 4,
28 Am. St. Rep. 268 ; Commonwealth
V. Sisson, 178 Mass. 578, 60 N. E.
385; State v. Eamseyer, 73 N. H. 31,
50 Atl. 958; People v. Gillson, 109
N. Y. 389, 17 N. E. 343, 4 Am. St.
Eep. 854; State v. Dalton, 22 E. I.
77, 46 Atl. 234, 84 Am. St. Rep. 818,
48 L.E.A. 775; Young v. Common-
wealth, 101 Va. 853, 45 S. E. 327. In
480
EMINENT DOMAIHr.
§ 246
unconstitutional interference with the liberty and property
rights of the citizen.
§ 246 (156c). Regulating rates and charges. The ex-
istence of a right or power in the State to regulate or fix the
charges which may be lawfully demanded for certain services
or commodities, is evidenced by an almost immemorial exercise
of such right in England and America and is established in this
country by a long line of decisions by the Supreme Court of
the United States, beginning with Munn v. Illinois,** in 1876,
and coming down to the present time. The right to exercise
this power in the case of common carriers,** telegraph and tele-
People r. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389, 17
N. E. 343, 4 Am. St. Eep. 854, the
court says: "Under an exercise of
the police power the enactment must
have reference to the comfort, the
safety or the welfare of society, and
it must not be in conflict with the
constitution. The law will not allow
the rights of property to be invaded
under the guise of a police regulation
for the protection of health, when it
is manifest such is not the object
and purpose of the regulation. {See
Austin V. Murray, 16 Pick. 121;
Com. V. Alger, 7 Gush. 53, 84, cited
with approval in Matter of Jacobs,
98 N. y. 98.) As is also said in the
last case, it is generally for the legis-
lature to determine what laws and
regulations are needed to protect the
public health and serve the public
health and safety, and if measures
are calculated, intended, convenient
or appropriate to accomplish such
ends, the exercise of its discretion is
not the subject of judicial review.
But these measures must have some
relations to these ends. Courts must
be able to see, upon a perusal of the
enactment, that there is some fair,
just and reasonable connection be-
tween it and the ends above men-
tioned; unless such relation exists
the enactment cannot be upheld as an
exercise of the police power."
9394 U. S. 113.
9 4Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113;
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U.
S. 155; Peik v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
94 U. S. 164; Chicago etc. R. R. Co.
V. Ackley, 94 U. S. 179; Ruggles v.
Illinois, 108 U. S. 526; Stone v.
Farmers L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 307;
Stone V. Illinois Central R. R. Co.,
116 U. S. 347; Stone v. New Orleans
etc. R. R. Co., 116 U. S. 352; Wabash
etc. R. R. Co. V. Illinois, 118 U. S.
557; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S.
680; Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Smith,
128 U. S. 174; Chicago etc. R. R. Co.
V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 10 S. C.
462, 702, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
564; Minneapolis Eastern R. E. Co.
V. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467, 10 S. C.
473; Chicago & G. T. R. R. Co. v.
Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 12 S. C. 408,
5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 638; St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S.
649, 15 S. C. 484, 11 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 709; Norfolk & W. R. R.
Co. V. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667, 15 S.
C. 413 ; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Tomp-
kins, 176 U. S. 167, 20 S. C. 336; At-
lantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v.
Florida, 203 U. S. 256, 27 S. C. 108;
Same v. Same, 203 U. S. 261, 27 S.
C. 109 ; 111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Inter-
state Com. Com., 206 U. S. 441, 27
S. C. 700; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. R. Co., 211 U. S. 210; Rail-
road Commissioners v. Pensacola &
A. R. R. Co., 24 Fla. 417; Storrs v.
§ 246
OTHEE OASES OF TAKING.
481
phone companies,®^ water, gas, light and irrigation companies,***
hackmen, draymen, turnpikes, bridges, ferries,®^ public millers
and all persons or corporations exercising any franchise or
privilege emanating from the government, may be regarded as
settled beyond question. The right to regulate the charges of
grain elevators is also well settled, although those engaged in
the business do not hold any franchise or privilege from the
Pensacola & A. R. R. Co., 29 Fla.
617, 11 So. 226; State v. Atlantic
Coast Air Line, 48 Fla. 114, 37 So.
652; Same v. Same, 48 Fla. 146, 37
So. 657; State v. Seaboard Air Line
R. R. Co., 48 Fla. 150, 37 So. 658;
Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlantic Stove
Works, 128 Ga. 207, 57 S. E. 427;
Hill V. Wadley Southern Ry. Co.,
128 Ga. 705, 57 S. E. 795; Chicago B.
A Q. R. R. Co. V. Jones, 149 111. 361,
37 N. E. 247, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278, 24
L.R.A. 141, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 234; Board of R. R. Comrs. v.
Symms Grocer Co., 53 Kan. 207, 35
Pac. 217, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
676; Wellman v. Chicago & G. T. R.
R. Co., 83 Mich. 592, 3 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 703; Corporation Com-
mission 7. Seaboard Air Line R. R.
Co., 127 N. C. 283, 37 S. E. 266;
Norfolk & W. R. R. Co. v. Pendleton,
88 Va. 350, 13 S. E. 709.
9 5Hockett V. State, 105 Ind. 250,
55 Am. Rep. 201 ; Central Union Tel.
Co. V. State, 118 Ind. 194; Central
Union Tel. Co. v. State, 123 Ind. 113,
24 N. E. 215, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 406; Chesapeake etc. Tel. Co.
V. B. & 0. Tel. Co., 66 Md. 399 ; State
V. Mo. etc. Telephone Co., 189 Mo.
83, 88 S. W. 41; Home Tel. & Tel.
Co. V. Los Angeles, 211 U. S. 265.
9 « Spring Valley W. W. Co. v. City
and County of San Francisco, 82
Cal. 286, 22 Pac. 910, 1 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 96, 16 Am. St. Rep. 116,
6 L.R.A. 756; Deninger v. Recorder's
Court, 145 Cal. 629, 79 Pac. 360;
Deninger v. Recorder's Court, 145
Cal. 638, 79 Pac. 364; Freeport
Water Co. v. Freeport, 186 111. 179,
Em. D.— 31.
57 N. E. 862; Chicago v. Rogers
Park Water Co., 214 111. 212, 73 N.
E. 375; Chicago v. Rogers Park
Water Co., 116 111. App. 200; City
of Rushville v. Rushville Nat. Gas
Co., 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853, 15
L.R.A. 321; Westfield Gas & M. Co.
V. Mendenhall, 142 Ind. 538, 41 N.
E. 1033; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v.
Cedar Rapids, 118 la. 234, 91 N. W.
1081; In re Pryor, 55 Kan. 724, 41
Pac. 958, 29 L.R.A. 398; State v.
Laclede Gas & L. Co., 102 Mo. 472,
14 S. W. 974; Aqua Pura Co. v.
Las Vegas, 10 N. M. 6, 60 Pac. 208,
50 L.R.A. 224; Saratoga Springs v.
Saratoga G., E. L. & P. Co., 191 N.
Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693, 18 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 713; Spring Valley W.
W. V. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347;
Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport, 180
U. S. 587, 21 S. C. 493; Stanislaus
Co. V. San Joaquin etc. Irr. Co., 192
U. S. 201, 24 S. C. 241 ; Vicksburg v.
Vicksburg Water Co., 206 U. S. 496,
27 S. C. 762; Boise City Irr. & L. Co.
V. Clark, 131 Fed. 415, 65 C. C. A.
399.
9 7Covington & L. Turnpike R. R.
Co. V. Sandford (Ky.), 20 S. W.
1031; Commonwealth v. Covington
& Cinn. Bridge Co. (Ky.), 21 S. W.
1042, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 638 ;
S. C. on appeal, 154 U. S. 204, 14 S.
C. 1087, 10 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
399. A municipal corporation may
not regulate rates unless authorized
by statute. Richmond v. Richmond
Nat. Gas Co., 168 Ind. 82, 79 N. E.
1031 ; State v. Mo. etc. Telephone Co.,
189 Mo. 83, 88 S. W. 41.
"Every corporation or person
4S2
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 2iti
State. ^^ So of stockyards.®* The general rule has been laid
down that whenever a property or business is "affected with a
public interest" or "devoted to a public use," it is subject to
public regulation.-' "Many kinds of business," says the supreme
court of Kansas, "carried on without special franchises or priv-
ileges are treated as public in character, and have therefore been
subjected to legislative regulation and control. The nature and
extent of the business, the fact that it closely touches a great
many people, and that it may afford opportunities for imposi-
tion and oppression, as in cases of monopoly and the like, are
circumstances affecting property with a public interest." ^
The right to regulate rates and charges may be precluded by
contract, either in the form of charter provision or otherwise,^
and the States cannot regulate the charges for interstate
commerce.* It was formerly understood that the power of the
who, by reason of privileges received
from the State, such as the right to
use the highways, or the right to ex-
ercise the power of eminent domain,
is in the business of supplying the
general public with any commodity
or service necessary or convenient
for the general comfort and welfare
is subject to the dominion and super-
vision of public authority, so far as
may be necessary to prevent such
business from being carried on un-
justly or oppressively by the imposi-
tion of excessive charges for such
commodity or services. This do-
minion is exercised for the general
good, and it is one form of what is
known as the police power." Denin-
ger V. Recorder's Court, 145 Cal. 638,
79 Pac. 364.
ssMunn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113,
S. C. 69 III. 80; Budd v. New York,
143 U. S. 517, 12 S. C. Rep. 468, 5
Am. R. E. & Corp. Rep. 610; S. C.
117 N. Y. 1; Brass v. North Dakota,
153 U. S. 391, 14 S. C. Rep. 857, 10
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 380.
soRatcliff V. Wichita Union
Stock Yards Co., 74 Kan. 1, 86 Pac.
150, 118 Am. St. Rep. 298, 6 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 834.
iMunn. V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113.
And see Cooley Const. Lim. p. 739;
Tiedemanon Police Power, p. 233;
People V. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 27-29.
zRatcliff V. Wichita Union Stock
Yards Co., 74 Kan. 1, 6, 86 Pac. 150,
118 Am. St. Rep. 298, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
834.
3Ruggles V. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526;
Stone V. Farmer L. & T. Co., 116 U.
S. 307; Stone v. Illinois Central R.
R. Co., 116 U. S. 347 ; Dow v. Beidle-
man, 125 U. S. 680 ; Georgia R. & B.
Co. V. Smith, 128 U. S. 174; Norfolk
& W. R. R. Co. V. Pendleton, 156 U.
S. 667, 15 S. C. Rep. 413; Cleveland
V. Cleveland City Ry. Co., 194 U. S.
517, 24 S. C. 756; Cleveland v. Cleve-
land Elec. Ry. Co., 194 U. S. 538, 24
S. C. 764; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg
W. W. Co., 206 U. S. 496, 27 S. C.
762 ; In re Prior, 55 Kan. 724, 41 Pac.
958, 29 L.R.A. 398; State v. Laclede
Gas Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974.
4 Wabash etc. R. R. Co. v. Illinois,
118 U. S. 577; Covington & Cinn.
Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S.
204, 14 S. C. Rep. 1087, 10 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 399 ; Gulf etc. R. R. Co.
V. Hefflry, 158 U. S. 98, 15 S. C. Rep.
802.
§ 246
OTHEU CASES OF TAKING.
483
legislature to fix rates and charges was absolute,^ but that idea
is now exploded. If such was the case, it is manifest that it
would be within the power of the legislature to greatly impair
or even destroy the value of property by fixing rates that were
unreasonably low. To fix rates which are unreasonably low
for any property or business, affected with a public interest,
is to take property for public use without compensation, as well
as to deprive of property without due process of law.® The
power, therefore, is limited to the fixing of reasonable rates
and the reasonableness of rates established may be inquired into
by the courts.^ An act requiring street railroads to carry pupils
in the public schools to and from school at half rates was held
sChieago etc. R. R. Co. v. Jones,
149 111. 361, 37 N. E. 247, 10 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 234, 41 Am. St. Rep.
278, 24 L.R.A. 141; Covington etc.
T. Co. V. Sandford (Ky.), 20 S. W.
1031; Wellman v. Chicago & G. T.
R. R. Co., 83 Mich. .592, 3 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 703; Munn v. Illinois,
94 U. S. 113.
oSan Diego Water Co. v. San
Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 62 Am. St. Rep.
261, 38 L.R.A. 460; Pensacola & A.
R. R. Co. V. State, 25 Fla. 310; Com-
monwealth V. Covington & Cinn.
Bridge Co. (Ky.), 21 S. W. 1042, 7
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 638; St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S.
649, 15 S. C. 484, 11 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 709; Covington etc. Road
Co. V. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 17 S.
C. 198; Smythe v. Ames, 169 U. S.
466; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line
R. R. Co., 211 U. S. 210.
'Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Minne-
sota, 134 U. S. 418, 10 S. C. Rep. 462,
702, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 564;
Minneapolis Eastern R. R. Co. v.
Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467, 10 S. C.
Rep. 473; Reagan v. Farmers' L. &
T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 14 S. C. Rep.
1047, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 641 ;
Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., 1.54
U. S. 413, 14 S. C. Rep. 1060; Reagan
v. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U. S.
418, 14 S. C. Rep. 1062; Reagan v.
Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 420,
14 S. C. Rep. 1062 ; St. Louis etc. R.
R. Co. V. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 15 S. C.
Rep. 484, 11 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
709; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Tomp-
kins, 176 U. S. 167, 20 S. C. 336; Mis-
souri Pac. R. R. Co. V. Smith, 60 Ark.
221, 29 S. W. 752; Chicago v. Rogers
Park Water Co., 214 111. 212, 73 N. E.
375, affirming S. C. 116 111. App. 200;
State V. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co., 46
Neh. 682, 65 N. W. 766, 31 L.R.A. 47 ;
Logan Nat. Gas & Fuel Co. v. Chilli-
cothe, 65 Ohio St. 186, 62 N. E. 122;
Penn. R. Co. v. Philadelphia Co.,
220 Pa. St. 100, 68 Atl. 676; Common-
wealth V. Atlantic Coast Line Ry.
Co., 106 Va. 61, 55 S. E. 572, 117 Am.
St. Rep. 983, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1086;
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Texas & P.
R. R. Co., 51 Fed. 529 ; Ames v. Union
Pac. R. R. Co., 64 Fed. 165. Rates
fixed by the legislature or by legis-
lative commission are deemed to be
prima fade just and reasonable.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta Stove
Works, 128 Ga. 207, 57 S. E. 429;
Hill V. Wadley Southern Ry. Co., 128
Ga. 705, 57 S. E. 795; Atlantic Coast
Line R. R. Co. v. Florida, 203 U. S.
256, 27 S. C. 108 ; Seaboard Air Line
Ry. Co. V. Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 27
S. C. 109.
484
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 247
valid as a police regulation in the interest of education.® Ke-
quiring railroad companies to sell mileage tickets at reduced
rates is held to be a taking of property without due process of
law.® But such a statute was held valid in New York as to
corporations thereafter organized and as applied to business
within the State, i**
§ 247 (156d). Taking, injuring or destroying property
in the abatement of nuisances, or when made, kept, or
used in violation of law. "To destroy property because it is
a public nuisance is not to appropriate it to public use, but to
prevent any use of it by the owner, and to put an end to its
existence, because it could not be used consistently with the
maxim, sic utere iiM id alienum non Iwdas." ^^ Any nuisance
may be abated, such as a pig sty,^^ a stagnant pool,^* or a mill
pond which has become befouled by sewerage or otherwise,^*
without compensation for the property destroyed or interfered
with.^^ Low, wet grounds in populous localities may be filled
up at the expense of the owners for the purpose of preserving
the public health. ■''' But land upon which there is no nuisance
sCommonwealth v. Interstate Con-
solidated St. Ry. Co., 187 Mass. 436,
73 N. E. 530.
sBeardsley v. New York etc. K. R.
Co., 162 N. Y. 230, 56 N. E. 488 ; Lake
Shore etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 173
U. S. 684, 19 S. C. 565.
loPurdy v. Erie R. R. Co., 162 N.
Y. 42, 56 N. E. 508, 48 L.R.A. 669.
iiDunbar v. City Council of Au-
gusta, 90 Ga. 390, 17 S. E. 907.
12 St. Louis V. Stern, 3 Mo. App.
48.
isBaker v. Boston, 12 Pick. 184, 22
Am. Deo. 421.
iiNew Castle City v. Raney, 6 Pa.
Co. Ct. 87 ; Americus v. Mitchell, 79
6a. 807; People v. Board of Health,
140 N. Y. 1, 35 N. E. 320, 37 Am. St.
Rep. 522; Jeremy Imp. Co. v. Com-
monwealth, 106 Va. 482, 56 S. E. 224.
But under authority to abate
nuisances a city cannot fill up a slip
which has become foul by reason of
its own failure to prevent the cast-
ing of filth and refuse therein, and
when it can be cleaned out at small
expense. 'Babcoik v. Buffalo, 56 N.
Y. 268. And when the statute points
out the manner of abatement, it must
be strictly pursued or a liability will
be incurred. Frank v. Atlanta, 72
Ga. 428.
isSee generally Attorney General
V. Hunter, 1 Dev. Eq. 12; Eason v.
Perkins, 2 Dev. Eq. 38; Denver v.
Mullen, 7 Col. 345. But only the
nuisance can be abated. Railroad
tracks cannot be torn up because
they are used in a way to create a
nuisance. Chicago v. Union Stock
Yards etc. Co., 164 111. 224, 45 N. E.
430, 35 L.R.A. 281.
isKirkland v. State, 72 Ark. 171,
78 S. W. 770; Bush v. Dubuque, 69
la. 233; Leavitt v. Cambridge, 120
Mass. 157; Farnsworth v. Boston,
126 Mass. 1 ; Bancroft v. Cambridge,
126 Mass. 438 ; Welch v. Boston, 126
Mass. 442; Patrick v. Omaha, 1 Neb.
(Unof.) 250, 95 N. W. 477; City of
Charleston v. Werner. 38 S. C. 488.
17 S. E. 33, 8 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
73, 37 Am. St. Rep. 776; Charleston
§ 247
OTHEE OASES OF TAKING,
485
belonging to one proprietor cannot be occupied with drains or
other works for the purpose of abating a nuisance on the lands
of others, unless compensation is made.-'''' Intoxicating liquors
kept or made in violation of law may be destroyed.^* So
of gambling instruments.^® Bread made under weight in viola-
tion of law may be forfeited ; ^^ cattle taken damage feasant
may be impounded and sold after reasonable notice. ^^ So a
building which is in such condition as to endanger life and
property may be declared a nuisance and destroyed without
compensation.^^ So of a building ^* or clothing, bedding, etc.,
infected with smallpox.''* Likewise a building erected in viola-
tion of a valid fire ordinance.^® Damaged grain,^* diseased ani-
mals,^^ milk kept for sale and below the standard prescribed by
law,^® food unfit for human consumption,^® and fish nets used
V. Werner, 46 S. C. 323, 24 S. E. 207;
Sweet V. Rechel, 37 Fed. 323.
1 'Matter of Chessbrough, 78 N. Y.
232; S. C. 17 Hun 561; Cavanaugh v.
Boston, 139 Mass. 426.
isBeer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.
S. 25; State v. Snow, 3 E. I. 64; ex
parte Keeler, 45 S. C. 537, 23 S. E.
865, 55 Am. St. Rep. 785, 31 L.R.A.
678. But see Wynehamer v. People,
13 N. Y. 378; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.
S. 58, 17 S. C. 265. On the evacua-
tion of Richmond by the confederates
the city council ordered the destruc-
tion of certain liquor and pledged the
city to pay for the same. In a suit
to recover its value it was held that
it was taken under the police power
and not under the power of eminent
domain and that there could be no re-
covery. Wallace v. Richmond, 94
Va. 204.
isGarland Novelty Co. v. State, 71
Ark. 138, 71 S. W. 257; Furth v.
State, 72 Ark. 161, 78 S. W. 759;
Frost V. People, 193 111. 635, 61 N. E.
1054, 86 Am. St. Rep. 352; Board of
Police Commissioners v. Wagner, 93
Md. 182, 48 Atl. 455, 86 Am. St. Rep.
423, 52 L.R.A. 775.
zoGuillotte V. New Orleans, 12 La.
An. 432; In re Nasmith, 2 Ontario
192.
2iDillard v. Webb, 55 Ala. 468.
22Harvey v. Dewoody, 18 Ark. 252,
52 Am. Rep. 173; Theilan v. Porter,
14 Lea 622; Raymond v. Fish, 51
Conn. 80.
2 3Singo V. Joliet, 237 111. 300, 86
N. E. 663.
2 4Perry v. Oregon, 139 111. App.
606.
2SHine v. New Haven, 40 Conn.
478; King v. Davenport, 98 111. 305,
38 Am. Rep. 89 ; City of Brooklyn v.
Franz, 87 Hun 54, 33 N. Y. Supp.
869. As to destroying obstructions
in streets as nuisances, see State v.
Jersey City, 34 N. J. L. 31 ; Hoey v.
Gilroy, 129 N. Y. 132, 29 N. E. 85;
Gas Light Co. v. Hart, 40 La. An.
474, 4 So. 215.
26Dimbar v. City Council of Au-
gusta, 90 Ga. 390, 17 S. E. 907.
2 'Livingston v. Ellis Co., 30 Tex.
Civ. App. 19, 68 S. W. 723; Lowe v.
Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, 97 IST. W. 942,
102 Am. St. Rep. 983, 66 L.R.A. 907.
2 8Deems v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164,
30 Atl. 648, 45 Am. St. Rep. 339, 26
L.R.A. 541.
29North Am. Cold Storage Co. v.
Chicago, 211 U. S. 306.
486 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 248
in violation of law/" may be summarily destroyed and such de-
struction is not a taking for public use, requiring compensation
to be made.**^^
In all such cases the owner may have a hearing on the ques-
tion of whether his property was within the condemnation of
the law by bringing a suit against the officers who have seized
and destroyed it and in such a suit the defendants must prove
the existence of the facts necessary to justify their action.*^
§ 248 (156e). Compelling railroads and others to
make alterations and construct works for the purpose of
promoting the public safety, convenience and welfare.
Where the charter of a water-power company is subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal at the pleasure of the legis-
lature, it may be compelled to construct a fishway in its dam
without compensation.^* And some authorities hold that a dam
is erected subject to the right of the legislature to require the
construction of a fishway, without compensation, whether there
is any reservation covering the matter in the charter or statute
or not ; ** other cases hold that such a requirement cannot be
enforced without compensation, in the absence of such a reser-
vation.*^ A railroad company may be compelled to erect such
structures and submit to such regulations as are necessary for
the safety of the public or security of property, and according-
aoLawton v. Steele, 119 N. Y. 226, ssCommisaionera of Inland Fish-
23 N. E. 878, 16 Am. St. Rep. 813, eries v. Holyoke Water Power Co.,
7 L.R.A. 134; S. C. affirmed, 152 U. S. 104 Mass. 446, 6 Am. Rep. 247 ; Hol-
133 ; State v. French, 71 Ohio St. 186, yoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500; see
73 N. E. 216, 104 Am. St. Rep. 770. also S. P. Commonwealth v. Eastern
The nature and limits of the police R. R. Co., 103 Mass. 254, 4 Am. Rep.
power are much discussed in the ease 555.
first cited. Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 92 34Parker v. People, 111 III. 581;
Wis. 477, 66 N. W. 805, 32 L.R.A. State v. Beardsley, 108 la. 396, 79 N.
380. Compare Colon v. Lisk, 153 N. W. 138; West Point W. P. & L. I.
Y. 188, 47 N. E. 302, 60 Am. St. Rep. Co. v. State, 49 Neb. 218, 66 N. W. 6.
009. 3 estate v. Glen, 7 Jones, L. 321;
31 As to killing of animals by of- Cornelius v. Glen, ibid, 512; People
ficers of humane society, see King v. v. Piatt, 17 Johns. 195; Woolever v.
Hayes, 80 Me. 206, 13 Atl. Rep. 882; Stewart, 36 Ohio St. 146, 38 Am. Rep.
Sahr V. Scholle, 89 Hun 42, 35 N. Y. 569 ; Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania
97; Munn v. Corbin, 8 Colo. App. 113, Canal Co., 66 Pa. St. 41, 5 Am. Rep.
44 Pac. 783. 329.
3 2Sings V. Joliet, 237 111. 300, 86 N.
E. 663; North Am. Cold Storage Co.
r. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306.
§ 248
OXHEE CASES Or TAKING.
487
ly may be required to disuse steam upon city streets,^® to con-
struct and maintain cattle-guards and fences,^ '^ to widen and re-
pair bridges over its road,^* to reconstruct on a different plan a
bridge by whicli it crosses a street, so as to remove obstructions
from the street,^® to enlarge a bridge over a stream to accommo-
date the increased flow of water caused by the discharge of
drainage ditches into the stream,*" to remove dangerous grade
crossings,*^ to construct and maintain stations at the intersec-
ssNorth Chicago City Ry. Co. v.
Lake View, 105 111. 207, 44 Am. Rep.
788; Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 96 U.
S. 521.
3 7Birmingham Mineral R. R. Co.
V. Parsons, 100 Ala. 662, 13 So. 602;
Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Russell, 115 111.
52; Emmons v. Minneapolis & St.
Louis Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 503; Kansas
City etc. R. R. Co. v. Spencer, 72
Miss. 491, 17 So. 168; Yazoo etc. R. R.
Co. V. Harrington, 85 Miss. 366, 37
So. 1016; Nelson v. Vermont &
Canada R. R. Co., 26 Vt. 717 ; Thorp
V. Rutland & Burlington R. R. Co.,
27 Vt. 140; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
V. Humes, 115 U. S. 512; Minne-
apolis & St. L. R. R. Co. V. Emmons,
149 U. S. 364, 13 S. C. 870, 7 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 755.
ssEnglish v. New Haven & North-
ampton Co., 32 Conn. 240; Char-
lottesville V. Southern Ry. Co., 97
Va. 428, 34 S. E. 98 ; Chicago etc. R.
R. Co. V. Nebraska 170 U. S. 57.
But see Kansas City v. Kansas City
Belt R. R. Co., 102 Mo. 633, 14 S. W.
808, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 522,
10 L.R.A. 851.
3 9 Delaware etc. R. R. Co. v. Buf-
falo, 158 N. Y. 266, 53 N. E. Rep. 44;
Delaware etc. R. R. Co. v. Buffalo,
158 N. Y. 478, 53 N. E. Rep. 533.
40Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. People,
212 111. 103, 72 N. E. 219; S. C.
affirmed, 200 U. S. 561, 26 S. C. 341.
41 People V. Union Pac. R. R. Co.,
20 Col. 186, 37 Pac. 610; Suffleld v.
Northampton Co., 53 Conn. 367;
WoodruflF V. Catlin, 54 Conn. 277;
Railroad Co. v. Waterbury, 55 Conn.
19; Town of Weatbrook's Appeal, 57
Conn. 96, 17 Atl. 368; Town of Fair-
field's Appeal, 57 Conn. 167, 17 Atl.
764; New York etc. R. R. Co.'s Ap-
peal, 58 Conn. 532, 20 Atl. 670;
WoodruflF V. New York etc. R. R. Co.,
59 Conn. 63, 20 Atl. 17 ; Doolittle v.
Selectmen of Branford, 59 Conn.
402, 22 Atl. 336 ; New York etc. R. R.
Co. v. Waterbury, 60 Conn. 1, 22 Atl.
439 ; New York & N. E. R. R. Co. v.
Town of Bristol, 62 Conn. 527, 26 Atl.
122; Cullen v. New York etc. R. R.
Co., 66 Conn. 211, 33 Atl. 910;
Mooney v. Clark, 69 Conn. 241 ; Ar-
gentine V. Atchison etc. R. R. Co., 55
Kan. 730, 41 Pac. 946, 30 L.R.A. 255;
Veazie v. Mayo, 45 Me. 560 ; State v.
Noyes, 47 Me. 189; In re Selectmen
of Norwood, 161 Mass. 259, 37 N. E.
199 ; In re Old Colony R. R. Co., 163
Mass. 356, 40 N. E. 198; State v.
Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co., 39 Minn.
219, 39 N. W. 153; State v. St. Paul
etc. R. R. Co., 38 Minn. 246;
State v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co.,
35 Minn. 131, 59 Am. Rep. 313; Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co. V. State, 47 Neb.
550, 66 N. W. 624; State v. City of
Camden, 53 N. J. L. 322, 21 Atl. 565 ;
Harriman v. Southern Ry. Co., Ill
Tenn. 538, 82 S. W. 213 ; New York &
N. E. R. R. Co. V. Town of Bristol,
151 U. S. 556, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 593. A city cannot compel the
elevation of tracks to abolish grade
crossings without legislative author-
488
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 248
tions -with other roads,* ^ to unite in the construction of union sta-
tions and to make such changes in the location of tracks as may
be necessary to accomplish the purpose,*^ to maintain bulletin
boards at stations, showing -whether trains are on time or not,**
to provide separate and equal accommodations for the white and
colored races,*^ and in these and like cases there is simply an
exercise of the police power and not a taking of property for
public use under the power of eminent domain.*^ So a rail-
road company having constructed a tunnel under a navigable
river, may be compelled to lower the tunnel at its own expense,
when the necessities of navigation require it.*'' But a statute of
South Carolina requiring railroad companies to construct spur
tracks to manufacturing plants and industrial enterprises with-
ity. State v. Indianapolis Union Ry.
Co., 160 Ind. 45, 66 N. E. 163, 60
L.R.A. 831.
4 2State V. Wabash etc. E. E. Co.,
83 Mo. 144; San Antonio etc. E. R.
Co. V. State, 79 Tex. 264, 14 S. W.
Eep. 1063; State v. Kansas City etc.
E. E. Co., 32 Fed. Eep. 722. A rail-
road company may be compelled to
erect stations at such places as the
public convenience and necessity
reasonably require. Minneapolis etc.
R. R. Co. V. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53,
24 S. C. 396 ; Dolan v. New York etc.
R. R. Co., 175 N. Y. 367, 67 N. E. 612.
4 3Dewey v. Atlantic Coast Line E.
E. Co., 142 N. C. 392, 55 S. E. 292.
4 estate V. Indiana etc. E. R. Co.,
133 Ind. 69, 32 N. E. 817, 18 L.R.A.
502; State v. Pennsylvania Co., 133
Ind. 700, 32 N. E. 822; Pennsylvania
Co. v. State, 142 Ind. 428, 41 N. E.
937, 12 Am. R. E. & Corp. Eep. 581 ;
4 6Louisville etc. E. E. Co. v. Miss-
issippi, 133 U. S. 587, 1 Am. E. E. &
Corp. Rep. 724; Ex parte Plessy, 45
La. Ann. 80, 11 So. 948, 7 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 383, 18 L.R.A. 639.
4 sWhere a railroad crosses a street
it may be compelled to change its
grade to conform to a change in the
grade of the street. Cleveland v.
Augusta, 102 Ga. 233; Houston etc.
R. E. Co. V. Dallas, 98 Tex. 396, 84 S.
W. 648. The following are additional
illustrations: Metropolitan E. E.
Co. V. Macfarland, 20 App. Cas. D. C.
421; People v. Detroit United Ry.
Co., 134 Mich. 682, 97 N. W. 36, 104
Am. St. Rep. 626, 63 L.R.A. 746; Cor-
poration Commission v. Atlantic
Coast Line R. E. Co., 137 N. 0. 1, 49
S. E. 191, 115 Am. St. Eep. 636;
Same v. Same, 139 N. C. 126, 51 S. E.
793 ; Corporation Commission v. Sea-
board Air Line E. R. Co., 140 N. C.
239, 52 S. E. 941 ; Atlantic Coast Line
R. R. Co. V. N. C. Corporation Com-
mission, 206 U. S. 1, 27 S. C. 585.
4 'People V. West Chicago St. E. E.
Co., 115 111. 172, 3 N. E. 439; West
Chicago St. R. R. Co. v. People, 214
111. 9, 73 N. E. 393; S. C. affirmed,
201 U. S. 506, 26 S. C. 518. So a
bridge company may be compelled to
make changes to facilitate naviga-
tion, where the bridge in its present
condition is an obstruction, though
it was no obstruction when built, and
such is not a taking. Union Bridge
Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364,
27 S. 0. 367. See State v. Ashtabula
Co. Comrs., 7 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 469;
S. C. 8 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 169;
United States v. Parkersburg Branch
E. E. Co., 143 Fed. 224, 74 C. C. A.
354; United States v. Union Bridge
Co., 143 Fed. 377.
§ 248
OTHEE OASES OF TAKING.
489
in half a mile of the main track, the expense to be borne by the
applicant in the first instance and refunded by the company out
of freights received, was held void as taking property for a
private use.*® But a similar statute was enforced in North
Carolina.** So a statute was held invalid which required rail-
road companies to construct and keep in repair ditches on their
right of way for the benefit of contiguous land.^" So of a statute
which provided for laying drains across rights of way and re-
quired the company to make and maintain the necessary open-
ings without compensation.^^ A statute requiring railroad com-
panies to provide and maintain, light and keep clean, separate
water closets or privies for men and women, at every station
where they receive or discharge passengers, under penalty of
one hundred dollars a week for a failure to comply, was held
to be arbitrary and oppressive and to deprive of property with-
out due process of law.'^ Owners of electric wires in streets
of cities may be compelled to put them underground,''^ and
owners of tenement houses may be required to provide a supply
isMays v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
Co., 75 S. C. 455, 56 N. E. 30.
4 9 Corporation Commission v. Sea-
board Air Line E. R. Co., 140 N. C.
239, 52 S. E. 941.
60 Chicago etc. R. E. Co. v. Keith,
67 Ohio St. 279, 65 N. E. 1020, 60
L.R.A. 525.
siChicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Chappell,
124 Mich. 72, 82 N. W. 800.
5 2Missouri etc. Ry. Co. v. State,
100 Tex. 420, 100 S. W. 766 ;Ft. Worth
etc. Ry. Co. v. State, 100 Tex. 425,
100 S. W. 768; Missouri etc. Ry. Co.
>'. State, 100 Tex. 426, 100 S.W. 768;
Southern Kansas Ry. Co. r. State,
100 Tex. 437, 100 S. W. 1197. Where a
company got its right of way under
a statute which made no provision
for private crossings, it cannot be
compelled to construct them at its
own expense. Owazarzak v. Gulf etc.
Ry. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App. 229, 71 S.
W. 793.
6 3 American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Hess,
126 N. Y. 641, 26 N. E. 919, 4 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 199, 13 L.R.A.
454; People v. Ellison, 188 N. Y. 523,
81 N. E. 447, affirming S. C. 115 App.
Div. 254, 101 N. Y. S. 55; Western
Union Tel. Co. v. New York, 38 Fed.
552, 3 L.R.A. 449. But a municipal
corporation cannot compel such
change without express legislative
authority. Carthage v. Central N. Y.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 185 N. Y. 448, 78 N.
E. 165, reversing S. C. 110 App. Div.
625. Where the city of Minneapolis
ordered the wires of a telephone com-
pany to be put underground in the
business part of the city covering
nearly a square mile and later or-
dered them underground in the larger
part of the city and it appeared that
the poles and wires were not an ob-
struction or menace in the territory
covered by the second order and that
compliance would involve a ruinous
expense, the second order was held
arbitrary and unreasonable. N. W.
Telephone Exch. Co. v. Minneapolis,
81 Minn. 140, 83 N. W. 527, 86 N. W
69, 53 •L.R.A. 175.
490
-EMINENT l)OMAIN,
§ 248
of water on each floor/* and to replace school sinks and privy
vaults with individual water closets, though compliance may
cost ten or twenty per cent of the value of the property.^®
Some cases hold that a railroad company cannot be compelled
to construct a highway across its track, even though the power
to modify or repeal its charter is reserved.^* Other cases hold
that it may be done when the power to repeal, alter or amend
the charter is reserved. "^ A recent case in Maine sustained, as
a valid police regulation, a statute which made it the duty of
a railroad company, when a new highway was laid out over its
tracks, to construct and maintain the crossing.^^ And this is
the prevailing doctrine.^* Public service corporations, occupy-
54Health Department v. Trinity
Church, 145 N. Y. 32, 39 N. E. 833.
ssTenement House Dept. v.
Moeschen, 89 App. Div. 526, 85 N. Y.
S. 704; Same v. Same, 90 App. Div.
603, 85 N. Y. S. 1148; Same cases
affirmed, 179 N. Y. 325, 72 N. E. 231,
103 Am. St. Rep. 910, 70 L.R.A. 704;
last cast affirmed, Moeschen v. Tene-
ment House Dept., 203 U. S. 583, 27
S. C. 781.
seillinois Central R. R. Co. v.
Bloomington, 76 111. 447; People v.
Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Ry. Co.,
52 Mich. 277 ; Kansas City v. Kansas
City Belt Ry. Co., 187 Mo. 146, 86 S.
W. 190; Miller v. New York & Erie
R. R. Co., 21 Barb. 513.
5 'Albany Northern Ry. Co. v.
Brownell, 24 N. Y. 345; Boston & Al-
bany R. R. Co. V. Greenbush, 52 N. Y.
510 ; Portland & Rochester R. R. Co.
V. Deering, 78 Me. 61.
ssThe court says: "Corporations
derive their existence from the State,
and hence are subject to the State
even more completely than indi-
viduals. Corporations created for
public purposes and invested with
large powers, as railroad corpora-
tions are, can properly be required to
do any reasonable thing and to as-
sume permanently any reasonable
duty, which shall promise greater
security from the dangers attendant
upon the exercise of their powers.
There must needs be a highway. The
crossing at the railroad must be kept
in repair. To permit any divided au-
thority or responsibility as to the
crossing would be dangerous. The
railroad company would loudly re-
monstrate if the municipality were
given the power to manage the cross-
ing. The company needs the entire
control for its own protection as well
as that of its passengers. By oper-
ating its road it occasions the danger.
It is not unreasonable that the rail-
road company should provide against
the danger so occasioned. Such a re-
quirement does not seem to be an
'alteration, amendment or repeal' of
the charter of the Boston and Maine
Railroad Company. The company
exercises all the powers and priv-
ileges it had before the enactment of
the statute requiring this duty of
maintaining crossings. The statute
simply requires more care and
greater security in such exercise.
However the statute may affect the
company or its charter, we think the
company is subject to it." Railroad
Co. v. County Comrs., 79 Me. 386, 395.
5 9 Hughes V. Arkansas etc. R. R.
Co., 74 Ark. 194, 85 S. W. 773 ; State
V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 98 Minn. 380,
108 N. W. 261 ; State v. Mo. Pac. Ry.
Co., 98 Minn. 429, 108 N. W. 269 ; 111.
§ 249
OTHEE CASES OF TAKING.
491
ing the public streets, may be compelled to change the location
of their tracks, poles, pipes, conduits or other works, or to re-
construct the same, when necessary for the public health, safety,
convenience or welfare, and such requirement is not a taking
of property for public use without compensation.®"
But a corporation cannot be deprived of its essential rights
without compensation. Thus, a bridge company cannot be
compelled to construct a draw,®^ or a turnpike company to re-
move or open its gates.*" A statute providing that, where a
railroad was laid adjacent to or upon a highway, unobstructed
residence crossings should be provided and maintained by the
railroad, if so ordered by the railroad commissioners, was held
to take the property of the company without compensation and
to be void.®*
§ 249 (156f). Taking under the guise of the police
power. Conclusions. As a result of the decisions cited in
Cent. R. R. Co. v. Copiah Co., 81
Miss. 685, 33 So. 502; III. Cent. R. E.
Co. V. Swalm, 83 Mias. 631, 36 So.
147; Mo. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Cass
County, 76 Neb. 396, 107 N. W. 773;
Yonkers v. New York Cent. etc. R. R.
Co., 165 N. Y. 142, 58 N.. E. 877 ;
Clarendon v. Rutland R. R. Co., 75
Vt. 6, 52 Atl. 1057. See Cincinnati
etc. Ry. Co. v. Troy, 68 Ohio St. 510,
67 N. E. 1051.
soMerced Falls Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Turner, 2 Cal. App. 720, 84 Pac. 239 ;
Macon Consolidated St. R. R. Co. v.
Macon, 112 Ga. 782, 38 S. E. 60;
Atlantic etc. Ry. Co. v. Cordele, 125
Ga. 373, 54 S. E. 155; S. C. 128 Ga.
293, 57 S. E. 493 ; Crocker v. Beaton
Elec. Lt. Co., 180 Mass. 516, 62 N. E.
978; People v. Geneva etc. Traction
Co., 112 App. Div. 581, 98 N. Y. S.
719; S. C. affirmed 186 N. Y.
516, 78 N. E. 1109; Am. Tel. & Tel.
Co. V. Millcreek, 195 Pa. St. 643, 46
Atl. 140; New Castle City v. Central
D. & P. Tel. Co., 207 Pa. St.
371, 56 Atl. 931 ; Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
V. Harbor Creek, 23 Pa. Supr. Ct.
437; Pittsburg v. Consolidated Gas
Co., 34 Pa. Supr. Ct. 374 ; Pawcatuck
Valley St. Ry. Co. v. Westerly, 22 R.
I. 307, 47 Atl. 691 ; Washington etc.
Ry. Co. V. Alexandria, 98 Va. 344, 36
S. E. 385; Ganz v. Ohio Postal Tel.
Cable Co., 140 Fed. 692, 72 C. C. A.
186. A street railroad company may
be compelled to pave between its
tracks, when the right to alter,
amend or repeal its charter ia re-
served. Fair Haven etc. R. R. Co. v.
New Haven, 203 U. S. 379, 27 S. C.
74.
siWashington Bridge Co. v. State,
18 Conn. 53. To same effect: Denver
V. Denver Cable City R. R. Co., 22
Col. 565, 45 Pac. 439. But see
United States v. Monongahela Bridge
Co., 160 Fed. 712.
6 2Turnpike Co. v. Davidson Co.,
3 Tenn. Ch. 396 ; Powell v. Sammons,
31 Ala. 552; and see City of Phila-
delphia v. Scott, 9 Phil. 171, 81 Pa.
St. 80; City of Schenectady v. Fur-
man, 145 N. Y. 482, 40 N. 'E. 221,
45 Am. St. Rep. 624.
6 3People V. Detroit etc. R. R. Co.,
79 Mich. 471, 44 N. W. 934, 2 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 215, 7 L.R.A.
717.
492
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 249
the foregoing sections and the principles upon which they de-
pend, we think the following conclusions may be deduced : The
use of property may be regulated as the public welfare demands.
A public nuisance may be abated and private property inter-
fered with or destroyed for that purpose. The conduct of any
business detrimental to the public interests may be prohibited.
Property made or kept in violation of law may be destroyed.
Railroad corporations, and others invested with the power of
eminent domain, because their business is of public utility, may
be subjected to such regulations in regard to their charges and
the conduct of their business as the legislature deem wise and
proper for the general good. They may be compelled to adopt
such appliances and execute such additions or changes in their
works or property and take such precautions as are necessary
to the public safety. Beyond this, private property cannot be
interfered with under the police power, but resort must be had
to the power of eminent domain and compensation made.®*
The Supreme Court of the United States, which is the final
arbiter upon these questions says: "The validity of a police
6 < Coyne v. Memphis, 118 Tenn.
651, 102 S. W. 355; Askam v. King
County, 9 Wash. 1, 36 Pac. 1097.
An act prohibiting the manufac-
ture of cigars or tobacco in a certain
class of tenement houses in cities of
over five hundred thousand popula-
tion, of which there was only one in
the State, was held invalid in Matter
of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am. Eep.
636; S. C. 33 Hun #74. Ordinances
compelling abutting owners to clean
the snow and ice from their side-
walks and to keep them in repair
were held invalid in Illinois. Grid-
ley V. Bloomington, 88 111. 554, 30
Am. Eep. 566; Chicago v. O'Brien,
111 111. 532, 53 Am. Rep. 640; Chi-
cago V. Crosby, 111 111. 538. But the
contraiy has been held in other
States. InreGoddard, 16Pick. 504;
Union R. R. Co. v. Cambridge, 11
Allen 287 ; Kirby v. Boylston Market
Assn. 14 Gray 252, 74 Am. Dee. 682 ;
Village of Carthage v. Frederick, 122
N. Y. 268, 3 Am. E. R. & Corp. Rep.
538, 19 Am. St. Eep. 490, 10 L.R.A.
178; St. Louis v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins.
Co., 107 Mo. 92, 18 S. W. 145, 28 Am.
St. Ee^. 402; Commonwealth v.
Cutter, 156 Mass. 52, 29 N. E. 1146.
In some of these cases it was con-
tended, that the effect of such regu-
lations was to take private property
for public use without compensation.
See also, as illustrating the text,
Philadelphia etc. R. E. Co. v. Phila-
delphia, 47 Pa. St. 325; Albany v.
Watervliet etc. R. E. Co., 45 Hun
442; Clark y. Syracuse, 13 Barb. 32;
Philadelphia v. Scott, 81 Pa. St. 80,
22 Am. Eep. 738.
The legislature cannot bargain
away its police power, at least so far
as the public health and the public
morals are concerned. Butchers'
Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., Ill
U. S. 746; and see New Orleans Gas
Co. V. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S.
650; New Orleans Water Co. v.
Eivers, 115 U. S. 674; Louisville Gaa
Co. V. Citizens' Gas Co., 115 U. S.
683.
§ '2-l:'J OTHEK OASES OF TiUCING. 493
regulation, whether established directly by the State or by some
public body acting under its sanction, must depend upon the
circumstances of each case and the character of the regulation^
whether arbitrary or reasonable and whether really designed
to accomplish a legitimate public purpose. Private property
cannot be taken for public use under a police regulation relating
strictly to the public health, the public morals or the public
safety, any more than under a police regulation having no re-
lation to such matters, but only to the general welfare. * * *
The constitutional requirement of due process of law, which
embraces compensation for private property taken for public
use, applies in every case of the exertion of governmental pow-
er. If in the execution of any power, no matter what it is,
the government, federal or State, finds it necessary to take
private property for public use, it must obey the constitutional
injunction to make or secure just compensation to the owner.
If the means employed have no real, substantial relation to the
public objects which government may legally accomplish, if
they are arbitrary and unreasonable, beyond the necessities
of the case, the judiciary will disregard mere forms and inter-
fere for the protection of rights injuriously affected by such
illegal action." ®^
6 6Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Drainage S. C. 341, affirming S. 0. 212 111. 103,
Comrs., 200 U. S. 661, 592, 593, 26 72 K. E. 219.
CHAPTER VII.
MEANING OF THE WORDS "PUBLIC USE."
§ 250 (157). Taking for private use unauthorized.
Only a few of the State constitutions in terms prohibit the tak-
ing of private property for private use.^ All courts, however,
agree in holding that this cannot be done.^ Different courts find
different reasons for this conclusion, some putting it on the
ground of an implied prohibition in the eminent domain provi-
iSee provisions in the constitu-
tions of Alabama, Colorado, Georgia,
Louisiana and Missouri, ante, §§ 16,
19, 23, 30, 37.
2Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311;
Mountain Park Terminal Ry. Co. v.
Field, 76 Ark. 239, 88 S. W. 897;
Gillan v. Hutchinson, 16 Cal. 153;
Lorenz v. Jacob, 63 Cal. 73; Nickey
V. Stearns Ranchos Co., 126 Cal. 150,
58 Pac. 459 ; Hart v. Tresise, 36 Colo.
146, 84 Pac. 685, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 872;
Prior V. Swartz, 62 Conn. 132, 25 Atl.
398, 36 Am. St. Rep. 333, 18 L.R.A.
668; Hand Gold Mining Co. v.
Parker, 59 Ga. 419, 421; Nesbitt v.
Trumbo, 39 111. 110, 89 Am. Dec. 290;
Board of Education v. Bakewell, 122
111. 339; Great Western Nat. G. &
0. Co. V. Hawkins, 30 Ind. App. 557,
66 N. E. 765; Bankhead v. Brown,
25 la. 540; Fleming v. Hull, 73 la.
598, 35 N. W. 673 ; Sisson v. Board of
Supervisors, 128 la. 442, 104 N. W.
454, 70 L.R.A. 440; Harding v. Funk,
8 Kan. 315, 323; Clark v. Board of
County Comrs., 69 Kan. 542, 77 Pac.
284, 66 L.R.A. 965; Robinson v.
Swope, 12 Bush 21, 27 ; Pearce's Heirs
V. Patton, 7 B. Mon. 162; Cypress
Pond Dr. Co. v. Hooper, 2 Met. Ky.
350; Hancock Stock & Fence Land
Co. V. Adams, 87 Ky. 417, 9 S. W.
246; Pickerill v. Louisville, 125 Ky.
213, 100 S. W. 873; Bradley v. Pharr,
45 La. An. 426, 12 So. 618, 19 L.R.A.
647 ; Williams v. Judge of Eighteenth
Judicial Dist., 45 La. An. 1295, 14
So. 57 ; Bangor R. R. Co. v. McComb,
60 Me. 290; Ulmer v. Lime Rock R.
R. Co., 98 Me. 579, 57 Atl. 1001, 66
L.R.A. 387 ; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me.
351, 61 Atl. 785, 109 Am. St Rep.
526, 70 L.R.A. 472; Hepburn's Case, 3
Bland (Md.) 95; Hoye v. Swan's
Lessee, 5 Md. 237, 244; New Central
Coal Co. V. George's Creek Coal &
Iron Co., 37 Md. 537; VanWitsenv.
Gutman, 79 Md. 405, 29 Atl. 608, 24
L.R.A. 403; Arnsperger v. Crawford,
101 Md. 247, 61 Atl. 413, 70 L.R.A.
479 ; Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass.
364, 25 N. E. 92; Turner v. Nye, 154
Mass. 579, 28 N. E. 1048, 14 L.R.A.
487 ; Woodward v. Central Vt. Ey. Co.
180 Mass. 599, 62 N. E. 1051 ; Toledo
etc. R. R. Co. V. East Saginaw etc.
R. R. Co., 72 Mich. 206, 40 N. W. 436;
Board of Health v. Van Hoesen, 87
Mich. 533, 49 N. W. 894; Berrien
Springs W. P. Co. v. Berrien Circ.
Judge, 133 Mich. 48, 94 N. W. 379,
103 Am. St. Rep. 438 ; State v. Polk
Co. Comrs., 87 Minn. 325, 92 N. W.
216, 60 L.R.A. 161; Minn. Canal &
Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97
494
§ 250
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
495
sion of the constitution/ some on the ground that it would be
contrary to the provision that no person shall be deprived of
Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 638; Brown v. Beatty, 34
Miss. 227, 240, 69 Am. Dec. 389;
Dickey v. Tennison, 27 Mo. 373;
Helena Power Transmission Co. v.
Spratt, 35 Mont. 108, 88 Pae. 773, 8
L.R.A.(N.S.) 567; Jenal v. Green
Island Dr. Co., 12 Neb. 163; Forney
V. Fremont etc. R. R. Co., 23 Neb.
465, 36 N. W. 806 ; Weltou v. Dickson,
38 Neb. 767, 57 N. W. 555, 41 Am. St.
Rep. 771, 22 L.R.A. 496; Chicago etc.
R. R. Co. V. State, 50 Neb. 399; Day-
ton Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nev.
394, 399; Concord R. R. Co. v.
Greeley, 17 N. H. 47; Rockingham
Co. L. & P. Co. V. Hobbs, 72 N. H.
531, 58 Atl. 46, 66 L.R.A. 581;
Scudder v. Trenton Delaware Falls
Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 694, 726; Matter of
Albany Street, 11 Wend. 151 ; Blood-
good V. Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co.,
18 Wend. 9, 59; Matter of John &
Cherry Streets, 19 Wend. 659 ; Taylor
V. Porter, 4 Hill 140, 40 Am. Dec.
274; Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511,
53 Am. Dec. 325; S. C. 2 Sandf. 89;
Matter of Eureka Basin Warehouse
and Manuf . Co., 96 N. Y. 42 ; Matter
of Niagara Falls & Whirlpool R. R.
Co., 108 N. Y. 375, 15 N. E. 429;
Matter of Split Rock Cable R. R. Co.,
128 N. Y. 408, 28 N. E. 506; S. C. 58
Hun 351, 34 N. Y. St. 169, 12 N. Y.
Supp. 116; Waterloo Woolen Mfg.
Co. V. Shanahan, 128 N. Y. 345, 28
N. E. 358, 14 L.R.A. 481 ; Pocantico
W. W. Co. V. Bird, 130 N. Y. 249, 29
N. E. 246; Matter of Tuthill, 163 N.
Y. 133, 57 N. E. 303, 79 Am. St. Rep.
574, 49 L.R.A. 781; Harrison v.
Thompson, 9 Barb. 350; Bennett v.
Boyle, 40 Barb. 551; Beckman v.
Railroad Co., 3 Paige, 73; Wormser
V. Brown, 72 Hun 93, 25 N. Y, Supp.
553; Carey v. Dewey, 127 App. Div.
478; Kenedy v. Erwin, Busbee L.
387; State v. Lyle, 100 N. C. 497, 6
S. E. 379; McQuillen v. Hatton, 42
Ohio St. 202; Lake Erie etc. R. R.
Co. V. Hancock Co., 63 Ohio St. 23,
57 N. E. 1009 ; Witham v. Osburn, 4
Ore. 318, 18 Am. Rep. 287; Dalles
Lumbering Co. v. Urquhart, 16 Ore.
67, 19 Pae. 78; Grande Ronde Elec.
Co. V. Drake, 46 Ore. 243, 78 Pae.
1031 ; McCaudless' Appeal, 70 Pa. St.
210; Waddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. St.
90; City of Wilkes-Barre v. Wyo-
ming Historical & Geological Soc,
134 Pa. St. 616, 19 Atl. 809; Peify
V. Mountain Water Supply Co., 214
Pa. St. 340, 63 Atl. 751; Dunn v.
Charleston, Harper (S.C.) 189; Fort
V. Goodwin, 36 S. 0. 445, 15 S. E.
723 ; Boyd v. Winnsboro Granite Co.,
66 S. C. 433, 45 S. E. 10; Clack v.
White, 2 Swan, 540; Nash v. Clark,
27 Utah, 158, 75 Pae. 371, 101 Am.
St. Rep. 953, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 208;
Tyler v. Beacher, 44 Vt. 648, 8 Am.
Rep. 398; Fallsburg P. & Mfg. Co. v.
Alexander, 101 Va. 98, 43 S. E. 194,
99 Am. St. Rep. 855, 61 L.R.A. 129;
Varner v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534;
Valley City Salt Co. v. Brown, 7 W.
Va. 191; Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co.
V. Benwood Iron Works, 31 W. Va.
71, 8 S. E. 453; Osborn v. Hart, 24
Wis. 89, 1 Am. Rep. 161; Wisconsin
Water Co. v. Winans, 85 Wis. 26, 54
N. W. 1003, 39 Am. St. Rep. 813, 20
L.R.A. 662; In re Theresa Dr. Dist.,
90 Wis. 301, 63 N. W. 288 ; Huber v.
Merkel, 117 Wis. 355, 94 N. W. 354,
98 Am. St. Rep. 933, 62 L.R.A. 589;
Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green
Bay & M. Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254,
12 S. C. 173. Taking the land of
one for the private use of another,
was held an abuse of power by a
municipal corporation, in Pills v.
Boswell, 8 Ontario 680.
sSee last note, and especially the
following cases: Bankhcad v.
Brown, 25 la. 540; Robinson v.
496
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 250
his property except by the law of the land ; * others, on the
ground that it would be subversive of the fundamental priu"
ciples of free government,® or contrary to the spirit of the con-
stitution.® The conclusion is undoubtedly a correct one and is
too well settled by authority to necessitate any inquiry into the
true grounds upon which it rests. "It is conceded on all hands,"
says Judge Cooley, "that the legislature has no power, in any
case, to take the property of one individual and pass it over to
another without reference to some use to which it is to be
applied for the public benefit." ''
Swope, 12 Bush 21, 27; Brown v.
Gerald, 100 Me. 351, 61 Atl. 785, 109
Am. St. Rep. 526, 70 L.E.A. 472;
Arnsperger v. Crawford, 101 Md. 247,
61 Atl. 413, 70 L.R.A. 497; Talbut
V. Hudson, 16 Gray 417; Minn.
Canal & P. Co. v. Koochiching Co..
97 Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5
L.R.A.(]Sr.S.) 63S; Welton v. Dick-
son, 38 Neb. 767, 57 N. W. 559; Con-
cord E. R. Co. V. Greeley, 17 N. H.
47, 54 ; Rockingham Co. L. & P. Co.,
72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 66 L.R.A.
581; Matter of Albany Street, 11
Wend. 151 ; Bloodgood v. Mohawk &
Hudson R. R. Co., 18 Wend. 9, 59;
Matter of Tuthill, 163 N. Y. 133,
57 N. B. 303, 79 Am. St. Rep. 574,
49 L.R.A. 781 ; State v. Lyle, 100 N.
C. 497, 6 S. E. 379; Dalles Lumber-
ing Co. V. Urquhart, 16 Ore. 67, 19
Pac. 78; Grande Ronde Elec. Co. v.
Drake, 46 Ore. 243, 78 Pac. 1031;
Sedgwick on Const. Law, p. 447 (2d
ed.).
iNesbitt V. Trumbo, 39 111. 110;
Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill 140, 40 Am.
Dec. 274; Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y.
611, 53 Am. Dec. 325.
5 Concord R. R. Co. v. Greeley, 17
N. H. 47, 56; Hepburn's Case, 13
Bland (Md.) 95; Bloodgood v. Mo-
hawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 18 Wend.
9, 56.
BMatter of Peter Townsend, 39 N.
Y. 171, 182. In Concord v. Greeley,
17 N. H. 47, 55, the court says : "We
have no doubt that a law providing
merely that the property of A should
be taken from him and given to B,
either with or without consideration,
would be repugnant to the constitu-
tion. Not, indeed, to the letter of
any particular clause contained in it,
but to its spirit and design, which,
throughout the whole, discounte-
nance the idea that the property of
the citizen is held by any such uncer-
tain tenure as the arbitrary discre-
tion of the legislature in a matter of
mere private right, unconnected with
any considerations of public utility.
Such a law would not be so much in
repugnance to the constitution as it
would be to the principles which hold
human society together; which,
while they recognize the power of
the legislature to be supreme, do not
admit it to be arbitrary." See also
Welton V. Dickson, 38 Neb. 767, 57
N. W. 559.
'Cooley Const. Lim. (6th ed.) p.
651. "The right of eminent domain,
however, does not permit the sover-
eign power to take the property of
one citizen and transfer it to another
even for full compensation.'' Forney
V. Fremont etc. R. R. Co., 23 Neb.
465, 468, 36 N. W. 806. So aUo
Gillan v. Hutchinson, 16 Cal. 153;
Board of Education v. Bakewell, 122
111. 339; Cary Library v. Bliss, 151
Mass. 364, 25 N. E. 92; Board of
Health v. VanHoesen, 87 Mich. 533,
§ 251
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
497
§ 251 (158). The question of public use a judicial one.
It is manifest that the legislature, in providing for the con-
demnation of private property, must determine in the first
instance whether the use for which it is proposed to make the
condemnation is a public one. But this determination is not
final. All the courts, we believe, concur in holding that, wheth-
er a particular use is public or not, within the meaning of the
constitution, is a question for the judiciary.* Some dicta have
49 N. W. 894. In Coster v. Tide
Water Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54, 63, the
Chancellor says: "There is no pro-
hibition in the constitution of this
State, or in any of the State consti-
tutions, that I know of, against tak-
ing private property for private use.
But the power is nowhere granted to
the legislature. The constitution
vests in the senate and general as-
sembly the legislative or law-making
power. They can make laws, the
rules prescribed to govern our civil
conduct. They are not sovereign in
all things; the executive and judicial
power is not vested in them. Taking
the property of one man and giving
it to another is not making a law, or
rule of action ; it is not legislation, it
is simply robbery. This power was
not necessary or useful to be given
to the legislature for any of the pur-
poses for which the government was
instituted; and it was not given. It
is the principle of all free govern-
ments, that no right of the citizen
should be surrendered to the sover-
eign, that is not necessary for the
purposes of government. This
maxim pervades all republican gov-
ernments as well as monarchies ; for
the tyranny of a majority, or of cor-
rupt representatives, is just as op-
pressive, and far more odious, than
that of a monarch. This is the aim
of all our constitutional restrictions.
The first declaration in the bill of
rights, that forms the first article of
our State constitution, affirms that
one of the unalienable rights of every
Em. D. — 32.
man is that of acquiring, possessing,
and protecting property; and the last
declaration therein says that such
enumeration of rights shall not be
construed to deny others retained by
the people. This shows that the right
of private property was made sacred
by the constitution, to be invaded by
no one, not even the legislative
power, except where such control was
expressly given by that instrument.
Again, the sixteenth declaration of
the bill of rights, which declares that
private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensa-
tion; and the ninth provision of the
seventh section of the fourth article
of the constitution, the article de-
fining and restricting legislative
power, which declares that individ-
uals and private corporations shall
not be authorized to take private
property for public use without com-
pensation first made to the owners;
both show, by inevitable implication,
that it was not intended to confer on
the legislature the power of taking
private property for private use at
all."
8 Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311 ;
Sanford v. Tucson, 8 Ariz. 247, 71
Pac. 247; Mountain Park Terminal
Ey. Co. V. Field, 76 Ark. 239, 88 S.
W. 897 ; Stockton & Visalia R. R. Co.
V. Stockton, 41 Cal. 147 ; Consolidated
Channel Co. v. Central Pacific E. R.
Co., 51 Cal. 269; San Mateo County
V. Coburn, 130 Cal. 631, 63 Pac. 78;
Laguna Dr. Dist. v. Charles Martin
Co., 144 Cal. 209, 77 Pac. 933; Madera
498
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 251
been understood as announcing the doctrine that it was compe-
tent for the legislature not only to decide upon the necessity
and expediency of an exercise of the power of eminent domain,
but also to determine absolutely what uses are public within
the meaning of the constitution. We think- it more likely that
these dicta have been misapprehended than that any judge ever
intended to announce such a doctrine, and the dicta usually
Ry. Co. V. Raymond Granite Co., 3
Cal. App. 668, 87 Pac. 27 ; Tanner v.
Treasury T. M. & R. Co., 35 Colo. 593,
83 Pac. 464, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 106; New
York etc. R. R. Co. v. Long, 69 Conn.
424; Young v. Harrison, 6 Ga. 130;
Parkham v. Justices etc., 9 Ga. 341 ;
Loughbridge v. Harris, 42 Ga. 501 ;
Bridwell v. Gate City Terminal Co.,
127 Ga. 520, 56 S. E. 624, 10 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 909; Logan v. Stogdale, 123
Ind. 372, 24 N. E. 135, 8 L.R.A. 58;
Mull V. Indianapolis etc. Traction
Co., 169 Ind. 214, 81 N. E. 657; Great
Western Nat. G. & 0. Co. v. Hawkins,
30 Ind. App. 557, 66 N. E. 765; Bank-
head V. Brown, 25 la. 540 ; Lake Keon
Nav. etc. Co. v. Klein, 63 Kan. 484,
65 Pac. 684; Williams v. Judge of
Eighteenth Judicial District, 45 La.
An. 1295, 14 So. 57 ; Kennebec Water
Dist. V. Waterville, 96 Me. 234, 52
Atl. 774; Ulmer v. Lime Rock R. R.
Co., 98 Me. 579, 57 Atl. 1001, 66
L.R.A. 387; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me.
351, 61 Atl. 785, 109 Am. St. Rep.
526, 70 L.R.A. 472 ; New Central Coal
Co. V. George's Creek Coal & Iron Co.,
37 Md. 537; Van Witsen v. Gutman,
79 Md. 405, 29 Atl. 608, 24 L.R.A.
403; Arnsperger v. Crawford, 101
Md. 247, 61 Atl. 413, 70 L.R.A. 497;
Talbot V. Hudson, 16 Gray, 417 ; In re
St. Paul & Northern Pacific Ry. Co.,
34 Minn. 227 ; Minn. Canal & P. Co.
V. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107
N. W. 405, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 638; Dickey
V. Tennison,27 Mo. 373 ; County Court
of St. Louis County v. Griswold, 58
Mo. 175, 194-196; Savannah v. Han-
cock, 91 Mo. 54 ; City of Cape Girar-
deau V. Houek, 129 Mo. 607, 31 S. W.
933; St. Louis v. Brown, 155 Mo. 545,
56 S. W. 298; Welton v. Dickson, 38
Neb. 767, 57 N. W. 559, 41 Am. St.
Rep. 771, 22 L.R.A. 496; Dayton Min-
ing Co. V. Seawell, 11 Nev. 394, 399;
Concord R. R. Co. v. Greeley, 17 N.
H. 47; Rockingham Co. L. & P.
Co. V. Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58
Atl. 46, 66 L.R.A. 581; Scudder
V. Trenton Delaware Palls Co.,
1 N. J. Eq. 694, 726; Coster v.
Tide Water Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54;
Albright v. Sussex Co. Lake & Park
Co., 68 N. J. L. 523, 53 Atl. 612;
Matter of Deansville Cemetery Asso-
ciation, 66 N. Y. 569, 23 Am. Rep. 86;
Matter of Niagara Falls v. Whirlpool
R. R. Co., 108 N. Y. 375, 15 N. E. 429;
Pocantico W. W. Co. v. Bird, 130 N.
Y. 249, 29 N. E. 246; In re City of
Brooklyn, 143 N. Y. 596, 38 N. E. 983,
26 L.R.A. 270; Martin v. Bums, 155
N. Y. 23, 49 N. E. 246; Harris v.
Thompson, 9 Barb. 350 ; McQuillen v.
Hatton, 42 Ohio St. 202; Bridal
Veil Limibering Co. v. Johnson,
30 Ore. 205, 46 Pac. 790, 60 Am.
St. Rep. 818, 34 L.R.A. 368;
Apex Transportation Co. v. Gar-
bade, 32 Ore. 582, 54 Pac. 367, 882;
Fanning v. Gilliland, 37 Ore. 369, 61
Pac. 636, 67 Pac. 209, 82 Am. St. Rep.
758; Grande Ronde Elec. Co. v.
Drake, 46 Ore. 243, 78 Pac. 1031;
Pittsburgh v. Scott, 1 Pa. St. 309,
314; In re R. I. Suburban Ry. Co., 22
R. L 455, 48 Atl. 590; In re R.L Sub-
urban Ry. Co., 22 R. I. 457, 48 Atl.
591, 52 L.R.A. 879; Anderson v.
Turbeville, 6 Coldw. 150; Ryan v.
Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. Ill, 50 S. W.
§ 252
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
499
referred to do not necessitate any such construction.® While the
legislature cannot make a use public by declaring it so/" yet
its declaration will be respected by the courts, unless it is pal-
pably without reasonable foundation.''^ And the use will be
scrutinized less closely when the property is vested in the
State or some public agency, than when it is vested in a private
corporation.'*
§ 252 (159). State of the authorities as to the mean-
ing of the words, "public use." It is easily determined, as
has been shown in the two preceding sections, that private prop-
erty can be taken only for public use, and that what is a public
use is a question for the courts. When, however, we come to
seek for the principles upon which the question of public use
is to be determined, or to define the words, "public use," in the
light of judicial decisions, we find ourselves utterly at sea. "No
question has ever been submitted to the courts," says one au-
thority, "upon which there is a greater variety and conflict of
reasoning and results than that presented as to the meaning
of the words, 'public use,' as found in the different State con-
744, 45 L.R.A. 303; Borden v. Tres-
palacios R. & I. Co., 98 Tex. 494, 86
S. W. 11, 107 Am. St. Rep. 640; Tyler
V. Beacher, 44 Vt. 648, 8 Am. Rep.
398 ; Varner v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534,
550; Pittsburgh R. R. Co. v. Ben-
wood Iron Works, 31 W. Va. 71,
8 S. E. 453 ; Hench v. Pritt, 62 W. Va.
270, 57 S. E. 808; Wisconsin Water
Co. V. Winans, 85 Wis. 26, 54 N. W.
1003, 39 Am. St. Rep. 813, 20 L.R.A.
662; Priewe v. Wis. S. L. & I. Co.,
93 Wis. 534, 67 N. W. 918, 33 L.R.A.
645 ; Shoemaker v. United States, 147
U. S. 282, 13 S. C. 361; Walker v.
Shasta Power Co., 160 Fed. 856,
87 C. C. A. 660.
9 See Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala.
311, 326.
10 San Mateo County v. Coburn,
130 Cal. 631, 63 Pac. 78; Tanner v.
Treasury Tunnel M. & R. Co., 33
Colo. 593, 83 Pae. 464, 4 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 106; New York etc. R. R.
Co. V. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 59 Atl.
510; Logan v. Stogdale, 123 Ind. 372,
24 N. E. 135, 8 L.R.A. 33; Great
Western Nat. G. & 0. Co. v. Haw-
kins, 30 Ind. App. 557, 66 N. E. 765 ;
Minn. Canal & P. Co. v. Koochiching
Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5
L.R.A.(N.S.) 638; Jacobs v. Clear-
view Water Supply Co., 220 Pa. St.
388, 69 Atl. 870; In re R. I. Subur-
ban Ry. Co., 22 R. I. 455, 48 Atl.
590.
iiSan Mateo County v. Coburn,
130 Cal. 631, 63 Pac. 78; Sisson v.
Board of Supervisors, 128 la. 442,
104 N. W. 454, 70 L.R.A. 440; Ulmer
V. Lime Rock R. R. Co;, 98 Me. 579,
57 Atl. 1001, 66 L.R.A. 387; Welton
V. Dickson, 38 Neb. 767, 57 N. W.
559; United States v. Gettysburg
Electric R. R. Co., 160 U. S. 688, 16
S. C. 427.
i2United States v. Gettysburg
Electric R. R. Co., 160 U. S. 688, 16
S. C. 427 ; Walker v. Shasta Power
Co., 160 Fed. 856, 87 C. C. A. 660.
500 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 253
stitutions regulating the right of eminent domain." ^* A pe-
rusal of the cases cited in this chapter will verify this state-
ment. Courts have generally avoided, and wisely so, the enunci-
ation of general principles or the giving of general definitions,
which might prove stumbling blocks in subsequent cases or work
mischief in their practical application. It is the duty of courts
simply to apply the law to the case in hand. But every decision
necessarily proceeds upon the basis of certain general principles,
which, whether expressed or not, are capable of being discovered
and applied to future cases. In a treatise of this sort, it is
proper to seek out the general principles which \mderlie the de-
cision of specific cases, as to what constitutes a public use, and
so expound the law as to afford a guide in its application to new
cases and conditions as they arise. Before proceeding to inquire
as to the proper construction and meaning of the words public
use, it will be well to divest the subject of certain outlying
considerations which are sometimes supposed to affect the ques-
tion, but in reality do not.
§ 253 (160). The question of public use not affected
by the agency employed. As we shall see hereafter, it is
competent for the legislature to delegate to individuals or cor-
porations the right to take private property for public use.-^*
In determining whether the use in such case is public or not,
it is an immaterial consideration that the control of the prop-
erty is vested in private persons who are actuated solely by mo-
tives of private gain,^® or that private benefits will incidentally
iSDayton Mining Co. v. Seawell, Mont. 60, 94 Pac. 631; Bloodgood T.
11 Nev. 394, 400; see also Cooley Mohawk etc. R. R. Co., 18 Wend. 9,
Const. Lim. p. *532. In Farnsworth 21, 83; Ryan v. Terminal Co., 102
V. Lime Rock R. R. Co., 83 Me. 440, Tenn. Ill, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L.R.A.
22 Atl. 373, it is said: "There must 303; Salt Co. v. Brown, 7 W. Va.
be enterprises occupying such mid- 191, 197. In 18 Wend. p. 21, Sen-
die ground on this question, so near ator Edwards says: "Does the fact
to the boundary line between public that the power to construct the road
use and private use that it may be is given to a company alter the
difficult to say on which side of the nature of the grant? Surely not. It
line the facts would place them. is entirely immaterial who con-
There must be instances at either ex- structs the road, or who defrays the
treme, and all the way between ex- expense of the construction. The
tremes." object for which it is constructed
Kfost, § 374. must determine the nature of the
IB Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227, gi'ant, whether for public or private
240, 69 Am. Dec. 389; Spratt v. use." p. 21. Also Concord R. R. Co.
Helena Power Transmission Co., 37 v. Greeley, 17 N. H. 47, 60; Matter
§ 254
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USB.
501
accrue from the condemnation.^® Railroads, canals, turnpikes
and ferries are familiar instances of such appropriation, and
the principle is of universal application. "The inquiry must
necessarily be, what are the objects to be accomplished? not,
■who are the instruments for attaining them ?" ^'^
§ 254 (161). Nor by the fact that the use or benefit
is local or limited. It is not necessary that the entire com-
munity, or any considerable portion of it, should directly par-
ticipate in the benefits to be derived from the property taken.-'*
"The public use required, need not be the use or benefit of the
whole public or State, or any large portion of it. It may be
for the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality ; but the use
and benefit must be in common, not to particular individuals or
estates." ^® A school-house site for a district of a dozen families
of Tounsend, 39 N. Y. 171; Bellona
Company Case, 3 Bland Chy. 442;
Cottrill V. Myrick, 12 Me. 222; Po-
cantico W. W. Co. v. Bird, 130 N. Y.
249, 29 N. E. 246; Lancey v. King
County, 15 Wash. 9, 45 Pac. 645, 34
L.R.A. 817.
isSissou V. Board of Supervisors,
128 la. 442, 104 N. W. 454, 70 L.R.A.
440 ; Minn. Canal & P. Co. v. Koochi-
ching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107 N. W.
405, 5 L.Il.A.(N.S.) 638.
iTWillyard v. Hamilton, 7 Ohio,
pt. 2, 111, 30 Am. Dec. 195.
isAldridge v. T. C. & D. R. R. Co.,
2 Stew. & Per. 199, 23 Am. Dec. 297 ;
Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229;
Laguna Dr. Dist. v. Charles Martin
Co., 144 Cal. 209, 77 Pac. 933;
Kramer v. Los Angeles, 147 Cal.
668, 82 Pac. 334; Madera Ry. Co. v.
Raymond Granite Co., 3 Cal. App.
668, 87 Pac. 27; Bridwell v. Gate
City Terminal Co., 127 Ga. 520, 56
S. E. 624, 10 L.R.A.{N.S.) 909;
Cleveland etc. Ry. Co. v. Polecat Dr.
Dist., 213 111. 83, 72 N. E. 684;
O'Reilly v. Kankakee Valley Drain-
ing Co., 32 Ind. 169; Riche v. Bar
Harbor Water Co. (Me.) 28 Alb. L.
J. 498; Ulmer v. Lime Rock R. R.
Co., 98 Me. 579, 57 Atl. 1001, 66
L.R.A. 387; Brown v. Gerald, 100
Me. 351, 61 Atl. 785, 109 Am. St.
Rep. 526, 70 L.R.A. 472; Talbot v.
Hudson, 16 Gray 417, 425; Lien v.
Norman County, 80 Minn. 58, 82 N.
W. 1094; Rockingham Co. L. & P.
Co. V. Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl.
46, 66 L.R.A. 581; Coster v. Tide
Water Mill Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54;
Albright v. Sussex Co. Lake & Park
Commission, 68 N. J. L. 523, 53 Atl.
612; Martin v. Burns, 155 N. Y. 23;
Bloomfield etc. Natural Gas Light
Co. v. Richardson, 63 Barb. 437, 448;
Hartwell v. Armstrong, 19 Barb. 166;
Jacobs V. Clearview Water Supply
Co., 220 Pa. St. 388, 69 Atl. 870; Lewis
County V. Gordon, 20 Wash. 80, 54
Pac. 779; Skagit County v. McLean,
20 Wash. 92, 54 Pac. 781 ; State v.
Superior Court, 47 Wash. 397, 92 Pac.
269.
isCoster v. Tide Water Co., 18 N.
J. Eq. 54, 68. Similar views are
expressed in Ross v. Davis, 97 Ind.
79, and McQuillen v. Hatton, 42 Ohio
St. 202. "The term implies 'the use
of the many,' or "by the public,' but
it may be limited to the inhabitants
of a small or restricted locality, but
the use must be common and not for
a particular individual." Pocantieo
W. W. Co. V. Bird, 130 N. Y. 249-259,
29 N. E. 246.
502
EMINENT DOMAIN.
255
is as undeniably for public use as the ground for a State-bouse.^"
If tbe use is open to all upon equal terms who are so situated
as to be able to enjoy tbe privilege, it is immaterial bow few
actually avail tbemselves of the rigbt.^^ Tbe amount of benefit
to be derived from a particular improvement or system of im-
provements is a consideration which addresses itself to the leg-
islature, and not to the courts.
§ 255 (162). Nor by the necessity or lack of necessity
for the condemnation. Some courts have held that, in order
to uphold an exercise of tbe power of eminent domain, a ne-
cessity must exist for its exercise, in order to accomplish tbe
purpose sought, and that this question of necessity is in some
way an element in determining whether the taking is for pub-
lic use.^^ Thus it is argued that a hotel or theater is not a pub-
lic use within the meaning of the constitution, because the pub-
lic can be accommodated in those respects without resorting
to the power of eminent domain. ^^ Nearly all tbe cases, how-
2 0In a case where the question was
whether the taking for a district
school was for a public use, the court
says: "Every public use is, to some
extent, local, and benefits a partic-
ular section more than others. Kail-
roads and canals, the most extensive
of our public works, do so in some
degree. Burying grounds, aque-
ducts, mills, and many highways are
as purely local as this, and no per-
son can derive benefit from them ex-
cept by becoming a resident in their
vicinity. In the same way this may
be for the benefit of any citizen. But
the use in the present case has a
more enlarged and liberal view. It
is a benefit and advantage to the
whole country, that all the children
should be educated, and thus, any
means of educating the children in
any district, benefit the whole. To
accomplish this great object of edu-
cating the whole, it becomes neces-
sary that a great number of schools
should be supported to make them
accessible to all; but the principle
remains the same, as if all the chil-
dren of the State could attend a sin-
gle school; they are all but separate
means to accomplish the same great
and general benefit." Williams v.
School District, 33 Vt. 271, 279;
Township Board v. Hackman, 48 Mo.
243, 245.
21 State V. Superior Court, 48
Wash. 277, 93 Pac. 423; post, § 312.
22Eyerson v. Brown, 35 Mich. 333,
24 Am. Rep. 564; Jordan v. Wood-
ward, 40 Me. 317, 323; Dayton Min-
ing Co. V. Seawell, 11 Nev. 394; Salt
Go. V. Brown, 7 W. Va. 191, 199;
Varner v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534,
556. In the last case the court says,
the use "must be clearly a needful
one for the public, one which cannot
be given up without obvious general
loss and inconvenience;" also, that
it "must be impossible, or very dif-
ficult at least, to secure the same
public uses and purposes in any other
way than by authorizing the condem-
nation of private property." And
see Stearns v. Barre, 73 Vt. 281, 50
Atl. 1086, 87 Am. St. Rep. 721, 58
L.R.A. 240.
2 3 Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell,
11 Nev. 394.
§ 256 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 50o
ever, hold that the question of necessity is distinct from the ques-
tion of public use, and that the former question is exclusively for
the legislature.^* The necessity, expediency or propriety of
exercising the power of eminent domain, and the extent and
manner of its exercise, are questions of general public policy
and belong to the legislative department of the government.
They have nothing to do with the question of what constitutes
a public use.
§ 256 (163). The words "public use" a limitation.
Many courts seem to treat the question of What is a pvhlic use?
as though the question was For what furposes may the power of
eminent domain be properly exercised. This is a serious error.
The power of eminent domain, as we have before shown, is
the power of a sovereign State to appropriate private property
to particular uses for the purpose of promoting the general wel-
fare. ^^ This power was originally in the people, in their sov-
ereign capacity, and was by them delegated to the legislature in
the general grant of legislative power. In the absence of any
restrictions, the legislature could take private property for any
purpose calculated to promote the general good. By the provi-
sion in question, the people said to the legislature, in effect, You
shall not exercise this power except for public use. To give
these words any effect, they must be construed as limiting the
power to which they relate, that is, as limiting the purposes for
which private property may be appropriated. As the power is
by its nature limited to such purposes as promote the general
2 4San Mateo County v. Coburn, 61 Atl. 785, 1C9 Am. St. Rep. 526, 70
130 Cal. 631, 63 Pac. 78: Tanner v. L.R.A. 472; St. Louis v. Brown, 155
Treasury Tunnel M. & R. Co., 35 Mo. 545, 56 S. W. 298; Southern 111.
Colo. 593, 83 Pac. 464, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) & Mo. B. Co. v. Stone, 174 Mo. 1, 73
106; Savannah etc. Ry. Co. v. Postal S. W. 453, 63 L.R.A. 301 ; Albright v.
Tel. Cable Co., 115 Ga. 554, 42 S. B. Sussex Co. Lake & Park Commis-
1 ; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Morrison, sion, 68 N. J. L. 523, 53 Atl. 612 ;
195 111. 271, 63 N. E. 96; Water Buffalo & New York R. R. Co. v.
Works Co. V. Burkhardt, 41 Ind. 364, Brainard, 9 N. Y. 100, 109; People v.
370; Speck v. Kenoyer, 164 Ind. 431, Smith, 21 N. Y. 595; Bloomfield etc.
73 N. E. 896; Mull v. Indianapolis Natural Gas Light Co. v. Richard-
etc. Traction Co., 169 Ind. 214, 81 son, 63 Barb. 437; Anderson v. Tur-
N. E. 657; Challiss v. A. T. & S. F. beville, 6 Coldw. 150, 160; Ryan v.
Ry. Co., 16 Kan. 117, 126; Lake Keon Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. Ill, 50 S.
Nav. etc. Co. v. Klein, 03 Kan. 484, W. 744, 45 L.R.A. 303; Cooley Const.
65 Pac. 684; Kennebec Water Dist. Lim. *538; post, § 369.
V. Waterville, 96 Me. 234, 52 Atl. ^^Ante, § 1.
774; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me. 351,
504 EMINESTT DOMAIN. § 257
welfare, it is evident that the words public use, if they are to be
construed as a limitation, cannot be equivalent to the general
welfare or public good. They must receive a more restricted
definition.
§ 257 (164). Statement of doctrines. The different
views which have been taken of the words "public use" resolve
themselves into two classes : one holding that there must be a use
or right of use on the part of the public or some limited portion
of it, the other holding that they are equivalent to public benefit,
utility or advantage. Some of the many definitions of the words
public use are here given. "The words 'public use' mean public
utility, advantage or what is productive of public benefit." ^®
"If the public interest can be in any way promoted by the taking
of private property, it must rest in the wisdom of the legisla-
ture to determine whether the benefit to the public will be of
sufficient importance to render it expedient for them to exercise
the right of eminent domain, and to authorize an interference
with the private rights of individuals for that purpose." ^'^ "By
the public use is meant for the use of many, or where the public
is interested." ^* "Whatever is benoflcially employed for the
community is of public use and a distinction cannot be toler-
ated." ^® Similar definitions, making the words equivalent
to public benefit or advantage, are numerous.*" On the other
hand, numerous cases hold that, to constitute a public use the
2 601msteadv. Camp, 33 Conn. 532, Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. v.
89 Am. Dec. 221. Strickley, 28 Utah 215, 78 Pac. 296,
27Chancellor Walworth in Beek- 107 Am. St. Rep. 711, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
man v. Saratoga & Schenectady R. 976; S. C. affirmed, Strickley v.
R. Co., 3 Paige 45, 73. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co., 200 U.
28Seely v. Sebastian, 4 Oregon 25. S. 527, 26 S. C. 301. As illustrating
29Aldridge v. T. C. & D. R. R. Co., this broad view of the subject, the
2 Stew. & Per. 199, 23 Am. Dee. 297. supreme court of Idaho says: "It is
3 oTodd V. Austin, 34 Conn. 78 ; enough if the taking tends to enlarge
Hand Gold Min. Co. v. Parker, 59 the resources, increase the industrial
Ga. 419; Potlatch Lumber Co. v. energies and promote the productive
Peterson, 12 Ida. 769, 88 Pac. 426, power of any considerable part of the
118 Am. St. Rep. 233; Tuttle v. inhabitants of a section of the State,
Moore, 3 Ind. Ter. 712, 64 S. W. 585 ; or leads to the growth of towns and
Bellona Company's Case, 3 Bland the creation of new channels for the
Ch. 442; Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray employment of private capital and
417 ; Pittsburgh v. Scott, 1 Pa. St. labor, as such results indirectly con-
309, 314; Nash v. Clark, 27 Utah tribute to the general prosperity of
158, 75 Pac. 371, 101 Am. St. Rep. the whole community." Potlatch
953, 1 L.R.A.(KS.) 208; S. C. af- Lumber Co. v. Peterson, 12 Ida. 769,
firmed, 198 U. S. 361, 25 S. C. 676; 88 Pac. 426, 118 Am. St. Rep. 233.
§ 268
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
505
property must be taken into the direct control of the public
or of public agencies, or the public must have the right to use
in some way the property appropriated.^^
§ 258 (165). Proper construction of the words "pub-
lic use." It is, of course, impossible to reconcile these dif-
ferent views, and the question is, which one is correct. "The
meaning of the words cannot be ascertained by reading the con-
stitution. No attempt is there made to define them. Nor is
there any clause in that instrument, which, by its bearing upon
them, teaches us the precise meaning which they were intended
to have. We must, therefore, look elsewhere for a true con-
siSlioU V. German Coal Co., 118
111. 427; Amsperger v. Crawford, 101
Md. 247, 61 Atl. 413, 70 L.K.A. 497;
Jenal v. Green Island Dr. Co., 12
Neb. 163; Matter of Eureka Basin
Warehouse & Mfg. Co., 96 N. Y. 42;
Jacobs V. Clearvlew Water Supply
Co., 220 Pa. St. 388, 69 Atl. 870;
Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 6
Coldw. 419; Healey Lumber Co. v.
Morris, 33 Wash. 490, 74 Pac. 681,
99 Am. St. Rep. 964, 63 L.R.A. 820;
State V. White River Power Co., 39
Wash. 648, 82 Pac. 150, 2 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 842; Varner v. Martin, 21 W.
Va. 534; Hench v. Pritt, 62 W. Va.
270, 57 S. E. 808; and cases cited in
next section. In Vance v. Martin, 21
W. Va. 534, 552, 656, the court
divided cases of appropriation into
two classes, as follows : First, Where
"the property condemned is under the
direct control and use of the govern-
ment, or public officers of the gov-
ernment, or what is almost the same
thing in the direct use and occupa-
tion of the public at large, though
under the control of private persons
or corporations.'' Second, Where "it
is in the direct use and occupation of
private persons or of a corporation,
and the general public has only an
indirect and qualified use of the
property condemned, or perhaps no
use properly of any kind of the prop-
erty condemned, but simply derives
from its use by and for a private per-
son or corporation, some indirect ad-
vantage, as by the promotion of the
general prosperity of the com-
munity." As to cases of the first
class, the court concludes there is no
question as to the public use. In re-
gard to the second class, the court
proceeds as follows : "I think we can
show from the decisions, that a per-
son or corporation claiming to belong
to this second class, and to have leg-
islative authority to condemn lands,
must first show that he or they are
possessed of each and all of these
three qualifications: First, the gen-
eral public must have a definite and
fixed use of the property to be con-
demned, a use independent of the
will of the private person or private
corporation in whom the title of the
property when condemned will be
vested; a public use which cannot be
defeated by such private owner, but
which public use continues to be
guarded and controlled by the gen-
eral public through laws passed by
the legislature; second, this public
use must be clearly a needful one for
the public, one which cannot be given
up without obvious general loss and
inconvenience; third, it must be im-
possible, or very difiicult at least, to
secure the same public uses and pur-
poses in any other way than by au-
thorizing the condemnation of pri-
506 EMINENT DOMAIN". § 258
struction." ^^ If we look to our dictionaries, we find the same
confusion as in the decisions. Thus, "use" is defined as, first,
"the act of employing anything or the state of being employed
for any purpose; application, employment, service;" second,
"the quality that makes a thing proper for a purpose; benefit,
utility, advantage." *^ To constitute a public use according to
the first of these definitions, it is necessary that the public
should in some way use or be entitled to use or enjoy the prop-
erty taken. According to the second definition, it would be a
public use if the property taken was so employed as to enure
in any way to the public benefit or advantage.
If we go back a century and place ourselves in the situation
of those who framed the constitutions of the original States,
we shall find that the principal purposes, if not the only pur-
poses, for which private property was appropriated were for
ways and mills. The mills were mostly saw-mills and grist-
mills, and were accustomed, and in most cases obliged, to saw
and grind for toll for whomsoever applied.^* They were for
public use, in the stricter sense of the phrase. There was noth-
ing in the practice of the States at the time the earlier consti-
tutions were adopted to require that the words public use should
have the meaning of public benefit or advantage.
The use of a thing is strictly and properly the employment or
application of the thing in some manner.^'' The public use of
anything is the employment or application of the thing by the
public. Public use means the same as use by the public, and
vate property. If any one of these ^iPost, § 275.
essentials is wanting, the courts will 3 6 Such is the first meaning given
declare the act of the legislature au- by all lexicographers, and the one re-
thorizing such condemnation of pri- quired by the etymology of the word,
vate property to be unconstitutional. It is from the Latin utor, which
because it would amount to taking means "to use, make use of, avail
private property for private and not one's self of, employ, apply, enjoy,
for public uses." See also Salt Co. " etc." Of course constitutional law
v. Brown, 7 W. Va. 191, 139. Public cannot be turned into a question of
use and public benefit are not the etymology, but, in questions of this
same. Wis. River Imp. Co. v. Pier sort, which necessarily turn upon
(Wis.), 118 N. W. 857. nice distinctions, and where there is
3 2Concord R. R. Co. v. Greeley, 17 no definite clue to guide us, it is
N. H. 47, 60. proper to look at the original and
33 See Worcester, Webster and controlling definition of the words
other lexicographers, all of whom employed,
give and illustrate these different
uses of the word.
§ 258
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
50T
this it seems to us is the construction the words should receive
in the constitutional provision in question.^* The reasons which
incline us to this view are : First, That it accords with the pri-
mary and more commonly understood meaning of the words ;
second, it accords with the general practice in regard to taking
private property for public use in vogue when the phrase was
first brought into use in the earlier constitutions; third, it is
the only view which gives the words any force as a limitation
or renders them capable of any definite and practical applica-
tion.*''
3 6 "The test whether a use is pub-
lic or not is whether a public trust
is imposed upon the property,
whether the public has a legal right
to the use, which cannot be gainsaid,
or denied, or withdrawn at the pleas-
ure of the owner." Farmers' Market
Co. V. Philadelphia R. R. Co., 10 Pa.
Co. Ct. 25. "What is a public use is
incapable of exact definition. The
expressions public interest and pub-
lic use are not synonymous. The
establishment of furnaces, mills and
manufactures, the building of
churches and hotels, and other simi-
lar enterprises, are more or less mat-
ters of public concern, and promote,,
in a general sense, the public welfare.
But they lie without the domain of
public uses for which private owner-
ship may be displaced by compulsory
proceedings." Matter of Niagara
Falls & Whirlpool R. R. Co., 138 N.
y. 375, 15 N. B. 429. And see Matter
of Split Rock Cable R. R. Co., 128 N.
Y. 408, 28 N. E. 506; Pooantico W.
W. Co. V. Bird, 130 N. Y. 249, 29 N.
B. 246; Board of Health v. Van Hoe-
sen, 87 Mich. 533, 49 N. W. 894; Fork
Ridge Baptist Gem. Assn. v. Redd,
33 W. Va. 262, 10 S. E. 405. In the
last case it is held, that where the
property condemned will come under
the control of a private corporation
or individuals, to constitute a public
use, it must appear: "(1) The use
which the public is to have of the
property must be fixed and definite ;
the general public must have a right
to a certain definite use of the pri-
vate property, on terms and for
charges fixed by law; and the owner
of the property must be compelled by
law to permit the general public to
enjoy it. (2) This use of the prop-
erty by the public must be a substan-
tially beneficial one, which is obvi-
ously needful for the public, and
which it could not do without, except
by suffering great loss or inconven-
ience. (3) The necessity for con-
demnation must be obvious. It
must obviously appear from the
location of the property, or from
the character of the use to which
it is to be put, that the pub-
lic could not, without great difficulty,
obtain the use of this or other land,
which would answer the same gen-
eral purpose, unless it be condemned ;
and in such case the courts will
judge of the necessity for condemna-
tion."
3 'These views are strongly sup-
ported by the following authorities,
in many of which the text is quoted
and approved: Cleveland etc. Ry.
Co. V. Polecat Dr. Dist., 213 111. 83,
72 N. B. 684; Great Western Nat.
G. & O. Co. V. Hawkins, 30 Ind. App.
557, 66 N. B. 765; Sisson v. Board of
Supervisors, 128 la. 442, 104 N. W.
454, 70 L.R.A. 440; Ulmer v. Lime
Rock R. R. Co., 98 Me. 579, 57 Atl.
508 EMINEWT DOMAIN. § 258
If the constitution means that private property can be taken
only for use hy the public, it affords a definite guide to both
the legislature and the courts. Though the property is vested
in private individuals or corporations, the public retain cer-
tain definite rights to its use or enjoyment, and to that extent
it remains under the control of the legislature. If no such
rights are secured to the public, then the property is not taken
for public use and the act of appropriation is void. This inter-
pretation will cover every case of aippropriation that has been
deemed lawful by any court, except a few in relation to mills,
mines and drainage. If exceptional circumstances require ex-
ceptional legislation in those respects in any State, it is very
easy to provide for it specially in the constitution, as has been
done in several States.
On the other hand, if the constitution means that private prop-
erty may be taken for any purpose of public benefit and utility,
what limit is there to the power of the legislature ? This view
places the whole matter ultimately in the hands of the judiciary,
as though the constitution read that private property may be
taken for such purposes as the Supreme Court deem of public
benefit or advantage. The public welfare is committed generally
to the keeping of the legislature. It is a numerous body, com-
ing directly from the people and supposed to be acquainted with
their condition and needs. All questions of general public wel-
1001, 66 L.E.A. 387; Arnsperger v. L.R.A. 879; Eyan v. Terminal Co.,
Crawford, 101 Md. 247, 61 Atl. 413, 102 Tenn. Ill, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L.E.A.
70 L.R.A. 497; Berrien Springs 303; Borden v. Trespalacio R. & I.
Water Power Co. v. Berrien Circ. Co., 98 Tex. 494, 86 S. W. 11, 107 Am.
Judge, 133 Mich. 48, 94 N. W. 379, St. Rep. 640; Avery v. Vt. Elec. Co.,
103 Am. St. Rep. 438; Minn. Canal 75 Vt. 235, 54 Atl. 179, 98 Am. St.
& Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Rep. 818, 59 L.R.A. 817; Fallsburg
Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5 L.R.A. P. & M. Co. v. Alexander, 101 Va.
(N.S.) 638; Rockingham Co. L. & P. 98, 43 S. E. 194, 99 Am. St. Rep. 855,
Co. V. Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 61 L.R.A. 129; Dice v. Sherman, 107
66 L.R.A. 581 ; Matter of Tuthill, 163 Va. 424, 59 S. E. 808 ; Healy Lumber
N. Y. 133, 57 N. E. 303, 79 Am. St. Co. v. Morris, 33 Wash. 490, 74 Pac.
Rep. 574, 49 L.R.A. 781, reversing S. 681, 99 Am. St. Rep. 964, 63 L.R.A.
C. 36 App. Div. 49 ; Cozard v. Kan- 820 ; State v. White River Power Co.,
awha Hardwood Co., 139 N. C. 283, 39 Wash. 648, 82 Pac. 150, 2 L.R.A.
51 S. E. 932, 111 Am. St. Rep. 779, 1 (N.S.) 842; State v. Superior Court,
L.R.A. (N.S.) 969; Jacobs v. Clear- 42 Wash. 660, 85 Pac. 666, 5 L.R.A.
view Water Supply Co., 220 Pa. St. (N.S.) 672; Shasta Power Co. v.
388, 69 Atl. 870; InreR. I. Suburban Walker, 149 Fed. 568.
Ey. Co., 22 E. I. 457, 48 Atl. 591, 52
§ 258 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 509
fare and advantage fall appropriately within the province of
the legislature. They have opportunities for judging correctly,
ways and means of information which the courts do not and
cannot have. It cannot be presumed that the people ever in-
tended to commit such a question to the courts. Whether the
public will have the use of property taken under a particular
statute is a question which may be readily determined from an
inspection of the statute, but whether a particular improvement
will be of public utility is a question of opinion merely, about
which men may differ, and which cannot be referred to any
definite criterion. "The moment the mode of use is disregarded,
and we permit ourselves to be governed by speculations upon the
benefits that may result to localities from the use which a man
or set of men propose to make of the property of another, that
moment we are afloat without any certain principles to guide
us." ** Says the supreme court of Maryland : "There will be
found two different views of the meaning of these words which
have been taken by the courts ; one, there must be a use, or right
of use hy the public, or some limited portion of the public ; the
other that they are equivalent to public utility or advantage.
If the former is the correct view, the legislature and the courts
have a definite, fixed guide for their action. If the latter is
to prevail, the enactment of laws upon this subject will reflect
the passing popular feeling, and their construction will reflect
the various temperaments of the judges, who are thus left free
to indulge their own views of public utility or advantage. We
cannot hesitate to range this court with those which hold the
former to be the true view." ** And the supreme court of Texas
says : "We are not inclined to accept that liberal definition of
the phrase 'public use' adopted by some authorities, which makes
ssTraey, Senator, in Bloodgood v. public from the mode in which indi-
Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 18 viduals in pursuit of their own in-
Wend. 9, 60. Also, in the same terests use their property, will con-
opinion, p. 65: "Can the constitu- stitute a public use of it, within the
tional expression, public use, be made intentions of the constitution, it will
synonymous with public improve- be found very diflScult to set limits to
ment, or general convenience or ad- the power of appropriating private
vantage, without involving conse- property." And see Howard Mills
quences inconsistent with the reason- Co. v. Schwartz L. & C. Co., 77 Kan.
able security of private property; 599, 99 Pac. 559.
much more with that security which 3 9Arnsperger v. Crawford, 101 Md.
the constitution guarantees? If an 247, 253, 61 Atl. 413, 70 L.E.A. 497.
incidental benefit, resulting to the
510
EMINENT DOMAIN".
§ 258
it mean no more than the public welfare or good, and under
Avhich almost any kind of extensive business which promotes the
prosperity and comfort of the country might be aided by the
power of eminent domain. With the court of appeals and coun-
sel for plaintiffs and those authorities which they follow, we
agree that property is taken for public use as intended by the
constitution only when there results to the public some definite
right or use in the business or undertaking to which the prop-
erty is devoted. And we further agrge that this public right or
use should result from the law itself and not be dependent en-
tirely upon the will of the donee of the power." ***
40Bordeu v. Trespalacios R. & Y.
Co., 98 Tex. 494, 509, 86 S. W. 11, 107
Am. St. Rep. 640. The question is
very elaborately considered in Healy
Lumber Co. v. Morris, 33 Wash. 490,
74 Pae. 681, 99 Am. St. Rep. 964, 63
L.R.A. 820, from which we quote as
follows: "It seems to us, however,
that this is the announcement of a
dangerous doctrine, tending to en-
croach upon private rights which the
constitution has attempted to safe-
guard, and to render such rights as
uncertain and varying as are the in-
terests of different localities and
opinions of different judges on dif-
ferent branches of business. Under
such a rule an act might be construed
to be legal one year, because a certain
business was found to be profitable
to the community at large, and the
next year held void because the busi-
ness was not a paying one. The con-
stitution is the fundamental law. Its
enactments, whether they constitute
grants or limitations, are presumed
to be stable, and uniform, and to con-
stitute a check on the more mutable
sentiment and actions of members of
different legislatures. And it seems
to us that the result of such a con-
struction would be a virtual removal
of any constitutional inhibition on
legislative power in this respect,
leaving the legislative will as free
and untrammeled as in those states
where the legislatures are permitted
to act in consonance with the in-
herent power of sovereignty, and no
constitutional enactments have inter-
vened. It was no doubt for the pur-
pose of preventing enthusiastic legis-
lation, practically destroying this
limitation, that the question of pub-
lic use was especially submitted to
the courts, who are, and should be,
ever watchful in maintaining invio-
late the constitutional rights of the
citizen.
"It cannot be that, within the
meaning of the constitution, the dis-
tinction between public policy and
public use is to be obliterated. It
might be of unquestionable public
policy, and for the best interests of
the State, to allow condemnation of
lands in every instance where it
would result in aiding prosperous
business enterprises which would
give employment to labor, stimulate
trade, increase property values, and
thereby increase the revenues of the
State, even if the enterprise was
purely private; for such is the rela-
tion, under our form of government,
between public and private pros-
perity that one cannot be enjoyed to
any appreciable extent without
favorably influencing the other. But
it is evident that this was not the
kind of public use that was in the
minds of the framers of the constitu-
§ 258 WHAT IS A PtJBLIO USB. 511
It has sometimes been said that the construction of the words
public use which we have preferred would afford less security
to private property than the one we have rejected. Thus, one
court says : "If public occupation and enjoyment of the object
for which land is to be condemned furnishes the only and true
test for the right of eminent domain, then the legislature would
certainly have the constitutional authority to condemn the lands
of any private citizen for the purpose of building hotels and the-
aters. Why not ? A hotel is used by the public as much as a
railroad. The public have the same right, upon payment of a
fixed compensation, to seek rest and refreshment at a public inn
as they have to travel upon a railroad." *^ But certainly a
hotel is also for the public benefit and advantage as well as a
railroad, and is as much within one construction of the words
public use as the other. But why may not the legislature pro-
vide for acquiring by condemnation a site for a hotel or theater
to which the public shall have the right to resort, and which shall
be subject to public regulation in its management and charges ?
Is not this a mere question of expediency and public policy?
And is not our opinion upon this question the outgrowth of the
state of society in which we live and the usages and practices
to which we are accustomed ? In ancient times vast sums of
money were expended in the construction and maintenance of
tion; and it seems to ub that the and machine shops of almost every
logic of those courts which have sus- conceivable kind, would be entitled
tained appellants contention is jus- to some consideration for the same
tified solely on grounds of public reasons; thereby actually destroying
policy. any distinctions between public and
"It seems scarcely necessary to private use, for the principle in one
particularize to show to what extent instance is the same as in the other ;
this doctrine might practically be the difference is only in degree."
carried. Under such liberal con- pp. 504-506. And after reviewing
struction, the brewer could success- authorities, the court concludes
fully demand condemnation of neigh- thus : "But from a consideration of
bors' land for the purpose of erection all the authorities and from our own
of a brewery, because, forsooth, views on construction, we are of
many citizens of the State are profit- opinion that the use under consider-
ably engaged in the cultivation of ation must be either a use by the
hops. Condemnation would be in public, or by some agency which is
order for grist mills, and for fac- quasi public, and not simply a, use
tories for manufacturing the cereals which may incidentally or indirectly
of the State, because there is a large promote the public interest or gen-
agricultural interest to be sustained. eral prosperity of the State." p. 509,.
Tanneries, woolen factories, oil re- ^iDayton Mining Co. v. Seawell,
fineries, distilleries, packing houses, 11 Nev. 394, 411.
512 EMIJSTENT DOMAIM'. § 259
public theaters, which were regarded as among the most import-
ant of public institutions. A proposal to condemn a site for a
theater would not have sounded strange, so far as the purpose
goes, in the ears of Pericles or Cicero.*^
There is no constitutional limitation to the effect that the
power of eminent domain shall not be exercised unless it would
be otherwise impossible or difEcult to accomplish the purpose
sought. There are dicta to this effect, but no decisions that we
are aware of.
Some discretion must be left to the legislature. It is not
to be presumed that they are wholly destitute of integrity or
judgment. The people have left it for them to determine for
what public uses private property may be condemned. If they
abuse their trust, the responsibility is not upon the courts, nor
the remedy in them. For further verification of the views here
expressed we must refer to the subsequent sections of this chap-
ter and the cases therein cited.
§ 259 (166). Highways: Questions of public use, as
affected by their character, purpose or other circumstances.
Perhaps no better example of a public use can be given than
that of the ordinary highway, where the easement or right of
way vests in the public for the common and equal use of all.**
Private property taken for a highway is taken for public use,
though the way terminates on ground used for a church and
cemetery and be laid out wholly to afford access to such ground,**
or though it accommodates but a single family,*'' or though it
* 8In a recent case it is said : "The Superior Court, 29 Wash. 1, 69 Pac.
uses which should be deemed public 366; State v. Superior Court, 47
in reference to the right of the legis- Wash. 11, 91 Pac. 241. A highway is
lature to compel an individual to a public use, though of special in-
part with his property for a compen- terest to local property owners,
sation, and to authorize or direct Wheelwright v. Boston, 188 Mass.
taxation to pay for it, are being en- 521, 74 N. E. 937. Footways and
larged and extended with the prog- alleys are within the definition of
ress of the people in education and highways. Boston & Albany R. R.
refinement." Attorney General v. Co. v. Boston, 140 Mass. 87; Savan-
Williams, 174 Mass. 476, 55 N. B. nah v. Hancock, 91 Mo. 54.
77. 4 4 West Pikeland Eoad, 63 Pa. St.
4 3San Mateo County v. Cobum, 471 ; Kissinger v. Hanselman, 33 Ind.
130 Cal. 631, 63 Pac. 78; Miller v. 80; Cemetery Assn. v. Meninger, 14
Colonial Forestry Co., 73 Conn. 500, Kan. 312.
503, 48 Atl. 98; Speck v. Kenoyer, 4 5Robert3 v. Williams, 15 Ark. 43;
164 Ind. 431, 73 N. B. 896; State v. Johnson v. Supervisors of Clayton
§ 259
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
513
be a mere cul de sac*^ or though it he laid out in one town solely
for the henefit of lands and persons belonging in another town
or another State,*'' or though its purpose be to afford access to
a farm, lumber yard, or mine.*® So a highway may be laid out
terminating at a State line,*® or town line,^" or river,®^ or to
connect with a highway to be laid out in an adjoining county.*^
A highway may be laid out to form an approach to a bridge,
built by a corporation created by Congress.^* But a road which
does not connect with or intersect any public road is not a
highway and cannot be laid out as such.®^ It is immaterial
what the object of travel on the road may be, whether pleasure or
business. The proper authorities may lay out roads to accom-
Co., 61 la. 89; Pagels v. Oaks, 64 la.
198; Drake v. Clay, Sneed., Ky. 139
( but see Fletcher's Heirs v. Fugate, 3
J. J. Marsh, Ky. 631 ) ; Fanning v.
Gilleland, 37 Ore. 369, 61 Pac. 636,
67 Pac. 209, 82 Am. St. Rep. 758;
Paine v. Leicester, 22 Vt. 44; Lewis
V. Washington, 5 Gratt. 265. Contra:
Kuowles' Petition, 22 N. H. 361;
Underwood v. Bailey, 59 N. H. 480.
In Richards v. Wolf, 82 la. 358, 47
N. W. 1044, 31 Am. St. Rep. 501, it
was held that a highway could not be
laid out which would be practically
for the convenience of one person,
whose land abutted on another high-
way. The prior cases above cited
from the same State were dis-
tinguished. Bee Matter of Whites-
town, 24 N. Y. Misc. 150.
4 6Sheaff V. People, 87 111. 189;
Masters v. McHolland, 12 Kan. 17;
Cemetery Assn. v. Meninger, 14 Kan.
312; Fields v. Colby, 102 Mich. 450,
60 N. W. 1048; People v. Van Al-
styne, 3 Keyes 35; State v. Superior
Court, 42 Wash. 521, 85 Pac. 256;
Sehatz v. Pfeil, 56 Wis. 429; John-
ston V. Lonstrof, 128 Wis. 17, 107 N.
W. 459. But see Holdane v. Village
of Cold Spring, 23 Barb. 103; Hol-
dane V. Cold Spring, 21 N. Y. 474;
Greene v. O'Connor, 18 R. I. 56, 25
Atl. 692, 19 L.R.A. 262; Mabler v.
Brumder, 92 Wis. 477, 66 N. W. 502,
Em. D.— 33.
31 L.R.A. 695; Matter of Burdick, 27
N. Y. Misc. 298.
4 7Gilman v. Westfield, 47 Vt. 20;
Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404.
isMorrison v. Thistle Coal Co., 119
la. 705, 94 N. W. 507; Masters v.
McHolland, 12 Kan. 17; State v.
Bishop, 39 N. J. L. 226; Robinson v.
Winch, 66 Vt. 110, 28 Atl. 884. See
Matter of Lawton, 24 N. Y. Misc.
426.
4 9Riee v. Rindge, 53 N. H. 530.
BOGoodwin v. Wetliersfield, 43
Conn. 437.
51 Watson V. Town Council of
South Kingstown, 5 R. I. 562 ; Moore
v. Ange, 125 Ind. 562, 25 N. E. 816.
52Peckham v. Town of Lebanon, 39
Conn. 231. If the statute requires a
highway to lead to some public point
or place, a highway terminating at a
railroad is bad. Road in Upper Dar-
by, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 366.
5 4Luxton V. North Riv. Bridge Co.,
153 U. S. 525.
5 estate v. Price, 21 Md. 448; Snow
V. Town of Sandgate, 66 Vt. 461, 29
Atl. 673 ; Wallmau v. R. Connor Co.,
115 Wis. 617, 92 N. W. 374. "To be
public. It must not only be nominally
open for use by the public, but it
must be so located that the public
can get on to it at some point." Last
case, p. 620.
514
EMIITEITT DOMAIW.
§ 25y
modate all lawful travel. It lias accordingly been held that high-
ways may be laid out for the purpose of affording access to points
which command a fine view or are resorted to for pleasure.^®
So the public nature of the use is not affected by the fact that
the expense is defrayed in whole or in part by private contri-
bution,^'^ but it has been held that a road which it not of public
utility cannot be laid out merely because private parties are will-
ing to defray the expense.^^ Land taken for a ditch to drain and
improve a highway is taken for a public use.*® In the absence
of special statutory or constitutional provisions it is for the
proper public authorities to determine whether a particular high-
way is necessary and proper, and with this question the courts
have nothing to do. A highway is a public use, but the need of
it is a question of expediency.®" Taking property to widen a
street or highway is for a public use as much as the original es-
tablishment of a highway.*^ And a street may be widened for
B6Higginson v. Nahant, 11 Allen,
530; Petition of Mount Washington
Road Co., 35 N. H. 134.
5 7 Santa Ana v. Harlin, 99 Cal.
538, 34 Pac. 224 ; Townsend v. Hoyle,
20 Conn. 1 ; Chicago etc. K. E. Co. v.
Naperville, 169 111. 25, 48 N. E. 335;
Butts V. Geary County, 7 Kan. App.
302; Inhabitg,nts of Vasselborough,
19 Me. 338; Coombs v. County
Comrs., 68 Me. 484 ; Parks v. Boston,
8 Pick. 218, 19 Am. Dec. 322; Cope-
land V. Packard, 16 Pick. 217 ; Blake
V. County Comrs., 114 Mass. 583; At-
kinson V. Newton, 169 Mass. 242, 47
N. E. 1029; Seafield v. Bohne, 169
Mo. 537, 69 S. W. 1051; Smith v.
Conway, 17 N. H. 586, 592; Kelley v.
Kenuard, 60 N. H. 1 ; State v. Jus-
tice, 24 N. J. L. 413 ; State v. City of
Orange, 54 N. J. L. Ill, 22 Atl. 1004,
14 L.R.A. 62; State v. New Bruns-
wick, 58 N. J. L. 225, 33 Atl. 477;
Commissioners of Canal Fund v.
Perry, 5 Ohio, 58 ; State v. Collins, 6
Ohio, 126; Dwiggins v. Denver, 24
Ohio St. 629 ; Bern v. Penn Tp. Road,
2 Monaghan (Pa.) 105; Patchen v.
Doolittle, 3 Vt. 457 ; State v. Geneva,
107 Wis. 1, 82 N. W. 550.
ssBlackman v. Halves, 72 Ind. 515 ;
Dudley v. Cilley, 5 N. H. 558; Hamp-
ton V. Poland, 50 N. J. L. 367, 13 Atl.
174; Commonwealth v. Sawin, 2 Pick.
547 ; Frederick Street, 12 Pa. Co. Ct.
577; East Whiteland Tp. Road, 30
Pa. Supr. Ct. 211; State v. Ryan, 127
Wis. 599, 106 N. W. 1093. In the lat-
ter case an order establishing a road
was held void, where it appeared that
before entering the order the com-
missioners took a bond from a private
individual conditioned that he would
construct the road at his own ex-
pense, though two of the three com-
missioners were in favor of laying
out the road before the bond was
given and testified that they were
not influenced by it.
6 9Smeaton v. Martin, 57 Wis. 364.
iopost, § 369. San Mateo County
V. Coburn, 130 Cal. 631, 63 Pac. 78;
Opp V. Timmons, 149 Ind. 236, 48 Ind.
1038; Speck v. Kenoyer, 164 Ind. 431,
73 N. E. 896; New Orleans v. Stein-
hardt, 52 La. An. 1043, 27 So. 586.
siMendocino County v. Peters, 2
Oal. App. 24, 82 Pac. 1122.
§ 260
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
615
the purpose of securing land for ornamental purposes and for
light and air.*^
§ 260 (167). Private roads. Laws have existed, and,
perhaps, do still exist in most of the States for the laying out of
what are usually called private roads, but which are also called
in some States, township, neighborhood or pent roads. These
statutes have in some cases been held valid, and in others inval-
id. There is, however, but little, if any, real conflict of au-
thority, as appears when the cases are examined and compared.
The key to their reconciliation is to be found in the fact that the
phrase private roads or private ways is used in different States
and different statutes to designate roads of entirely different
character. "Where the road, though laid out on the application
and paid for and kept in repair by a particular individual who
is especially accommodated thereby, is, in fact, a public road
and for the use of all who may desire to use it, then it is regarded
as accomplishing a public purpose for which land may be con-
demned.®^ But when the road, after being laid out, becomes
the property of the applicant, from which he may lawfully ex-
8 2Matter of Clinton Ave., 57 App.
Div. 166, 68 N. Y. S. 196; S. C. af-
firmed, 167 N. Y. 624, 60 N. E. 1108.
esRoberts v. Williams, 15 Ark. 43;
Pippin V. May, 78 Ark. 18, 93 S. W.
64; Sherman v. Buick, 32 Cal. 241,
91 Am. Dec. 577 ; Butte Co. v. Boyds-
ton, 64 Cal. 110; Monterey County v.
Gushing, 83 Cal. 507, 23 Pa. 700; Los
Angeles County v. Reyes (Cal.), 32
Pac. 233; Madera County v. Ray-
mond Granite Co., 139 Cal. 128, 72
Pac. 915; Mariposa County v.
Knowles, 146 Cal. 1, 79 Pac. 525;
Hickman's Case, 4 Harr. (Del.) 580;
Brewer v. Bowman, 9 Ga. 37; Latah
County V. Petei;son, 2 Idaho, 1118, 29
Pac. 1089, 16 L.R.A. 81; Latah
County V. Hasfurther, 12 Ida. 797, 88
Pac. 433; Johnson County v. Min-
near, 72 Kan. 326, 83 Pac. 828; Den-
ham V. County Comrs. of Bristol, 108
Mass. 202; Davis v. Smith, 130 Mass.
113; Downing v. Corcoran, 112 Mo.
App. 645, 87 S. W. 114; Metcalf v.
Bingham, 3 N. H. 459; Clark v. Bos-
ton etc. R. R. Co., 24 N. H. 118; Proc-
tor V. Andover, 42 N. H. 348; Perrine
V. Farr, 22 N. J. L. 356; Cook v.
Vickers, 141 N. C. 101, 53 S. E. 740;
Shaver v. Starrett, 4 Ohio St. 494;
Ferris v. Bramble, 5 Ohio St. 109;
County of Douglas v. Clark, 15 Ore.
3, 16 Pac. 420; Wolcott v. Whitcomb,
40 Vt. 40; Whitingham v. Bowen, 22
Vt. 317; Brock v. Barnett, 57 Vt.
172. The text is sustained in Towns
V. Klamath County, 33 Or. 225, 53
Pac. 604, in which the court says:
"If by a fair construction and opera-
tion of the statutes, the road, when
laid out, is in fact a public road, for
the use of all who may desire to use
it, the law is not liable to the charge
of unconstitutionality, and is valid,
though the road may be laid out on
the application of, paid for and kept
in repair by the petitioner, and pri-
marily designed for his benefit; but
if such road is to become a mere pri-
vate way, and not open to the public,
the law sanctioning it is void," p.
232. See also Sullivan v. Kline, 33
Ore. 260, 64 Pac. 154.
516
EMINENT DOMAIN'.
§ 260
clud^i the public, then the use is strictly private, and the law
authorizing the condemnation of property therefor is void."* In
many cases, it will be found, the constitutional question is not
raised or considered.®^
Whether a private way is the exclusive property of the appli-
cant or is open to public use must be determined from the stat-
ute. If the statute provides that it shall be for public use,**
or for the exclusive use of the applicant, that settles the ques-
tion.*'' If any part of the expense may be imposed upon the
public, that circumstance would indicate that it was intended
to be for the use of the public.** Where the statute provides
that the applicant shall pay the cost of the road and that it shall
6 < Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311;
Nesbitt V. Trumbo, 39 111. 110, 89 Am.
Dec. 290; Crear v. Crossly, 40 111.
175; Wild v. Deig, 43 Ind. 455, 13
Am. Rep. 399; Stewart v. Hartman,
46 Ind. 331; Logan v. Stogdale, 123
Ind. 372, 24 N. E. 135, 8 L.R.A. 58;
Bankhead v. Brown, 25 la. 540 ; Clark
V. Board of Comrs., 69 Kan. 542, 77
Pae. 284, 66 L.R.A. 965; Dent v.
Smith, 76 Kan. 381, 92 Pae. 307;
Shake v. Frazer, 94 Ky. 143, 21 S. W.
583; Dickey v. Tennison, 27 Mo. 373;
Welton V. Dickson, 38 Neb. 767, 57 N.
W. 559, 41 Am. St. Rep. 771, 22
L.R.A. 496; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill
140, 40 Am. Dec. 274; Mohawk etc.
R. R. Co. T. Artcher, 6 Paige 83;
Burgwyn v. Lockhart, Winston Law,
269; Plimmons v. Frisby, ibid, 201;
Witham v. Osburn, 4 Ore. 318, 18 Am.
Rep. 287 ; Beaudrot v. Murphy, 53 S.
C. 118, 30 S. E. 825; Rice v. Alley, 1
Sneed 51; Clack v. White, 2 Swan
540; Healy Lumber Co. v. Morris, 33
Wash. 490, 74 Pae. 681, 99 Am. St.
Rep. 964, 63 L.R.A. 820; Varner v.
Martin, 21 W. Va. 534; Osborn v.
Hart, 24 Wis. 89, 1 Am. Rep. 161;
Wallman v. R. Connor Co., 115 Wis.
617, 92 N. W. 374.
65Leach v. Day, 27 Cal. 643;
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 15 Conn. 83;
Bradford v. Cole, 8 Fla. 263 ; Ryker
V. KcElroy, 28 Ind. 179; McCauley v.
Dunlap, 4 B. Mon. 57; Rout v.
Mountjoy, 3 B. Mon. 300; Jones'
Heirs v. Barclay, 2 J. J. Marsh 73;
Littlejohn v. Cox, 15 La. An. 67;
Perry v. Webb, 21 La. An. 247;
North Berwick v. Commissioners of
York, 25 Me. 69; Lyon v. Hamor, 73
Me. 56; Owings v. Worthington, 10
G. & J. 283 ; Hall v. Pettit, 88 Mich.
158, 50 N. W. 117; Singleton v. Com-
missioners, 2 Nott. & McC. 526; War-
lick V. Lowman, 103 N. C. 122, 9 S.
E. 458; Burwell v. Sneed, 104 N. C.
118, 10 S. E. 152; Warlick v. Low-
man, 104 N. C. 403, 10 S. E. 474;
Road Case, 4 Yates 514.
6 6Loveland v. Town of Berlin, 27
Vt. 713.
6 7 Wild V. Deig, 43 Ind. 455, 13 Am.
Rep. 399. But in Logan v. Stogdale,
123 Ind. 372, 24 N. E. 135, 8 L.R.A.
58, an act, which authorized the lay-
ing out of "branch highways" on the
petition of any freeholder who had
no outlet to a highway, was held void,
though the roads provided for were
declared to be highways.
ssDenham v. County Commission-
ers, 108 Mass. 202. Here the statute
authorized the laying out of "private
ways for the use of one or more of the
inhabitants," but the applicant was
only to pay such part of the cost as
the commissioners should deem reas-
onable, and the residue, if any, was to
§ 260 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 517
be for the use of himself, his heirs or assigns, it will he deemed
to intend that the road shall be private property, and the act will
be void.^* So where the statute provided that the applicant
should pay the damages assessed and the cost of laying out
the road and that thereupon "such road shall be considered
as the private way of such person, who shall keep open and re-
pair the same at his own expense." '"' Where the act provides
that the road shall be laid out on the application of the individual
or individuals to be benefited, who are to pay the expense of its
establishment and maintenance, and gives no other indication of
intent, it is generally held to provide for a strictly private road,
and to be void.''^ The supreme court of Iowa assigns the fol-
lowing reasons for this conclusion :
"Mrst. The statute denominates them 'private roads,' and
is entitled, 'an act to provide for establishing private roads.'
If the roads established thereunder were not intended to be pri-
vate, and different from ordinary and public roads, there was no
necessity for the act.
"Second. Such road may be established on the petition of
the applicant alone ; and he must pay the costs and damages oc-
casioned thereby, and perform such other conditions as to fences,
etc., as the board may prescribe.
"Third. The public are not bound to work or keep such
roads in repair, and this is a very satisfactory test as to whether
a road is public or private.
"Fourth. We see no reason, when such a road is established,
why the person at whose instance this was done, might not lock
the gates opening into it, or fence it up, or otherwise debar the
public to any rights thereto." '"^
On the other hand, such roads have been held public on the
ground that it was the duty of the court so to construe the act,
if possible, as to make it valid,'^* and this even in case of an act
be paid by the town. In the particu- Wild v. Deig, 43 Ind. 455, 13 Am
lar case the applicant paid the whole Rep. 399 {overruling Kissinger v.
cost, but it was held a public way. Hansleman, 33 Ind. 80) ; Stewart v.
6 9Nesbitt V. Trumbo, 39 111. 110, Hartman, 46 Ind. 331; Bankhead v.
89 Am. Dec. 290; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Brown, 25 la. 540; Dickey v. Tenni-
Hill 140, 40 Am. Dec. 274; Varner v. son, 27 Mo. 373; Witham v. Osburn,
Martin, 21 W. Va. 534; Osborn v. 4 Ore. 318.
Hart, 24 Wis. 89, 1 Am. Eep. 161. 7 2Bankhead v. Brown, 25 la. 540,
70Arnaperger v. Crawford, 101 Md. 547.
247, 61 Atl. 413, 70 L.R.A. 497. 73Roberts v. Williams, 15 Ark. 43.
7iSadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311;
518
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 260
which provided that the roads should "be, to all intents and pur-
poses, private roads for the use of the parties interested." ''*
Though the cost and repair of the road are cast upon the appli-
cant, yet, if the repairs are subject to the supervision and con-
trol of public officers, it will be deemed a public road.'^^
'74Sherman v. Buick, 32 Cal. 241,
251. In this case the court, referring
to the legislature, says: "By dis-
tinguishing or classifying roads or
highways by the words 'public' and
'private,' and providing different
modes for their establishment and
support, and declaring that the latter
class 'shall be, to all intents and pur-
poses, private roads for the use of
parties interested,' they give color to
the idea that, in their judgment, they
have the power to create and are
creating a road for private use, and
to make and are making it the pri-
vate property of certain persons to
the exclusion of all others. If we
look solely at their language without
regard to the true nature of the only
power which they possessed in the
premises, an impression that the
property of the owner of the land is
taken for private use is created, for
there is an apparent, if not an ex-
press, appropriation of it to the use
of certain parties to the exclusion of
all others. But it is well understood
that the language of the legislature
is to be read in all cases by the light
of the constitution, with the spirit of
which it is always presumed to be
consistent. In construing it, it is
the duty of the courts to look to the
true object and to trace out the true
results, and not to be guided by those
which the legislature has mistakenly
assumed or declared; and if they be
found to be consistent with the con-
stitution, or within the acknowledged
power of the legislature, to uphold
the act as to its legitimate results
and to discard all else. Thus, if the
legislature provides for the laying
out and establishing of a certain
class of roads or highways which
from any cause, whether for the pur-
poses of classification or otherwise,
is denominated 'private,' or as being
for the especial benefit of certain in-
dividuals upon whom the burden of
cost and repair is cast, instead of the
public at- large, it by no means fol-
lows that such roads become the pri-
vate property or estate of the indi-
viduals designated, even if the legis-
lature has at) provided in express
terms; for where roads are laid out,
whether mainly for the accommoda-
tion of particular neighborhoods or
individuals or not, it must be under-
stood as having been provided for the
use of every one who may have occa-
sion to travel it, and hence as being
public. In other words, the legis-
lature has no power to lay out and
establish 'private roads,' in the sense
that they are to be the private prop-
erty of particular individuals, or
that they are what are denominated
'private ways' at common law; and
hence, so far as they undertake to
do so, their action is simply null and
void ; but the road so laid out and
established becomes a way over
which all may lawfully pass who
have occasion, and therefore public;
and the language employed by the
legislature, so far as it relates to the
legal character of the road — as pub-
lic or private — ^must be understood
as being used for the purpose of dis-
tinguishing it from all other roads,
or, in general terms, for the purposes
of classification."
TSHickman's Case, 4 Harr. (Del.)
580, and Statutes of Delaware.
§ 2C0 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 519
In Kentucky a statute has existed since 1820 providing for
the establishment of private passways over the land of others,
when necessary to enable a citizen "to attend courts, elections,
a meeting-house, a mill, a warehouse, ferry, to pass from one
tract of land to another owned hy liim, or railroad depot most
convenient to his residence." ''^ The validity of this statute
passed unchallenged for many years,'''' but was finally passed
upon in Robinson v. Swope.''^ It seems to have been con-
ceded that all such passways were private property. The court,
in view of the long acquiescence in the enforcement of the stat-
ute and the manifest utility of such ways and of the statute be-
ing in force when the present constitution was adopted, sustains
the act, except the clause in italics, which, being a recent intro-
duction and not of public utility, was held void. The same view
is implied in Georgia''^ and perhaps also in Connecticut,^"
though in neither State has the point been decided. In Penn-
sylvania statutes have existed for the establishment of private
roads since 1735.*^ They may be laid out from "dwellings
and plantations to a highway or place of necessary public resort,
or to any private way leading to a highway." *^ The roads here
provided for are spoken of as quasi public,*^ and have been sus-
tained as a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.®* It
76Statutes of Ky. 1883, p. 770. 94 Ky. 143, 21 S. W. 583, is a similar
77Jones' Heirs v. Barclay, 2 J. J. ease. And see Vice v. Eden, 113 Ky.
Marsh 73 ; McCauley v. Dunlap, 4 B. 255, 68 S. W. 125, as to when a neces-
Mon. 57; Rout v. Mountjoy, 3 B. sity is shown within the statute.
Men. 300; Troutman v. Barnes, 4 7 9Brewer v. Bowman, 9 Ga. 37.
Met. (Ky.) 337. The law was held void because it did
7 812 Bush. 21. "We have no hesi- not provide for compensation.
tation in holding," says the court, soReynolds v. Reynolds, 15 Conn.
"that the general assembly may, in 83. The court here expressly declines
the exercise of the right of eminent to consider the question because not
domain, authorize the establishment properly raised.
of private passways over the lands of siWaddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. at
others when it is necessary to enable p. 92.
any inhabitant of the State to attend s^Purdon's Statutes, p. 646. Act
courts, elections, or mills, or to reach 13, June, 1836.
an established public highway." ssWaddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 90,
p. 25. It is to be observed, however, 94.
that the point decided in this case 84Pocopsen Road, 16 Pa. St. 15;
was that such a way could not be also, Stuber's Road, 28 Pa. St. 199;
laid out to pass from one tract of a Sandy Lick Creek Road, 51 Pa. St.
man's land to another, and that, con- 94; Keeling's Road, 59 Pa. St. 358;
sequently, the remainder of the Dickinson Tp. Road, 23 Pa. Supr.
opinion is dictum. Shake v. Fraser, Ct. 34.
520
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 260
has been held under other statutes in that State that a right of
way for mere private use cannot be condemned.®^
It has never, we think, been decided in any case that private
property could be condemned for a private road for the exclu-
sive use of the applicant, and we know of no principle upon
which such a proceeding can be justified. It is undoubtedly
within the power of the legislature to lay out public ways to con-
nect private premises with a public way or place of public re-
sort.*^ It is a question for the legislature whether the public
welfare will be promoted by such an appropriation.
It has been held that where one has a way of necessity over
the land of another at common law, it is competent for the legis-
lature to prescribe how this shall be established, and that such
a law would not divest private property for private use, but
only regulate the exercise of an existing private right.*^ The
owner of land taken for a private road may waive the unconsti-
tutionality of the act and recover the damages awarded.** In
some States the laying out of private ways is expressly sanc-
tioned by the constitution,*® or the constitution is construed as
giving such authority."* A constitutional provision authorizing
sBMcCaudless' Appeal, 70 Pa. St.
210; Waddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 90.
SBBankhead v. Brown, 25 la. 540,
554; Witham v. Osburn, 4 Ore. 318,
18 Am. Rep. 287; Wild v. Deig, 43
Ind. 455, 13 Am. Rep. 399; and see
Lewis V. Washington, 5 Gratt 265.
sTSnyder v. Warford, 11 Mo. 513,
49 Am. Dec. 94; Lawrence, J., in
Crear v. Crossly, 40 111. 175.
ssPos*, § 260. One who has peti-
tioned for a private road and used
it, will be estopped from denying the
validity of the proceedings when
sued for the damages awarded. Fer-
nald V. Palmer, 83 Me. 244, 22 Atl.
467. Those who have accepted the
damages for the laying out of pri-
vate roads will be estopped from
questioning their validity. Arns-
perger v. Crawford, 101 Md. 247, 61
Atl. 413, 70 L.R.A. 497.
^^ Michigan constitution, art. 18,
sec. 14 ; Soheh v. Detroit, 45 Mich.
620; Ayres v. Riclii\rds, 38 Mich.
214; South Carolina constitution,
art. 1, sec. 23; State v. Stockhouse,
14 S. C. 417. Alahama, art. 1, sec.
5; Steele v. County Comrs., 83 Ala.
304. Colorado, art. 2, sec. 14.
Qeorgia, art. 1, sees. 17, 20; Norman-
dale Lumber Co. v. Knight, 89 Ga.
Ill, 14 S. E. Rep. 882. Missouri, art.
2, sec. 20; Belk v. Hamilton, 130 Mo.
292, 32 S. W. Rep. 656. Montana,
art. 3, sec. 15; State v. District
Court, 14 Mont. 476, 37 Pae. Rep. 7.
Washington, art. 1, sec. 16; Long v.
Billings, 7 Wash. 267, 34 Pac. Rep.
936. New York, art. 1, sec. 7; and
see Illinois, art. 4, sec. 30.
soArt. 1, sec. 14 of the constitution
of Idaho provides as follows: "The
necessary use of lands for reservoirs
or storage basins, for the purposes
of irrigation, or for rights of way for
the construction of canals, ditches,
flumes, or pipes, * * * or any other
use necessary to the complete devel-
opment of the material resources of
§ 260
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USB.
521
the taking of lands for private ways of necessity, is not self-
executing, and such ways cannot be laid out without statutory
authority.®^ When private ways are permitted by the constitu-
tion when certain conditions exist, these conditions must be af-
firmatively shown in order to justify the exercise of the power.*^
Where the constitution sanctions the establishment of "private
ways of necessity," or "in cases of necessity," ®^ one cannot be
laid out simply because it will be more convenient or less ex-
pensive for the applicant, than one on his own land.®* To create
such a necessity as is contemplated, it is probable that the ap-
plicant's land would have to be surrounded by the land of
others.*' The statutory power to lay out private roads of any
the State, * * * is hereby declared to
be a public use.'' This was held to
authorize the laying out of private
roads. Latah County v. Peterson, 2
Idaho 1118, 29 Pac. 1089, 16 L.R.A.
81. "The necessity for such private
roads is apparent when it is stated
that it would be impossible to im-
prove very many valuable tracts of
land in this State which are not
reached by public highways, unless
this power existed. Such roads are
therefore necessary to the complete
development of the material re-
sources of the State."
siLong V. Billings, 7 Wash. 267,
34 Pac. 936.
9 zjformandale Lumber Co. v.
Knight, 89 Ga. HI, 14 S. E. 882;
Latah County v. Peterson, 2 Idaho
1118, 29 Pac. 1089, 16 L.R.A. 81;
Belk v. Hamilton, 130 Mo. 292, 32 S.
W. 656; State v. District Judge, 14
Mont. 476, 37 Pac. 7; Long v. Bill-
ings, 7 Wash. 267, 34 Pac. 939.
9 3vgee constitutional provisions of
Colorado, Georgia, Missouri and
Washington above cited, note 89.
9<Normandale Lumber Co. v.
Knight, 89 Ga. HI, 14 S. E. 882;
Chattanooga etc. R. R. Co. v. Phil-
pot, 112 Ga. 153, 37 S. E. 181;
Charleston etc. Ry. Co. v. Fleming,
110 Ga. 995, 47 S. E. 541; Jones v.
Venable, 120 Ga. 1, 47 S. E. 549;
Gaines v. Lunsford, 120 Ga. 370, 47
S. E. 967, 102 Am. St. Rep. 109; Neal
V. Neal, 122 Ga. 804, 50 S. E. 929.
Compare Pippin v. May, 78 Ark. 18,
93 S. W. 64. See Vice v. Eden, 113
Ky. 255, 68 S. W. 125; Chandler v.
Reading, 129 Mo. App. 63. A law
authorizing the taking of property
for private use "must be closely
scrutinized, strictly construed and
sparingly enforced." Chattanooga
etc. R. R. Co. V. Philpot, 112 Ga. 153,
154, 37 S. E. 181.
9 6Belk V. Hamilton, 130 Mo. 292,
32 S. W. 656. In Chattanooga etc.
R. R. Co. V. Philpot, 112 Ga. 153, 37
S. E. 181, the court says: "The word
■'necessity' as used in the constitu-
tion is to be given its most restricted
meaning. So construing it, a case of
necessity authorizing the laying out
of a private way would not arise
unless it was shown that the way
sought to be laid out was indispen-
sable to the use or enjoyment of the
farm or place of residence, as the
case might be. If there is a way by
which the applicant can lawfully
reach his farm or place of residence,
a case of necessity does not exist
within the meaning of the constitu-
tion."
522
EMINENT DOMAIN.
261
description must be strictly complied with and all the ccHiditions
precedent must be shown to exist.®®
§ 261 (168). Toll roads, bridges and ferries. Prop-
erty taken for toll roads, toll bridges and ferries is taken for pub-
lic use.''' They are public highways which every member of the
public is entitled to use, and do not differ in any essential par-
ticular from the common highway opened and maintained at the
expense of the public.*®
§ 262 (169). Canals. Canals to be used as highways
by water are a public use.®* But more water cannot be taken
than is necessary for navigation, for the purpose of selling it to
private individuals for power or other use.^ But so long as
9 'Charleston etc. Ry. Co. v. Flem-
ing, 119 Ga. 995, 47 S. E. 541 ; Breaux
V. Bienvenue, 51 La. An. 687, 25 So.
321 ; Hall v. Pettit, 88 Mich. 158, 50
N. W. 117; Warlick v. Lowman, 103
N. C. 122, 9 S. E. 458; Burwell v.
Sneed, 104 N. C. 118, 10 S. E. 152;
Warlick v. Lowman, 104 N. C. 403,
10 S. E. 474; In re Road in Breneh-
nock Tp., 2 Woodward's Decs. (Pa.)
437.
9 7 Arnold v. Covington & Cincin-
nati Bridge Co., 1 Duval 372; Young
V. Buckingham, 5 Ohio 485; Plecker
V. Rhodes, 30 Gratt. 795. A horse
ferry is a public use. Day v. Stet-
son, 8 Me. 365; Young v. McKenzie,
3 Ga. 31. So of land taken for an
approach to a public ferry. Drake
v. Clay, Sneed, 139. Or a bridge.
Luxton V. North Riv. Bridge Co., 153
U. S. 525.
9 8 "A road constructed and sup-
ported by a turnpike corporation
differs in no essential characteristic
from a common highway, established
and supported by a town, a borough,
or a city. Their origin and objects
are identical. Both emanate from
the same supreme power, acting
through the legislature, the courts,
or other depositaries of authority
designated by the laws. Both are
called into existence, and supported.
to subserve, in exactly the same way.
the public necessities and conveni-
ence and both alike are intended to
endure for an indefinite period, and
so long as that convenience re-
quires or that necessity exists.
The funds for making and repairing
them, indeed, are drawn from differ-
ent sources and in different modes —
the one, from travelers by a toll — the
other, from the community by a tax ;
and the turnpike company is per-
mitted to take, for the benefit of its
stockholders, the contingent profits
in compensation for the contingent
losses of the enterprise; but still the
public interest in the road and the
burden upon the land are essentially
the same in both." State v. Maine,
27 Conn. 641, 646, 71 Am. Dec. 89.
ssMatter of Peter Townsend, 39 N.
Y. 171; Willyard v. Hamilton, 7
Ohio (pt. 2) 111, 30 Am. Dec. 195;
Dalles Lumbering Co. v. Urquhart,
16 Ore. 67, 19 Pac. 78; Kaukauna
Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & M.
Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254, 12 S. C.
173; Chesapeake etc. Canal Co. v.
Key, 3 Cranch, C. C. 599.
iCooper V. Williams, 5 Ohio, 391,
24 Am. Dec. 299; Buckingham v.
Smith, 10 Ohio 288; Varick v. Smith,
5 Paige, 137.
262
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
523
the State acts in good faitli and with a bona fide intent of pro-
moting the main purpose in view, it may dispose of any surplus
water or water power, incidentally taken or created, for private
uses and appropriate the proceeds of such disposition.^ Where
the water of a stream was taken for a canal and the supply of
a mill cut off, it was held that a raceway could not be made
through private property from the canal to the mill in order
to supply it with water, the mill-owner having agreed to accept
the same in lieu of damages for interfering with the stream.
This would be taking one man's property to make compensation
to another.*
'Kaukauna Water Power Co. v.
Green Bay & M. Canal Co., 142 U. S.
254, 12 S. C. 173. Here the State
constructed a dam for the bona fide
purpose of furnishing water to a
public canal and it was held that it
was entitled to the water power inci-
dentally created and could dispose of
it to private parties. The court says :
"The true distinction seems to be
between cases where the dam is
erected for the express or apparent
purpose of obtaining a water power
io lease to private individuals, or
where in building a dam for a public
improvement, a wholly unnecessary
excess of water is created, and cases
where the surplus is a mere incident
to the public improvement and a
reasonable provision for securing an
adequate supply of water at all times
for such improvement. No claim is
made in this case that the water
power was created for the purpose of
selling or leasing it, or that the dam
was erected to a greater height than
was reasonably necessary to create a
depth of water sufficient for the pur-
poses of navigation at all seasons of
the year. So long as the dam was
erected for the bona fide purpose of
furnishing an adequate supply of
water for the canal and was not a,
colorable device for creating a water
power, the agents of the State are
entitled to great latitude of discre-
tion in regard to the height of the
dam and the head of the water to be
created; and while the surplus in this
case may be unnecessarily large,
there does not seem to have been any
bad faith or abuse of discretion on
the part of those charged with the
construction of the improvement.
Courts should not scan too jealously
their conduct in this connection if
there be no reason to doubt that they
were animated solely by a desire to
promote the public interests, nor can
they undertake to measure with
nicety the exact amount of water re-
quired for the purposes of the public
improvement. Under the circum-
stances of this case we think it
within the power of the State to re-
tain within its immediate control
such surplus as might incidentally be
created by the erection of the dam."
The court cites the following cases
as supporting its conclusions
Cooper V. Williams, 4 Ohio 253
Buckingham v. Smith, 10 Ohio 288
Little Miami Elevator Co. v. Cincin-
nati, 30 Ohio St. 629, 643 ; Hubbard
v. City of Toledo, 21 Ohio St. 379
Fox V. Cincinnati, 104 U. S. 783
Spaulding v. Lowell, 23 Pick. 71, 80
French v. Inhabitants of Quincy, 3
Allen 9 ; Attorney General v. Eau
Claire, 37 Wis. 400; State v. Eau
Claire, 40 Wis. 533.
SMcArthur v. Kelley, 5 Ohio 139.
524
EMINBITT DOMAIN.
§ 263
§ 263 (170). Railroads, their connections and appur-
tenances. When railroads were first introduced, some question
was made as to their being a public use, but it has long been
settled that they are.* A railroad company may be authorized
to condemn land for all appurtenances necessary to the conve-
nient and proper operation of the road, such as depots,^ freight
houses,® yard room,'' side tracks,* gravel pits,* water supply,^"
and the like.-^^ An electric railway may condemn land for a
4Aldridge V. T. C. & D. R. R. Co.,
2 Stew. & For. 199, 23 Am. Dec. 297;
Davis V. Same, 4 Ibid, 421 ; Cairo &
Fulton R. R. Co., v. Turner, 31 Ark.
494; San Francisco A. & S. R. R. Co.
V. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367; Moran v.
Ross, 79 Cal. 159, 21 Pac. 547; En-
field Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford &
New Haven R. R. Co., 17 Conn. 40, 42
Am. Dec. 716; Whiteman v. W. & S.
R. R. Co., 2 Harr. (Del.) 514;
O'Hara v. Lexington & Ohio R. R.
Co., 1 Dana (Ky.) 232; Lexington &
Ohio R. R. Co. V. Applegate, 8 Dana
289, 33 Am. Dec. 497; Shreveport &
A. R. R. Co. V. Hollingsworth, 42 La.
An. 729, 7 So. 693 ; The Bellona Com-
pany Case, 3 Bland, Chy. 442 ; Boston
Water Power Co. v. Boston & Wor-
cester R. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360;
Swan V. Davidson County Comrs., 18
Minn. 482 ; Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss.
227, 69 Am. Dec. 389; Concord Rail-
road Co. V. Greeley, 17 N. H. 47;
Beekman v. Saratoga & Schenectady
R. R. Co., 3 Paige 45; Bloodgood v.
Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co., 14
Wend. 51 ; Same v. Same, 18 Wend.
9; Buffalo & New York R. R. Co. v.
Brainard, 9 N. Y. 100; Seacomb v.
Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 49 How. Pr.
75; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v.
Chappell, Rice, L. 383; Buffalo,
Bayou etc. R. R. Co. v. Ferris, 26
Tex. 588; Tait v. Matthews, 33 Tex.
112; Bonaparte v. Camden & Amboy
R. R. Co., 1 Baldwin, U. S. 205;
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Van
Ness, 4 Cranch 595 ; Cherokee Nation
V. Southern Kansas R. R. Co.. 33 Fed.
900. Bee People v. Salem, 20 Mich.
452.
sState V. Railroad Comrs., 56 Conn.
308; Small v. Georgia etc. R. R. Co.,
87 Ga. 602, 13 S. E. 694; Ewing v.
Ala. & V. R. R. Co., 68 Miss. 551, 9
So. 295 ; Hannibal & St. Joe R. R. Co.
V. Muder, 49 Mo. 165; Matter of New
York Central etc. R. R. Co., 59 Hun
7 ; Geizy v. C. W. & Z. R. R. Co., 4
Ohio St. 308.
6 Central Pac. Ry. Co. v. Feldman,
152 Cal. 303, 92 Pac. 849; In Matter
of New York etc. R. R. Co. v. Kip, 46
N. Y. 546; Matter of New York Cen-
tral etc. R. R. Co., 77 N. Y. 248; New
York Central etc. R. R. Co. v. Metro-
politan Gas Light Co., 5 Hun 201.
Right to take for warehouse ques-
tioned. Cumberland Valley R. R. Co.
V. McLanahan, 59 Pa. St. 23.
'Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484;
Rensselaer & S. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 43
N. Y. 137.
8St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Petty,
57 Ark. 359, 21 S. W. 884, 20 L.R.A.
434.
9 Hopkins v. Florida Cent. etc. R.
R. Co., 97 Ga. 107, 25 S. E. 452 ; Sag-
inaw etc. R. R. Co. v. Bordner, 108
Mich. 236, 66 N. W. 62.
lODillou V. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., 67 Kan. 687, 74 Pac. 251.
iiThe question is extensively con-
sidered in Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co.
v. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 271. A statute
exempted from taxation the property
of a railroad necessarily used in oper-
ating its road. The exemption was
held to be co-extensive with the right
§ 263
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
525
power house and car barn,-'^ and for a transmission line from its
power house to its railway. ^^ But in Ehode Island such a pur-
pose is held not to be a public use within the constitution.^*
But property cannot be taken for things not necessary to the
operation of the road or which do not require a particular loca-
tion with reference to the right of way, such as tenement houses
for employees/^ and shops for manufacturing new rolling
stock. ^® It has been held that property may be condemned for
of the company to take by condemna-
tion. It was held indirectly that the
company could not condemn for grain
elevators nor for a. building used
chiefly for a hotel, though inci-
dentally for a station.
i2Eddleman v. Union Co. Traction
& P. Co., 217 111. 409, 75 N. E. 510;
Metropolitan St. Ey. Co. v. Walsh,
197 Mo. 392, 94 S. W. 860.
I'MuU V. Indianapolis etc. Trac-
tion Co., 169 Ind. 214, 81 N. E. 657.
i4In re R. I. Suburban Ey. Co., 22
E. I. 455, 48 Atl. 590; In re
E. I. Suburban Ey. Co., 22 E. I. 457,
48 Atl. 591, 52 L.E.A. 879. In the
latter case, the court says: "A com-
mon carrier serves both the public
and itself. It has its public and pri-
vate functions. The public part is
the exercise of its franchise for the
accommodation of the parties; the
private part is its incidental busi-
ness, with which the public is not
concerned, and which the company
manages for its own interests. The
company carries passengers over its
road as a public duty ; but the gener-
ation of power to propel cars is the
private business of the company.
Whatever is necessary for the exer-
cise of the franchise is for the benefit
of the public; but that which per-
tains simply to means of supply is
the private business of the company."
pp. 459, 460.
iBEldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484;
Rensselaer & S. E. E. Co. v. Davis, 43
N. Y. 137 ; State v. Commissioners of
Mansfield, 23 N. J. L. 510.
i«Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484,
493; Matter of New York etc. R. R.
Co. V. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546, 552; West
River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507,
546. In the first case the court says :
"Is an establishment for the manu-
facture of railroad cars a legitimate
railroad purpose, so that the com-
pany would have a right to take land
for it against the will of the owner?
The defendants say, that as the com-
pany must necessarily have cars in
order to carry on their business,
therefore they must have the right to
manufacture them, and have works
for that purpose. But this argument
proves too much. Eailroads must
have iron, in great quantities, for
their track and other purposes. Does
this authorize them to take ore beds
and lands for forges and foundries,
and manufacture their own iron?
They must have wood, sleepers, and
timber for depots, and large quan-
tities of lumber of various kinds.
Does this authorize them to take
timbered lands, and sites for mills,
against the will of the owners ? They
must have glass, nails, paint, and
many other things. Can they by
compulsory measures provide them-
selves the means to manufacture
them all? We think it very clear
they cannot. If the company must
manufacture their own cars or go
without, then, doubtless, their manu-
facture would be regarded as a neces-
sity of the railroad, but the manu-
facture of cars and engines is a dis-
tinct branch of mechanical industry,
526
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 263
repair shops and that this would be a public use.^^ These differ,
undoubtedly, from shops for the manufacture of new cars, or
engines, since the former are indispensable to every railroad,
while the latter are not. New rolling stock can be purchased
of those who make a business of its manufacture. But facilities
for the repair of such stock do not usually exist within any prac-
ticable distance, and unless the companies could have such facil-
ities conveniently located, they might be hampered in their serv-
ice and the public greatly incommoded. A railroad company
may condemn land for a track to a public warehouse or eleva-
tor, ^^ or to connect with a wharf or pier,^® or for the purpose
carried on wholly independent of any
connection with railroads, and is a
branch of business in which rail-
roads do not usually engage at all;
and in this case it seems to have
been quickly demonstrated, that it
was better to rely on supplying them-
selves with cars by purchase from
those whose legitimate business it
was to make them.
"Although railroad companies
must have engines and cars, iron,
lumber, wood and many other things
in large quantities, in order to build
and operate their roads, it is sup-
posed they can supply themselves as
private persons do, by purchase in
the ordinary way, and they are not
created or designed to be independ-
ent of all other branches of industry
and business in the country, but to be
additional aids to their successful
development. The company must
have shops for the repair of cars
and engines, as they are so often
needed, and as they cannot well be
moved for repairs, nor can facilities
be found for repairs in the country
generally, but the company were al-
ready supplied with all necessary ac-
commodations for repairs. We are of
opinion that an establishment for the
manufacture of cars is not a legiti-
mate railroad necessity, so that the
company could properly condemn
land on which to erect one."
iTFor "depot, engine house and re-
pair shops," Hannibal & St. Joe R.
R. Co. V. Muder, 49 Mo. 165; for
"turn-outs, depots, engine houses,
shops and turn-tables," C. B. &, Q. R.
R. Co. V. Wilson, 17 III. 123; for a
"paint shop, and lumber and timber
sheds," Low v. Galena & Chicago
Union R. R. Co., 18 111. 324. In the
Illinois cases the constitutional ques-
tion of public use was not raised.
The only question was whether the
purposes specified were within the
' statute. Nor does it appear that
the constitutional question was ac-
tually raised in the Missouri case.
After referring to the cases from
Illinois and Vermont the court says :
"All these adjudications proceed
upon the assumption that the appro-
priation of land, for the purpose
stated in the plaintiff's petition, is
an appropriation of private property
to a public use." p. 166. See also
Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484, and
quotation in last note.
isFisher v. C. & S. R. R. Co., 104
111. 323; Chicago Dock & Canal Co.
V. Garrity, 115 111. 155. A city may
grant permit to lay a track in a
street to a private elevator. Clarke
V. Blackmar, 47 N. Y. 150.
isRensselaer & S. R. E. Co. v.
Davis, 43 N. Y. 137.
§ 263 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 527
of diverting a stream in order to avoid a bridge, where the public
safety will thereby be promoted.^" "Whatever is essential and
indispensable to the construction, maintenance or running of the
road, is allowed to be taken." ^^ The question of public use
does not depend upon the length of the road^^ and a company
organized to build a connecting link between two other roads
which are separated by a river, is for a public use and may exer-
cise the right of eminent domain.^* A railroad built from
Denver east to the State line to coal mines of the company, and
equipped and operated in the usual way for the transportation of
freight and passengers, was held a public use.** That a road
is limited to the transportation of freight does not make it for
private use.*^ A belt road around a city, organized for general
commercial purposes but designed chiefly to transfer loaded
and empty cars from one road to another, is a public use.^® A
company was organized to provide terminal facilities for rail-
roads, and could be compelled to furnish such facilities upon
terms fixed by the railroad commissioner in case of disagreement,
and which was authorized and, on certain conditions, could be
compelled to construct tracks and operate suburban trains, was
held to be for a public purpose and such a company as could
be vested with the power of eminent domain.*'' And generally
the construction of union stations and terminals by a corporation
organized for that purpose, is a public use for which property
may be condemned.** It is no objection that a railroad is built
especially for the accommodation of certain mines or industrial
plants, so long as it is in law a public highway and prepared to
zoReusch V. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., Union Pac. R. R. Co., 41 Fed. 293.
57 la. 687. -And see Denver R. Laud & Coal Co.
2iNew York etc. R. R. Co. v. Gun- v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 34 Fed. 380.
niaon, 1 Hun 496, 497. 2 6Brown v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
2 2Madera Ry. Co. v. Raymond 137 Mo. 529, 38 S. W. 1099.
Granite Co., 3 Cal. App. 668, 87 Pac. 26Col)ier v. Union Ry. Co., 113
27; Bridwell v. Gate City Terminal Tenn. 96, 83 S. W. 155.
Co., 127 Ga. 520, 56 S. E. 624, 10 2 7Fort St. Union Depot Co. v.
L.R.A.(N.S.) 909; Caretta Ry. Co. Morton, 83 Mich. 265, 47 N. W. 228,
V. Va. — Pocahontas Coal Co., 62 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 438.
W. Va. 185, 57 S. E. 401. 2 8Bridwell v. Gate City Terminal
2 3Niemeyer v. Little Rock June- Co., 127 Ga. 520, 56 S. E. 624, 10
tion R. R. Co., 43 Ark. Ill; Phila- L.R.A.(N.S.) 909; Riley v. Charles-
delphia etc. Ferry Co. v. Inter City ton Union Station Co., 71 S. C. 457,
Link R. R. Co., 73 N. J. L. 86, 62 51 S. E. 485, 110 Am. St. Rep. 579;
Ati. 184. Ryan v. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. Ill,
2 4 Colorado Eastern R. R. Co. v. 50 S. W. 744, 45 L.R.A. 303.
528 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 263
carry for all who desire its service.*® But a railroad used exclu-
sively for transporting coal or freight for its stockholders and
which has no depots, freight houses, or facilities for doing a
public business, is a private enterprise.^" But such railroads
are authorized by the constitution in South Carolina.^ ^ A rail-
road in the gorge of the Niagara river, from the falls to the
"whirlpool," which could not be reached without passing over
the State reservation or private property, along which no habita-
tions could be built and on which, no freight could be carried,
and which could only be used for conveying sightseers along the
river during the summer months, was held not to be such a
road as was contemplated by the general statutes of New York,
and not a public use, for which the power of eminent domain
could be exercised.^* Similar views are expressed by the su-
preme court of Virginia in a proceeding by an electric railway
company to condemn land for a park and terminal near the
great falls of the Potomac river. The court says that "to gratify
the senses of the pleasure seeker and thereby incidentally to
increase revenues is without the domain of a public use
for which private property may be taken imder the power of
eminent domain." ** But the real point of the decision was that
the proposed condemnation was not authorized by the statute,
under which the proceedings were had. A statute of Pennsyl-
vania permitting one street railway company to condemn the
joint use of the tracks of another company for not exceeding
twenty-five hundred feet when necessary "either to construct a
circuit upon its road or to connect with the road of any passen-
2 9Madera Ry. Co. v. Raymond siEx parte Baeot, 36 S. C. 125, 15
Granite Co., 3 Cal. App. 668, 87 Pac. S. E. 204, 16 L.R.A. 586.
27; Kansas etc. Ry. Co. v. N. W. 3 2Matter of Niagara Falls &
Coal & M. Co., 161 Mo. 288, 61 S. W. Whirlpool R. R. Co., 108 N. Y. 375,
684, 84 Am. St. Rep. 717, 51 L.R.A. 15 N. E. 429; Matter of Niagara
936; Butte etc. R. R. Co. v. Mon- Falls & Whirlpool R. R. Co., 121 N.
tana U. R. R. Co., 16 Mont. 504, 41 Y. 319, 24 N. E. 452; and see Matter
Pac. 232, 50 Am. St. Rep. 508, 31 of Split Rock Cable Road Co., 128 N.
L.R.A. 298 ; State v. Superior Court, Y. 408, 28 N. E. 506. Compare ante
42 Wash. 675, 85 Pac. 669; Caretta § 259; post, § 271.
Ry. Co. V. Va. Pocahontas Coal Co., 3 3Great Falls Power Co. v. Great
62 W. Va. 185, 57 S. E. 401. And see Falls etc. R. R. Co., 104 Va. 416, 52
next section. S. E. 172.
sostate V. Railway Co., 40 Ohio
St. 504; Weidenfeld v. Sugar Run
R. R. Co., 48 Fed. 615.
§ 264
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USB.
529
ger railway already in existence," was held void as not being
for a public use, the only effect of the condemnation being "to
transfer the property of one private corporation to a new one,
for the same public use, both being transporters of passengers
for profit." 3*
The consolidation of connecting railroads and the establish-
ment of through lines is a public purpose for which the power
of eminent domain may be exercised and the shares of dissent-
ing stockholders may be condemned to effect such consolidation.*^
Where, under a general railroad law, a road is built for private
use, its operation may be enjoined at the suit of an individual,^^
or the franchise annulled at the suit of the people.*'^
§ 264 (171). Lateral and branch railroads, switch and
spur tracks to private property. Certain decisions in Penn-
sylvania have sometimes been understood as laying down the
3<Philadelphia etc. St. Ry. Co.'s
Petition, 203 Pa. St. 354, 53 Atl.
191.
3 6New York etc. R. R. Co. v.
Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 59 Atl. 510;
Same v. Same, 78 Conn. 1, 60 Atl.
740; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal
Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 455; Spencer v.
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 137 N.
C. 107, 49 S. E. 96. In the New
Jersey case which is a decision by
the court of errors and appeals it is
said: "There can be no doubt that
a railroad company may be empow-
ered to extend their road beyond the
point to which it was built under the
original grant, if proper compensa-
tion is provided for stockholders who
may resist it, and I can see no dififer-
enee in principle, whether the orig-
inal company, in order to secure a
through route under one manage-
ment, is authorized to take the lands
of individuals, or to take the prop-
erty which individuals have in the
stock of an existing road. In the
first case, for the purpose of estab-
lishing the through route, one kind
of private property, to wit, the lands
of individuals, is taken by the cor-
poration ; in the second case, another
Em. D.— 34.
kind of property, to wit, the shares
of stock of individuals in an existing
company, is authorized to be con-
demned. In the latter instance, the
use is as clearly a public use as in
the former, and when the legislature
declares that it may be done it is no
more necessary to declare in the
grant that the public necessity re-
quires it, than it is essential, in order
to validate a railroad charter, that
there should be an express announce-
ment by the legislature that it is in
aid of public uses." Black v. Dela-
ware etc. Canal Co., 24 N. J. Eq.
455, 470.
S6A road between the mines and
mill of a company, McCaudless' Ap-
peal, 70 Pa. St. 210; see also Edge-
wood R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 79 Pa. St.
257 ; Weidenfeld v. Sugar Run R. R.
Co., 48 Fed. 615.
"A road to transport coal from
the company's mine a distance of
about five miles. People v. Pitts-
burgh R. R. Co., 53 Cal. 694. So of a
road used and equipped only for
transporting coal from the private
mines of the company's stockholders.
State v. Railway Co., 40 Ohio St.
504.
530 EMINENT DOMAIN, § 264
doctrine that private property could be taken for a lateral rail-
road connecting a mine or mill with a railroad, canal or navi-
gable stream, though the lateral road was for the private use
of the owner of the mine or mill.*® The supreme court of that
State seems to have so understood itself at an early date,*® but
afterwards discovered its mistake.*" An act of 1832 provided
that the owners of any land, mills, quarries, coal mines, lime-
kilns or other real estate might condemn lands for a railroad
to any railroad, canal or navigable stream not exceeding a dis-
tance of three miles. Section seven of the act provided that any
person could use the road for the transportation of freight on the
payment of a certain specified compensation.*^ This statute
has remained in force until the present time. These lateral
roads, therefore, are for public use, and the cases referred to
form no exception to the general current of authority.*^ Sim-
ilar roads are sanctioned in Maryland, where, though con-
structed for the particular advantage of individuals, they are
also open to the public as occasion requires.** The legislature
of Missouri, by special charter, authorized a company to con-
struct a railroad from its coal lands to the Missouri river, but
provided that it should be a public carrier of passengers and
freight. It was rightly held to be for public use.** A general
statute of West Virginia authorizes the condemnation of a right
of way under or over the surface from any timber, coal or
mineral lands for the purpose of development or of conveying
the product of such lands to market, provided the court, to which
application is made, "is of the opinion that the purpose for which
the property is to be taken is of public utility." *^ In a case
arising under the statute the court held that the words public
3 SHarvey V. Thomas, 10 Watts 63; Co., 166 Pa. St. 430, 31 Atl. 131;
Harvey v. Lloyd, 3 Pa. 331 ; Shoen- Rochester etc. C. & I. Co. v. Berwind-
berger v. Mulhollan, 8 Pa. 134; Hays White Min. Co., ^4 Pa. Co. Ct. 104.
V. Risher, 32 Pa. 169; Brown v. isNew Central Coal Co. v. Georges
Corey, 43 Pa. 495. Creek Coal and Iron Co., 37 Md. 537 ;
ssHarvey v. Thomas, 10 Watts 63. N. Y. Mining Co. v. Midland Mining
40Haya v. Risher, 32 Pa. St. 169. Co., 99 Md. 506, 58 Atl. 217.
4iPurdon's Statutes, p. 492; see ** Dietrich v. Murdock, 42 Mo. 279.
also Boyd v. Negley, 40 Pa. St. 377. To same effect: Kansas etc. Ry. Co.
izSee also Schofield v. Penn. S. V. v. N. W. Coal & Min. Co., 161 Mo. 288,
R. R. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 122; Pitts- 61 S. W. 684, 84 Am. St. Rep. 717,
burgh etc. R. R. Co. v. Pittsburgh 51 L.R.A. 936.
etc. R. R. Co., 159 Pa. St. 331, 28 Atl. 4Bp,ev. Stats, o. 171, §§ 60, 51,
155: Rudolph v. Penn. S. V. R. R.
§ 264 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USB. 531
utility, in the statute, meant the same as public use in the con-
stitution, and that, in the particular case, the purpose did not
appear to be a public one, but do not pass generally upon the
statute.*^ In a later case a similar statute was held void as
providing for the condemnation of land for a railway for pri-
vate use.*' A statute of Iowa permits the owner or lessee of
lands having coal, stone or mineral thereon to condemn land for
a "public way" to any highway or railroad, such owner or lessee
to pay all damages and to construct and maintain the road.
After the way was established a railroad could be laid thereon.
The act made no provision for the expenditure of public moneys
thereon, and did not in any way define the rights of the public
therein. The Supreme Court of that State held that the statute
intended that the way should be for the use .of the public, and
so sustained the act. The court says : "We ought not to declare
any act of the legislature void, if a construction can fairly be
put upon it under which it can be sustained. In the title, as
well as in the body of the act, the ways for the establishment of
which it provides are described as public ways, and the legisla-
ture must be presumed to have intended that they should be
public ways, in the ordinary sense in which that term is used;
that is, that the public should have the right to use, occupy
and enjoy them as ways or roads. It is not material that the
rights and privileges of the public with reference to them are not
specially defined in the act, for the rights and privileges of the
people generally with reference to public highways are defined in
the general statutes on the subject. Neither is it material that no
special provision is made in the act for the improvement of such
ways, or for putting them in condition for public use at public
cost. The authority for making such improvements could prob-
ably be found in the general statutes which govern the subject,
if there should be occasion for its exercise. And we think that
it makes no difference that the mine-owner may be the only
member of the public who may have occasion to use the way after
it has been established. The character of a way, whether it
is public or private, is determined by the extent of the right
to use it, and not by the extent to which that right is exercised.
If all the people have the right to use it, it is a public way,
46Salt Co V. Brown, 7 W. Va. 191. "Hench v. Pritt, 62 W. Va. 270, 57
Compare Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v. S. E. 808 ; Scott Lumber Co. v. Wol-
Benwood Iron Works, 31 W. Va. 710, ford, 62 W. Va. 555, 59 S. E. 516.
8 S. B. 453.
532 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 264
althougli the number who have occasion to exercise the right is
very small." ** A similar statute of New Jersey has been sus-
tained by the courts of that State, though it differs from the
Iowa statute, in that it expressly requires the road to carry
freight for any one who has occasion to use it.*® The laying
out of an underground railroad under this statute, about two-
thirds of a mile long from a coal mine to a railroad, was sus-
tained.
In Illinois it has been held that, a railroad company cannot
condemn land for a spur about three-quarters of a mile to a
brick-yard, and that such a road was neither authorized by the
statute nor the constitution.^" Also that a railroad from a coal
mine to a railroad was not a public purpose for which land could
be taken.® ^ But we believe that it is now the established law of
Illinois that a switch or spur track from a railroad to a business
plant is to be regarded as part of the railroad system and a pub-
lic use, even though paid for by private parties, and that the right
of way for such tracks may be granted in the public streets or
property condemned therefor.®^ There is a sharp conflict of
authority as to whether switch and spur tracks to private prop-
erty are a public use for which property may be condemned.
They seem a proper mode of making the facilities of the rail-
road available and, if open to all who are so situated as to be able
to use them, upon equal terms, there is no sound reason why they
4 8Phillips V. Watson, 63 la. 28, 18 111. 526, 62 N. E. 94; People v. Blocki,
N. W. 659. Also Morrison v. Thistle 203 111. 363, 67 N. E. 809. In Chicago
Coal Co., 119 la. 705, 94 N. W. 507. Dock & Canal Co. v. Garrity, 115 111.
4 9DeCamp v. Hibernia Under- 155, 3 N. E. 448, the court says:
ground K. E. Co., 47 N. J. L. 43, "But we have held that there may be
affirmed by the Court of Errors, 47 a grant to private individuals of the
N. J. L. 518. right to lay tracks in the street con-
BOChicago & Eastern 111. R. K. Co. necting with public railway tracks
V. Wiltse, 116 111. 449, 6 N. E. 49. previously laid, and extending to the
5iSholl V. German Coal Co., 118 manufacturing establishments of
111. 427, 10 N. E. 199. In this case those laying the tracks; but in such
the petition was by the coal com- cases the tracks so laid become, in
pany. See also Koelle v. Kneeht, 99 legal contemplation, to all intents
III. 396. and effects, tracks of the railway
B2TruesdaIe v. Peoria Grape Sugar with which they are connected, and
Co., 101 111. 561 ; Mills v. Parlin, 106 open to the public use and subject to
111. 60; South Chicago R. R. Co. v. the public control in all respects as
Dix, 109 111. 237; Chicago Dock & other railway tracks open to public
Canal Co. v. Garrity, 115 111. 155, use. We have not regarded the cir-
3 N. E. 448; McGann v. People, 194 cumstances that they were laid with
§ 264
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
533
should not be regarded as a public use.^^ The very fact that
condemnation is necessary in order to establish them, shows that
they are capable of being used by more than one. Of course
switch and spur tracks owned and constructed by private parties
for their exclusive use, are not a public use, and statutes allow-
ing condemnation for such tracks transcend the constitution.^*
Eailroads connecting mines, mills, etc., with lines of trans-
private funds, and that they termi-
nated opposite or within convenient
contiguity of a private manufactu-
ring establishment, as materially af-
fecting them, and giving a private
character to their use. All termini
of tracks and switches are more or
less beneficial to private parties, but
the public character of the use of the
tracks is never aflfected by this. If
they are open to the public use indis-
criminately, and under the public
control to the extent that railroad
tracks generally are, they are tracks
for public use. It may be, in such
cases, that it is expected, or even that
it is intended, that such tracks will be
used almost entirely by the manufac-
turing establishment, yet if there is
no exclusion of an equal right of use
by others, and this singleness of use
is simply the result of location and
convenience of access, it cannot affect
the question.'' p. 167.
5 3Madera Ey. Co. v. Raymond
Granite Co., 3 Cal. App. 668, 87 Pac.
27 ; Hurd v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 73
Kan. 83, 84 Pac. 553; Kansas City
etc. Ry. Co. v. La. Western R. R. Co.,
116 La. 178, 40 So. 627, 5 L.R.A. 512;
Farnsworth v. Lime Rock R. R. Co.,
83 Me. 440, 22 Atl. 373; Ulmer v.
Lime Rock R. R. Co., 98 Me. 579, 57
Atl. 1001, 66 L.R.A. 387; Toledo etc.
R. R. Co. V. East Saginaw etc. R. R.
Co., 72 Mich. 206, 40 N. W. 436;
Kettle River R. R. Co. v. Eastern R.
R. Co., 41 Minn. 461, 43 N. W. 469,
6 L.R.A. Ill; Minneapolis etc. R. R.
Co. V. Nicolin, 76 Minn. 302, 79 N. W.
304; Liedel v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 89
Minn. 284, 94 N. W. 877; Robey v.
State, 76 Neb. 450; Clarke v. Black-
mar etc. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 150;
Corporation Commission v. Seaboard
Air Line R. R. Co., 140 N. C. 239, 52
S. E. 941 ; State v. Toledo Ry. & T.
Co., 1 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 513; Wol-
ford V. Fisher, 48 Ore. 479, 84 Pac.
850, 87 Pac. 530, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 991;
Stockdale v. Rio Grande Western Ry.
Co., 28 Utah 101, 77 Pac. 849; Zirch
V. Southern Ry. Co., 102 Va. 17, 45
S. E. 802, 102 Am. St. Rep. 805;
State V. Superior Court, 42 Wash.
675, 85 Pac. 669; Chicago etc. Ry.
Co. V. Morehouse, 112 Wis. 1, 87 N.
W. 849, 88 Am. St. Rep. 918, 56
L.R.A. 240. Contra: Green v. Port-
land, 32 Me. 431 ; Pere Marquette R.
R. Co. v. U. S. Gypsum Co., (Mich.),
117 N. W. 733; Gustafson v. Hamm,
56 Minn. 334, 57 N. W. 1054, 22
L.R.A. 565; Glaessner v. Anheuser-
Busch Brewing Assn., 100 Mo. 508, 13
S. W. 707, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
420; Appeal of Hartman Steel Co.,
129 Pa. St. 551, 18 Atl. 553; Kyle v.
Texas & N. O. R. R. Co., 3 Tex. Civ.
App. p. 518, § 436; Pittsburg etc. R.
R. Co. V. Benwood Iron Works, 31 W.
Va. 710, 8 S. E. 453. See State v.
Superior Court, 46 Wash. 516, 90 Pac.
663 ; Richards v. Ferguson Implement
Co., 125 Mo. App. 428, 102 S. W. 606;
Salem R. R. Co. v. Alderman & Sons
Co., 78 S. C. 1.
s^Leigh V. Garysburg Mfg. Co., 132
N. C. 167, 43 S. E. 632; Cozard v.
Kanawha Hardware Co., 139 N. C.
283, 51 S. E. 932, 111 Am. St. Rep.
779, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 969.
534 EMINENT DOiVIAIN. § 265
portation are sometimes authorized by the constitution.®^ A
constitutional provision permitting the condemnation of prop-
erty for private v^rays of necessity, includes a way for a private
railroad of necessity.'*
There appears to be no reason why lateral roads should not
be eonsti-ucted, if they are required to serve the public, as occa-
sion requires. The system of so-called private and lateral roads
appears to have had its fullest development in Pennsylvania, and
a summary of the legislation and decisions on that subject will
be found in the case of Waddell's Appeal.'^
§ 265 (172). Other means of transportation and com-
munication: the telegraph and telephone, petroleum
tubes, elevated tramways, etc. A telegraph or telephone
line designed for the service of the public and subject to regula-
tion by the legislature is a public use for which property may be
taken.®® The same is true of lines of tubing for the convey-
ance of petroleum, the same being for general use and subject
to public regulation.®* And so, generally, any means of convey-
ing passengers or goods, or of transmitting intelligence, which is
at the service of the public generally, would be a public use for
which property might be condemned.®" A statute of ITew York
authorized the formation of companies to construct elevated
tramways for carrying material in buckets and conferred upon
55Ex parte Bacot, 36 S. C. 125, 15 BSNew Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v.
S. E. 204, 16 L.R.A. 586. And see Southern & Atlantic Tel. Co., 53 Ala.
People V. District Court, 11 Colo. 211; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Postal
147. Tel. Cable Co., 120 Ala. 21; Union
SBGarbutt Lumber Co. v. Ga. etc. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Colo. Postal Tel.
Ry. Co., HI Ga. 714, 36 S. E. 942; Cable Co., 30 Colo. 163, 69 Pac. 564,
Jones V. Venable, 120 Ga. 1, 47 S. E. 97 Am. St. Rep. 106; Pierce v. Drew,
549. 136 Mass. 75, 49 Am. Rep. 7 ; State v.
6784 Pa. St. 90. See generally, in St.. Louis, 145 Mo. 551, 46 S. W. 981,
addition to cases cited in this section, 42 L.R.A. 113; Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Petty, 57 St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 202 Mo. 658,
Ark. 359, 21 S. W. 884, 20 L.R.A. 434 ; 101 S. W. 576; Turnpike Co. v.
Butte etc. R. R. Co. v. Montana U. R. American etc. News Co., 43 N. J. L.
R. Co., 16 Mont. 504, 41 Pac. 232, 50 381 ; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Ore.
Am. St. Rep. 508, 31 L.R.A. 298; Short Line R. R. Co., 23 Utah 474, 65
State V. Railway Co., 40 Ohio St. 504; Pac. 735, 90 Am. St. Rep. 705.
Weidenfeld v. Sugar Run R. R. Co., 59West Va. Trans. Co. v. Volcanid
48 Fed. 615; Denver etc. R. R. Co. v. Coal & Oil Co., 5 W. Va. 382.
Union Pac. R. R. Co., 34 Fed. 386; soConcord R. R. Co. v. Greeley, 17
Colorado Eastern R. R. Co. v. Union N. H. 47, 61.
Pac. R. R. Co., 41 Fed. 293.
§ 267 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE, S35
them the power of eminent domain. The stockholders of the
Solvay Process Company organized a corporation under this act
and constructed a road four miles long, between the works of
said company and Onondaga lake. There was no public access
to its termini and all its capacity was required by the Solvay
Process Company. In a proceeding to condemn additional land
for terminal facilities, it was held not to be for a public use."^
A statute of Oregon authorized anv company organized to trans-
port timber, lumber or cordwood to construct railroad skidways,
tramways, chutes and flumes, and to condemn land therefor and
declared that the work should "be deemed to be for the public
benefit," and that the owners should "afford to all persons equal
facilities in the use thereof for the purposes to which they ar.?
adapted upon payment or tender of reasonable compensation, for
such use." On a petition to condemii for a skidway under this
statute it appeared that the petitioner was organized in the inter-
est of a lumbering company, that the termini of the way were on
the land of this company, and that there was no access to the
way except over private property. It was held to be for private
use.«2
§ 266 (172a). Public grain elevators. An act of Min-
nesota providing for the erection of public grain warehouses and
grain elevators on or near the right of way of railways and au-
thorizing the condemnation of sites therefor, was held valid on
the ground that the taking was for a public use.*^
§ 267 (173). Urban improvements: sewers, water,
gas and light. The condemnation of property for public sew-
ers and drains,®* or works for the disposition of sewerage,^ ^ for
eiMatter of Split Rock Cable R. R. ssStewart v. Great Northern R. E.
Co., 128 N. Y. 408, 28 N. E. 506. The Co., 65 Minn. 515, 68 N. W. 208.
court says that "a possible limited 6 4MeDaniel v. City of Columbus,
use by a few, and not then as a right 91 Ga. 462, 17 S. E. 1011 ; Huntington
but by way of permission or favor, is v. Amiss, 167 Ind. 375, 79 N. E. 199;
not sufficient to authorize the taking Hildreth v. Lowell, 11 Gray 345;
of private property against the will Horton v. Andrus, 191 N. Y. 231.
of the owner." esKingman et. al.. Petitioners, 151
62Apex Transportation Co. v. Gar- Mass. 566, 27 N. E. 778.
bade, 32 Ore. 582, 52 Pae. 673, 54
Pac 367, 882.
536
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 268
supplying a city or to-wn with water,®^ or gas,®^ or light,®* is
so manifestly for public use that it has heen seldom questioned
and never denied. So supplying a city and its inhabitants with
natural gas is a public use.*®
§ 268. Electricity for light, heat and power and works
for generating and transmitting same. The furnishing of
electricity to the public for light, heat or power, that is to such
members of the public within a given territory as may desire the
current for any or all of such purposes, is a public use for which
the power of eminent domain may be exercised.'^" "The fcaowl-
eeBurden v. Stein, 27 Ala. 104,
116, 62 Am. Dec. 758; Cummings v.
Peters, 56 Cal. 593; St. Helena Water
Co. V. Forbes, 62 Cal. 182, 45 Am.
Rep. 659 ; Riche v. Bar Harbor Water
Co., 75 Me. 91 ; Kane v. Mayor etc. of
Baltimore, 15 Md. 240; Reddall v.
Bryan, 14 Md. 444, 74 Am. Dec. 550;
Wayland v. County Commissioners,
4 Gray 500; Lombard v. Stearns, 4
Cush. 60; Thorn v. Sweeney, 12 Nev.
251; Olmstead v. Proprietors of the
Morris Aqueduct Co., 46 N. J. L. 495,
affirmed by Court of Errors, 47 N. J.
L. 311; Pocantico Water Works Co.
V. Bird, 130 N. Y. 249, 29 N. E. 246;
Stamford Water Co. v. Stanley, 39
Hun 424; Matter of New Rochelle
Water Co., 46 Hun 525; Witcher v.
Holland W. W. Co., 66 Hun 619, 20
N. Y. St. 560; Rome v. Whitestown
W. W. Co., 113 App. Div. 547, 100
N. Y. S. 357; S. C. affirmed 187 N.
Y. 542, 80 N. E. 1106; State v. Eau
Claire, 40 Wis. 533.
6 7La Harpe v. Elm Tp. Gas etc.
Co., 69 Kan. 97, 76 Pac. 448; Bloom-
field etc. Natural Gas Light Co. v.
Richardson, 63 Barb. 437.
6 sMatter of E. Canada Creek Elec.
L. & P. Co., 49 Misc. 565, 99 N. Y.
S. 109.
6 9 State V. Toledo, 48 Ohio St. 112,
26 N. E. 1061, 11 L.R.A. 729.
7 0 Jones V. North Ga. Elec. Co., 125
Ga. 618, 54 S. E. 85, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
122; Hollister v. State, 9 Ida. 8, 71
Pac. 541; Hollister v. Clark, 9 Ida.
672, 77 Pac. 1132; Minn. Canal &
Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97
Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 638; Minn. Canal & Power Co.
V. Pratt, 101 Minn. 197, 112 N. W. 395,
11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 105; Helena Power
Transmission Co. v. Spratt, 35 Mont.
108, 88 Pac. 773, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 567;
Spratt V. Helena Power Transmis-
sion Co., 37 Mont. 60, 94 Pac. 631;
Rockingham Co. L. & P. Co. v.
Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 66
L.R.A. 581; Matter of Niagara L. &
O. Power Co., Ill App. Div. 686, 97
N. Y. S. 853; Brown r. Weaver
Power Co., 140 N. C. 333, 52 S. B.
954; Little Miami L. H. & P. Co. t.
White, 6 Ohio N. P. (N.S.) 201;
McMeekin v. Central Carolina Power
Co., 80 S. C. 512; State v. Centralia
etc. Ry. & P. Co., 42 Wash. 632, 85
Pac. 344; State v. Olympia L. & P.
Co., 46 Wash. 511, 90 Pac. 656; Wis.
Riv. Imp. Co. V. Pier (Wis.), 118
N. W. 857; Shasta Power Co. v.
Walker, 149 Fed. 568; Walker v.
Shasta Power Co., 160 Fed. 856, 87
0. C. A. 660, 19 L.RA.(N.S.) 725.
And see Stoy v. Indiana Hydraulic
Power Co., 166 Ind. 316, 76 N. B.
1057; Grande Ronde Elec. Co. v.
Drake, 46 Ore. 243, 78 Pac. 1031;
Avery v. Vt. Elec. Co., 75 Vt. 235, 54
Atl. 179, 98 Am. St. Rep. 818, 59
L.R.A. 817; Fallsburg P. & M. Co. v.
Alexander, 101 Va. 98, 43 S. E. 194,
§ 268 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USB. 637
edge recently acquired concerning electricity has made it pos-
sible to divide power into any desired portions and to freely
transmit the same to almost any point for use. This has created
a demand for power which, though not so universal as the de-
mand for water, is nevertheless of a public character. Like
water, electricity exists in nature in some form or state, and be-
comes useful as an agency of man's industry only when collected
and controlled. It requires a large capital to collect, store and
distribute it for general use. The cost depends largely upon the
location of the power plant. A water power or a location upon
tide water reduces the cost materially. It may happen that the
business cannot be inaugurated without the aid of the power of
eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary land or rights
in land. All these considerations tend to show that the use of
land for collecting, storing, and distributing electricity, for the
purposes of supplying power and heat to all who may desire it,
is a public use, similar in character to the use of land for collect-
ing, storing and distributing water for public needs — a use that
is so manifestly public 'that it has seldom been questioned and
never denied.' " ^^
And where the object to be accomplished is the production and
distribution of electricity to the public for any of the purposes
mentioned, property and property rights may be condemned for
whatever purpose is necessary to accomplish such object. Con-
sequently land and water rights may be condemned for dams,
reservoirs, canals and flumes for the creation and utilization of
water power to be used in generating the electric current and for
works for such generation.'^* Also for works and rights of way
for transforming, transmitting and distributing the current.''^
99 Am. St. Efip. 855, 61 L.R.A. 129; Ga. 618, 54 S. E. 85, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State V. White Eiver Power Co., 39 122; Hollister v. State, 9 Ida. 8, 71
Wash. 648, 82 Pae. 150, 2 L.R.A Pac. 541; Hollister v. State, 9 Ida.
(N.S.) 842 ; State V. Superior Court, 672, 77 Pac. 1132; Helena Power
42 Wash. 660, 85 Pac. 666, 5 L.B,.A. Transmission Co. v. Spratt, 35 Mont.
(N.S.) 672; State v. Tolt P. & T. 108, 88 Pac. 773, 8 L.K.A. ( N.S. ) 567;
Co., 50 Wash. 13, 96 Pac. 519. Brown v. Weaver Power Co., 140 N.
The contrary is held in an elabor- C. 333, 62 S. E. 954; State v. Cen-
ate opinion in Brown v. Gerald, 100 tralia etc. Ey. & P. Co., 42 Wash. 632,
Me. 351, 61 Atl. 785, 109 Am. St. Rep. 85 Pac. 394; State v. Olympia L. &
526, 70 L.R.A. 472. P. Co., 46 Wash. 511, 90 Pac. 656;
7iRockingham Co. L. & P. Co. v. Shasta Power Co. v. Walker, 149 Fed.
Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 66 568.
L.R.A. 581. 7 3Rocking]iam Co. L. & P. Co. v.
72Jones V. North Ga. Elec. Co., 125 Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 66
538
EMINENT DOMAIlf.
§ 269
§ 269. The supply and distribution of water for power
purposes. The supply and distribution of water for power
for commercial and manufacturing purposes, would seem to be on
the same basis as the production and supply of electricity for the
same purpose. A statute of Pennsylvania authorized the exer-
cise of the eminent domain power for "the supply, storage or
transportation of water and water power for commercial and
manufacturing purposes." The statute was upheld as providing
for a public use.'^* A Minnesota corporation was organized,
among other things, to create a water power and to supply water
power from the wheels. It was held that water power from the
wheels must be used at the wheels and, from the nature of the
case, could only be supplied to a few consumers, and therefore
would not be a public use.'^^ Furnishing water to manufacturing
companies for use in boilers was held to be a private use in
Washington.^®
§ 270 (174). Public buildings: schools, markets, hos-
pitals, etc. Property taken for public buildings of all kinds,
such as city halls,'''^ court houses,'^* jails, public schools,^* mar-
L.R.A. 581; Matter of Niagara L. &
O. Power Co., Ill App. Div. 686, 97
N. Y. S. 853.
'4 Jacobs V. Clearview Water Sup-
ply Co., 220 Pa. St. 388, 69 Atl. 870.
The court says : "It is conceded that
the supply of water to the public for
domestic purposes is a public use, but
it is denied that the supply of water
for commercial and manufacturing
purposes is a public use. The dis-
tinction is more apparent than real.
It rests on » very narrow edge. It
is based on the theory that a large
number of individual citizens living
in the community where the re-
spondent company transacts its busi-
ness will not engage in commercial
and manufacturing enterprises, and
therefore will not participate in the
use of water and water power for
such purposes. An enterprise does
not lose the character of a public
use because that use may be limited
by circumstances to a comparatively
small part of the public." p. 394.
To same effect: Wis. Riv. Imp. Co.
T. Pier (Wis.), 118 N. W. 857.
76Minn. Canal & Power Co. v.
Koochiching County, 97 Minn. 429,
107 N. W. 405, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 638.
The case was really disposed of upon
other grounds. See also Smith v.
Barre Water Co., 73 Vt. 310, 50 Atl.
1055 ; State v. White Riv. Power Co.,
39 Wash. 648, 82 Pac. 150, 2 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 842; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me.
351, 61 Atl. 785, 109 Am. St. Rep.
526, 70 L.R.A. 472.
restate v. Superior Court,
(Wash.), 99 Pac. 3.
7 7Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co. v. Vil-
lage of Belle Centre, 48 Ohio St. 273,
27 N. E. 464.
'sjockheck v. Board of Comrs., 53
Kan. 780, 37 Pac. 621.
7 9 Chamberlain v. Morgan, 68 Pa.
St. 168 ; Williams v. School District,
33 Vt. 271 ; Long v. FuUer, 68 Pa. St.
170; Township Board v. Haokman, 48
Mo, 243 ; Rittenhouse v. Creasy, 2 Lu-
zerne Leg. Rep. (Pa.) 241.
§ 271
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
539
■ kets,*" almshouses,®^ and the like, is taken for public use. This
right has been questioned in some decisions, but never denied in
any decided case.*^ So a postoffice and custom house ** and
other public works for the general government are a public use
for which the State's power of eminent domain may be exer-
cised.®*
§ 271 (175). Public parks and pleasure drives. — Aes-
thetic purposes. Pleasure and recreation are not only essen-
tial to health, but tend to the improvement of character. No bet-
ter instance of a public use can be given than that of a public
square or park in the midst of, or convenient to, a dense popu-
lation. Private property may be taken for the purpose of se-
curing such means of recreation and health.®^ A park is a public
use, though not located in a city or town, but only in the vicinity
of it.®^ Land may be taken on each side of a highway to be kept
open for court yards and ornament.®^ Highways may be laid
out for the purpose of affording access to a position which com-
mands a fine view or for accommodating pleasure driving.*® The
8 "Matter of Application of Cooper,
28 Hun 515. But see Twelfth St.
Market Co. v. Philadelphia etc. R. R.
Co., 142 Pa. St. 580, 21 Atl. 989.
siHayward v. Mayor etc. of New
York, 8 Barb. 486.
82Justice Woodbury in West River
Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. p. 546,
says: "Who ever heard of laws to
condemn private property for public
use, for a marine hospital or State
prison? So a custom-house is a pub-
lic use for the general govermnent,
and a court-house or jail for a State.
But it would be difficult to find pre-
cedent or argument to justify taking
private property, without consent to
erect them on, though appropriate
for the purpose. No necessity seems
to exist, which is sufficient to justify
so strong a measure. A particular
locality as to a few rods in respect to
their site is usually of no conse-
quence.'' For comments on this lan-
guage see 33 Vt. 278, 279.
83Burt V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 106
Mass. 356, 8 Am. Rep. 339.
aSee post, § 309.
8 6 United States v. Cooper, 9 Mackey
104; County Court v. Griswold, 58
Mo. 175; Owners of Ground v. Mayor
etc. of Albany, 15 Wend. 374.
Brooklyn Park Co. v. Armstrong,
45 N. Y. 234; Matter of Commis-
sioners for Central Park, 63 Barb.
282; Laird v. Pittsburg, 205 Pa. St.
1, 54 Atl. 324, 61 L.R.A. 332; Shoe-
maker V. United States, 147 U. S.
282, 13 S. C. Rep. 361. See aUo the
following cases which impliedly sus-
tain the same proposition: Cook v.
South Park Comrs., 61 111. 115; Winn
V. Board of Park Comrs. (Ky.) 14 S.
W. Rep. 421 ; Holt v. Somerville, 127
Mass. 408; Foster v. Boston Park
Comrs., 131 Mass. 225; S. C. 133
Mass. 321; Kerr v. South Park
Comrs., 117 U. S. 379.
"County Court v. Griswold, 58
Mo. 175.
8 'Matter of Bushwick Avenue, 48
Barb. 9; Matter of Clinton Ave., 57
App. Div. 166, 68 N. Y. S. 196; S. C.
affirmed, 167 N. Y. 624, 60 N. E.
1108.
88Higginson v. Nahant, 11 Allen
540
EMIIfENT DOMAIN.
§ 271
taking of a large tract in the Adirondacks for a State park was
held to be for a public use.^® An act of New Jersey "to acquire
rights of fishing common to all in fresh water lakes in certain
counties, to acquire lands adjoining thereto for public use and
enjoyment therewith, and to regulate the same," was held void
because the right of fishing could not be taken without taking
the water or lake itself andi because the object of the act was not
a public use within the constitution.*"
Whether aesthetic purposes are a public use for the promo-
tion of which property may be taken has been made a question.*^
An act limiting the height of buildings around a public square
and providing compensation to the owners of property affected
was sustained in Massachusetts.®^ And it has been implied by
the same court that the right to use property for display adver-
tising by means of bill boards, posters and the like might be
taken on making compensation.**
530; Mount Washington Boad Co.,
35 N. H. 134; see Bryan v. Bran-
ford, 50 Conn. 246; Woodstock v.
Gallup, 28 Vt. 687; Great Falls
Power Co. v. Great Palls etc. B,. R.
Co., 104 Va. 416, 62 S. E. 172; ante,
§ 259.
ssPeople V. Adirondack R. R. Co.,
160 N. y. 225, reversing S. C. 39
App. Div. 34.
9<>The act was sustained by the
Supreme Court. Albright v. Sussex
County Lake and Park Commission,
68 N. J. L. 523, 53 Atl. 612. On ap-
peal this decision was reversed by
the court of errors and appeals. Al-
bright V. Sussex County Lake &
Park Commission, 71 N. J. L. 303,
57 Atl. 398, 108 Am. St. Rep. 749, 69
L.R.A. 768. And on rehearing the
act was held void m toto. Albright
V. Sussex County Lake & Park Com-
mission, 71 N. J. L. 309, 59 Atl. 146,
69 L.R.A. 768. The court says:
"But not only does the constitution
require that the property taken shall
be for the public ; it is necessary that
it should be for use. The chief pur-
pose in the enjoyment of the prop-
erty must be utility. But it cannot
be doubted that the main object of
the present statute is to furnish a
means of amusement or sport to the
few persons who have the inclina-
tion and leisure for such pastime.
The public utility to be subserved
by such indulgence is imperceptible.
• * * We have found no instance of
the exercise of the power in order to
a£FoTd a means of pastime capable of
being enjoyed by only a few per-
sons." Albright v. Sussex Co. Lake
& Park Commission, 71 N. J. L. 303,
306, 307, 57 Atl. 398, 108 Am. St.
Rep. 749, 69 L.R.A. 768.
siiSce cases cited in last note;
also Farist Steel Co. v. Bridgeport,
60 Conn. 278; Bostock v. Same, 95
Md. 400, 52 Atl. 1130, 93 Am. St.
Rep. 394, 59 L.R.A. 282; Passaic v.
Paterson Bill Posting Co., 72 N. J.
L. 285, 62 Atl. 267, 111 Am. St. Rep.
676; Great Falls Power Co. v. Great
Falls etc. R. R. Co., 104 Va. 416, 52
S. E. 172.
9 2 Attorney General v. Williams,
174 Mass. 476, 55 N. E. 77. See
ante, § 243.
9 3 Commonwealth v. Boston Ad-
vertising Co., 188 Mass. 348, 74 N.
§ 272
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
541
§ 272 (175a). Converting spots of historic interest in-
to public grounds : battle fields. Acts of Congress provid-
ed for the condemnation of land "for the purpose of preserving
the lines of battle at Gettysburg, Pa., and for properly marking
with tablets the positions occupied by the various commands of
the armies of the Potomac and of Northern Virginia on that
field, and for the opening and improving avenues along the
positions occupied by troups upon those lines, and for fencing
the same, and for determining the leading tactical positions of
batteries, regiments, brigades, division, corps and other organiza-
tions, with reference to the study and correct understanding of
the battle, and to mark the same with suitable tablets, each bear-
ing a brief historical legend, compiled without praise and with-
out censure." This was held to be within the powers vested in
Congress and a public use for which the power of eminent do-
main could be exercised.**
E. 601, 108 Am. St. Kep. 494, 69
L.R.A. 817. See ante, § 243.
91 United States y. Gettysburg
Electric E. R. Co., 160 U. S. 688, 16
S. C. 427, reversing S. C. 67 Fed. 869.
The court says: "The end to be at-
tained, by this proposed use, as pro-
vided for by the act of Congress, is
legitimate, and lies within the scope
of the constitution. The battle of
Gettysburg was one of the great bat-
tles of the world. The numbers con-
tained in the opposing armies were
great ; the sacrifice of life was dread-
ful; while the bravery, and, indeed,
heroism, displayed by both the con-
tending forces, rank with the highest
exhibition of those qualities ever
made by man. The importance of
the issue involved in the contest of
which this great battle was a, part
cannot be overestimated. The ex-
istence of the government itself, arid
the perpetuity of our institutions,
depended upon the result. Valuable
lessons in the art of war can now be
learned from an examination of this
great battlefield, in connection with
the history of the events which there
took place. Can it be that the gov-
ernment is without power to pre-
serve the land, and properly mark
out the various sites upon which this
struggle took place? Can it not
erect the monuments provided for by
these acts of Congress, or even take
possession of the field of battle, in
the name and for the benefit of all
the citizens of the pountry, for the
present and for the future? Such a,
use seems necessarily not only a pub-
lie use, but one so closely connected
with the welfare of the republic it-
self as to be within the powers
granted congress by the constitution
for the purpose of protecting and
preserving the whole country. It
would be a great object lesson to all
who looked upon the land thus cared
for, and it would show a proper rec-
ognition of the great things that
were done there on those momentous
days. By this use the government
manifests for the benefit of all its
citizens the value put upon the
services and exertions of the citizen
soldiers of that period. Their suc-
cessful effort to preserve the integ-
rity and solidarity of the great re-
542
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 273
§ 273 (176). Cemeteries. Public places of sepulture are
undoubtedly a public use, and the power of eminent domain may
be exercised for this purpose, when the cemetery is to be under
the control of public authorities, or when the right of sepulture
is public and general.®^ But cemetery associations cannot con-
demn land for burial purposes, to be vested in the association
and lot-holders as their private property, and in which the pub-
public of modern times is forcibly
impressed upon every one who looks
over the field. The value of the sac-
rifices then freely made is rendered
plainer and more durable by the fact
that the government of the United
States through its representatives in
congress assembled, appreciates and
endeavors to perpetuate it by this
most suitable recognition. Such
action, on the part of congress
touches the heart, and comes home
to the imagination of every citizen,
and greatly tends to enhance his
love and respect for those institu-
tions for which these heroic sacri-
fices were made. The greater the
love of the citizen for the institu-
tions of his country, the greater is
the dependence properly to be placed
upon him for their defense in time
of necessity, and it is to such men
that the country must look for its
safety. The institutions of our
country, which were saved at this
enormous expenditure of life and
property, ought to and will be re-
garded with proportionate affection.
Here upon this battlefield is one of
the proofs of that expenditure, and
the sacrifices are rendered more ob-
vious and more easily appreciated
when such a battlefield is preserved
by the government at tjie public ex-
pense. The right to take land for
cemeteries for the burial of the de-
ceased soldiers of the country rests
on the same footing, and is connected
with, and springs from, the same
powers of the constitution. It seems
very clear that the government has
the right to bury its own soldiers,
and to see to it that their graves
shall not remain unknown or un-
honored. No narrow view of the
character of this proposed use should
be taken. Its national character and
importance, we think, are plain.
The power to condemn for this pur-
pose need not be plainly and unmis-
takably deduced from any one of the
particularly specified powers. Any
number of those powers may be
grouped together, and an inference
from them all may be drawn that the
power claimed has been conferred.
It is needless to enlarge upon the
subject, and the determination is
arrived at without hesitation that
the use intended, as set forth in the
petition in this proceeding, is of that
public nature which comes within
the constitutional power of congress
to provide for by the condemnation
of land." See United States v. Tract
of Land, 70 Fed. 940.
9 5Edwards v. Stonington Cemetery
Association, 20 Conn. 466; Evergreen
Cemetery Association v. New Haven,
43 Conn. 234, 241; Westfield Cem.
Assn. v. Danielson, 62 Conn. 319, 26
Atl. 345; Starr Burying Ground
Ass. V. North Lane Cem. Ass., 77
Conn. 83, 58 Atl. 467; Forneman v.
Mt. Pleasant Cem. Assn., 135 Tnd.
344, 35 N. E. 271; Balch v. County
Comrs. of Essex, 103 Mass. lOj ,
Tracy v. Bittle, 213 Mo. 302, 112 S.
W. 45; Standards Corners Rural
Cem. Assn. v. Brandes, 35 N. Y.
Supp. 1015; Matter of Lyons Cem.
Ass., 93 App. Div. 19, 86 X. Y. S.
274
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
543
lie have no rights.'® It is no objection that the privilege must
be paid for, nor that the price varies according to location, nor
that the price operates as a practical exclusion of a portion of
the public.®^
§ 274 (177). Improvement of navigation. As we have
already seen, all navigable streams are public highways by water,
and the public not only have a right to traverse them, but to
improve them for that purpose, and private property may be con-
demned in order to effect such improvements.** Any occupa-
tion or interference with private property for the purpose of im-'
proving navigation, as by the construction of canals or dams is
for public use." A boom to facilitate the running, storing and
handling of logs is an improvement of such highway and a pub-
lic use.^ Land may be taken on the banks of navigable streams
for public landing places, including yard room for storing and
handling freight.^ The establishment of harbor lines and im-
provement of harbors fall in the same category.* A company
was chartered by the legislature of Tennessee for the purpose of
960; Memphis State Line R. R. Co.
V. Forest Hill Cem. Co., 116 Tenn.
400, 94 S. W. 69 ; Edgecumbe v. Bur-
lington, 46 Vt. 218; United States v.
Gettysburg Electric R. R. Co., 160
U. S. 688, 16 S. C. 427.
ssEvergreen Cemetery Association
V. Beecher, 53 Conn. 551, 5 Atl. 353;
Board of Health v. Van Hoesen, 87
Mich. 533, 49 N. W. 894 ; Matter of
Deansville Cemetery Association, 66
N. Y. 569, 23 Am. Rep. 86; Fork
Ridge Baptist Cem. Assn. v. Redd,
33 W. Va. 262, 10 S. E. 405.
9 ^Evergreen Cemetery Associa-
tion V. Beecher, 53 Conn. 551, 5 Atl.
353. The court says : "Corporations
take land by right of eminent do-
main primarily for the benefit of the
public, incidentally for the benefit
of themselves. As a rule men are
not allowed to ride in cars, or pass
along turnpikes, or cross toll bridges,
or have grain ground at the mill,
without making compensation. One
man asks and pays for a single seat
in a ear ; another for a special train;
all have rights ; each pays in propor-
tion to his use; and some are ex-
cluded because of their inability to
pay for any use; nevertheless it re-
mains a public use as long as all
persons have the same measure of
right for the same measure of
money." p. 553.
9 8Matter of Petition of United
States, 96 N. Y. 227; S. C. 67 How.
Pr. 121.
9 9Hazen v. Essex Co., 12 Cush.
475; Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend.
667, 21 Am. Dec. 168.
iCotton v. Miss. & Rum River
Boom Co., 22 Minn. 372; Samish
River Boom Co. v. Union Boom Co.,
32 Wash. 586, 73 Pac. 670 ; Patterson
V. Boom Co., 3 Dill. 465; S. C. af-
firmed, 98 U. S. 403.
zPearson v. Johnson, 54 Miss. 259 ;
Belcher Sugar Refining Co. v. St.
Louis Grain Elevator Co., 10 Mo.
App. 401 ; Pittsburgh v. Scott, 1 Pa.
St. 309.
sFarist Steel Co. v. City of
Bridgeport, 60 Conn. 278, 22 Atl.
561 ; Moore v. Sanford, 151 Mass.
285, 24 N. E. 323, 7 L.R.A. 151
544 EMINEiq^T DOMAIN. § 275
constructing sheds, railroads, engines and other equipments to
be used in loading and unloading freight on or from steamboats
and other craft touching at Memphis. This was held not to be
a public use which would authorize the condemnation of private
property. The ground of this decision was that it was a public
convenience, merely, and not a necessity, and that it was not
subject to public regulation in its charges and services.* Con-
verting a private stream into a highway for floating logs and
timber is a public use for which Jand or riparian rights may be
condemned.^
§ 275 (178). Water mills and water power. Prior to
the Revolution, and, consequently, long before the courts of this
country were called upon to adjudicate upon the question of pub-
lic use, it had been the practice to permit the erection of dams
for water power and to provide for a statutory adjustment of
the damages to property overflowed.® After the Revolution and
the adoption of State constitutions containing the eminent do-
main provision in question, this practice continued, no question
being made for some time as to the constitutionality of such pro-
ceedings.'^ When at last the question was raised as to the public
use of these mills, the practice had been so long acquiesced in
and encouraged and so much capital had become invested in
such enterprises, that the courts were hardly in a condition to
give the question a fair consideration. Courts are not, and per-
haps ought not to be, free from the influence of the circumstances
which surround a case and the consequences which may flow
^Memphis Freight Co. v. Mem- In Great Falls Manf. Co. v. Fernald,
phis, 4 Cold. 419. 47 N. H. 444, 459, such acts are said
sPotlatch Lumber Co. v. Peterson, to have been in force in that State
12 Ida. 769, 88 Pac. 426, 118 Am. St. since 1718.
Rep. 233; Martin v. Burns, 155 N. 'Stowell v. Flagg, 11 Mass. 364,
Y. 23, 49 N. E. 246; Brewster v. J. 1814; Cogswell v. Essex Mill Corp.,
& J. Rogers Co., 169 N. Y. 73, 62 N. 6 Pick. 94, 1827; Wolcott v. Woolen
E. 164, 58 L.R.A. 495, afjlrming S. C. Manf. Co., 5 Pick. 292, 1824; Fiske
42 App. Div. 343, 59 N. Y. S. 32; v. Framingham Manf. Co., 12 Pick.
State V. Superior Court, 47 Wash. 67, 1831 ; French v. Braintree Manf.
397, 92 Pac. 269. Co., 23 Pick. 216, 1839; Crenshaw v.
6Acts of 8 Anne, 1714, and 13 Slate River Co., 6 Rand. Va. 245,
Anne, 1719, in Colony of Masaa- 1828; Bibb v. Mountjoy, 2 Bibb 1,
chusetts Bay, Ancient Charters, pp. 1810; Afee v. Kennedy, 1 Litt. 92,
388, 404; and see remarks of court 1822; Smith v. Connelly's Heirs, 1
in Boston & Roxbury Mill. Corp. v. T. B. Mon. 58, 1824; Shackleford v,
Newman. 12 Pick. 407-9, and Mur- Coffee, 4 J. J. Marsh 40, 1830.
dock V. Stickney, 8 Cusli. 113, 117.
§ 275
■WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
545
from a particular decision. Most of the mills which existed in
these early years were grist-mills and saw-mills, accustomed to
grind and saw for the public, and dependent upon the custom of
the public for their success and profit. In most States they were
regulated by law and compelled to serve the public for a stipu-
lated toll and in regular order.*
sWe have not access to all the old
statutes of the different States en-
acted prior to the time when the
constitutionality of the mill acts
was called in question, but give be-
low sufficient to sustain the text.
Alahama. All mills were declared
to be for public use, and were re-
quired to be commenced within one
and completed within three years
after leave granted. Grist mills
were required to grind according to
turn and well and sufficiently all
grain brought thereto and for a toll
fixed by the county court where
located. Acts of 1811 and 1812. The
act of 1812 authorized the erection
of grist-mills, saw-mills, cotton gins
or other useful water works. Tom-
lin's Digest, Laws of Ala., pp. 623-
626.
Connecticut. The first act author-
izing flowage by dams appears to
have been passed in 1864. Acts of
1864, p. 40. There had existed, how-
ever, since 1796 a statute regulating
the tolls and duties of millers. Acts
and Laws, 1796.
Delaware. As far back as 1752 an
act was passed for regulating the
tolls of millers, and from time to
time during the remainder of the
century acts were passed compelling
millers to grind for the public, to
keep their mills in repair, and other-
wise regulating them. Laws of Del.
1829, pp. 402, 403. Laws of Del.
1797, passim.
Georgia had a similar act passed
in 1786. Prince's Digest of Laws of
Ga. p. 339.
Kentucky. In 1797 an act was
Em. D. — 35.
for the erection of water
grist-mills. Applicants were obliged
to commence their mill in one year
and complete it in. three years and
keep it in repair under a penalty.
Millers were required to grind well
and sufficiently the grain brought to
their mills in due time as the same
was brought. In 1810 the provisions
of this act were extended to "any
kind of water works." Littell &
Swigert Digest of Laws of Ky., 1822,
pp. 935-939.
Maryland. Acts of 1704 and 1816
regulate tolls for grinding. Dorsey's
Statutes, vol. 1, pp. 3 and 640. No
act for a statutory assessment of
damages appears to have existed up
to 1840.
Massachusetts. The first act for a
statutory assessment of damages
from flowage was passed in 1714.
Ancient Charters, p. 404. The pre-
amble refers to mills as "serviceable
for the public good and benefit of
the town, or considerable neighbor-
hood in or near to which they have
been erected." Which indicates that
saw-mills and grist-mills for public
use were in mind. The act, however,
provides for "any water-mill or
mills.'' Other early acts regulate
the tolls and duties of millers. Act
of 1635, Ancient Charters, p. 157;
also pp. 388, 469. The act of 1796
was a revision of the statutes on this
subject. Perpetual Laws, vol. 2, p.
344. The act applies to "any water
mill." The preamble recites as fol-
lows: "Whereas the erection and
support of mills to accommodate the
inhabitants of the several parts of
j46
EMINENT DOMAIN.
276
§ 276 (179). The same: Leading cases. The question
as to the constitutionality of these mill acts appears to have been
made almost simultaneously in two different States, Massachus-
the State ought not to be discouraged
by many doubts and disputes," etc.
This shows that the legislature had
in mind public mills. The act also
regulates the tolls and prescribes the
duties of millers. There were after-
wards many additions and amend-
ments to this act and also many spe-
cial acts passed for the erection of
particular mills or water power.
New Hampshire. In 1718 an act
was passed authorizing the erection
of water mills and providing a statu-
tory remedy for flowage. The act
regulates the toll of millers. The act
is given in full, together with a
summary of legislation on the sub-
ject, in 44 N. H. 448-450.
New Jersey. An act of 1696 pre-
scribes the tolls of millers. Learning
& Spicer's Grants etc. of N. J. 547.
Similar regulations were continued
in force until the present century.
Nixon's Digest of Laws, p. 547 ; Rev.
Stat. 1821, p. 446. I find no laws for
the erection of mills or the assess-
ment of damages to lands.
North Carolina. An act of 1777
allows the erection of water grist-
mills only, and provides for an as-
sessment of damages caused by flow-
age. All millers are required to
grind "according to turn," and "well
and sufficiently," for a prescribed
toll. After the right has been ac-
quired, the applicant must commence
his works within a year and complete
them within three years. This act
continued in force at least until 1821.
Rev. Stat. 1821, vol. 1, p. 345.
Pennsylvania. Mill acts do not ap-
pear to have existed in this State in
early times. An act of 1803 permits
the erection of dams in all but
specified streams, but the persons
erecting such dams are not to "in-
fringe on or injure the rights or
privileges of the owner or possessor
of any private property on said
stream.'' Purdon's Statutes, p. 592.
Rhode Island. An act of 1726 reg-
. ulates the tolls of millers. Rev. Stat.
1822, p. 376. An act of 1734 pro-
vides for the erection of "water
mills" and an assessment of damages
from flowage. Same, p. 374.
South Carolina. In 1712 an act
was passed offering a beneflt to the
one who should first erect and put in
successful operation a wind or water
saw-mill, or a wind or water grist-
mill. Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p.
388. In 1744 an act was passed
which prohibited the erection or
maintenance of dams which flooded
the lands of others and provided for
their abatement. Ibid. vol. 3, p. 609.
This act, at first passed for three
years only, was revived and made
perpetual in 1783. Ibid. vol. 4, p.
540. In 1785 an act was passed reg-
ulating tolls taken by millers. Ibid.
vol. 4, p. 652.
Vermont. An act of 1797 regu-
lates the tolls and duties of millers.
Rev. Laws, 1797, p. 407. No flowage
laws existed until a recent date.
Virginia. Various acts were
passed from 1645 to 1666 regulating
the charges and duties of millers.
Henning's Stat, at Large, vol. 1, pp.
301, 348, 485; vol. 2, p. 242. In 1667
an act was passed allowing the
owner on one side of a stream to con-
demn an acre of land on the opposite
side for the purpose of erecting a
mill "for the grinding of corn." Ibid.
vol. 2, p. 260. In 1745 the first act
was passed allowing an assessment
of damages for flowage. Ibid. vol. 5,
p. 360. This act applied generally to
water mills. In 1748 these various
§ 276 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 547
etts and N^ew Jersey." In Boston & Eoxbury Mill Corporation
V. J^ewman, the plaintiff was authorized to construct a system
of dams and works for the purpose of operating grist-mills, iron
manufactories and other mills by means of tide water. The act
was held valid principally on the ground that the establishment
of such mills would be a great public benefit. The acts of the
Colony and State in reference to mills were referred to as show-
ing the light in which the legislature and the people had re-
garded such works. The court says: "We should be at a loss
to imagine any undertaking of an individual or association of
persons with a view to private emolument, in which the public
had a more certain and direct interest and benefit." "Take the
grist-mill established in this city, as an example. Is it of no
benefit to have the corn ground near to the inhabitants, rather
than at a distance ? 'But you cannot compel the miller, to, grind
your corn for the toll, as you may the proprietors of the turn-
pike to let you travel over the road for a toll.' If there be not
an actual, there is a moral necessity imposed upon the owner of
the mill, to accommodate the public to the extent of his power.
Who ever heard of a refusal? And in regard to the manufac-
turing establishments, is it nothing to the public that great num-
bers of citizens have the means of employment brought to their
homes ?" i"
In Scudder v. Trenton Del. Falls Co.^^ the decision was by
the Chancellor only. He says: "May we not, in considering
what shall be deemed a public use and benefit, look at the ob-
jects, the purposes, and the results of the undertaking ? The
water power about to be created, will be sufficient for the erec-
tion of seventy mills, and factories, and other works dependent-
on such power. It will be located at the seat of government, at
the head of tide water, and in a flourishing and populous dis-
trict of country. It will be no experiment in a country like
ours ; and, judging from the results in other places, we may make
a sufficiently accurate calculation as to the result here. Take the
town of Paterson as an example. The water power there is in
the hands of individuals — a company like this. They are imder
acts were revised and continued in Scudder v. Trenton Del. Falls Co.,
force at least until after the adop- 1 N. J. Eq. 694, 1832.
tion of the first constitution. Ibid. lOBoston & Roxbury Mill Corp. v.
vol. 6, p. 55. N'ewman, 12 Pick. 467.
sBoston & Eoxbury Mill Corp. v. ni N. J. Eq. 694, 728.
Newman, 12 Pick. 467, 476, 1832;
§48 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 277
no obligation to lease or sell any mills or privileges to tlie pub-
lic ; and yet see the result of a few years' operation. Paterson
is now the manufacturing emporium of the State, with a popu-
lation of eight thousand souls. It has increased the value of
property in all that district of country; opened a market for
the produce of the soil, and given a stimulus to industry of every
kind. May we not hope that a similar benefit may be experi-
enced here ? * * * The ever varying condition of society is
constantly presenting new objects'of public importance and util-
ity ; and what shall be considered a public use or benefit may de-
pend somewhat on the situation and wants of the community
for the time being. The great principle remains : There must
be a public use or benefit ; that is undisputable. But what that
shall consist of, or how extensive it shall be to authorize an ap-
propriation of private property, is not easily reducible to gen-
eral rule. Looking at this case in all its bearings, and believing
as I do that great benefit will result to the community from
the contemplated improvement, I am not satisfied to declare the
act of incorporation, or that part of it which is now in question,
void and unconstitutional." The act was accordingly sustained.
In the same year a case was decided in Tennessee which inti-
mates that to take land for a saw-mill or paper-mill or any kind
of mill except a public grist-mill would not be a taking for a
public use.'^^ The decision in the case was that, under an act
which related solely to grist-mills, an application for a grist-mill,
saw-mill and paper-mill could not be granted. These early cases
were not very carefully considered, but they were sufiicient to
establish the law of the States where they were made, and to
exert an important influence upon the law of sister States.
§ 277 (180). The same: Law in the different States
at the present time. The taking of land for water-power for
running any kind of mills or machinery is held to be for public
use upon principle in Connecticut,^^ Indiana,^* Massachusetts,^^
i2Harding v. Goodlet, 3 Yerg. streams and rivers and ponds and
Tenn. 41 (1832), 24 Am. Dec. 546. lakes, and compelling them with a
isOlmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. 532, gigantic energy to turn machinery
551, 89 AmTbec. 221 ; Todd v. Austin, and drive mills, and thereby build up
34 Conn. 78, 90; Occum Co. v. cities and villages, and extend the
Sprague Manf. Co!, 35 Conn. 490. In business, the wealth, the population
Olmsted V. Camp the court says: "It and the prosperity of the State." In
would be difficult to conceive a Todd v. Austin this proposition ia
greater public benefit than garnering laid down : "The legislature may
up the waste waters of innumerable lawfully grant rights of easement to
§ 271
WHAT IS A PUBTJC USE.
549
Xew Hampshire,^® and New J ersey ; ^^ and also by the Supreme
Court of the United States in a case which went up from New
Hampshire.'* The constitutionality of acts for this purpose has
been seriously questioned, but nevertheless uphold either on the
groimd of authority or long and general acquiescence and usage
in Iowa/® Kansas,^" Maine,^' Minnesota,^^ JSTebraska,^' and
individuals or corporations to enable
them to erect and operate structures,
if the resul'^ of their operation is the
production of an article or thing in-
tended to be furnished or sold to the
public for a beneficial use, and to
supply their reasonable wants."
KHankins v. Lawrence, 8 Blackf.
266; Kepley v. Taylor, 1 Blackf. 492.
See Great Western Nat. Gas & Oil
Co. V. Hawkins, 30 Ind. App. 557, 66
K E. 765.
isBoston & Roxbury Mill Corp. v.
Newman, 12 Pick. 467; Hazen v.
Essex Co., 12 Cush. 475; JIurdock v.
Stickney, 8 Cush. 113; Otis Co. v.
Ludlow Mfg. Co., 186 Mass. 89, 70 N.
E. 1009. In Murdock v. Stickney, 8
Cush. 113, the court doubt whether
the mill acts could be sustained if
the question was a new one, but say
it is too late to question them after
being in full operation for a century
and a half. In this case also tlie
Court take the position that the mill
acts are not an exercise of the power
of eminent domain at all, but the
argument is too obscure to be con-
densed. An interesting commentary
upon the mill acts, in which the posi-
tion taken in 8 Cush. is elaborated,
will be found in Lowell v. Boston, 111
Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39. A state-
ment of this case will be found in
§ 279, post. In Turner v. Nye, 154
Mass. 579, 28 N. E. 1048, 14 L.R.A.
487, doubt is again expressed whether
the mill acts could be sustained as
new legislation. See opinion of the
court, p. 582.
leGreat Falls Manf. Co. v. Fer-
nald, 47 N. H. 444 ; Amoskeag Manf.
Co. V. Head, 56 N. H. 386; Ash v.
Cummings, 50 N. H. 591; Amoskeag
Manf. Co. v. Worcester, 60 N. H.
522 ; Amoskeag Manf. Co. v. Goodale,
62 N. H. 66. In Rockingham Co. Lt.
& P. Co. V. Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58
Atl. 46, 66 L.R.A. 581, it is said that
the mill cases of New Hampshire are
sui generis and that they "cannot be
regarded as declaring that 'public
use' in the bill of rights is synony-
mous with public benefit, public ad-
vantage, or any use that is for the
benefit and welfare of the State."
i7Scudder v. Trenton Del. Falls
Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 694.
isHead v. Amoskeag Manf. Co.,
113 U. S. 9.
isBurnham v. Thompson, 35 la.
421; Gammell v. Potter, 0 la. 548.
In Fleming v. Hall, 73 la. 598, 35 N.
W. 673, doubt is expressed whether,
if the question was now (1887) to
come up for the first time the mill
acts would not be held unconstitu-
tional.
2 0Venard v. Cross, 8 Kan. 248;
Harding v. Funk, 8 Kan. 315, 323.
In the former case it is argued that,
when the constitution was adopted,
mill acts had been in operation in
other States, and if the people had
intended to stop the practice they
would have said so in express terms.
One judge dissents on principle, but
acquiesces in the decision for the rea-
son above stated. It is doubtful
whether these cases sustain anything
more than public grist-mills. In
Harding v. Funk the court says : "The
fact, however, is that the mills pro-
vided for under our statute are
550
EMINEA'T DOMAIX.
§ 277
Wisconsin.^* On the other hand, such acts have been held to be
unconstitutional as authorizing the taking of private property for
private use, except in case of public mills, in the States of Ala-
neither absolutely private millg nor
absolutely public mills, but they par-
take of the character of both. They
might perhaps properly be called
quasi public mills. It Is not necessary
for us to say wliat would be our deci-
sion upon this question if the same
was a new question in this country.
But it is not a new question. It has
been long and well settled by legisla-
tive, executive, and judicial construc-
tion, practice, and usage ; and we are
not now at liberty to depart from
such construction, practice, and
usage." See also Rev. Stat. 1860,
chaps. 65 and 66.
21 Jordan v. Woodward, 40 Me. 317,
323. "The mill act, as it has existed
in this State, pushes the power of
eminent domain to the verge of con-
stitutional inhibition.'' "Strictly
speaking, private property can only
be said to have been taken for public
use when it has been so appropriated
that the public have certain well-
defined rights to that use secured, as
the right to use the public highway,
the turnpike, the public ferry, the
lailroad, and the like. But when it
is so appropriated that the public
have no rights to its use secured, it
is difficult to perceive how such an
appropriation can be denominated ii
l)ublic use." Also in Ingram v. Me.
Water Co., 98 Me. 56G, 57 Atl. 893.
2 2Miller v. Troost, 14 Minn. 365,
369. "Had not similar laws, in
States having constitutional re-
straints similar to ours, been uni-
formly sustained by the courts, we
should hesitate long before upholding
this one. The decisions, however, are
HO numerous, and by courts of so
great authority, that we are con-
strained to hold the law to be consti-
tutional." In Coates v. Campbell,
37 Minn. 498, 35 N. W. Rep. 366, an
act authorizing a city to issue bonds
to aid in the construction of a dam
for improving a private water power
was held to be void, because the ob-
ject was not a public purpose for
which taxes could be levied.
2 3Travers v. Merrick County, 14
Neb. 327.
2 4Newcomb v. Smith, 1 Chandler,
71, 1849. In this case two of the five
judges dissent in an elaborate
opinion. In Thien v. Voegtlander, 3
Wis. 461, the decision in Newcomb v.
Smith is impliedly questioned, while
in Pratt v. Brown, 3 Wis. 603, the
minority opinion is commended, but
the court do not deem it necessary to
reconsider the question, because the
act in question had in the meantime
been repealed. Other acts were sus-
tained in Babb v. Mackey, 10 Wis.
371; Fisher v. Horicon Iron & Manf.
Co., 10 Wis. 351, though in the latter
case the court distinctly says that
they would hold the mill act uncon-
stitutional, but for the large invest-
ments which had been made upon the
faith in the decision in Newcomb v.
Smith. In Attorney General v. Eau
Claire, 37 Wis. 400, 436, the court
says : "This court, as now organized,
has, in submission to the rule stare
decisis, reluctantly, against its own
views, followed Newcomb v. Smith,
1 Chand. 71, in upholding the mill-
dam act." See also Bowers v. Bears,
12 Wis. 213, 221 ; McCord v. Sylves-
ter, 32 Wis. 451; Allaby v. Mil-
waukee Elee. Service Co., 135 Wis.
345, 116 N. W. 4.
§ 278
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
551
bama,^" Georgia,^® Illinois,^'' Michigan,^* New York,^" Ver-
mont,*" Virginia/'^ and West Virginia. ^^ A recent case in Kan-
sas would seem to place that State in the class last referred to.
A statute permitted the condemnation of land for "milling and
other manufacturing corporations using power." It was held
that a steam-mill grinding flour and feed for the market could
not exercise the power and that the application of the statute
must be limited to corporations serving the public directly such
as public grist-mills.^"
§ 278 (181). The same: Review of the decisions.
Saw-mills and grist-mills, carding and fulling-mills, cotton gins
and other mills, which are regulated by law and obliged to
serve the public, are undoubtedly a public use.** But, as re-
spects all other kinds of mills, although they may be a public
benefit, they are not a public use within the meaning of the
2 5Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311;
Bottoms V. Brewer, 54 Ala. 288. In
the former case it is said that long
acquiescence in such acts is no rea-
son for sustaining them. By the
code in force in 1891 tlie power of
eminent domain may be exercised for
the establishment of a dam "for any
water grist-mill, saw-mill, gin, or fac-
tory, to be operated for the public.''
In a proceeding under the statute it
is held a fatal defect if the petition
fails to show that the proposed mill
is to be operated for the public. Mc-
Culley V. Cunningham, 96 Ala. 583,
11 So. 694.
2 6Loughbridge v. Harris, 42 Ga.
501. Here it is denied that even
grist-mills are u public use.
2 7 Gay lord v. Sanitary District, 204
111. 576, 68 N. E. 522, 98 Am. St. Rep.
235, 63 L.R.A. 582.
2 8Ryerson v. Brown, 35 Mich. 333,
24 Am. Rep. 564; overruling Hart-
well's Petition, 2 Nisi Pruis Rep. 97,
1871. In this case (Ryerson v.
Brown), Judge Cooley, in an elabo-
rate opinion, reviews the authorities
and discusses the principles appli-
cable to the question under considera-
tion.
2 9fifee dictum in Hay v. Cohoes Co.,
3 Barb. 42.
soTyler v. Beacher, 44 Vt. 648, 8
Am. Rep. 398; Avery v. Vt. Elec. Co.,
75 Vt. 235, 54 Atl. 179, 98 Am. St.
Rep. 818, .59 L.R.A. 817. The follow-
ing is also an instructive and well-
considered case. In re Barre Water
Co., 62 Vt. 27, 20 Atl. Rep. 109, 3
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 136.
31 Dice v. Sherman, 107 Va. 424, 59
S. E. 388.
3 2Varner v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534.
This case contains an elaborate
opinion which discusses the question,
but the decision is not directly in
point. In Oregon land may be con-
demned for a flume to convey water
to lumber mills. Maffet v. Quine, 93
Fed. Rep. 347.
ssHoward Mills Co. v. Schwartz:
L. & C. Co., 77 Kan. 599, 95 Pae. 559.
Aiid see S. W. Mo. Lt. Co. v. Schen-
rich, 174 Mo. 235, 73 S. W. 496.
3 4 Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311;
MoCulley v. Cunningham, 96 Ala.
583, 11 So. 694; State v. Edwards, 86
Me. 102, 29 Atl. 947, 41 Am. St. Rep.
528, 25 L.R.A. 504 ; Harding v. Good-
lett, 3 Yerg. 41, 24 Am. Dec. 546;
Varner v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534.
552 EMINENT DOMAIK-. § 278
constitution.. ISTo one of the public has any right in these mills.
'No one of the public can require any service at their hands.
They are as absolutely private property and for private use as
a steam-mill or a business block.^^ In the original States it is
almost certain that, at the time of the adoption of the first con-
stitutions— ^that is, from 1777 to 1800 — the power of eminent
domain had never been exercised for the establishment of any
mills except such as were public, either by law or practice. These
acts were prompted by the great and urgent necessity which ex-
isted in the early history of the country for mills for grinding
grain and sawing logs. It was undoubtedly the understanding
of the legislature and people that the mill acts had reference
to mills of this character. The fact, therefore, that no reference
is made to mills or mill acts in the early constitutions cannot
be construed into a recognition of all kinds of water mills as a
public use.
It must be. confessed, however, that many courts which have
been called upon to pass upon the validity of these acts for the
first time have labored under peculiar difficulties. The question
has not generally arisen in any State until a large amount of
capital had become invested upon the assumption of their '.validi-
ty. To have declared them unconstitutional, it was supposed,
would have been to jeopardize these investments, and bring loss
and ruin to many citizens. The legislatures and people of the
newer States were justified in accepting the construction given
by the courts of the older States to a constitutional provision
which the newer States had adopted from the older ones. These
decisions were the best attainable information. The first case
holding the acts in question unconstitutional was not decided
until 1859, and then no legislature had reason to suspect their
invalidity.^" When the question first arose in Massachusetts
in 1832,^'' the court of that State had very plausible grounds for
sustaining the act in question, on the ground of a contemporane-
ous construction by the legislature and of long acquiescence on
the part of the people and legal profession.^* The 'New Jersey
court, which passed upon the question at the same time,^* had
similar grounds to go upon, and, besides, was free from any em-
barrassment occasioned by the constitution, since the constitu-
seColev. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1. ssCooley Const. Lim. pp. 67-72;
ssSadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311. Sedgwick Con. Law. pp. 412, 413.
37Boston & Roxbury Mill Corp. v. ssScudder v. Trenton Del. Falls
Newman, 12 Pick. 467, 1832. Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 694, 1832.
§ 278 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 553
tion of that State contained no provision as to taking private
property for public use until 1844:. When the question next
arose in Indiana, in 1846,*" the court was sustained in its views,
not only by contemporaneous construction and long acquiescence,
but also by the authority of the decisions in Massachussetts and
New Jersey. The next case, which arose in Wisconsin in
1849,*^ presented still stronger inducements to sustain the act.
The act there in question was taken largely from the statutes
of Massachusetts. The constitutional provision in question had
been transplanted from the older States, where it had not only
received a practical construction by the legislatures in favor of
the mill acts, but had also been construed by the courts in favor
of such acts. Moreover, the act in question was in force when
the constitution was adopted. Every State which has since been
called upon to adjudicate upon this question has labored under
similar embarrassments.
But, while these considerations may explain, they do not jus-
tify, the decisions which have been made. The doctrine of con-
temporary construction or long acquiescence will not justify up-
holding a statute which is plainly repugnant to the constitution.*^
Especially is this true where no material embarrassment will
result from an adverse decision. Stress has been laid in many
cases upon the fact that a large amount of capital had become
invested under the mill acts which would be endangered or
swept away if these acts were declared invalid. But this we
think is a mistake. Those whose property had been condemned
for mills had received the damages awarded and would be es-
topped from questioning the validity of the proceedings by which
it was acquired.*^ This principle would have relieved and still
relieves the question of most of its embarrassment. The pros-
perity of the State would not have been affected by such a de-
cision, for it is not probable that in this age of steam and enter-
prise there would have been one less mill in consequence.**
4 0Hankinga v. Lawrence, 8 Blackf. i^Post, § 871.
266. In the previous case of Kepler 4<In Fleming v. Hull, 73 la. 598,
V. Taylor, 1 Blackf. 492, the question 35 N. W. Hep. 673, it is said : "But
■was not made, though the acts are ex- if such statutes were enacted now for
pressly sanctioned by the court. the first time, it is possible, if not
4iNewcomb v. Smith, 1 Chand. 71, probable, that they could not be sus-
1849. tained."
4 2Story on Const. § 407; Cooley,
Const. Lim. 70, 71; 1 Lewis' Suth.
Statutory Construction, § 82.
554
EMINENT DOJIAIN.
§ 279
§ 279 (182). Massachusetts doctrine that the mill acts
do not fall under the eminent domain power. A doctrine
has grown up in Massachusetts that the mill acts are not an exer-
cise of the power of eminent domain at all, but are referable
to the same power, and to be classed with the same acts, that reg-
ulate the duties of adjoining proprietors to each other in regard
to division fences and party walls, and the enjoyment and par-
tition of joint estates.*^ This doctrine has also lately found its
way into the Supreme Court of the United States, through a
judge from Massachusetts.** The doctrine is very fully elab-
orated in Lowell v. Boston,*'^ from which we make the follow-
ing quotation :
"The mill acts, so called, are often referred to as authorizing
the exercise of the right of eminent domain by private parties
for their exclusive private benefit. And the language of the
court, used arguendo, has been sometimes such as to imply that
the growth and prosperity of manufacturing and other indus-
trial enterprises were of such importance to the public welfare.
4 5Fiske V. Framingliam Manf. Co.,
12 Pick. 68, 70-72; Williams v. Nel-
son, 23 Pick. 141, 143; French v.
Braintree Manf. Co., 23 Pick. 216,
218-221; Gary v. Daniels, 8 Met. 466,
476, 477, 41 Am. Dec. 532; Murdock
V. Stickney, 8 Cush. 113, 116; Bates
X . Weymouth Iron Co., 8 Cush. 548,
552, 553; Gould v. Boston Dock Co.,
13 Gray, 442, 450; Storm v. Man-
chaug Co., 13 Allen 10; Lowell v.
Boston, 111 Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep.
39 ; Turner v. Nye, 154 Mass. 579, 28
y. E. 1048, 14 L.R.A. 487; Otis Co.
V. Ludlow Mfg. Co., 186 Mass. 89, 70
X. E. 1009.
■iBHead v. Amoskeag Manf. Co.,
113 U. S. 9, opinion by Gray, J. In
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall.
166, the United States Court holds
that flooding property by means of
a dam is a taking. In Head v. Amos-
keag Manf. Co., ante, the same court
holds that property may be flooded
by a dam in order to create a water
power to operate the mill of a private
manufacturing corporation. In Cole
V. La Grange, in the same volume,
page 1, it holds that neither the
power of eminent domain nor of tax-
ation can be exercised for the pur-
pose of aiding a private manufactur-
ing company. We do not see how
these three decisions can stand to-
gether. If a flooding is taking, then
land can only be flooded for a, public
use. If land may be flooded to afford
water power for a mill, then it fol-
lows that a mill is a public use. But
if a mill is a public use for which the
power of eminent domain may be ex-
ercised, why is it not a public use
for which the power of taxation may
be exercised? The only reconcilia-
tion that can be made of these cases
is to limit the opinion in Head v.
Amoskeag Manf. Co. to the particu-
lar point decided, viz. : that the mill
acts of New Hampshire were due
process of law in that State at the
time the Fourteenth Amendment was
adopted.
47111 Mass. 454, 464, 15 Am. Rep.
39.
§ 279 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 555
as to justify the exercise of the right of eminent domain in their
behalf, as a public use.**
"That mills for the sawing of lumber for purposes of build-
ing, grinding grain for food, and the manufacture of material
for clothing, may be of such necessity to a community, especially
in the early settlement of a country, as to make their establish-
ment a provision for a public service, we do not question. It is
doubtless within the power of the legislature to declare the ex-
istence of a public exigency for the establishment of a mill, for
which tlie right of eminent domain may properly be exercised ;
as in the case of the Boston & Koxbury Mill Corporation, and
the Salem Milldam Corporation. What may be the limits of
legislative power in that direction, and whether there are any
limits except in the sound discretion of the legislature, it is
needless noM' to inquire. We are satisfied that the mill acts are
not founded upon that poAver, and do not authorize its exercise.
"The advantages to be deri^'ed from a running stream by tlic
several riparian proprietors, are of natural right. Each one
may make use of its waters, as they flow through his lands, in a
reasonable manner, for such purposes as they are adapted to
serve. In order that each may have his opportunity in turn,
each is entitled to have the water allowed to flow to and from
his land as it has been accustomed to flow, with only such modi-
fication as results from such reasonable use. Hence, all pro-
prietors upon a stream, from its source to its mouth, have, in a
certain sense, a common interest in it, and a common right to
the enjoyment of all its capacities. Among those capacities no
one is more important than that of the force of the current to
supply power for the operation of mills. To make that force
practicably serviceable requires a considerable head and fall at
the point where it is to be applied ; often more than can be gained
within the limits of one proprietor. The use of the stream in
this mode has always been regarded as a reasonable use, not-
Avithstanding the effect of the dam, by which the head is created,
to retard the water in its flow to the proprietor below, and to set
it back and thus diminish or destroy the force of the current
above. One who thus appropriates the force of the current is in
the enjoyment of a common right, in which he is protected, al-
though he may thereby prevent a like use subsequently by the
4 3Citing Boston & Roxbury Mill v. Essex Co., ]2 Cush. 475, 478; Tal-
Co. V. Newman, 12 Pick. 407; Hazen bot v. Hudson, 16 Gray, 417, 426.
556 EMINENT DOMAia^. § 279
proprietor above.* ^ But this protection extends no farther than
to justify the appropriation of a part of that quality of the
stream which, until so appropriated, is common to all. It does
not justify any, even the least, injury to land outside the channel.
Without some law to control, the mill-owner would be exposed,
not merely to the liability to make just compensation for in-
juries thus occasioned, but to harassing suits for damages and
to abatement of his dam as causing a nuisance. This liability
and the inevitable controversies growing out of conflicting rights
in the stream itself, tending to defeat all advantageous use of
its power, led to the adoption of laws regulating and protect-
ing the beneficial use of streams for mill purposes. The St. of
1795, c. 74, is introduced by the recital: 'Whereas the erection
and support of mills, to accommodate the inhabitants of the
several parts of the State, ought not to be discouraged by many
doubts and disputes, and some special provisions are found neces-
sary relative to flowing adjacent lands and mills held by several
proprietors.' But there is no public service secured through the
mill acts, except so far as it may result incidentally, and as the
inducements of private interest may lead mill-owners to devote
their mills' to purposes favorable to the public accommodation.
The same rights and protection are secured to all who may be
possessed of sites for mills, whatever the purpose for which their
mills may be designed, and however useless for all purposes of
public accommodation or advantage. There is no discrimination
in this respect, and no provision to secure any public service that
may be supposed to have been contemplated. Further than this,
each proprietor is allowed to avail himself of the rights secured
by the mill acts, in his own mode and for his own purposeis, at
his own discretion, without the intervention of any public ofiicer
or other tribunal or board, to whom such a governmental func-
tion as the exercise of the right of eminent domain is ordinarily
entrusted, when not under the special direction of the legislature
itself.
"A consideration, still more conclusive to this point, is, that
in fact no private property, or right in the nature of property,
is taken by force of the mill acts, either for public or private
use. They authorize the maintenance of a dam to raise a head
of water, although its effect will be to overflow the land of an-
4 3 Citing Hatch v. Dwight, 17 Met. 466; Gould v. Boston Duck Co.,
Mass. 289, 296; Cary v. Daniels, 8 13 Gray 442.
§ 279 -WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 557
other proprietor. This right of flowage is sometimes inaccu-
rately called an easement.^" But it is not so. It confers no right
in the land upon the mill-owner, and takes none from the land-
owner.^^ In Murdock v. Stickney,"^^ Chief Justice Shaw re-
marks, in reference to the mill acts: 'The principle on which
this law is founded is not, as has sometimes been supposed, the
right of eminent domain, the sovereign right of taking private
property for public use. It is not in any proper sense a taking
of the property of an owner of the land flowed, nor is any com-
pensation awarded by the public' In Bates v. Weymouth Iron
Co.,®* he says: 'It is a provision by law, for regulating the
rights of proprietors, on one and the same stream, from its rise
to its outlet, in a manner best calculated, on the whole, to pro-
mote and secure their common rights in it.' Similar declara-
tions are made in Fiske v. Framingham Manuf. Co.,®* and
Williams v. l^Telson.®® 'This regulation of the rights of ri-
parian proprietors, both in respect to the stream and to their ad-
jacent lands, liable to be affected by its use, involves no other
governmental power than that 'to make, ordain and establish all
manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes
and ordinances,' as the general court 'shall adjudge to be for
the good and welfare of this Commonwealth, and for the govern-
ment and ordering thereof, and of the subjects of the same.'
Const, of Mass. c. 1. § 1, art. iv. ,
"All individual rights of property are held subject to this
power, which alone can adjust their manifold relations and con-
flicting tendencies. The absolute right of the individual must
yield to and be modified by corresponding rights in other indi-
viduals in the community. The resulting general good of all, or
the public welfare, is the foundation upon which the power rests,
and in behalf of which it is exercised ; whether by restricting the
use of private property in a manner prejudicial to the public,®"
or by imposing burdens upon it for the protection or convenience
in part of the public; ^'' or by modifying rights of individuals,
sociting Hunt v. Whitney, 4 Met. 6412 Pick. 68.
603; Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray 417, 6623 Pick. 141.
422, 426. BBCiting Commonwealth v. Alger,
siCiting Murdock v. Stickney, 8 7 Gush. 53.
Cu8h. 113; Storm v. Manchaug Co., 67Citing Goddard, Petitioner, 16
13 Allen 10. Pick. 504; Baker v. Boston, 12 Pick.
528 Cush. 113. 184, 193; Salem v. Eastern R. R. Co.,
6S8 Cush. 548, 553. 98 Mass. 431.
658 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 280
in respect of their mutual relations, in order to secure their more
advantageous enjoyment by each." The court then alludes to
various other statutes, such as those relating to property held by
joint tenants and tenants in common, to the drainage of mead-
ows, and the like, and then concludes as follows : "We find in
tliese statutes no exercise of the right of eminent domain, or of
the governmental power of taxation."
§ 280 (183). The mill acts fall under the eminent do-
main power. There can be no question, it seems to us, but
that the flooding of land by a mill-dam is a taking. It inter-
feres with the right to have the water of the stream flow off in its
accustomed manner, and excludes the owner from the use and
enjoyment of so much of the land as is covered by water, and
may greatly deteriorate that which is not flooded. This has been
expressly held to be a taking by the Supreme Court of the
United States,®" and by almost every court in the Union.® ^ It
is the appropriation of private property to a particular use, and
this can only be done under the eminent domain power.®^ It
follows, therefore, that it can only be done for a public use,
and upon just compensation being made. Consequently, the
only possible basis upon which the mill acts can stand is that
mills are a public use within the meaning of the constitution.
This can only be true of that class of mills which are obliged to
serve the public, and, unless the acts are limited to such mills,
they cannot be sustained. The Massachusetts court escapes this
conclusion by maintaining that the flooding of lands by a mill-
dam is not a taking. "A consideration, still more conclusive to
this point, is, that in fact no private property, or right in the
nature of property, is taken by force of the mill acts, either for
public or private use. They authorize the maintenance of a
dam to raise a head of water, although its effect will be to over-
flow the land of another proprietor. This right of flowage is
sometimes inaccurately called an easement. But it is not so. It
confers no right in the land upon the mill owner and takes none
from the land owner." ''^ The Massachusetts doctrine rests upon
soPumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 main, the sovereign right of taking
Wall. 166. private property for public use."
eiAnte, § 80. Ingram v. Me. Water Co., 98 Me. 566,
6 2The Supreme Court of Maine, 57 Atl. 893.
which sustains such acts, says : "The 63Lowell v. Boston, III Mass.
principle upon which these laws are 466, 15 Am. Rep. 39. In Boston Mfg.
founded is the right of eminent do- Co. v. Burgin, 114 Mass. 340, 341, 343,
§ 280
WHAT IS A PUBLIC CSE.
559
this position, and we think we have shown that the position is
untenable.** The prohibition of the constitution applies to the
legislative power in all its branches, and prevents private prop-
erty from being appropriated to a particular use, unless that
use is by or for the public.
We have treated this question thus at length, not because
we think that the mill acts in themselves are an evil, but because
we believe that they cannot be justified upon principle without
virtually expunging the words public use from the constitu-
the position of the court is further
defined as follows : "Such exercise of
the right of fliowage is not the enjoy-
ment of an easement in the land
flowed. It is not adverse to the title
or possession of the owner ; and being
permitted by law, and not actionable
except by complaint for compensa-
tion, it will not ripen into title by
lapse of time. When the right has
become absolute by the payment of
gross damages, or by exercise of the
right without compensation for more
than twenty years, it is commonly
called an easement. But it is an
easement in respect of the use of the
stream only, and not an interest in
or right over the land flowed. Wil-
liams V. Nelson, 23 Pick. 141; Mur-
dock V. Stickney, 8 Cush. 113; Storm
V. Manchaug Co., 13 Allen 10. The
right to maintain the dam and to
keep up the head of water is given to
all mill-owners by statute. The flow-
age of adjacent lands is incidental,
and compensation is made according
to the degree of injury. But the right
to occupy the surface of the land with
water of the pond is not taken, and
the landowner may exclude it if he
sees fit to do so. And when the right
of the millowner becomes absolute
by paying gross damages or by pre-
scription, it is only a right to keep
up the dam without rendering com-
pensation for such incidental in-
jury." See also Turner v. Nye, 154
Mass. 579, 28 N. E. 1048, 14 L.R.A.
487, where the same idea is repeated.
In Wood V. Kelley, 30 Me. 47, the
right of flowage is spoken of as an
easement.
6<Field, C. J., in a dissenting
opinion, in Turner v. Nye, 154 Mass.
579, 28 N. E. 1048, 14 L.R.A. 487,
says: "Notwithstanding what has
been said in some of our decisions,
overflowing a person's land without
his consent is a taking of property
while the overflow continues, and is a
tort which would be enjoined unless
the statutes authorized it. The mill
acts were originally sustained on the
ground that the erection of water
mills was for the public benefit, and
this was strictly true of grist-mills
and saw-mills, if the public had the
right to have their grain ground and
their logs sawed at the mills. The
acts, liowever, extended to mills of
all kinds, in most of which the in-
terests of the public were less direct ;
still, the erection of water mills,
when water was the only available
source of power, was always of pub-
lic concern, suflicient to justify the
damming of streams, if compensation
were paid to the persons whose lands
were overflowed. Mill acts were in
force long before the adoption of the
constitution, and it could not prop-
erly be held that it was the intention
of that instrument to render them
void. But the damming of the waters
of a running stream, so that the
lands of the upper proprietor are
overflowed, is something more than
the reasonable use of the water,
560 EMINENT DOMAIN, § 281
tion.®' The principle of these decisions may he used to justify
the invasion of private rights for any purpose which the legis-
lature or the courts for the time being may happen to consider
of public utility. The courts should enforce the constitution
as it is, and leave the people, if they deem mill acts essential
to the prosperity of the State, to provide for them by an amend-
ment to the constitution."^
§ 281 (183a). Promoting fish culture, cranberry cul-
ture and the like. In Massachusetts a statute which author-
ized a person to erect a dam and flood the lands of others, sub-
ject to the duty of making compensation as under the mill acts,
for the purpose of cultivating fish for his own personal use,
pleasure or profit, was held valid, on the same ground as the
mill acts."^ The statute is held not to be an exercise of the
power of eminent domain, but of the power to make laws for
the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the govern-
ment and ordering thereof and of the subjects of the same, and
the opinion is expressed that the flooding is not a taking, since
the owner whose land is flowed may bank out the water. A sim-
ilar statute exists, permitting the erection of dams in aid of the
cultivation of cranberries. The constitutionality of the latter
act has not been challenged or directly passed upon, but its valid-
ity has been assumed in numerous cases.''* A statute declaring
which every proprietor is entitled to provides "that private property shall
make, as it runs through his land, not be taken for private use unless
without paying any compensation to by consent of the owner, except for
the upper or lower proprietors. It private ways of necessity, and except
has never been supposed that the mill for reservoirs, drains, flumes, or
acts would be sustained if they con- ditches, on or across the lands of
tained no provision for compensation others, for agriculture, mining, mill-
to the persons whose lands were ing, domestic or sanitary purposes."
flowed." Sec. 14, Art. 2. This was held to au-
6 5The supreme court of Vermont, thorize condemnation of land for a
in Avery v. Vt. Elec. Co., 75 Vt. 235, ditch to carry water to operate an
54 Atl. 179, 98 Am. St. Eep. 818, 59 electric light plant. Lambom v.
L.R.A. 817, repudiates the Massa- Bell, 18 Col. 346, 32 Pac. 989, 7 Am.
chusetts doctrine that the mill acts E. E. & Corp. Rep. 747.
fall under the police power and that STTurner v. Nye, 154 Mass. 579,
the flooding of land pursuant thereto 28 N. E. 1048, 14 L.R.A. 487.
is not a taking and says:. "We think esBearse v. Perry, 117 Mass. 211;
Mr. Lewis is right in saying that ap- Hinckley v. Nickerson, 117 Mass.
propriations of this character cannot 213; Blackwell v. Phinney, 126 Miss,
be sustained without virtually ex- 458; Howes v. Crush, 131 Mass. 207;
purging the words 'public use' from Turner v. Nye, 154 Mass.. 579, 28 N.
the constitution." p. 243. E. 1048, 14 L.R.A. 487.
6 6The constitution of Colorado
§ 283 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 5G1
that it should not be actionable to cross uncultivated private
lands to fish in public waters, provided no damage was done,
was held void as authorizing the taking of private property for
private use.*''
§ 282 (184). Development of mines. The tendency of
those decisions which sustain the mill acts, is illustrated by some
cases now to be noticed. The legislature of Nevada passed an
act in which it was declared that "the production and reduc-
tion of ores are of vital necessity to the people of this State ; are
pursuits in which all are interested and from which all derive
a benefit; so the mining, milling, smelting or other reduction
of ores are hereby declared to be for the public use and the right
of eminent domain may be exercised therefor." In Daton Min-
ing Co. V. Sewell,'^" the, question was whether the company could
condemn a strip of land, "in order to transport the wood, lum-
ber, timbers and other materials to enable it to conduct and
carry on its business of mining." The strip of land after being
condemned, would be the private property of the mining com-
pany. The court, after reviewing the mill cases at length, says :
"In the light of these authorities, nearly all of which were de-
cided prior to the adoption of our State constitution, I think it
would be an unwarranted assumption on our part to declare
that the framers of the constitution did not intend to give to the
term 'public use' the meaning of public utility, benefit and ad-
\'antage, as construed in the decisions we have quoted. The rea-
sons in favor of sustaining the act imder consideration are cer-
tainly as strong as any that have been given in support of the
mill-dam or flowage acts, as well as some of the other objects
heretofore mentioned. Mining is the greatest of the industrial
pursuits of this State. All other interests are subservient to it.
Our mountains are almost barren of timber, and our valley
lands could never be made profitable for agricultural purposes
except for the fact of a home market having been created by
the mining developments in different sections of the State. The
mining and milling interests give employment to many men, and
the benefits derived from this business are distributed as much,
and sometimes more, among the laboring classes than with the
owners of the mines and .mills. The mines are fixed by the
B9New England Trout & Salmon 70ll Nev. 394, 408, 1876.
Club V. Mather, 68 Vt. 338, 35 Atl.
323, 33 L.Pv.A. 569.
Em. D.— 36.
562 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 282
laws of nature, and are often found in places almost inaccessible.
For the purpose of successfully conducting and carrying on
the business of 'mining, milling, smelting or other reduction of
ores,' it is necessary to erect hoisting works, to build mills, to
construct smelting furnaces, to secure ample grounds for dump-
ing waste rock and earth ; and a road to and from the mines is
always indispensable. The sites necessary for these purposes
are oftentimes confined to certain fixed localities. Now, it so
happens, or, at least, is liable to happen, that individuals, by
securing title to the barren lands adjacent to the mines, mills or
works, have it within their power, by unreasonably refusing
to part with their lands for a just and fair compensation, which
capital is always willing to give without litigation, to greatly em-
barrass, if not entirely defeat, the business of mining in such
locations. In my opinion, the mineral wealth of this State ought
not to be left undeveloped for the want of any quantity of land
actually necessary to enable the owner or owners of mines to
conduct and carry on the business of mining. Ifature has de-
nied to this State many of the advantages which other States pos-
sess ; but by way of compensation to her citizens, has placed at
their doors the richest and most extensive silver deposits ever
yet discovered. The present prosperity of the State is entirely
due to the mining developments already made, and the entire
people of the State are directly interested in having the future
developments unobstructed by the obstinate action of any indi-
vidual or individuals." The act was of course sustained, and,
conceding the mill acts to be valid, the conclusions of the court
are sound. The decision was approved in a subsequent ease in
which it was beld that land might be condemned for a shaft.^'
So it has been held in Georgia that land could be condemned for
a ditch to conduct water for hydraulic mining.'^ And yet it
was held in Georgia, only six years before, that even grist-mills
under public regulation were not a public use.''* 'No reference,
TiOverman Silver Mining Co. v. oflScers of the State, or through the
Corcoran, 15 Nev. 147, 1880; and see medium of corporate bodies, or by
Douglass V. Byrnes, 59 Fed. 29, 31. means of individual enterprise."
7 2Hand Gold Mining Co. v. Parker, Adding to the wealth of the State by
59 Ga. .419, 423, 1877. The court tlie pioduction of gold was held to be
says: "The right of eminent domain a sufficient public good,
may be exercised by the general as- 'SLoughbridge v. Harris, 42 Ga.
sembly in this State, when it is for 501, 1871.
the public good, either through the
§ 282 AVHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 563
however, was made to this or any other case. A statute of Utah
authorizing the power of eminent domain to be exercised for
"roads, railroads, tramways, tunnels, ditches, flumes, pipes and
dumping places to facilitate the milling, smelting or other re-
duction of ores, or the working of mines," was held valid and
the condemnation under it of a right of way for an aerial tram-
way two miles long, from the plaintiff's mine to a railroad,
for the transportation of ore, was sustained as a public use.''*
A similar statute was upheld in Alaska.''^
On the other hand the validity of such laws has been denied
in California,'^'' Pennsylvania,''^ and Washington,^* and virtu-
ally so in West Virginia.'* This is undoubtedly the correct
view. In the California case it was sought to condemn land for
a bedrock flume to carry dirt and gravel from mining claims and
for a place of deposit for the tailings and refuse from the mines.
The court says : "The proposed flume is to be constructed solely
for the purpose of advantageously and profitably washing and
mining plaintiff's mining ground. It is not even pretended that
any person other than the plaintiff will derive any benefit what-
ever from the structure when completed. !N^o public use can
possibly be subserved by it. It is a private enterprise to be con-
ducted solely for the personal profit of the plaintiff, and in
which the community at large have no concern. It is clear that
this case does not come within the meaning of that clause of
the constitution which permits the taking of private property for
public use after just compensation made." This language is of
general application.*"
The taking of private property for the development of mines
may be authorized by the constitution, and this has been done
74Highland Boy Gold Jlin. Co. v. 7 8State v. Superior Court, 33
Strickley, 28 Utah 215, 78 Pac. 296, Wash. 542, 74 Pae. 686.
107 Am. St. Rep. 711, 1 L.R.A. 976; 79Valley City Salt Co. v. Brown, 7
S. C. affirmed, Strickley v. Highland W. Va. 191.
Boy Gold Min. Co., 200 U. S. 527, 26 soA law exists in Iowa allowing
S. C. 301. See post, § 315. the condemnation of property for the
7 5Miocene Ditch Co. v. Jacobson, purpose of draining mines. But, as
146 Fed. 680, 77 C. C. A. 106. to whether it is valid in that respect,
7 ff Consolidated Channell Co. v. it has not been decided. See Ahern
Central Pacific R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 269, v. Dubuque Lead & Level Mining Co.,
1876,- see also Gillan v. Hutchinson, 48 la. 140. And see generally Butte
16 Cal. 153. etc. R. R. Co. v. Montana U. R. R.
77Waddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 90; Co;, 16 Mont. .504, 41 Pac. 232, 50 Am.
Edgwood R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 79 Pa. St. Rep. 508, 31 L.R.A. 298.
St. 257.
564 EMIJSfEJSTT DOMAIIs^. § 28o
in Colorado and other States.^ "■ The development of the mineral
resources of a State is a public benefit for which the power of
eminent domain may be exercised, when the restriction imposed
by the words public use is removed.*^
§ 283 (185). Drains, ditches, levees, etc., for improv-
ing wet and overflowed land. Statutes for the improve-
ment and reclamation of low, wet and overflowed lands by means
of drains and levees have been common in the United States
for at least a century. These statutes have been made to apply
to a great variety of circumstances and dijBfer greatly in their
phraseology, purpose and details. There has been much litiga-
tion growing out of these statutes, in which their validity has
not been questioned, and in which, therefore, their validity has
been tacitly assumed. There have also been quite a number of
cases in which these statutes have been assailed as unconstitu-
tional. They have generally been upheld, but their validity has
been put upon different grounds by different courts, some hold-
ing that they are referable to the power of eminent domain
and subject to the constitutional limitations on that power,*"
others holding that they are an exercise of the police power,
or of the still more general power to make all such laws as the
legislature shall deem for the good of the State, and hence are
not subject to the limitations as to public use and just compen-
sation.**
siAnte, § 18, 22a, 35a, 52a. Down- eral v. MeClear, 146 Mich. 45, 109 N.
ing V. More, 12 Colo. 316, 20 Pac. 766
Lamborn v. Bell, 18 Colo. 346, 32 Pac
989, 7 Am. E. R. & Corp. Rep. 747
Denver Power & Irr. Co. v. Denver
etc. R. R. Co., 30 Colo. 204, 69 Pac.
W. 27; Jenal v. Green Island Drain-
ing Co., 12 Neb. 163; Draining along
Pequest River, 41 N. J. L. 175; Same,
39 N. J. L. 433; People v. Nearing, 27
K. Y. 308; Matter of Ryers, 72 N.
058, 60 L.R.A. 383; Tanner v. Treas- Y. 1, 28 Am. Rep. 88; Matter of Tut-
ury Tunnel Min. & Reduction Co., 35 lull, 163 N. Y. 133, 57 N. E. 303, 79
Colo. 593, 83Pac. 464, 4L.R.A.(N.S.) Am. St. Rep. 574, 49 L.R.A. 781;
106; Helena etc. Reduction Co. v. Hartwell v. Armstrong, 19 Barb. 166;
Lynch, 25 Mont. 497, 65 Pac. 919; Burk v. Ayers, 19 Hun 17 ; Sessions v.
Bailie v. Larson, 138 Fed. 177. Krunkilton, 20 Ohio St. 349; Seely
8 2fifee ante, § 1; post, § 315. v. Sebastian, 4 Ore. 25; Askam v.
ssNiekey v. Starns Ranchos Co., King County, 9 Wash. 1, 36 Pac.
126 Cal. 150, 58 Pac. 459 ; Laguna Dr. 1097 ; Hayward v. Snohomish County,
Dist. V. Martin Co., 144 Cal. 209, 77 11 Wash. 429, 39 Pac. 652.
Pac. 933 ; Fleming v. Hull, 73 la. 598, 8 4Hagar v. Supervisors, 47 Cal.
35 N. W. 673 ; People v. Supervisors, 222 ; O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley
26 Mich. 22 ; Kinnie v. Barr, 68 Mich. Draining Co., 32 Ind. 169; Zigler v.
025, 36 N. W. 1097 ; Attorney Gen- Menges, 121 Ind. 99, 22 N. E. 782, 16
§ 284 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 565
§ 284 (186). Decisions referring such improvements
to the police power, or power to legislate for the general
welfare. The leading case on this subject is that of Coster v.
Tide Water Co.^^ The court says: "But there is another
branch of legislative power that may be appealed to, as authoriz-
ing the taking of the lands required for the works to drain these
meadows. It is the power of the government to prescribe public
regulations for the better and more economical management of
the property of persons whose property adjoins, or which, from
some other reason, can be better managed and improved by
some joint operation, such as the power of regulating the build-
ing of party walls ; making and maintaining partition fences and
ditches; constructing ditches and sewers for the drainage of
uplands or marshes, which can more advantageously be drained
by a common sewer or ditch. This is a well-known legislative
power, recognized and treated by all jurisconsults and writers
upon law through the civilized world; a branch of legislative
power exercised by this State before and since the Revolution,
and before and since the adoption of the present constitution,
and repeatedly recognized by our courts. The legislature has
power to regulate these subjects, either by general law, or by
l^articular laws for certain localities or particular and defined
tracts of land. When the constitution vested the legislative
power in the Senate and general assembly, it conferred the
power to make these public regulations as a well understood part
of the legislative power." This case is relied upon in all sub-
sequent cases which refer the drainage and levee-acts to the
police power, or power to legislate for the general welfare.^"
The position is stated by Wells, J., in Lowell v. Boston,^^ as
follows, referring to the acts for the improvement of meadows :
"The action taken therein relates to that in which all have a
common interest, or in reference to which all are affected by a
Am. St. Rep. 357; Lowell v. Boston, Wurtz v. Hoagland, 114 U. S, 606;
111 Mass. 454, 468, 15 Am. Kep. 39; Shelley v. St. Charles Co., 17 Fed.
Lien v. Xorman Co., 80 Minn. 58, 82 909. Compare In re Theresa Dr.
N. W. 1094; Coster v. Tide Water Dist., 90 Wis. 301, 63 N. W. 288.
Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54; State T. Blake, 8518 N. J. Eq. 54, 68, 1866.
.36 N. J. L. 442; Pool v. Trexler, 76 ss^ee O'Reiley v. Kankakee Drain-
N. C. 297; Winslow v. Winslow, 95 ing Co., 32 Ind. 169;Zigler v. Menges,
N. C. 24; Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 121 Ind. 99, 22 X. E. 782, 16 Am. St.
461, 46 Am. Rep. 637; State v. Stew- Rep. 357; Pool v. Trexler, 76 N. C.
art, 74 Wis. 620, 43 N. W. 947 ; State 297 ; Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461.
V. McNay, 90 Wis. 104, 62 N. W. 917; snil Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39..
666 EMINENT DOMAIK. § 284
common necessity. That common necessity is met, and that
common interest secured, by subjecting the individual rights
to such modifications as the commissioners may judge to be
most practicable to secure the best advantage of all. The nat-
ural conflict of rights which would arise if each were left to
insist on his own, regardless of consequences to others, is avoided
by the intervention of this common agent, by whom they are
adjusted with due regard for the interests of all as well as of
each." The acts in question are likened by Wells, J., to the mill
acts, acts in relation to the repair of houses and mills owned by
tenants in common, acts for the partition of joint estates, for
the regulation of wharves, etc.** The question is elaborately
considered in the recent case of Donnelly v. Decker,*^ but no
new or different arguments or principles are therein referred
to. The general proposition is tliat, when several estates are
affected detrimentally by some common cause which cannot be
removed except by some common improvement, then the legis-
lature may direct such improvement to be made at the common
expense, under its general power to legislate for the public wel-
fare. If the cases referred to are examined, it will be seen that
this general conclusion is inferred from the assumed validity
of laws relating to adjoining proprietors and joint estates. But
none of these laws attempt to appropriate a man's property to
a particular use against his will, and therefore do not support
the conclusion which is sought to be derived from them.®"
8 8111 Mass. p. 468. adopted and having been acquiesced
8958 Wis. 461 (1883) , 46 Am. Rep. in ever since. What is said in Lovcell
637. V. Boston, 111 Mass. 454, is dictum
9 0 When the authorities are care- only. O'Keiley v. Kankakee Valley
fully examined, it appears that the Draining Co., 32 Ind. 169, is based
view that the drainage acts are re- wholly upon Coster v. Tide Water
ferable to the police power, or gen- Co., ante, and subsequent cases in
eral welfare power, has very little the same State, by implication at
support. In Coster v. Tide Water least, sanction the view that such
Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54, tlie decision is works fall under the power of emi-
by the Chancellor only, but though nent domain. Ross v. Davis, 97 Ind.
this view is casually approved by the 79 ; Neff v. Reed, 98 Ind. 341 ; Lipes
Court of Errors and Appeals in State v. Hand, 104 Ind. 503; Heick v.
V. Blake, 36 N. J. L. 442, it is clearly Voight, 110 Ind. 279. But in a more
disapproved in Matter of Drainage recent case it is said: "Our own
along Pequest River, 41 N. J. L. 175, cases, already cited, refer the au-
where such acts are sustained on the thority to direct the drainage of wet
ground of their having been in exis- lands to the police power of the
tence when the constitution was State, and in so far as the drainage
§ 285
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
567
§ 285 (187). These improvements referable to the em-
inent domain power. All the statutes in question provide
for constructing drains or levees across the lands of those who
are unwilling to have them. Private property is thus devoted
to a particular use, permanent in its nature, against the will
of its owner. The rights of exclusion, of user and of disposition
are interfered with or entirely destroyed. The question is,
whether this can be done without an exercise of the power of
eminent domain. It is not a question of advantage or disad-
vantage to the owner, hut of constitutional right. The police
power, so far as it relates to property, is a power to regulate
its use, and is negative or inhibitory in its character. A man
does promote the health, comfort and
convenience o£ the public it is by
virtue of this great power that the
authority is exercised." Zigler v.
Menges, 121 Ind. 99, 22 N. E. 782. In
Lien v. Norman County, 80 Minn. 58,
82 N. W. 1094, drainage laws are
viewed as an exercise of the police
power, but in subsequent cases in the
same State they are clearly recog-
nized as involving an exercise of the
eminent domain power. State v.
Polk County Comrs., 87 Minn. 325,
92 N. W. 216, 60 L.R.A. 161 ; Miller
v. Jensen, 102 Minn. 391, 113 N. W.
914; State v. Board of Suprs., 102
Minn. 442, 114 N. W. 244, 120 Am.
St. Eep. 640. Pool v. Trexler, 76 N.
C. 297, is an extreme ease and en-
titled to little respect as an authority
outside of North Carolina, as is evi-
dent from the following, which
contains all that is said by way of
argument on the point: "These two
powers, 'eminent domain,' and 'police
regulations,' are distinct, and yet
they are frequently confounded. By
the one, the property of A is given to
B. By the other, the property of A
is left in him, but is made subser-
vient to the general welfare. 'Cart-
ways,' Bat. Eev. Ch. 104, § 38, fur-
nishes an analogy. Under the power
to make 'police regulations,' the land
of A is made subservient to the land
of B for the purposes of a road.
After some contestation the question
of the power of the General Assembly
was yielded. So in our case the
power of the General Assembly to
make the land of A subservient to the
land of B for the purpose of drainage
must alone be yielded upon the au-
thorities and upon the reason of the
thing." This case is followed in
Winslow v. Winslow, 95 N. C. 24.
The case of Wurts v. Hoagland, 114
U. S. 606, went up from New Jersey
and simply follows the New Jersey
law, the point of the decision being
that the drainage laws of that
State, as interpreted and applied by
the courts, did not result in depriv-
ing the citizen of his property with-
out due process of law, or in depriv-
ing him of the equal protection of the
laws. In Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis.
461, 46 Am. Rep. 637 ; State v. Stew-
art, 74 Wis. 620, 43 N. W. 947, and
State V. McNay, 90 Wis. 104, 62 N.
W. 917, the drainage laws in ques-
tion were upheld as an exercise of the
police power, while in the case of In
re Theresa Dr. Dist., 90 Wis. 301,
63 N. W. 288, the drainage
law there involved was held invalid
as authorizing the taking of prop-
erty for a use which was not public.
A more particular statement of these
cases will be found in the notes to
§ 304, post.
568
EMINENT DOMAIN".
§ 285
cannot be compelled, under the police power, to devote his prop-
erty to any particular use, however advantageous to himself or
beneficial to the public ; but he may be compelled to refrain from
any use which is detrimental to the public."^ This is the be-
ginning and the end of the police power over private property.
^0 instance can be cited, outside of the mill and drainage acts,
(which are in controversy), in which the owner of private prop-
erty has been compelled to devote it, or submit to its devotion,
to a particular use, by virtue of the police power, or of any other
power except that of eminent domain.^^
Again, if the acts in question are not under the power of
eminent domain, then there is no obligation to make compensa-
tion for the property appropriated for ditches or levees,®* and
one proprietor might be compelled to contribute both land and
money for an improvement which is no benefit to him. A tract
of land which requires drainage may be so situated that it can
only be drained by a ditch through another tract which does not
require it and would not be benefited by it.®* In such case cer-
tainly the drain could only be made under the power of eminent
domain.®' And, in any case, the land occupied by drains or
51/Sfee ante, § 243 et seq.
9 2Cooley, Const. Lim. chap. 16;
Dillon, Munlc. Corp. §§ 93 et seq.;
Sedgwick Const. Law, pp. 435-441.
9 3 Sedgwick Con. Law, 499-502;
State V. Blake, 36 N. J. L. 442, 447 ;
Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623. In
nearly all the cases it is assumed that
compensation must be made, but in
Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461, 46
Am. Eep. 637, the contrary doctrine
is distinctly held. But the case of In
re Theresa Drainage Dist., 90 Wis.
301, 63 N. W. 288 (1895), distinctly
holds "that to dig ditches or drains
across the lands of private owners,
under an apparent legislative au-
thority, is a taking of the lands," and
such taking can only be made for a
public use and upon the payment of
just compensation. Compare State
ex rel. v. Stewart, 74 Wis. 620, 43 N.
W. 947; State v. McKay, 90 Wis.
104, 62 N. W. 917.
9 4People V. Nearing, 27 N. Y. 306;
Askam v. King County, 9 Wash. 1,
36 Pac. Rep. 1097.
9 5 In Askam v. King County, 9
Wash. 1, 36 Pac. Rep. 1097, it is in-
timated that this might be done
under the police power. The court,
after having determined that the
drainage act in question could not be
sustained as an exercise of the emi-
nent domain power, proceed to say:
"The act in question cannot be sus-
tained on this ground. Can it be as
an exercise of the police power of the
State ? We think not ; for while it is
undoubtedly true that in extreme
emergencies the rights of private
parties, as to property, must yield to
the requirements of the public, yet, to
authorize such interference, the emer-
gency must be such as to make the
action necessary. The law under con-
sideration was not, in our opinion,
enacted for the purpose of authoriz-
ing private rights to be interfered
with without compensation, because
§ I'SC
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
>69
ditches is devoted to a particular use, and this, as we have
shown in discussing the mill acts, cannot be done under any
branch of the legislative power, except the use be public and
compensation be made.®" In other words, it can only be done by
invoking the eminent domain power.®^
§ 286 (188). The question of public use. The promo-
tion of the public health is undoubtedly a public use within the
meaning of the constitution, and private property may be taken
for the construction of drains, levees or other works in order
to accomplish this object."* In New York it is held that drains
necessary for the protection of the
public. It is true that there are
some things in the act which indi-
cate that the interests of the public
were to be considered in the determi-
nation of the question as to whether
or not the improvement was neces-
sary, but there nowhere appears any
intention to declare that the public
interests are such that it is necessary
that private rights should be set
aside in order that they may be pro-
tected. Even if we concede that the
requirements of the law are such
that the board of county commis-
sioners must decide that the swamps
to be drained are a nuisance, before
they will proceed in the matter, yet
the intention does not appear in the
act to declare the nuisance to be of
such imminent danger to the public
welfare as to require private prop-
erty of others than those maintain-
ing the nuisance to be taken without
compensation. Under the provisions
of the act, the land of private parties
situated at some distance from the
swamps and low lands to be drained
may be taken; and to sustain such
taking under the police power of the
State would require such a clear
declaration on the part of the legis-
lature of its intent to take such prop-
erty for that purpose without com-
pensation, as to make such intention
certain. The act in question does not
make this intention so apparent, if
apparent at all." But we apprehend
that if the legislature had distinctly
declared their intention, that the
lands of A might be taken without
compensation for a drain to abate a
nuisance solely on the lands of B, the
court would have held it invalid as
to A.
9 ^Ante, § 280.
9 'See cases cited ante, § 283.
9 8"That the promotion and preser-
vation of the public health is a public
purpose, cannot be doubted. The
legislation of the State in creating
boards of health in cities, villages
and towns, and vesting in them great,
if not extreme and arbitrary powers,
show this. There is scarcely any one
object which has been the subject of
more enactments than this, or as to
which more power is given to officials
over the citizen and his property, and
by more summary proceedings.''
Matter of Ryers, 72 N. Y. 1, 28 Am.
Rep. 88. See also Zigler v. Menges,
121 Ind. 99, 22 X. E. 782, 16 Am. St.
Rep. 357 ; Hull v. Baird, 73 la. 528.
35 N. W. 613; Sisson v. Board of
Suprs., 128 la. 442, 104 iST. W. 454, 70
L.R.A. 440; Duke v. O'Bryan, 100 Ky.
710, 39 S. W. 444, 824; New Orleans
Drainage Co., 11 La. An. 338; Ding-
ley V. Boston, 100 Mass. 544; Ban-
croft V. Cambridge, 126 Mass. 438;
Kinnie v. Bare, 08 Mich. 025, 36 N.
W. 672; Lake Erie etc. R. R. Co. v.
Comrs., 63 Ohio St. 23, 57 N. E. 1009;
570
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§■ 286
can only he constructed for this purpose."^ As wet lands are
undoubtedly unhealthful, it is evident that the public health may
be made the real or ostensible ground of nearly all the drainage
laws which have ever been passed. It is never an objection to
an exercise of the power of eminent domain that it is instigated
by private persons whose private interests will thereby be pro-
moted. So a drain which will in fact promote the public health
is none the less a public use because it is sought by particular
individuals whose estates will be thereby improved. Most drain-
age laws, however, are not conditioned upon the public health.
Some of these laws permit any one or more persons to construct
a drain across the land of others without any consideration of
the public health or public welfare.^ Such statutes clearly per-
mit the taking of private property for private use, and are void.^
Lewis County v. Gordon, 20 Wash. 80,
54 Pac. 779; Skagit Co. v. McLean,
20 Wash. 92, 54 Pac. 781; State v.
Stewart, 74 Wis. 620, 43 N. W. 947;
In re Theresa Drainage Dist., 90 Wis.
301, 63 N. W. 288.
9 9Matter of Ryers, 72 N. Y.
1, 28 Am. Rep. 88. So by
statute in Michigan, 1 Howell's Stat.
1882, p. 474 ; Kinnie v. Base, 88 Mich.
025, 30 N. W. Rep. 672. And see Hull
V. Baird, 73 la. 528, 35 N. W. Rep.
613; Hulburt v. Harris, 3 App. Div.
30, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1056. But the
constitution has since been changed
to permit condemnation for drains
for agricultural purposes. Ante, §
43; Matter of Tuthill, 36 App. Div.
N. Y. 492; S. C. reversed and the con-
stitutional amendment held to be in
conflict with the federal constitution,
which forbids a State to deprive one
of his property without due process
of law. Matter of Tuthill, 163 N. Y.
133, 57 N. E. 303, 79 Am. St. Rep.
574, 49 L.R.A. 781. 8ee post, §§
298, 315.
lAn act of Connecticut passed in
1853, R. S. 1854, p. 780, permitted any
owner of land to drain across the
land of others. This was construed,
but no question made as to its valid-
ity, in French v. White, 24 Conn. 170.
So a law of New York passed in 1895,
1 Laws of N. Y. 1895, p. 227, C. 384.
2]Srickey v. Stearns Ranches Co.,
126 Cal. 150, 58 Pac. 459; Fleming v.
Hull, 73 la. 598, 35 N. W. 673; Cy-
press Pond Dr.. Co. v. Hooper, 2 Met;
(Ky.) 350; State v. Board of Super-
visors, 102 Minn. 442, 114 N. W. 244,
120 Am. St. Rep. 640; Jenal v. Green
Island Dr. Co., 12 Neb. 163; Matter
of Tuthill, 163 N. Y. 133, 57 N. B.
303, 79 Am. St. Rep. 574, 49 L.R.A.
781 ; Reeves v. Wood County, 8 Ohio
St. 333 ; Smith v. Atlantic etc. R. E.
Co., 25 Ohio St. 91.
A statute of Nebraska permitted
any three or more persons, being
owners of lands wet or liable to be
overflowed, to form a corporation for
constructing drains or levees for the
reclamation of their lands. This act
was held void in Jenal v. Green
Island Draining Co., 12 Neb. 163, 167.
The court says : "There is no condi-
tions upon which their right to locate
a ditch depend, except that they are
owners of wet and overflowed land.
A ditch may be located and opened
across the land of individual owners
merely to subserve private interests."
A similar law conferring like author-
§ 286 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 571
On the other hand a drain through a large tract of wet or
swampy land belonging to numerous proprietors, into which all
can drain whose lands incline towards it, would seem to be a
public use, although the only object accomplished is the drain-
age and improvement of private property. As has been already
observed, a public use does not necessarily mean for the use of
the entire community, but for the use of all within a given lo-
cality.* Thus a drain for the use of all within a certain district
is as much for public use as a school-house for the use of a par-
ticular school district. The school-house is for the use of those
who have children of school age residing within the school dis-
trict. The drain is for those who have land needing drainage
within the drainage district. The public outside of the school
district have no right in the school-house whatever, though all
share indirectly in the benefits which result from the schooling
there provided. So of the drainage district. The improvement
of the land in a particular locality is a benefit to the whole
State. The instances of a supply of water or gas for a city or
village afford similar analogies. The difference between such a
ditch which is kept open and public for the use of a particular
district and land taken for a mill or mill-dam is obvious. Un-
less the mill is for public use, as heretofore explained, the mill
and dam become the private property of the person or corpora-
tion making the condemnation, as absolutely and exclusively as
if it had been acquired by private purchase. Therefore, it seems
to us, that a law which provides for the drainage of a given dis-
trict by means of drains which are for the common use of all
the lands within the district, is valid as effectuating a public
ity upon any five or more was upheld for private use. Fleming v. Hull, 73
in Anderson v. The Kerns Draining la. 598, 35 N. W. Rep. 673. So in
Co., 14 Ind. 199. 8ee also Norfleet v. Indiana. Gifford Drainage Dist. v.
Cromwell, 70 N. C. 634, 16 Am. Rep. Shroer, 145 Ind. 572, 44 N. E. Rep.
787; Pool V. Trexler, 76 N. C. 297. 636.
In the latter case it is said that such 3"The public use or benefit need
drains may be made to drain the not extend to the whole public, or
property of one man or a single acre any large portion of it, within the
of ground. In Oregon an act which jurisdiction of the legislature. It
enabled any person whose land re- may be limited to the inhabitants of
quired draining to open a ditch over a small locality, but the benefit must
the lalid of others was upheld as be in common, not to particular per-
being for a public use. Seely v. sons or estates." O'Reily v. Kanka-
Sebastian, 4 Ore. 25. An almost pre- kee Valley Draining Co., 32 Ind. 169,
cisely similar statute of Iowa was 185; onte, § 254.
held Invalid, as authorizing a taking
572 EMi:s"EKT DOMAiisr. § 287
use Avitliin the meaning of the constitution. But a law -whicli
enables one or more proprietors to construct a drain across the
lands of others for the benefit of their particular estates, is
void as authorizing a taking for a private purpose. A laAv
such as we have indicated would be valid, might be special, desig-
nating the particular district to be drained, or general, providing
for the organization of drainage districts of a qiuisv public
character.*
As we have before intimated, the legislation on this subject .
presents almost every conceivable variety of method. And the
decisions present almost as much variety of reasoning and con-
clusion on the subject as the laws present in form. In the suc-
ceeding sections we have given a review of the decisions of each
State, with such reference to the laws passed upon as will make
them intelligible. The diversified and multifarious views ex-
pressed in these decisions and the antagonistic conclusions
reached are some evidence, at least, that the courts have not
found the true philosophy of the drainage question or the true
criterion by which to test particular laws. Whether we have sug-
gested them here, we leave the reader to judge.
§ 287 (189). Drains, etc. — Decisions of California.
An act incorporated a certain defined district as the Washington
Drainage District of Yolo County, created a board of trustees
and other ofiicers, and provided for a tax on the district for works
to be constructed under the supervision of the board. The ob-
ject of the act was to secure the drainage of the district and pre-
vent its overflow by the Sacramento river.® This act was held
valid. The court says : "We think the power of the legislature
to compel local improvements, which, in its judgment, will pro-
mote the health of the people, and advance the public good, is
unquestionable." ** An act of 1880 '' providing for a division
of the whole State into drainage districts, and for an elaborate
system of improvements, was declared void on other grounds
than those imder discussion.* An act of 1881 "to provide a
system of drainage for agricultural, swamp and overflowed
lands," enacted that when "two or more owners shall petition
■4This section quoted and approved ^Stats. 1880, p. 123.
in Laguna Dr. Dist. v. Martin Co., 'People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624. And
144 Cal. 209, 77 Pac. 933. see Brandenstein v. Hoke, 101 Cal.
6 Acts 1867-8, p. 466. 131, 35 Pac. 562.
6Hagar v. Supervisors of Yolo Co.,
47 Cal. 222, 233.
§ 287 WHAT IS A ruBLic use. 573
the board of supervisors for a ditch, drain or other water course,"
the supervisors should appoint a day for a hearing on the pe-
tition and give notice thereof and that "if the supervisors shall
find that the construction of the ditch would be conducive to the
general welfare of the land owners so petitioning" the work
should be done, land condemned therefor and the cost assessed
upon the property benefited. The act was held void as authoriz-
ing a taking for a private purpose.® An act of 1885 that on the
petition of the owners of two-thirds of any body of land sus-
ceptible of one mode of drainage, the same could be organized
into a district for the purpose of effecting such drainage. The
act required no finding that the drainage was for the public
health or welfare. It was held that such drainage was a public
purpose for which the power of eminent domain could be ex-
ercised, and condemnation by a district embracing only one
hundred and sixty acres was sustained. The court says: "It
is to the interest of every State, and hence conducive to the
public good, that all its land should be utilized and made pro-
ducti%'e, and this end attained in any particular locality or lo-
calities is a benefit to the entire State. A moment's thought will
suggest that whatever tends to increase the area of cultivable
land materially adds to the productive capacity of the State,
increases her resoiirces, induces settlement, promotes her indus-
trial energies, and enlarges her revenue. And whether legisla-
tion operates to facilitate the draining of land so as to adapt
it to cultivation, or to irrigate it so as to promote its productive-
ness, the same principle applies, and the end to be attained is
the same, public prosperity and welfare. And not only is drain-
age legislation supported as being, from a material point of
view, conducive to the public good, but it is equally sustained
as being within the exercise of the police power of the State — in
the interest of the public health. Ponds, marshes and low,
swampy places are generally recognized as a menace to the pub-
lic health of the neighborhood in which they exist as generating
malaria, and, hence, it is matter of public interest that they
should be abated and removed." ^^
sNickey v. Stearns Ranches Co., it be said because the area of over-
126 Cal. 150, 58 Pac. 459. flowed land embraced in the district
lOLaguna Dr. Dist. v. Charles Mar- amounts to a fraction less than one
tin Co., 144 Cal. 208, 214, 215, 77 Pac. hundred and sixty acres that the ob-
93.3. In regard to the size of the die- ject of the district in this proceeding
trict, the court says: "Neither can is not effectuating a public Tise with-
574
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 288
§ 288 (189a). Same. Illinois. Drainage laws are au-
thorized by a special provision of the constitution.*^ Laws for
the organization of drainage districts and the construction of
drains for the use of all within the district are held to be for a
public use.'^
§ 289 (190). Same. Indiana. In this State drainage
acts are upheld, both under the eminent domain and police pow-
ers.** But it must appear in each case that the proposed work
will be of public utility. "The drainage of a man's farm, sim-
ply to render it more valuable to the owner, would not be a
work of public utility, in the constitutional sense of the tei-m;
and a corporation, organized and acting for such a purpose,
would no more be acting in a public undertaking, than would
a company organized and acting for the clearing up of men's
farms and putting them in a better state of cultivation than the
proprietors were willing to do, though the public and adjoining
proprietors might be, in a substantial degree, benefited by the
operation." ** Under the statute now in force it must appear
that the proposed drain will improve the public health, benefit
in the meaning of the constitution.
The area of a drainage district is not
a matter from which, of itself, it can
be determined whether the district
corporation is exercising the right of
eminent domain for the private ad-
vantage of the owners within its ter-
ritory, rather than as a public agency-
exercising it for a public use. It is
apparent from the act that it con-
templates by its provisions a, subdi-
vision of the State into districts, so
that the lands which, by reason of
natural conditions, are capable of one
common system of drainage shall be
embraced in one district ; but of
course, in the nature of things, these
districts could not be expected to be
all of the same area; in organizing
these districts there would have to
be taken into consideration the area
of overflowed land as it existed, be it
great or small, which was capable of
drainage under one practical common
system, and under the terms of the
a^t it is made the duty of the board
of supervisors in providing for the
organization of the district, with a
view to have all the land capable of
one mode of drainage included
therein, to see that no land is ex-
cepted from said district which
should properly be included therein,
and to exclude all land improperly
included, so that the area of the land
overflowed could not affect the ques-
tion of public use in providing for its
drainage." p. 218.
iiConst. 1870, Art. 4, § 31; anic, §
25; Blake v. People, 109 III. 504;
Chronic v. Pugh, 136 111. 539, 27 N. E.
415.
12 Cleveland etc. Ey. Co. v. Polecat
Dr. Dist., 213 111. 83, 72 N. E. 684.
And see Heffner v. Cass & Morgan
Counties, 193 111. 439, 62 N. E. 201,
58 L.R.A. 353.
13 Anderson v. Kerns Draining Co.,
14 Ind. 199; O'Reiley v. Kankakee
Valley Draining Co., 32 Ind. 169.
1414 Ind. p. 202. Approved in Till-
man v. Kircher, 64 Ind. 104.
§ 293 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 575
a public highway in the county, or street of a town or city, or
be of public utility. The constitutionality of this statute is no
longer regarded as an open question.^^ A statute of 1893, au-
thorizing the formation of drainage districts and the constmc-
tion of drains -without any requirement that they should be for
the benefit of the public health or of public utility, was held to
be invalid.^"
§ 290 (191). Same. Iowa. Drainage for the "public
health, convenience or welfare" is held constitutional.*' A law
will be so construed, if possible, as to be valid and, therefore,
as permitting drainage only for the public health or for the
public convenience and utility. ■** But a statute which enabled
any person, who should desire to do so, to construct a tile or
other underground drain through the lands of another, was held
void as authorizing a taking for private use.-*^
§ 291. Same. Kansas. An act authorizing drainage for
the public health, convenience and welfare was sustained.^"
§ 292 (191a). Same. Kentucky. The inhabitants of a
certain wet district, comprising about 14,000 acres, were in-
corporated for the purpose of providing drainage for the same.
Six persons were named as trustees and vested with the neces-
sary powers, and authorized to levy a tax upon the lands up to
the limit of 25 cents per acre per year for ten years. It was
held that the act was to accomplish a private purpose and was
void.^* But drainage for the public health is recognized as a
public use.^^
§ 293 (191b). Same. Michigan. It is held that under
isRoss V. Davis, 97 Ind. 79; Wish- 440. Hull v. Baird, 73 la. 528, 35 N.
mier v. State, 97 Ind. 160; Neff v. W. 613, tends to support the proposi-
Eeed, 98 Ind. 341 ; Anderson v. Baker, tiou that drainage is a public use
98 Ind. 587; Lipes v. Hand, 104 Ind. only when necessary for the public
503; Heick v. Voight, 110 Ind. 279; health.
Zigler V. Menges, 121 Ind. 99, 22 N. isSisson v. Board of Supervisors,
E. 782, 16 Am. St. Rep. 357; Pound- 128 la. 442, 104 N. W. 454, 70 L.R.A.
stone V. Baldwin, 145 Ind. 139, 44 440.
N. E. 191 ; Huntington v. Amiss, 167 isFleming v. Hull, 73 la. 598, 35 N.
Ind. 375, 79 N. E. 199. W. 673.
isGiiford Drainage Dist. V. Shroer, 2 0Grifl5th v. Pence, 9 Kan. App.
145 Ind. 572, 44 N. E. 636. 253, 59 Pac. 677.
i7Hatch V. Pottawattamie Co., 43 2iCypress Pond Dr. Co. v. Hooper,
la. 442; Patterson v. Baiuner, 43 la. 2 Met. Ky. 350.
477; Sisson v. Board of Supervisors, 2 2Duke v. O'Bryan, 100 Ky. 710.
128 la. 442, 104 N. W. 454, 70 L.R.A.
576 EMIITENT DOMAIN. § 294
the constitution, as well as under the statutes, land cannot be
taken for drains except to promote the public health.^*
§ 294. Same. Minnesota. An act of 1887 provided that
on petition of property owners the county commissioners of a
county could establish a ditch when found to be conducive to
the public health, convenience or welfare, or when of public
benefit or utility.^* The ditch was constructed by the county
commissioners and kept in repair out of the public funds by the
officers of the township in which the ditch or any part thereof
was located. The act was held valid as providing for a public
object.^" This act was repealed and a new one substituted in
1901, which was A-ery similar in its scope, except that it required
no finding that the ditch would be conducive to the public health,
convenience or welfare. The act was construed as authorizing
ditches only when a public object would be promoted and, as so
construed, was sustained.^® The act was again revised in 1905^^
and the establishment of the ditch was made conditional upon
its being a public benefit or for the promotion of the public
health. The act was again held valid. ^® In all these cases the
drain provided for was a public drain, made and kept in repair
by the public authorities and for the common benefit of the lands
through which it was constructed.
In 1907 the legislature passed an act which permitted the
construction of a drain across the lands of others when any per-
son or persons are owners of any swamp, marsh or wet land
"which on account of its condition may endanger the public
health, or the drainage of which will result in the reclamation
of otherwise waste lands," or "where the construction of such
ditch or drain is of benefit or advantage to adjoining owner or
owners." ^® This act was held void as permitting one man to
drain across the lands of another.*"
2 3Kinnie v. Bare, 68 Mich. 625, 36 270. 230, Laws of 1905.
]Sr. W. 672; Attorney General v. Mc- 2 8Miller v. Jensen, 102 Minn. 391,
Clear, 146 Mich. 45, 109 N. W. 27; 1 113 N. W. 914.
Howell's Statutes, 1882, p. 474; 2 9C. 191, Laws of 1907.
Const. Art. 14, § 9. soState v. Board of Supervisors,
24C. 97, Laws of 1887. 102 Minn. 442, 114 N. W. 244, 120 Am.
2 5Lien v. Norman County, 80 St. Rep. 640.
Minn. 58, 82 N. W. 1094. See also the following cases re-
26State V. Polk Co. Comrs., 87 lating to drainage laws: Curran v.
Minn. 325, 92 N. W. 216, 60 L.R.A. Sibley County, 56 Minn. 432, 57 N.
161; McMillan v. Board of Co. W. 1070; Curran v. Sibley County, 47
Comrs., 92 Minn. 16, 100 N. W. 384. Minn. 313, 50 N. W. 237; Witty v.
§ 297 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 577
§ 295. Same. Missouri. The constitution of this State
permits a taking for drains and ditches across the lands of
others.*^ Drainage laws have existed since 1877 which permit
the organization of drainage districts of not less than six hun-
dred and forty acres in area and the construction of drains by
such districts. The law is of course held valid.*^ Another
law provides that one or more persons may secure a drain across
the lands of others for agricultural or sanitary purposes and this
too was held valid.*^
§ 296 (192). Same. Nebraska. An act empowering
any three or more persons, being owners of wet or overflowed
land, to form a corporation for the construction of drains or
levees over the land of others, was held void as authorizing a
taking for private use. But laws permitting drainage for the
jjublic health, convenience and welfare are sustained.^*
§ 297 (193). Same. New Jersey. An act for the rec-
lamation of tidewater marshes was passed in 1788, and with vari-
ous amendments has remained in force to the present time. So
also an act for the drainage of swamp or meadow lands.^^ In
Coster V. Tide Water Co.*® acts of this character were referred
to the police power. In the Court of Errors it was held that
the construction of dikes, etc., to prevent the overflow of large
districts of country, was a public use for which property might
be taken. But the drainage of meadows was referred to the
police power.*'' A special act for the drainage of lands on the
upper Passaic was held valid in State v. Blake,** and again
in the same case in a later volume,** where it was referred to
the police power.*" In 1871 an act was passed for the drainage
of wet lands where the owners of a major part of the land to be
affected so desired.*^ In Matter of Application for Drainage,*^
Board of County Comrs., 76 Minn. Griffin, 31 Neb. 668, 48 N. W. 819;
286, 79 N. W. 112; Dressen v. Co. Dodge County v. Acorn, 61 Neb. 376,
Comrs., 76 Minn. 290, 79 N. W. 113; 85 N. W. 292.
Clapp V. Minn. Grass Twine Co., 81 3 6 Vol. 1 R. S. 1877, p. 641.
Minn. 511, 84 N. W. 344. 3618 N. J. Eq. 54.
3i.Ante, § 37. 37Tide Water Co. v. Coster, 18 N.
3 2Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. J. Eq. 518, 531, 1866.
Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 70 S. W. 721, 3835 N. J. L. 208, 1871.
!)4 Am. St. Rep. 727, 60 L.R.A. 190. 3936 N. J. L. 442, 447, 1872.
3 3Lile V. Gibson, 91 Mo. App. 480; 4 0A similar case: O'Neill v. Ho-
R. S. 1899, §§ 6951-6974. boken, 72 N. J. L. 67, 60 Atl. 50.
34Jenal v. Green Island Dr. Co., 12 4iPub. Laws, 1871, p. 25.
Xeb. 163; Dakota County v. Cheney, 4235 N. J. L. 497, 1872.
22 Neb. 437, 35 N. W.-211; Darst v.
Em. D.— 37.
578 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 298
this act was held valid and referred to the eminent domain pow-
er. Also in Matter of Commissioners etc. on Pequest Elver.**
On an appeal of the latter case to the Court of Errors and
Appeals,** the decision of the Supreme Court was affirmed, but
the view that the act could be sustained as an exercise of the
eminent domain power was questioned, and its validity rested
upon the antiquity of such statutes and long acquiescence in
them.*^ But, while drainage acts are thus upheld in this State,
the power cannot be exercised for the profit of a private corpora-
tion not interested in the lands to be affected.*®
The act of 1871 above referred to came before the Supreme
Court of the United States, on appeal from the court of last
resort of Ifew Jersey, and it was held that the act did not de-
prive an owner of his property without due process of law,
within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States.*'^
§ 298 (194). Same. New York. Drainage works can
only be executed for the public health, the promotion of which is
a public use.*® In the earlier cases wherein drainage laws were
sustained, it appeared that the public health would be promoted,
although that was not made a condition to the exercise of the
powers granted.*® In 1894 the constitution of this State was
<339 N. J. L. 433, 1877. health), as a just and constitutional
4441 N. J. L. 175, 1879. exercise of the power of the legisla-
*^See the same case again in 42 ture to establish regulations by
N. J. L. 553, 1880. which adjoining lands, held by vari-
es State V. Driggs, 45 N. J. L. 91. ous owners in severalty, and in the
See also Coster v. Tide Water Co., 18 improvement of which all have a
N. J. Eq. 54, 518. common interest, but which, by
4 7Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. reason of the peculiar natural condi-
606. After reviewing the New Jersey tion of the whole tract, cannot be
cases, the court says : "This review improved or enjoyed by any of them
of the cases clearly shows that gen- without the concurrence of all, may
eral laws for the drainage of large be reclaimed and made useful to all
tracts of swamps and low lands, upon at their joint expense. The case
proceedings instituted by some of the comes within the principle upon
proprietors of the lands to compel all which this court upheld the validity
to contribute to the expense of their of general mill acts in Head v.
drainage, have been maintained by Amoskeag Manufacturing Co., 113
the courts of New Jersey (without U. S. 9." See ante, § 279.
reference to the power of taking pri- ^sMatter of Ryers, 72 N. Y. 1, 28
vijte property for the public use Am. Eep. 88, 1878; Burk v. Ayera,
under the right of eminent domain, 19 Hun 17.
or to the power of suppressing a ^sHartwell v. Armstrong, 19 Barb,
nuisance dangerous to the public 166, 1854; People v. Nearing, 27 N.
§ 300 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 579
luueuded so as to permit the legislature to pass general laws au-
thorizing the owners or occupants of agricultural land to drain
them across the lands of others.^"
In pursuance of this amendment the legislature in 1895 passed
an act "in relation to the drainage of agricultural lands," where-
by a person owning agricultural lands might procure their
drainage or protection from overilow by means of a drain or
dyke on the lands of another.^^ The proceedings were instituted
by a petition to the supreme court and the drain or dyke was
to be constructed and kept in repair by a board of commissioners
who assessed the cost upon the property benefited. The act was
lield invalid on the ground that the constitutional amendment
did not authorize a law under which the compensation and
damages could be assessed upon the property benefited.^^ A
■stiU more important question was mooted in the case, Gray, J.,
holding that the constitutional amendment itself was void, as
authorizing the taking of property for a private use in viola-
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Parker and Haight, JJ., were of a contrary opinion. The other
judges did not express themselves upon this question. We shall
recur to the subject in a later section.^^
§ 299 (195). Same. North Carolina. Drainage for
the benefit of private estates is sustained, first as a public use
under the eminent domain power, in ISTorfleet v. Cromwell,®*
and afterwards under the police power, in Pool v. Trexler,®^
and Winslow v. Winslow.®^
§ 300. Same. North Dakota. A drainage law provid-
ing for the construction and maintenance of drains "whenever
the same shall be conducive to the public health, convenience or
welfare," and which drains are constructed, owned and kept in
repair by the counties in which they are situated and established,
is upheld as constitutional.^''
Y. 306, 1863; People v. Jefferson Co. 6470 N. C. 634, 16 Am. Rep. 787.
Ct., 55 N. Y. 604; Matter of Drain- 5 676 N. C. 297.
ing Certain Swamp Lands, 5 Hun 5 695 N. C. 24. See also William-
116; Woodruff v. Fisher, 17 Barb. son v. Canal Company, 78 N. C. 156;
224; see ante, § 286. Porter v. Armstrong, 129 N. C. 101,
iOBee ante, § 43. 39 S. E. 799; Porter v. Armstrong,
511 Laws of 1895, p. 27, c. 384. 134 N. C. 447, 46 S. E. 997; Porter
5 2Matter of Tuthill, 163 N. Y. 133, v. Armstrong, 139 N. C. 179, 51 S.
57 N. E. 303, 7« Ahl St. Rep. 574, E. 926.
49 L.R.A. 781. s'Redmond v. Chacey, 7 N. D. 231,
tiPost, § 315. 73 N. W. 1081; Erickson v. Cass
580 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 301
§ 301 (196). Same. Ohio. An act whicli authorized
the construction of drains on the application of one or more per-
sons, without any consideration of the public welfare, was held
void; but it was held that drains, levees, etc., might be con-
structed when necessary for the "public health, convenience or
welfare." ^* Thereupon, in 1859, ^* an act was passed au-
thorizing County Commissioners, on petition of one or more
owners, to establish ditches, drains, etc., when the same are "de-
manded by or will be conducive tq thg public health, convenience
or welfare." This act was held valid in Thompson v. Treasurer
of, Wood County; *" also, a similar act *^ passed in 1862.^^
The Eevised Statutes of 1886, § 4511, provide that the
trustees of a township may establish a ditch whenever, in their
opinion, the same will be conducive to the public health, con-
venience or welfare. It was held that under this statute a ditch
could not be established, the only effect of which would be to
render the lands of two proprietors more productive.** "The
prosperity of each individual conduces, in a certain sense, to
the public welfare, but this fact is not a sufficient reason for
taking other private property to increase the prosperity of indi-
vidual men. The draining of marshes and ponds may be for
the promotion of the public health and so become a public ob-
ject ; but the draining of farms to render them more productive,
is not such an object." The "public health, convenience or wel-
fare" to be promoted have reference to the locality of the ditch.
The finding that a ditch, five miles long and extending into two
counties, "will be conducive to the public health, convenience and
welfare of the neighborhood, is a finding that the community
generally in the vicinity are benefited, and not merely the lands
of the petitioner and others. It is a finding that it is for the
public welfare as distinguished from a mere private advan-
tage." ®* A ditch to drain public roads or public school grounds
County, 11 N. D. 494, 92 N. W. 841 ; 59Laws of 1859, p. 58.
Turnquist v. Cass County, 11 N. D. son Ohio St. 678.
514, 92 N. W. 852. See Martin v. eiLaws of 1862, p. 93.
Tyler, 4 N. D. 270, 60 N. W. 392; szSessions v. Crunkelton, 20 Ohio
State V. Fisk, 15 N. D. 219, 107 N. St. 349.
W. 191; Alstad V. Sim, 15 N. D. 629, 6 3McQuillen v. Hatton, 42 Ohio
109 N. W. 66; Sim v. Kosholt, 16 St. 202.
N. D. 77, 112 N. W. 50. siChesbrough v. Commissioners,
5 8Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood 37. Ohio St. 508, 516; Lake Erie etc.
Co., 8 Ohio St. 333, 1858. E. R. Co. v. Hancock Co., 63 Ohio St.
§ 304 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 681
is a public use."® But an act which authorized the construction
of levees whenever, in the opinion of the probate judge, they
would be conducive to the health, convenience or welfare of any
number of citizens of his county, or were necessary for the pro-
tection of the land of such citizens, was held invalid, as permit-
ting the taking of private property for private use.®*
§ 302 (197). Same. Oregon. An act under which any
person might secure the construction of a ditch over the land of
others was held valid, as promoting a public use, in Seely v.
Sebastian.®'^
§ 303 (197a). Same. Washington. A drainage law
which provided for the construction of drains and ditches, dikes
and levees, but made no provision for compensation to those whose
lands were taken or damaged, unless the owners appeared and
claimed compensation, was held to be void, as being in violation
of the constitution, which requires compensation to be first made
for property taken or damaged for public use."^ The question of
public use was not discussed. Thereupon the legislature passed
an act to cure the defect in the former law and provided for the
recondemnation of the necessary land, where ditches had been
constructed in whole or in part, under the old law."® This law
was held valid and it was also held that the construction of
ditches for the drainage of land otherwise useless for agricultural
purposes is a public use, for which private property may be
taken."
§ 304 (198). Same. Wisconsin. A statute that any six or
more freeholders, residing in any tovsm and desiring to have any
ditch or drain laid out for draining any marsh, swamp or over-
flowed lands, or any existing ditch enlarged, might make appli-
cation therefor to the supervisors of the town, who were required
to lay out the same, "if, in their judgment such ditch, drain or
enlargement is demanded or will conduce to the public health
23, 57 N. E. 1009; Northern Ohio R. Stiles, 10 Wash. 388, 39 Pae. 116;
R. Co. V. Hancock Co., 63 Ohio St. Hayward v. Snohomish County, 11
32, 57 N. E. 1023. Wash. 429, 39 Pao. 652. The act in
BSLake Erie etc. R. R. Co. v. Han- question uses the drainage law of
cock Co., 63 Ohio St. 23, 57 N. B. 1890. Laws of 1889-1890, ch. 21, p.
1009. 652.
ccSmithv. Atlantic & Great West- ssLaws of 1895, ch. 89, p. 142.
em R. R. Co., 25 Ohio St. 91, 1874. 70Lewis County v. Gordon, 20
6 74 Ore. 25. Wash. 80, 54 Pac. 779 ; Skagit County
esAskam v. King County, 9 Wash. v. McLean, 20 Wash. 92, 54 Pac. 781.
], 36 Pac. 1097; Skagit County v.
582 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 304
or welfare," was held valid as an exercise of the police power.^^
A special act relating to Dane county was also upheld, whicli
permitted the construction of drains and other works for the
reclamation of wet lands, upon the application of twenty-five
or more owners of such lands, provided that commissioners, after
a hearing of parties interested, should be of the opinion "that
the public health or welfare will be thereby promoted." ''^ On
the other hand a law of 1891 that "whenever a majority of the
owners of lands within a district proposed to be organized, who
shall have arrived at lawful age, and who shall represent one-
third in area of the lands to be reclaimed or benefited, or when-
ever the adult owners of more than one-half of such lands desire
to construct a drain or drains, ditch or ditches, levee or levees,
or other work across the lands of others for agricultural, sani-
tary or mining pui"poses, or to maintain and keep in repair any
such drain," etc., they may apply to the circuit court of the prop-
er county, and if the court finds "that the proposed drain or
drains, ditch or ditches, levee or levees, or other works, is or are
necessary, or will be useful for the drainage of the lands pro-
posed to be drained thereby, for agricultural, sanitary
or mining purposes," the court shall appoint three competent
persons as commissioners to lay out and construct the proposed
works, was held to be invalid as authorizing the taking of private
property for private use.''* It is settled by the later decisions
'iDonnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461, useful to some, or perhaps many, pri-
46 Am. Rep. 637 ; State v. MeNay, 90 vate owners of land, by way of in-
Wis. 104, 62 N. W. 917. In the first creasing the usefulness and value of
of these cases, p. 466, it is said: their lands. But that is merely a
"It is obvious, at first blush, that private advantage. It interests the
this law cannot be sustained as pro- public only indirectly and remotely,
viding for a work for the public in the same way and sense in which
use." the public interest is advanced by
7 2 State v. Stewart, 74 Wis. 620, the thrift and prosperity of indi-
43 N. W. 947. vidual citizens. Donnelly v. Decker,
73In re Theresa Drainage Dist., supra. Some home or homes might
90 Wis. 301, 63 N. W. 288 (May 15, be made more cheerful and more
1895). The court says: "There is healthful. But one man's property
in the entire statute no expression or cannot be taken to make another
intimation that it was any part of man's home more cheerful or health-
the consideration upon which the im- ful. It is only when it will make the
provement should be authorized that homes of the public more healthful
it should be either necessary or de- that any man's property can be taken
sirable to promote any public inter- for 'sanitary purposes.' But it is
est, convenience, or welfare. No urged that the term 'sanitary pur-
doubt, such an improvement may be poses' comprehends and imports the
§ 306
WHAT IS A I^UBLIC USE.
583
that drains to promote the public health and welfare are a public
use for which private property may be taken and that, when
the construction of a drain requires the taking of property, it
involves an exercise of the eminent domain power.''*
§ 305 (199). Same. Other States. The foregoing em-
brace all of the decisions which have come to our notice in which
drainage laws have been assailed as not being a legitimate ex-
ercise of the eminent domain power. Some miscellaneous cases
in which they are attacked on other grounds are given in the
note.''^
§ 306 (200). Levees, dikes, etc. Dikes and levees to
idea of the public health. If so, it
might save this statute. Webster de-
fines the word 'sanitary' as 'per-
taining to or designed to secure san-
ity or health.' The Century Diction-
ary defines it as 'pertaining to health
or hygiene, or the preservation of
health.' It will be seen that the word
is of purely abstract meaning. It is
utterly devoid of any suggestion of
numbers or of public or private re-
lation. It imports neither. For such
purpose it is strictly neutral and im-
partial. Without some qualifying
word, it is inoperative to designate
the purpose as a public one, or as in
the interest of the public health. It
is, no doubt, for the legislature to
specify the use and purpose for which
it authorizes private property to be
appropriated. It should be expressed
clearly; for it cannot be enlarged by
a doubtful construction, nor be pre-
stuned to be larger than the purpose
which is expressed. Dill. Mun. Corp.
(4th Ed.) § 603. This is not a ques-
tion of the construction of ambiguous
words or terms. But it is an entire
failure to express in any form that
the taking of property for which it
provides is to be for a public use.
So it must be held that it does not
provide for a taking for a public use.
It could not lawfully provide for a
taking for any other than a public
use. It cannot support proceedings
for the condemnation of lands as for
a public use. It is entirely invalid."
We do not see how these different
cases can be reconciled. In the last
case it is held to be settled law "that
to dig ditches or drains across the
lands of private owners, under an ap-
parent legislative authority, is a tak-
ing of the lands." It does not make
any difference what the purpose of the
ditch or drain is. To occupy a man's
land with a ditch or drain is to take
his land. Consequently such a ditch
or drain can only be constructed for a
public purpose. In Donnelly v. Deck-
er, 58 Wis. 461, it is held that a ditcli
or drain to promote the public health
or welfare is not a public purpose.
Hence it follows by the logic of the
latest decision that the case of Don-
nelly V. Decker upheld the taking of
private property for a private pur-
pose, and it would seem to be over-
ruled by implication. But the latest
decision does not attempt, in express
terms, to overrule, explain or dis-
tinguish the prior cases.
7 4Eude v. St. Marie, 121 Wis. 634,
99 N. W. 460.
'^Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27
Mo. 495, 72 Am. Dee. 276; New Or-
leans Drainage Co., 11 La. An. 338;
Cypress Pond Draining Co. v. Hoop-
er, 2 Met, (Ky.) 350; Shelley v. St.
Charles Co., 17 Fed. 909.
684
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 306
prevent the overflow of extensive districts of country by streams
or tide-waters are a public use.'^^ They are a direct and imme-
diate benefit to all the land affected by them, and may be neces-
sary for the preservation of life and property. Both the powers
of taxation and of eminent domain may be exercised for this
purpose.^'' If the public health will be promoted by such im-
provements, the case is clear.^* If the public ways or other
public means of travel, transportation or communication will
be improved or secured from interruption and damage, the case
is equally clear.''® The only doubt arises, when the only object
and effect of such works is the improvement of private property.
7 6Missouri etc. Ry. Co., v. Cam-
bern, 66 Kan. 365, 71 Pac. 809, af-
firming S. C. 10 Kan. App. 581, 63
Pac. 605; Ham v. Levee Comrs., 83
Miss. 534, 35 So. 943; Egyptian Levee
Co. V. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495, 72 Am. Dec.
276; Tide Water Co. v. Coster, 18 N.
J. Eq. 518, 523; Matter of Drainage
along Pequest Kiver, 41 N. J. L. 175,
178; Norfleet v. Cromwell, 70 N. C.
634, 639; Hansen v. Hammer, 16
Wash. 315, 46 Pac. 332.
7TIn Coster v. Tide Water Co., 18
N. J. Eq. 54, and 518, the act passed
upon created a corporation for the
reclamation and protection of the
tide-water marshes about Newark
Bay by means of dikes, drains and
other works. Of this act the Court
of Errors and Appeal say: "That
the legislative authority is competent
to effect the end provided for in this
act, I can entertain no doubt. The
purpose contemplated is to reclaim
and bring into use a tract of land
covering about one-fourth of the
county of Hudson and several thous-
and acres in the county of Union.
This large district is now compara-
tively useless. In its present condi-
tion it impairs very materially the
benefits which naturally belong to
the adjacency of the territory of the
State to its navigable waters. It is
difficult, from the great expense of
such works, to build roads across it,
and consequently it has heretofore in-
terposed a barrier to anything like
easy access, except by means of rail-
roads, from one town to another sit-
uated upon its borders. To remove
these evils and to make this vast
region fit for habitation and use
seems to me plainly within the legiti-
mate province of legislation; and, to
effect such ends, I see no reason to
doubt that both the prerogatives of
taxation and eminent domain may be
resorted to. From the earliest times,
the history of the legislation of this
State exhibits many examples of the
exercise of both these powers for pur-
poses not dissimilar, and by these
means, without question, many im-
provements have been effected. The
principle is similar to that which
validates the transfer, by legislative
authority, of private property to pri-
vate corporations for the construc-
tion of railroads and canals, or the
construction of sewers and streets,
and the imposition of the expense
upon the lands benefited." p. 520. See
also Cooley on Taxation, p. 427;
Reelfoot Lake Levee Dist. v. Daw-
son, 97 Tenn. 151, 36 S. W. 1041, 34
L.R.A. 725.
■!»See post, § 307; ante, § 286.
7»Coster V. Tide Water Co., 18 N.
J. Eq. 54; Tide Water Co. v. Coster,
18 N. J. Eq. 518.
§ 306 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 585
In sucH case the same principles ■would seem to apply as in case
of drains and ditches for the reclamation of wet lands, or the
irrigation of arid lands.^"
There is also another view by which the works in question
can be sustained. Every natural stream is public, in the sense
of being for the common use and benefit of the proprietors of
all the lands drained by it or subject to its influence, and any
improvement of it by dikes or otherwise for the benefit of such
lands is a public purpose, as being for the common use and bene-
fit of all such lands as are affected by the improvements. There-
fore, the construction of a levee which shall confine the waters
of a stream to its channel and prevent the overflow
of the adjacent country is a public use for which property may
be taken or taxes levied. And similar considerations apply to
tide-waters. The shores of the sea are public for all purposes,
and may be improved, not only for the purposes
of navigation, but also to prevent erosion or submersion of the
adjacent land. According to this view, dikes and levees to pre-
vent the overflow of streams or tide-waters are a public use per
se, and it rests absolutely with the legislature to determine when
the power of eminent domain shall be exercised for that purpose,
and what the extent of benefit must be to justify a resort to that
power.** The courts may always protect the individual from
the perversion of laws authorizing the appropriation of private
soSee ante, § 286; post, § 308. v. Atlantic & Great Western R. E.
81 We do not understand how the Co., 25 Ohio St. 91, an act which au-
taking for a certain definite purpose thorized the erection of a levee when-
can be a public use or not, according ever, in the opinion of the probate
to the result of an investigation of judge, it will be conducive to the
the circumstances of each proposed health, convenience or welfare of any
exercise of the power for that pur- niunber of citizens of his counfy, or
pose. A purpose for which property is necessary for the protection of the
may be taken must be held to be a land of such citizens or any of them
public use or not, according to the from overflow, was held invalid as au- ,
nature and character of the purpose thorizing the taking of property for
itself. As to whether the power of private use. It seems to us this law
eminent domain shall be exercised for might be upheld, on the ground that
a purpose in its nature public, and the erection of a levee to confine the
the time, manner and extent of its waters of a stream within their
exercise, in the absence of special natural channel is a public use. An
constitutional provisions, are exclu- act which is in fact for the promotion
sively legislative questions. A con- of a public use may be upheld, though
trary view is expressed in a drainage the legislature has declared a use
case in 35 N. J. L., p. 505. In Smith which is not public.
586 EMINEIfT DOMAIN. § 307
property for public use. Levee acts have almost uniformly been
upheld by the courts, though they have move frequently been
called in question under the power of taxation than under that
of eminent domain.*^ In Louisiana, lands on the banks of the
Mississippi are subjected to a levee servitude, by virtue of which
the same may be occupied for that purpose without compensa-
tion.^* In Missouri levee acts have been referred to the police
power.**
§ 307 (201), The public health and safety. Abolishing
grade crossings, ISTothing is more vital to the welfare of the
State than the public health, and works calculated to promote
the public health, by removing the causes of disease or affording
to populous communities a supply of pure air, pure water or
means of necessary recreation, are a public use.*^ We have al-
ready had occasion to refer to this subject in connection with
public parks *® and drainage.*^ Drains may be constructed or
dams destroyed ** in order to relieve low grounds of their ex-
cessive moisture and render them more salubrious. Low grounds
in the neighborhood of populous districts may be filled to abate
a nuisance, and the power of eminent domain exercised for this
purpose.*® So to promote the public safety grade crossings of
railroads may be abolished and this is a public purpose for which
property may be taken or public money appropriated.®"
§ 308 (202). Irrigation. The construction of canals,
conduits and other works to convey or store water for irriga-
tion in localities where the rainfall is insuiEcient or too uncer-
tain for agricultural purposes, and which are for the use of all
those capable of being supplied by them upon terms which may
82Upheld under power of eminent ^^Ante, § 271.
domain: Tide Water Co. v. Coster, ^^Ante, § 286.
18 N. J. Eq. 518. Upheld under tax- 8 8 Woodruff v. Fisher, 17 Barb,
ing power: McGhee v. Mathis, 21 224; Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray 417;
Ark. 40; Williams v. Cammack, 27 Miller v. Craig, 11 N. J. Eq. 175.
Miss. 209; Alcorn v. Hamer, 38 Miss. ssDingley v. Boston, 100 Mass.
652; Daily v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367; 544; Bancroft v. Cambridge, 126
Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. Mass. 438; Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U. S.
495, 72 Am. Dec. 276; Boro v. 380, 16 S. C. 43; Ante) § 247.
Phillips, 4 Dill. 216; Cooley on Taxa- soSummerfield v. Chicago, 197 111.
tion, p. 427 ; Gould on Waters, § 247. 270, 64 N. E. 490 ; Millard v. Roberts,
ssSee ante, § 233. 202 U. S. 429, 26 S. C. 674. For
8<Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo. 543, numerous cases arising out of the
48 S. W. 629. abolition of grade crossings see ante,
ssMatter of Ryers, 72 N. Y. 1, 28 § 248.
Am. Rep. 88.
§ 308
■WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE.
587
be regulated by law, would seem to be a public use within the
meaning of the constitution.'*^ A statute of Utah which per-
mitted one person to condemn a right of way for an irrigating
ditch for the purpose only of irrigating his own land was upheld
as providing for a public use by the supreme court of Utah."^
And this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the
United States, which held that in the particular case, the defend-
ant was not deprived of his property without due process of
law.** Several of the State constitutions provide especially
for the condemnation of property for irrigation purposes.®*
These would be valid under the decision last cited, though they
permitted one man to condemn for his private use.
siOury V. Goodwin, 3 Ariz. 255, 36
Pac. 376, 4 Am. R. E. & Corp. Rep.
81 ; Cummings v. Peters, 56 Cal. 593;
Lux V. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255; Irriga-
tion District y. Williams, 76 Cal. 360,
18 Pae. 379; Irrigation v. De Lappe,
79 Cal. 351, 21 Pac. 825 ; In re Madera
Irrigation Diet., 92 Cal. 296, 28 Pac.
272, 675, 27 Am. St. Rep. 106, 14
L.R.A. 755, 5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
288; Aliso Water Co. v. Baker, 95
Cal. 268, 30 Pac. 537; Lindsay
Irrigation Co. v. Mehrtens, 97 Cal.
676, 32 Pae. 802; Oritz v. Han-
sen, 35 Colo. 100, 83 Pac. 964;
Witterding v. Green, 4 Ida. 473,
45 Pae. 134; Lake Keon Nav. Co.
V. Klein, 63 Kan. 484, 65 Pac. 684;
Salazar v. Smart, 12 Mont. 395, 30
Pac. 676; Ellinghouse v. Taylor, 19
Mont. 462, 48 Pac. 757 ; Helena Power
Trans. Co. v. Spratt, 35 Mont. 108,
88 Pac. 773, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 567;
Cummings v. Hyatt, 54 JiTeb. 35, 74
N. W. 411; Crawford Co. v. Hath-
away, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N. W. 781, 108
Am. St. Rep. 647, 60 L.R.A. 889;
Albuquerque L. & I. Co. v. Gutierrez,
10 N. M. 177, 61 Pac. 357 ; Umatilla
Irr. Co. v. Barnhart, 22 Or. 389, 30
Pac. 37; Miles v. Benton Tp., 11 S.
D. 450, 78 N. W. 1004; McGee Irr.
Ditch Co. V. Hudson, 85 Tex. 587, 22
S. W. 967; Borden v. Trespalaeios
R. & I. Co., 98 Tex. 494, 88 S. W. 11,
107 Am. St. Rep. 640; Prescott Irri-
gation Co. V. Flathers, 20 Wash. 454,
55 Pac. 635; Nash v. Clark, 27 Utah
158, 75 Pac. 371, 101 Am. St. Rep.
953, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 208; S. C. af-
firmed, Clark V. Nash, 198 U. S. 361,
25 S. C. 676. The question is very
elaborately argued by the Supreme
Court of Arizona in the case first
cited. The California act of 1887,
which has been upheld in the Cali-
fornia cases above cited, is declared
to be unconstitutional by Ross, Cir-
cuit Judge, as authorizing the taking
of property for private use, in Brad-
ley V. Fallbrook Irr. Dist., 68 Fed.
Rep. 948. But this decision has
been reversed in an elaborate
opinion by the Supreme Court of the
United States. Fallbrook Irr. Dist.
V. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 S. C.
Rep. 56. The taking of private prop-
erty for irrigation works is provided
for by a special constitutional pro-
vision in Colorado. Ante, § 19. And
see Sand Creek Lateral Irr. Co. v.
Davis, 17 Col. 326, 29 Pac. Rep. 742 ;
San Luis Land etc. Co. v. Kenilworth
Canal Co., 3 Col. App. 244, 32 Pac.
Rep. 860.
9 2Nash v. Clark 27 Utah 158, 75
Pac. 371, 101 Am. St. Rep. 953, 1
L.R.A. (N.S.) 208.
9 3Clark V. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 25
S. C. 676.
9 4 See § 19, Colorado; § 24, Idaho;
§ 38, Montana; § 47, Oklahoma; §
j8, Washington; § 61, Wyoming.
688 EMINENT DOMAIN § 309
§ 309 (203). Taking for the United States. Property
taken for the use of the general government is taken for a public
purpose, for which the State may exercise its power of eminent
domain. Thus it has been held that the United States may,
through the machinery of the States, take private property for
a postoffice,®^ for a fort,®® for naval purposes,®'' for works to sup-
ply the national capital with water,®® or for the purpose of
prosecuting the coast survey.®' This power has been denied in
Michigan.^ It seems to us, however, that property taken for
the use of the national government, being for the use of all the
people of all the States, is certainly for the use of the people
of that State where it is located, who would be likely to be
especially interested in the improvement to be made.
§ 310. Taking for use in foreign State. The public use
for which property may* be taken is a public use within the
State from which the power is derived. "It seems to be an
admitted fact generally, that the power inheres in a State for
domestic uses only, to be exercised for the benefit of its own
people, and cannot be extended merely to promote the public
uses of a foreign State.^ In the^case cited it was held that a
Georgia corporation, engaged in supplying water to two cities
in Alabama and to one city in Georgia, could condemn land in
Alabama for the purpose of preserving the purity of its water
supply. "While a State," says the court, "will take care to use
this power for the benefit of its own people, it will not refuse
to exercise it for such purpose, because the inhabitants of a
neighboring State may incidentally partake of the fruits of its
exercise. Such a refusal would violate the principles of a just
sBBurt V. Merchants' Insurance thority of the nation is ample for the
Co., 106 Mass. 356, 8 Am. Rep. 339. supply of its own needs in this regard
9 6In re League Island, 1 Brews. under all circumstances. In the
Pa. 524; Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 second place, the eminent domain in
Cal. 229. any sovereignty exists only for its
STBranch v. Lewerenz, 75 Conn. own purposes; and to furnish ma-
319, 53 Atl. 658. chinery to the general government
9 8Ileddell v. Ryan, 14 Md. 444, 74 under, and by means of which, it is
Am. Dec. 550. to appropriate lands for national ob-
9 90rr V. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590. jects, is not among the ends contem-
iTrombley v. Humphrey, 23 Mich, plated in the creation of the State
471, 476. The court says: "In the government."
first place there can be no necessity 2Columbus W. W. Co. v. Long, 121
for the exercise of this right by the Ala. 245, 25 So. 702.
States for this purpose, for the au-
§ 312 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USB. 589
public policy, and the neighborly comity -which should exist be-
tween States." *
§ 311 (204). Taking all of a tract when only a part
is required. Statutes for widening or opening streets some-
times provide that, where part of a lot is required, the whole
may be taken and the part not required sold for the benefit of
the improvement. Such statutes are not void, but they cannot
be enforced against the will of the owner, as the part not needed
for the street would be taken for private use.* But the owner
may consent to the taking, and thereby a valid title will be
acquired by the city.^ The taking of the compensation awarded
amounts to such consent, and the owner cannot afterwards re-
claim the property.® If the law simply provides that the owner
may require the city to take the whole, it is not objectionable,
since it is inoperative without the owner's consent.'^
§ 312 (205). Miscellaneous cases: Settling private
controversies. The legislature of Kentucky passed an act cre-
ating a corporation with power to fence a tract of some fifteen
hundred acres of land which was subject to annual floods carry-
ing off the fences. The cost was to be made a tax upon the sev-
eral owners, according to acreage. The law was held invalid
as not being for a public purpose.* A New York corporation
was formed under the general law for the purpose of acquiring
certain swamp, marsh and other lands in the County of Kings,
which were particularly described in the certificate of incorpo-
ration, and to excavate, construct and maintain one or more
basins, docks, wharves and piers, and to erect thereon suitable
warehouses, mills, furnaces, foundries, factories, shops and such
other buildings as might be necessary and proper for docking,
loading and unloading vessels, for the storage of goods and for
sibid. 511, 53 Am. Dec. 325, overruling same
^Matter of Albany Street, 11 case in 2 Sandf. 89.
Wend. 149, 25 Am. Dec. 618 ; Embury 'Mayor etc. of Baltimore v. Clunet,
V. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511, 53 Am. Dec. 23 Md. 449, 464; Boulat v. Munici-
325 ; S. C. 2 Sandf. 98 ; Matter of pality No. 1, 5 La. An. 363.
John and Cherry Streets, 19 Wend. sSeufHetown Fence Co. v. McAIlis-
659; Bennett v. Boyle, 40 Barb. 551 ; ter, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 312. The follow-
Dunn V. City Council of Charleston, ing are similar cases: Hancock
Harper (11 S. C.) 189; Gregg v. Stock & Fence Law Co. v. Adams, 87
Baltimore, 56 Md. 256. Ky. 417, 9 S. W. 246; Fort v. Good-
5/5Mf. win, 36 S. C. 445, 15 S. E. 723;
6 Sherman v. Kane, 46 N. Y. Supr. Goodate v. Sowell, 62 S. C. 516, 40
Ct. 310; Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. S. E. 970.
590 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 312
carrying on generally the business of a dock, warehousing and
manufacturing company, and in any and every other proper and
suitable way promoting and increasing the facilities for com-
merce, manufactures and business generally. A special act,
afterwards passed, authorized the company to condemn any of
the lands specified which it could not acquire by agreement, and
provided that the basin of the company should at all times be
open to public use for all vessels that might apply therefor, but
left by far the greater part of the works under the absolute
control of the company. The Court of Appeals held that the ob-
ject was not a public use. "We cannot regard such a project
as a public purpose or use which justifies the delegation to this
company of the right of eminent domain. The enterprise is, in
substance, a private one, and the pretense that it is for a public
purpose is merely colorable and illusory. The taking of private
property for private purposes cannot be authorized even by legis-
lative act, and the fact that the use to which the property is in-
tended to be put, or the structure intended to be built thereon,
will tend incidentally to benefit the public by affording addi-
tional accommodations for business, commerce or manufactures,
is not sufiicient to bring the case within the operation of the
tight of eminent domain, so long as the structures are to remain
under private ownership and control, and no right to their use
or to direct their management is conferred upon the public." *
To take the property of one and transfer it to another in order
to settle a private controversy concerning title to the property, is
not a taking for public use, however numerous the controversies
or however extensive the property in question.'" In 1869 an
act was passed in Pennsylvania to provide for the extinction of
irredeemable ground rents upon payment, by the owners of the
"land out of which they issued, of damages or compensation to
be ascertained as provided in the act. This was held invalid as
authorizing the taking of private property for private use.-'' It
has been held that, under the eminent domain power, congress
may provide for the extinguishment of Indian titles to land and
for the sale and transfer of such land to private parties.'^ An
sMatter of Application of E. B. W. sylvania claimants to property in the
& M. Co., 96 N. Y. 42, 48. latter State. See also Hoye v. Swan's
10 Van Home's Lessee v. Dorrance, Lessee, 5 Md. 237.
2 Dall. 304; Lessee of Pickering t. uPalairet's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 479.
Rutty, 1 S. & E. 511. These are cases i2Tuttle v. Moore, 3 Ind. Ter. 712,
growing out of laws for settling dis- 64 S. W. 585.
putes between Connecticut and Penn-
§ 313 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 591
act authorizing a court to confirm and make valid a deed pre-
viously executed by a married woman, -which was not properly
acknowledged, was held invalid as an attempt to take private
property for a private purpose.-'* Public bath houses ^* and
poor farms ^' are public uses, for which, doubtless, private prop-
erty could be condemned. Land may be taken to procure gravel
for the repair of streets.^® Where an act provides for a general
scheme for laying out, changing and discontinuing streets for
the improvement of a particular locality and provides for acquir-
ing the fee of discontinued streets to be held for private use, it
is not obnoxious to the objection that it authorizes a taking for
private use.^'' An act of Colorado providing "that the public
shall have the right to fish in any stream of this State, stocked
at public expense, subject to actions in trespass for any damage
done property along the bank of any such streams," was held
invalid as an attempt to take private property for private use.^**
§ 313. To constitute a public use the public must have
a legal right to the use or service for which the property
is taken. Where property is taken by private corporations or
individuals, it must not only appear that the purpose of the
taking is a public use, but also that the public have a right to
that use independent of the will of the condemning party. ^^
isPearce's Heirs v. Patton, 7 B. 581 ; Jacobs v. Clearview Water Sup-
Mon. 162, 167. ply Co., 220 Pa. St. 388, 69 Atl. 870 ;
i4Poillon V. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 4
132. Coldw. 419; Ryan v. Terminal Co.,
iBTyrone Tp. School District's Ap- 102 Tenn. Ill, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L.R.A.
peal, 1 Monaghan (Pa. Supm. Ct.) 303; Borden v. Tres.palaeios R. & I.
20. Co., 98 Tex. 494, 86 S. W. 11, 107
I'Sommerville v. Waltham, 170 Am. St. Rep. 640 ; Avery v. Vermont
Mass. 160. Elec. Co., 75 Vt. 235, 54 Atl. 179, 98
i7Matter of Mayor etc. of New Am. St. Rep. 818, 59 L.R.A. 817;
York, 157 N. Y. 409, 52 N. E. 1126, Fallaburg P. & M. Co. v. Alexander,
affirming 28 App. Div. 143. 101 Va. 98, 43 S. E. 194, 99 Am. St.
isHartmanv. Tresise, 36Colo. 146, Rep. 855, 61 L.R.A. 129; State v.
84 Pac. 685, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 872. White River Power Co., 39 Wash.
lOLake Keon Nav. etc. Co. v. Klein, 648, 82 Pac. 150, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 842 ;
63 Kan. 484, 65 Pac. 684, 93 Am. St. State v. Superior Court, 42 Wash.
Rep. 299; Howard Mills Co. v. 660, 85 Pac. 666, 5 L.R.A. ( N.S. ) 672 ;
Schwartz L. & C. Co., 77 Kan. 599, 95 State v. Tolt P. & T. Co., 50 Wash.
Pac. 559; Berrien Springs W. P. Co. 13, 96 Pac. 519; Caretta Ry.
V. Berrien Circ. Judge, 133 Mich. 48, Co. v. Va. Pocahontas Coal Co., 62
94 N. W. 379, 103 Am. St. Rep. 438 ; W. Va. 185, 57 S. E. 401 ; Hench v.
Rockingham Co. L. & P. Co. v. Hobbs, Pritt, 62 W. Va. 270, 57 S. E. 808 ;
72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 66 L.R.A. Scott Lumber Co. v. Wolford, 62 W.
592 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 313
"The service proposed," says the court in one case, "must be
such as every individual member of the community, similarly
situated, shall have the right to demand and receive upon like
conditions as any other member, \^hether the corporation would
accede to the bidding or not. The community might be large
or small, or the service might be limited to a few, or extended
to many ; but within the compass of the proposed service every
individual similarly situated should be entitled to it as of right
upon like conditions; otherwise it is hardly conceivable how
such an institution could be considered a public service corpora-
tion. If it may serve whom it pleases and deny whom, it pleases,
although those it accommodates may be a part of the general
public, the service becomes of private consequence merely, and
the real public is ignored. So that, unless all may, under like
and similar conditions and circumstances, demand and receive
as of right, it is not a public, but a private service." *" Thus
where a corporation was authorized to create water power or
electricity for its own use or the use of others, it was held that
it could not condemn, as it was optional with the company wheth-
er it would serve itself or the public.*^ But where the authority
is general, to provide and furnish a power or service, and the
power of eminent domain is conferred, there is an implied obliga-
tion to serve the public on demand and impartially and the use
is held to be a public use.*^ "The delegation of the power of
eminent domain to a corporation is not always accompanied
vsdth an express imposition of the obligation to serve the public
reasonably and equitably. A corporation by the acceptance and
exercise of the power impliedly undertakes such service respect-
ing the subject for which the power is exercised." ^*
Va. 555, 59 S. E. 516; Wis. Eiv. Imp. ham Co. L. & P. Co. v. Hobbs, 72 N.
Co. V. Pier (Wis.) 118 N. W. 857; H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 66 L.E.A. 581;
Shasta Power Co. v. Walker, 149 Fed. Kansas etc. Ry. Co. v. N. W. Coal &
568. Min. Co., 161 Mo. 288, 61 S. W. 684,
2 0Shasta Power Co. v. Walker, 149 84 Am. St. Rep. 717, 51 L.R.A. 936;
Fed. 568, 572. Helena Power Transmission Co. v.
siBerrien Springs Water Power Spratt, 35 Mont. 108, 88 Pao. 773, 8
Co. V. Berrien Circ. Judge, 133 Mich. L.R.A. (N.S.) 567; Borden v. Tres-
48, 94 N. W. 379, 103 Am. St. Rep. palacios R. & I. Co., 98 Tex. 494, 86
438; Fallsburg P. & M. Co. v. Alex- S. W. 11, 107 Am. St. Rep. 640.
ander, 101 Va. 98, 43 S. B. 194, 99 zsRookingham Co. L. & P. Co. v.
Am. St. Rep. 855, 61 L.R.A. 129. Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 537, 58 Atl. 46,
22Lake Koen Nav. etc. Co. v. Klein, 66 L.R.A. 581.
63 Kan. 484, 65 Pac. 684; Rocking-
§ 314 WHAT IS A PUBIJO USE. 593
§ 314 (206). Combination of public and private use
in the same act or proceeding. An act which authorized
the erection of a dam across a navigable river by a city, either
for the purpose of water works for the city or for the purpose
of leasing the water for private use was held void.^*
So, in a State where the only kind of mills regarded as a public
use are public grist-mills, a statute which authorized the con-
demnation of property for the erection of a mill or other ma-
chinery was held void.^^ In this case the court says: "We
have, then, the case of a statute, which, in the employment of a
generic phrase, without expressing the different species included
in that genus, attempts, by words not separable, to confer a gen-
eral authority, a part of the patent object of which are vsdthin,
and others without, the pale of constitutional power. In such
case, we have no discretion but to pronounce the entire clause
unconstitutional." A company was chartered to construct and
operate plants and water power and "to manufacture and gen-
erate water power, electrical and other power, light or heat, and
utilize and transmit and distribute such power, light or heat to
any place or places for its own use or for the use of other indi-
viduals or corporations," and, in aid of such purposes, was given
the power of eminent domain. It was held that the company
could not condemn for the purposes of its charter.^* So where a
statute conferred the power of eminent domain upon corpora-
tions organized to create, v^e, lease and sell water power. ^^
But other cases hold that, when a statute authorizes the con-
demnation of property for various purposes, some of which are
public and some private, the authority will be good and may be
exercised for such of the purposes specified as are in fact pub-
lic.^ So a corporation organized for both public and private
2 4 Attorney General v. Eau Claire, Berrien Circ. Judge, 133 Mich. 48, 94
37 Wia. 400. After this decision the N. W. 379, 103 Am. St. Kep. 438.
act was amended so as to make the And see Hercules Water Co. v. Fer-
water-works compulsory and permit nandez, 5 Cal. App. 726; La. Nav. &
the leasing of only surplus water, and Fisheries Co. v. DouUut, 114 La. 906,
was then sustained. State v. Eau 38 So. 613.
Claire, 40 Wis. 533. 2 8Lake Keen etc. Co. v. Klein, 63
2 5Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311, Kan. 484, 65 Pac. 684, 93 Am. St. Rep.
333. 299 ; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me. 351, 61
26Fallsburg P. & M. Co. v. Alex- Atl. 785, 109 Am. St. Rep. 526, 70
ander, 101 Va. 98, 43 S. E. 194, 99 L.R.A. 472 ; Minn. Canal & Power Co.
Am. St. Rep. 855, 61 L.R.A. 129. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107
2 7Berrien Springs W. P. Co. v. N. W. 405, 5 L.R.A. 638; In re R. I.
Em. D.— 38.
594 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 314:
purposes may condemn property in aid of the purposes wMcli
are public.^* And this is in accordance with a general rule,
which has been thus stated by the supreme court of New Hamp-
shire: "The rule of construction universally adopted is that
when a statute may constitutionally operate upon certain per-
sons, or in certain cases, and was not evidently intended to con-
flict with the constitution, it is not to be held unconstitutional
merely because there may be persons to whom, or cases in which,
it cannot constitutionally apply; but it is to be held constitu-
tional and to be construed not to apply to the latter persons or
cases, on the ground that courts are bound to presume that
the legislature did not intend to violate the constitution." ^*
According to this rule the power of eminent domain may be
exercised for such purposes as are a public use, while the other
purposes must be accomplished, if at all, without the aid of
that power. Thus where a corporation was authorized to con-
demn property for "its corporate purposes," it was held to
mean only such purposes as were a public use.**^ And in pro-
ceedings under such a statute the petition should clearly show
that the property sought is to be devoted to a purpose, which is
not only within the statutory powers, but also a public use within
the constitution.^^ If the petition is general to condemn for
the use of the corporation or for the purposes of the charter or
Suburban Ry. Co., 22 E. I. 455, 48 Fackler, 91 Wis. 418, 64 N. W. 1029;
Atl. 590; In re R. I. Suburban Ry. Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 232;
Co. 22' R. I. 457, 48 Atl. 591, Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 24
52 L.R.A. 879; State v. Cen- L. ed. 377; Railroad Co. v. Shutte,
tralia etc. Ry. & P. Co., 42 Wash. 103 U. S. 118, 26 L. ed. 327; Super-
G32, 85 Pac. 344; State v. Olympic L. visors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305, 313,
& P. Co., 46 Wash. 511, 90 Pac. 656. 314, 26 L. ed. 1044; United States
And see Thorn v. Ga. Mfg. & Public v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 118 U. S.
Service Co., 128 Ga. 187, 57 S. E. 75. 235, 6 S. C. 1038, 30 L. ed. 173; Mc-
2 9 Walker v. Shasta Power Co., CuUough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102,
160 Fed. 856, 87 C. C. A. 660, 19 19 S. C. 134, 43 L. ed. 382; 1 Lewis'
L.R.A.(N.S.) 725. Sutherland Stat. Constr. §§ 298-300.
soOpinion of the Justices, 41 N. siin re R. I. Suburban Ry. Co., 22
H. 555. To same effect: State v. R. I. 455, 48 Atl. 590; In re R. I.
Smiley, 65 Kan. 240, 69 Pac. 199; Suburban Ry. Co., 22 R. I. 457, 48
Grimes v. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168, 28 S. Atl. 591, 52 L.R.A. 879.
W. 756, 47 Am. St. Rep. 653, 26 szstate v. Centralia etc. Ry. & P.
L.R.A. 638; State v. McGowan, 138 Co., 42 Wash. 632, 85 Pac. 344; State
Mo. 187, 39 S. W. 771 ; Citizens' Nat. v. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 660, 85
Bank V. Graham, 147 Mo. 250, 48 S. Pac. 666, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 672; State
W. 910; Northrup v. Hoyt, 31 Ore. v. Olympia L. & P. Co., 46 Wash. 511,
524, 49 Pac. 754; State v. Mines, 38 90 Pac. 656.
W. Va. 125, 18 S. E. 470; State v.
§ 315 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 595
organization, the proceeding should be dismissed.^^ So an
application under an act to condenm property for purposes,
part of whieh are within, and part not within, the act, will be
bad in toto.^*
§ 315 (206a). Taking for other than a public purpose
violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal consti-
tution. The fourteenth amendment forbids any State to deprive
a person of his property without due process of law. To take
property for other than a public purpose, either under the guise
of taxation or of eminent domain, is to violate this provision.^ ^
Hence the purpose of the taking may present a federal question,
though arising under State laws. But in thus applying the fed-
eral Constitution the broadest possible construction should be
given to the eminent domain power. The words "public use"
import a limitation upon the eminent domain power with respect
to the purposes for which it may be exercised.^® The States are
not compelled to retain this limitation. In its absence, the
power may be exercised for any purpose which promotes the
general welfare of the State.^'^ This would include many cases
where the property taken is devoted to strictly private uses, as
in the case of private roads, mills, drains and the like. Instead
of doing away with the usual limitation on the subject, special
provisions may be adopted permitting the condemnation of
property for particular purposes, as has been done in many
States with reference to private roads, drainage, irrigation and
the development of mines. These special provisions are in
the nature of exceptions to the general provision, which limits
the taking to a public use. The legislature of a State may not
take, or authorize the taking of private property, except for
public use, but the State itself, the people in their collective
tsllid. R. & Corp. Rep. 136; Smith v. Barre
3 4Thus, under an act for the erec- Water Co., 73 Vt. 310, 50 Atl. 1055.
tion of grist-mills, an order of the SBLoan Association v. Topeka, 20
court condemning land for a grist- Wall. 655; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v.
mill, saw-mill and paper-mill is void. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 S. C. 56;
Harding v. Goodlet, 3 Yerg. 41, 24 Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 25 S. C.
Am. Dec. 546. To same efifect, Gay- 676 ; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold
lord V. Sanitary District, 204 111. Min. Co., 200 U. S. 527, 26 S. C. 301 ;
576, 68 N. E. 522, 98 Am. St. Rep. Matter of Tuthill, 163 N. Y. 133, 57
235, 63 L.R.A. 582. And see MeCul- N. E. 303, 79 Am. St. Rep. 574, 49
ley V. Cunningham, 96 Ala. 583, 11 L.R.A. 781.
So. Rep. 694; In re Barre Water Co., ssAnte, § 256.
62 Vt. 27, 20 Atl. Rep. 109, 3 Am. R. s'JAnte, § 1.
596 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 315
capacity, may take, or authorize the taking, of private property
for any purpose of public utility or public welfare. We have
endeavored to show that public use means a use by the public,
a use in which the public participates as of right.** The words
pvhlic utility or public welfare have a broader meaning. The
policy of permitting private property to be taken for a particular
purpose may promote the public welfare, though the purpose
may not be a public use, as we have defined it. Just what
purposes the public welfare will include, will depend upon the
ideas and needs and practices of the time. They will vary from
age to age. What is said by Mr. Judson in reference to the
public purpose in taxation, will apply equally to the power of
eminent domain. "The public purpose which will warrant the
exercise of the taxing power is that which is sustained by the
prevailing and controlling public opinion of the time; not the
public opinion in the popular sense, which is conclusively re-
ilected in the expression of the legislative will, but the trained
and thoughtful judicial opinion. The public opinion of one age
or generation, however, as reflected in judicial opinions concern-
ing the proper scope of governmental activity, or as to what
are the public purposes of taxation, is not the public opinion
of another age or of another generation." *®
At the present time there are at least three things which are
deemed to promote the public welfare in such way and in such
sense as to justify the exercise of the power of eminent domain,
though the property taken is not devoted to the use of the public
but becomes the private property of the petitioner, as truly
and completely as if he had purchased it by private contract.
These three things are, (1) the reclamation of wet and arid
lands,*" (2) the development and utilization of the mineral
resources of the land,*^ and (3) the development and utilization
of water power.* ^ Wherever the local conditions are such that
these improvements affect, in a material degree, the general
prosperity and welfare of the State, there they become matters
saAnte, § 258. Min. Co., 200 U. S. 527, 26 S. C. 301,
3 9 Judson on Taxation, § 46. affirming Highland Boy Gold Min.
loWurts V. Hoagland, 114 U. S. Co. v. Strickley, 28 Utah, 215, 78
606; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 25 Pac. 296, 107 Am. St. Kep. 711, 1
S. C. 676, affirming Nash v. Clark, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 976.
Utah 158, 75 Pac. 371, 101 Am. St. 4 2Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113
Rep. 953, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 208. U. S. 9.
4iStrickley v. Highland Boy Gold
§ 315 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 597
of such public concern as justifies the exercise of the eminent
domain power to make them possible. The reclamation of a
single farm or tract of land cannot be a matter of public concern.
But a policy which makes it possible to reclaim all wet and arid
tracts is a matter of public concern, provided there is enough
such land in the State, so that its reclamation will affect appre-
ciably the public welfare. To carry out this policy, it must be
possible for a single owner to reclaim his land by works upon
the land of others and therefore the power of eminent domain
may be exercised for such purpose. The same reasoning holds
good with respect to mines and water power. It follows that
the States may provide for the improvements mentioned by con-
stitutional amendment and that such amendments and the taking
of private property in pursuance thereof will not violate the
fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution.
These views are fully sustained by decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States, whose interpretation of the four-
teenth amendment is final. A statute of Utah which permitted
a single proprietor to condemn a right of way for an irrigating
ditch across the lands of others was sustained as a valid exercise
of the eminent domain power.*^ The principle of this case
<3Clait V. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 25 tion is asserted under a State stat
S. C. 676, affirming Nash v. Clark, 27 ute, we are always, where it can
Utah 158, 75 Pac. 371, 101 Am. St. fairly be done, strongly inclined to
Rep. 953, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 208. The hold with the State courts, when they
federal court, in course of its opinion, uphold a State statute providing for
Bays: "Whether a statute of a State such condemnation. The validity of
permitting condemnation by an indi- such statutes may sometimes depend
vidual for the purpose of obtaining upon many different facts, the ex-
water for his land or for mining istenoe of which would make a public
should be held to be a condemnation use, even by an individual, where, in
for a public use, and, therefore, a the absence of such facts, the use
valid enactment, may depend upon a would clearly be private. Those facta
number of considerations relating to must be general, notorious and ac-
the situation of the State and its knowledged in the State, and the
possibilities for land cultivation, or State courts may be assumed to be
the successful prosecution of its min- exceptionally familiar with them,
ing or other industries. Where the They are not the subject of judicial
use is asserted to be public, and the investigation as to their existence,
right of the individual to condemn but the local courts know and appre-
for the purpose of exercising such use ciate them. They understand the
is founded upon or is the result of situation which led to the demand
some peculiar condition of the soil for the enactment of the statute, and
or climate, or other peculiarity of the they also appreciate the results upon
State, where the right of condemna- the growth and prosperity of the
598
EMINENT DOMAIN.
315
would 'cover reclamations by drains or dykes.** In another
case from Utah the same court sustained a statute of Utah
which permitted the owner of a mine to condemn a right of way
across the land of others for an aerial line of transportation.
The court says: "In the opinion of the legislature and the
supreme court of Utah the public welfare of that State demands
that aerial lines between the mines upon its mountain sides
State, which in all probability would
flow from a denial of its validity.
These are matters which may prop-
erly be held to have a material bear-
ing upon the question whether the
' individual use proposed might not in
fact be a public one. It is not alone
the fact that the land is arid and that
it will bear crops if irrigated, or that
the water is necessary for the pur-
pose of working a mine, that is ma-
terial ; other facts might exist which
are also material, such as the partic-
ular manner in which the irrigation
is carried on or proposed, or how the
mining is to be done in a particular
place where water is needed for that
purpose. The general situation and
amount of the arid land, or of the
mines themselves, might also be ma-
terial, and what proportion of the
water each owner should be entitled
to; also the extent of the population
living in the surrounding country,
and whether each owner of land or
mines could be, in fact, furnished
with the necessary water in any other
way than by the condemnation in his
own behalf, and not by a company,
for his use and that of others. * * •
But we do not desire to be under-
stood by this decision as approving of
the broad proposition that private
property may be taken in all cases
where the taking may promote the
public interest and tend to develop
the natural resources of the State.
We simply say that in this particular
case, and upon the facts stated in the
findings of the court, and having ref-
erence to the conditions already
stated, we are of opinion that the
use is a public one, although the tak-
ing of the right of way is for the pur-
pose simply of thereby obtaining the
water for an individual, where it is
absolutely necessary to enable him
to make any use whatever of his
land, and which will be valuable and
fertile only if water can be obtained.
Other landowners adjoining the de-
fendant in error, if any there are,
might share in the use of the water
by themselves taking the same pro-
ceedings to obtaiQ it, and we do not
think it necessary, in order to hold
the use to be a public one, that all
should join in the same proceedings
or that a company should be formed
to obtain the water which the indi-
vidual landowner might then obtain
his portion of from the company by
paying the agreed price, or the price
fixed by law." pp. 367-370.
*i8ee Matter of Tuthill, 163 N. Y.
133, 57 N. E. 303, 79 Am. St. Rep.
574, 49 L.R.A. 781. Under the
amendment to the constitution of
New York of 1894 in relation to
drainage {ante, § 43) an act was
passed whereby one person could
drain his lands or protect them from
overflow by works upon the lands of
others and could exercise the power
of eminent domain for such works.
Gray, J., was of opinion that such a
law violated the 14th Amendment but
Parker, C. J., and Haight, J., were of
a contrary opinion. The question
was not decided, as the law was held
invalid upon other grounds.
§ 315 WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE. 599
and the railways in the valleys below should not be made im-
possible by the refusal of a private owner to sell the right to
cross his land. The Constitution of the United States does
not require us to say that they are wrong." *^
*5Strick;ley v. Highland Boy Gold Co. v. Strickley, 28 Utah 215, 78 Pac.
Min. Co., 200 U. S. 527, 26 S. C. 301, 296, 107 Am. St. Rep. 711, 1 LJR.A.
affirming Highland Boy Gold Min. (N.S.) 976.
CHAPTEK VIII.
MEANING OF THE WORDS "DAMAGED," "INJURED," AND
"INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED."
I. In Statutes.
§ 316 (206b). Statutes giving damages for change of
grade: Connecticut. These statutes vary so much that we
shall notice the decisions of each State separately.
A statute of Connecticut provides that "when the owner of
land adjoining a public highway, or of any interest in such land,
shall sustain special damage or receive special benefit to his prop-
erty by reason of any change in the grade of such highway
by the town, city or borough in which such highway be situated,
such town, city or borough shall be liable to pay to hini the
amount of such special damage, and shall be entitled to receive
from him the amount or value of such special benefits, to be as-
certained in the manner provided for ascertaining damages and
benefits occasioned by laying out or altering highways therein." ^
It is held that the "special damage" to be allowed under this
statute "differs in no essential respect from the damage that
would be appraised for injury to adjoining land, if the altera-
tion were an original layout, causing a similar injury. Such
damage includes the diminution in the market value of the land
caused by the alteration, to be determined by considering every-
thing by which that value is legitimately affected." ^ The stat-
ute applies to improvements under the "Good Roads Act,"
though the same are supervised by the State, which also bears
part of the expense.* The destruction of a sidewalk or shade
trees may be taken into consideration.* Also the cost of a re-
IR. S. 1888, § 2703; R. S. 1902, Co. v. Birmingham, 62 Conn. 456, 26
§ 2051. Atl. 348; S. C. 61 Conn. 518, 24 Atl.
2Platt V. Town of Milford, 66 978.
Conn. 320, 34 Atl. 82; Cook v. An- sGriswold v. Guilford, 75 Conn.
sonia, 66 Conn. 413, 34 Atl. 183 ; 192, 52 Atl. 742.
Holley V. Town of Torrington, 63 <Shelton Co. v. Birmingham, 62
Conn. 426, 433, 28 Atl. 613; Shelton Conn. 456, 26 Atl. 348; Holley v.
600
§ 317 PEOPEETT DAMAGED OE IITJUEED. 601
taining wall and the regrading of the lot.^ If a change is made
■without complying with the statute an action at law will lie
for the damage.* A change of grade of the sidewalk or from
the natural grade of the street is within the statute.'' The action
accrues when the change is made, not when it is ordered.* But
a private action cannot be brought until the city has been guilty
of unreasonable delay to have the damages assessed or refused
to do so.* The rights of the parties are held to be governed
by the law in force when the change is finally ordered. Thus
when a change of grade was ordered while a statute like the
one quoted was in force but was not executed until after the
repeal of the statute, it was held that the abutter was entitled
to compensation.^"
§ 317 (207). The same: Indiana. A statute of Indi-
ana provides that, "when the city authorities have once estab-
lished the grade of any street or alley in the city, such grade
shall not be changed until the damages occasioned by such change
shall have been assessed and tendered to the parties injured or
affected by such change, and such damages shall be collected by
the city from the party or parties making such change of grade
in the manner provided for the collections of street improve-
ments." ^^ The statute applies only to cities, not to incor-
porated towns. *^ If the city fails to have the damages assessed
and paid as required by the statute, a common law action
will Ue."^^ But no action lies to recover nominal damages.-'*
An established grade within the statute is a grade established
in pursuance of some ordinance or order of the common council,
involving some general plan of improvement or grading of a
Town of Torrington, 63 Conn. 426, sGilpin v. Ansonia, 68 Conn. 72,
28 Atl. 613 ; Cook v. City of Ansonia, 35 Atl. 777.
66 Conn. 413, 34 Atl. 183. lOHealey v. New Haven, 49 Conn.
sPickles V. Ansonia, 76 Conn. 278, 394.
56 Atl. 552. liR. S. 1881, § 3073.
6Healey v. New Haven, 49 Conn. i2Baker v. Town of Shoals, 6 Ind.
394; Holley v. Town of Torrington, App. 319, 33 N. E. 664.
63 Conn. 426, 28 Atl. 613; Cook v. i3La Fayette v. Wortman, 107 Ind.
City of Ansonia, 66 Conn. 413, 34 Atl. 404; La Fayette v. Nagle, 113 Ind.
183. 425.
'McGar v. Bristol, 71 Conn. 652, "Burkham v. Ohio & M. E. R. Co.,
42 Atl. 1000 ; Pickles v. Ansonia, 76 122 Ind. 344, 23 N. E. 799.
Conn. 278, 56 Atl. 552.
spickles V. Ansonia, 76 Conn. 278,
56 Atl. 552.
602 EMIJSTENT DOM A TIT. . § 318
street or some specific portion thereof.'" Accordingly no dam-
ages can be recovered when the change is from a natural grade
merely.-'® Where the city engineer and committee on streets
agreed with the plaintiff on a grade to -which he adapted his
building, and afterwards the council fixed a lower grade, this
was held not to be a change within the statute. ''' A change
of grade of the sidewalk or part of the street is within the stat-
ute.'* Where the town of Wabash established the grade of a
street with reference to which the plaintiff built, and afterwards
the town became a city, and then changed the grade so estab-
lished, it was held the city was not liable, because it had not es-
tablished the prior grade.'*
§ 318 (208). The same: Iowa. A statute provided
that, where a grade had been established and improvements made
according to the grade so established, and the grade was changed
so as to injure or diminish the value of such property, the city
making the change should pay to the owner or owners of said
property the amount of such damage.*" It is held that "prop-
erty is improved according to the established grade, within the
meaning of the statute, whenever it is so improved that it can
be comfortably and conveniently used for the purpose to which
it is devoted while the street upon which it abuts is maintained
at that grade." *' Where the improvements are made before
the grade is established,** or after it is established but according
to the natural surface and not according to the established
grade,** there can be no recovery for bringing the surface to
iBMattingly v. Plymouth, 100 Ind. siConklin v. Keokuk, 73 la. 343.
546 ; City of Anderson v. Bain, 120 "We think it quite clear that the im-
Ind. 254, 22 N. E. 323; City of Val- provement of a lot 'according to the
paraiso v. Adams, 123 Ind. 250, 24 grade' of the adjacent street does not
N. E. 107 ; City of Huntington v. require that the foundations of build-
Griffith, 142 Ind. 280, 41 N. E. 8, 589. ings erected thereon shall be exactly
i^Ibid.; Keehn v. McGillicudy, 15 at grade, or at any invariable eleva-
Ind. App. 580, 44 N. E. 554. tlon above or below it." Stevens v.
I'Mattingly v. Plymouth, 100 Ind. Cedar Rapids, 128 la. 227, 103 N. W.
545. 363.
isKokomo V. Mahan, 100 Ind. 242. 2 2 Wilbur v. Ft. Dodge, 120 la. 555,
19 Wabash v. Alber, 88 Ind. 428. To 95 Jf. W. 186.
same effect City of Huntington v. 23Farmer v. Cedar Rapids, 116 la.
Griffith, 142 Ind. 280, 41 N. E. 8, 589. 322, 89 N. W. 1105; Reilly v. Ft.
Compare Nolte v. City of Cincinnati, Dodge, 118 la. 633, 92 N. W. 887.
3 Ohio C. C. 503.
20Code of 1873, § 469; Code of
1897, § 785.
§ 318 PROPERTY DAMAGED OE INJ0EED. 603
the established grade. Under the statute the damage to both
land and buildings may be recovered.^* If, however, the prop-
erty is -worth more after the change than before, it has not been
damaged, although expense will have to be incurred to adjust
it to the new grade.^® The measure of damages is the difference
in value before and after the improvement.*® Where a new
pavement was put down, and the surface at the curb was a few
inches lower than the old pavement, but the curb and
center of the street remained the same, it was held not to be a
change of grade within the statute.^'^ Putting macadam on a
street, though it elevates the surface, is not a change of grade.^*
One who has filled in and graded his lot preparatory to building
upon it, may recover, though no building has been erected.^*
An established grade is one adopted by ordinance or resolu-
tion of the council.*" The fact that a city has worked or im-
proved a street at a particular grade does not make it an estab-
lished grade within the statute.*^ The action accrues when the
change is actually made, and when any part of the work is done
in front of the property.** The fact that the plaintiff changes
his improvements to conform to the new grade before the work
is done does not bar his action.*' The remedy given by the
statute is exclusive.** The act does not apply to changes which
were ordered before the law took effect, but which were not
24Dalzell V. Davenport, 12 la. 437; soMorton v. Burlington, 106 la.
Hempstead v. Des Moines, 52 la. 303, 50; Farmer v. Cedar Eapids, 116 la.
3 N. W. 123. It is immaterial that 322, 89 N. W. 1105.
the change is back to the natural siKepple v. Keokuk, 61 la. 653, 17
surface. Ressegien v. Sioux City, 94 N. W. 140.
la. 543, 63 N. W. 184, 28 L.R.A. 389. 3 2Hempstead v. Des Moines, 63 la.
26Hempstead v. Des Moines, 52 la. 36, 18 N. W. 676. In this case an
303, 3 N. W. 123. established grade was lowered six
26Stewart v. Council Bluffs, 84 la. feet, and ttie city first lowered the
91, 50 N. W. 219; MeCash v. Burling- roadway and the plaintiff recovered
ton, 72 la. 26, 33 N. W. 346 ; Rich- damages for that, and afterwards the
ardson v. Webster City, 111 la. 427, sidewalks were lowered and the
82 N. W. 920; Millard v. Webster plaintiff brought another suit; it was
City, 113 la. 220, 84 N. W. 1044. held that the former suit was a bar.
27Coate8 V. Dubuque, 68 la. 550, 27 But see Buser v. Cedar Rapids, 115
N. W. 750. la. 683, 87 N. W. 404 ; Foley v. Cedar
28Warren r. Henry, 31 la. 31. Rapids, 133 la. 64, 110 N. W. 158.
2 9Chase v. Sioux City, 86 la. 603, ssYork v. Cedar Rapids, 130 la.
63 N. W. 333 ; to same effect, Season- 453, 103 N. W. 790.
good T. Cincinnati, 5 Ohio C. C. 225. s^CoIe v. Muscatine, 14 la. 296.
604 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 319
executed until afterward.*^ Where the grade of a street was
changed, which necessitated changes on intersecting streets, it
was held a recovery could be had for damages to property on
the latter streets, by reason of such incidental change, though no
change was formally ordered.^®
§ 319 (208a). Same: Kansas. An established grade
cannot be changed until the damage to property owners, which
may be caused thereby, has been assessed and paid or deposited,
and a particular mode of assessment is provided for.^'' Under
this statute there is no liability when a change is made from
a natural to an established grade.** Where the notice served
on the plaintiff showed that the grade would be raised two or
three inches in front of his property, which would be no damage,
but the change actually ordered and made was a lowering of
eighteen inches, it was held the city was liable in a common law
action.*® The measure of damages is the difference in market
value before and after the change.* °
§ 320 (208b). Same: Maine. A recent statute provides
that, "when a way or street is raised or lowered by a surveyor
or person authorized, to the injury of an owner of land adjoin-
ing, he may apply in writing to the municipal officers, and they
shall view such way or street and assess the damages, if any have
been occasioned thereby." *^ The measure of damages is the
diminution of market value caused by the change, and if there
is no diminution there can be no recovery.*^
§ 321 (209). The same: Massachusetts. The statute
provides that, "where an owner of land adjoining a highway sus-
tains damage in his property by reason of any raising or lowering
or other act done for the purpose of repairing such way, he shall
have compensation therefor." ** Under this statute the abut-
36Cotesv. Davenport, 9 la. 227. lOParker v. City of Atchison, 46
360onklin v. City of Keokuk, 73 Kan. 14, 26 Pae. 435, 5 L.R.A. 775;
la. 343, 35 N. W. 444. City of Topeka v. Martineau, 42 Kan.
37Laws 1881, e. 37, § 18; Gen. 387, 22 Pac. 419.
Stat. 1889, par. 562; Parker v. City iiStat. 1887, chap. 97. See Hurley
of Atchison, 46 Kan. 14, 26 Pac. 435 ; v. South Thomaston, 101 Me. 538, 64
Leavenworth v. Duffy, 10 Kan. App. Atl. 1050.
124, 62 Pac. 433. 42Chase v. City of Portland, 86 Me.
38Interstate Consol. R. T. E. R. 367, 29 Atl. 1104.
Co. v. Early, 46 Kan. 197, 26 Pac. 4 sThere appear to be different atat-
422. utes on the subject and a statement
3 8 City of Topeka v. Sells, 48 Kan. and history of the same will be found
620, 29 Pac. 604. in the following eases : Sisson v.
§ 321 PEOPBETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED. 605
ting owner is entitled to recover for any damages to his property
by reason of the proper execution of any such improvement.**
The word "damage" is not confined to injuries for which an
action lay at common law, as between individuals, but covers
all damages flowing from the change, such as interfering with
access, or the flow of surface water.*^ Where a street is laid out,
the compensation awarded includes such damages as may be
occasioned by the construction of the street as proposed in the
order of laying out,*® but, where a street was laid out in 1861,
and a grade established but the street was not built at such
grade, and the city by repairs and otherwise recognized the
existing grade, and in 1877 the street was made to conform to
the grade so originally established, it was held to be a change of
grade within the statute.*^ If no grade is established when
the street is laid out, the establishing of a grade afterwards and
bringing the street to such grade is a change within the statute.*^
The statute has been held to apply to a case where, by removing
dirt from in front of premises for the purpose of repairing else-
where, access thereto was interfered with.*^ An agreement not
to claim compensation for land taken for a highway, does not
preclude the owner from recovering damages for a change of
grade made after the highway has been established.®" Where
both the street and abutting land fall away from natural causes,
the street may be raised to the established grade without incur-
ring liability.^ ^ If property abuts on two streets both of which
are improved, the damages by the improvement of each street
must be kept distinct.®^ The statute only applies to property
abutting on the street where the change is made.*^* The action
accrues when the work is done, and not when the change is or-
New Bedford, 137 Mass. 255; Sul- ^sgnow v. Provincetown, 109
livan V. Fall River, 144 Mass. 579 ; Mass. 123 ; Lane v. Boston, 125 Mass.
Albro V. Fall River, 175 Mass. 590, 519.
56 N. E. 894. "Burr v. Leichester, 121 Mass.
4 4Flagg T. Worcester, 13 Gray 241.
601. BOFernald v. Boston, 12 Cush.
4 6Woodbury v. Beverly, 153 Mass. 574.
245, 26 N. B. 851. siQarrity v. Boston, 161 Mass.
4 6Byaii V. Boston, 118 Mass. 248; 530, 37 N. E. 672.
Geraghty v. Boston, 120 Mass. 416; 5 2Bemis v. Springfield, 122 Mass.
Murphy v. Boston, Ibid. 419; Brady 110.
V. Fall River, 121 Mass. 262. 5 3 Wilbur v. Taunton, 123 Mass.
4 'Cambridge v. County Commis- 522.
sioners, 125 Mass. 529.
606 EMIIfENT DOMAIN. § 322
dered.^* A change of grade made by a street railroad company
under statutory authority is not within the statutes above re-
ferred to and no compensation can be had for damages occa-
sioned by such change of grade.^^
§ 322. The same: Michigan. The general act of 1895
for the incorporation of villages, which reincorporated all vill-
ages then existing under the act, provided that the grades of
streets could be established and changed by the council and that
"whenever the grade of any street or sidewalk shall have been
heretofore or shall hereafter be established, and improvements
shall thereafter be made by the owner or occupant of the ad-
jacent property in conformity to such grade, such grade shall
not be changed without compensation to the owner for all dam-
ages to such property resulting therefrom." It is held that a
grade cannot be established within the meaning of the statute by
user but only by formal action of the council in accordance with
the statute.®* Consent to the change estops the abutter from
claiming damages.**'
§ 323 (210). The same: Minnesota. The charter of
St. Paul provides that, if a grade once established is changed,
"all damages, costs and charges arising therefrom shall be paid
by the city to the owner of any lot or parcel of land or tenement
which may be affected or injured in consequence of the alteration
of such grade." The act prescribed no remedy and a common
law action was held proper. It was also held in the same case
that the right of action accrued when the change was finally
ordered by the proper tribunal, and that an owner need not
delay his action until the change was actually made, and that
a recovery could be had for all the damages which would be occa-
sioned by the change.®* Subsequently acts were passed provid-
ing a remedy and making it exclusive, but they were held not to
5 4 Brown v. Lowell, 8 Met. 172. See Laroe v. Northampton St. Ry. Co.,
generally: Dana v. Boston, 176 189 Mass. 254, 75 N. E. 255 ; Hyde v.
Mass. 97, 57 N. E. 325; Garvey v. Boston etc. St. Ry. Co., 194 Mass.
Revere, 187 Mass. 545, 73 N. E. 664; 80, 80 N. E. 517.
Galeano V. Boston, 195 Mass. 64, 80 seCummings v. Dixon, 139 Mich.
N. E. 579. 269, 102 N. W. 751.
sBPurinton v. Somerset, 174 Mass. 6'Wheat v. Van Line, 149 Mich.
556, 55 N. E. 461 ; Vigeant v. Marl- 314, 112 N. W. 933.
borough, 175 Mass. 459, 56 N. E. ssMcCarthy v. St. Paul, 22 Minn.
709; Underwood v. Worcester, 177 527. It seems to us the decision is
Mass 173, 58 N. E. 589 ; Hewett v. wrong as to the time when the cause
Canton, 182 Mass. 220, 65 N. E. 42; of action arises in such a case. A
§ o25 PHOPERTY DAMAGED OE INJUKOiD. 607
apply to a change made before their passage.^® A viaduct over
a railroad A\'hich took all the travel along the street was held to
be a change of grade within the statute.®"
§ 324 (211). The same: Missouri. The charter of the
city of St. Louis contains the following provision: "The city
shall be liable for damages sustained by any owner of real
estate upon which permanent buildings shall have been erected
by any change of grade of any street upon which such real
estate shall front." Under this provision the city was held
liable for damages by a causeway in the middle of the street,
thirty-two feet wide, though a space nine feet wide between the
causeway and the sidewalk was left on each side of the street
at the old grade.® ^ So the city was held liable where the grade
of a street was ordered to be raised, but was not in fact raised
to the full height ordered.®* The charter of the city of St.
Joseph provided for damages to abutting owners, in case of a
change of grade which had been previously fixed or established.
It was held that a grade might be fixed or established by improv-
ing a street at its natural grade without aiiy ordinance in terms
fixing the grade.®^ Compensation is now secured by the consti-
tution.®*
§ 325. The same: New Hampshire. A statute giv-
ing damages for a change of grade was first passed in 1848.®'*
As amended in 1867 it required compensation to be made "if in
change of grade on paper does not allow the city to evade responsibility-
injure any one. After a change has for every change of grade by leaving
been ordered it might be reoon- a few feet, or even a few inches, un-
sidered before execution. In the touched along the lateral boundaries
meantime an owner might have ob- of the street. * • • The change of
tained judgment. See post, § 970. grade contemplated by the charter
5 9Taylor v. St. Paul, 25 Minn. 129. provision is manifestly any such
eoWilkin v. St. Paul, 33 Minn. alteration as will raise or lower the
181. For a statute held not to im- principal current of travel or trans-
pose such liability, see Willis v. City portation." To same effect, Dyer v.
of Winona, 59 Minn. 27, 60 N. W. St. Louis, 11 Mo. App. 590. See also
814. Mitchell v. St. Louis, 14 Mo. App.
BiStickford v. St. Louis, 7 Mo. 600.
App. 217; affirmed, 75 Mo. 309. The 62gchumacher v. St. Louis, 3 Mo.
city contended that the charter only App. 297.
embraced a change of grade over the esGibson v. Zimmerman, 27 Mo.
whole width of the street. On this App. 90.
point the court says: "Such an in- 'uPost, § 361; ante, § 37.
terpretation would substitute the 65Laws of 1848, c. 725, § 1.
shadow for the substance. It would
608 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 326
repairing a highway by authority of the town the grade is raised
or lowered, or a ditch made at the side thereof, whereby damages
is occasioned to any estate adjoining." ^® A change of grade of
the sidewalk or from a natural grade is within the statutes.®'^
The action accrues when the change is made and the right to
recover is in the owner at the time and does not pass by a subse-
quent deed of the property.^* The assessment should cover all
damages, past, present, and prospective.®*
§ 326 (212), The same: New Jersey. Under a stat-
ute giving damages for a change of grade, it was held that, where
a street is widened and then the grade of the street subsequently
changed, the damages occasioned by reducing the new part to the
grade of the old must be presumed to have been included in the
award for the original taking.'''* Where the statute allows dam-
ages only to improved property, an award for property not im-
proved will be void.''^ The owner may recover not only for all
structural damage to his buildings but also for loss of rentals
during such time as the buildings are necessarily rendered un-
tenantable by making the change of grade and adjusting the
buildings to the new grade.^* Securing a modification of the
order for a change does not bar the recovery of damages for the
change actually made.'^* Mandamus will lie to compel the city
authorities to make an award.''* One to whom damages have
been awarded for a change of grade cannot be assessed for bene-
fits for the same improvement. The first adjudication, that the
premises are damaged by the change, concludes both parties
while it stands.''^ A statute making it lawful for a municipality
to give compensation for a change of grade was held to be
obligatory.''®
§ 327 (213). The same: New York. Acts giving
66R. S. 1867, c 76, § 20; Hinckley 72Newark v. Weeks, 71 N. J. L.
V. Franklin, 69 N. H. 614, 45 Atl. 448, 59 Atl. 901.
643. 73Klaus v. Jersey City, 69 N. J.
«'/6m?. L. 127, 54 Atl. 220.
esHodgman v. Concord, 69 N. H. ''*Ihid.
349, 41 Atl. 287. TBDavis v. City of Newark, 54 N.
69Sawyer v. Keene, 47 N. H. 173. J. L. 595, 25 Atl. 336.
'■"Van Riper v. Essex Road Board, Teciark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L.
38 N. J. L. 23. The statute was 565, 40 Atl. 616, 737. Bee generally:
passed in 1858. See R. S. p. 1009, Manufacturers' Land & Imp. Co. v.
§ 70; Vorrath v. Hoboken, 49 N". J. L. Camden, 71 N. J. L. 490, 59 Atl. 1 ;
285. Same v. Same, 73 N. J. L. 263, 63
71 State v. Sayer, 41 N. J. L. 158. Atl. 5.
§ 327 PEOPEETY DAMAGED OB INJUKED. 609
damages for a change of grade in the streets of New York City
have existed since 1852.''^ A general act of 1883, applicable
to incorporated villages, gives compensation for damages by a
diange of grade.''* There have probably been many special acts
on the subjects® There appears to have been very little litiga-
tion under these acts which has found its way into the reports.
It is held that the remedy provided by the statute is exclusive
and that an ordinary suit will not lie.*** Also that the statutory
provisions as to remedy must be strictly complied with.*^
The right to damages accrues when the work is done, and not
when the change is ordered.*^ The gradual removal of a bank
of earth between the traveled roadway and the street line, is not
a change of grade.** Nor is the mere leveling the surface of a
street to produce a uniform grade.** Where the statute gives
damages to the owners of buildings fronting on the street, it
excludes the allowance of damages to the land.*"* The fact that
one has deeded the land for the street, does not preclude him
from claiming damages for a change of grade afterward made.*®
But where one deeded land for a street to a village which was
liable for damages for a change of grade and the village was
made a city which was not liable for such change, and the grade
of the street was changed by the city, it was held the grantor
obtained no vested right to the remedy and that he could not
7 7Laws of 1852, c. 52, pp. 46-47; Dlv. 137, 81 N. Y. S. 1049; Melen-
Laws of 1867, vol. 2, o. 697, pp. 1748- backer v. Salamanca, 188 N. Y. 370,
1750; Laws of 1872, vol. 2, c. 729, p. 80 N. E. 1090, affirming 116 App.
1726. Div. 691.
TSLaws of 1883, c. 113; Whitmore szpeople r. ZoU, 97 N. Y. 203; Nu-
V. Village of Tarrytown, 137 N. Y. gent v. New York, 58 Misc. 453.
409, 33 N. E. 489. 8 3 Whitmore v. Tarrytown, 137 N.
79See People v. Fitch, 147 N. Y. Y. 409, 33 N. E. 489.
355, 41 N. E. 695; People v. Gilon, 84Farrington v. Mt. Vernon, 166
121 N. Y. 551, 24 N. E. 944; People N. Y. 233, 59 N. E. 826, affirming 51
V. Gilon, 76 Hun 346, 27 N. Y. Supp. App. Div. 250, 64 N. Y. S. 863; Com-
704. esky v. Suffern, 179 N. Y. 393, 72
soHeiser v. New York, 104 N. Y. N. E. 320, reversing S. C. 83 App.
68, affirming 29 Hun 446 ; Helen- Div. 137, 81 N. Y. S. 1049 ; Bissell v.
backer v. Salamanca, 188 N. Y. 370, Larchmont, 57 App. Div. 61, 67 N. Y.
80 N. E. 1090, affirming 116 App. S. 692; Stenson v. Mt. Vernon, 104
Div. 691; Smith v. White Plains, 67 App. Div. 17, 93 N. Y. S. 309.
Hun 81, 22 N. Y. Supp. 450; Matter ssPeople v. Gilon, 76 Hun 346, 27
of Ehrsam, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 272; N. Y. Supp. 704.
Hoy V. Salamanca, 57 Misc. 81. seBartlett v. Tarrytown, 52 Hun
siComesky v. Suffern, 179 N. Y. 380, 24 N. Y. St. 272, 5 N. Y. Supp.
393, 72 N. B. 320, reversing 83 App. 240.
Em. D.— 39.
610 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 327
recover.*'' A change of grade made by a railroad company by
permission of the village is within the statute.** So is a change
from a natural grade, which has not been established except by
user.*® There is no vested right in the remedy and it may be
taken away by repeal of the statute.®" A statute giving com-
pensation to the owners of real estate claimed to be damaged
was held not to embrace a tenant for years.®* A viaduct over
a railroad was held to be a change of grade.®^ One who builds
after the grade is established cannot have damages for bringing
the street to the grade so established.'^ When the statute re-
quires the claim for damages to be presented "within sixty days
after such change of grade is effected," it means sixty days from
;he completion of the work.®* A municipal corporation may be
ade liable for changes of grade previously made.®® A statute
that "in any tovsm in which a highway has been or hereafter
shall be repaired, graded and macadamized, etc., the owner or
owners of the land adjacent to the said highway shall be entitled
to recover from the town the damages resulting from any change
of grade," was held to be retroactive and to apply to changes
made before the act was passed.®® After the grade of a street
had been changed an act was passed authorizing the board of
revision "in its discretion to ascertain and determine the dam-
age" to certain property thereby and to award compensation to
the owners thereof. The making of an award was held to be
purely discretionary.®'
8 7Lawton v. New Eoehelle, 123 Div. 355, 79 N. Y. S. 1031; People v.
App. Div. 832. Muh, 101 App. Div. 423, 92 N. Y. S.
ssMatter of Stack, 50 Hun 385, 21 22; S. C. affirmed, 183 N. Y. 540, 76
N. Y. St. 953, 3 N. Y. Supp. 231. N. E. 1105.
ssFolmsbee v. Amsterdam, 142 N. s^phippg v. North Pelham, 61 App.
Y. 118, 36 N. E. 821, affirmmg S. C. Div. 442, 70 N. Y. S. 630.
66 Hun 214; Bartlett v. Tarrytown, 9BMatter of Anderson, 178 N. Y.
55 Hun 492, 30 N. Y. St. 341, 8 N. 416, 70 N. E. 921, reversing S. C. 91
Y. Supp. 739; Matter of Greer, 39 App. Div. 563; Matter of Borup, 182
N. Y. App. Div. 22; Stenson v. Mt. N. Y. 222, 74 N. E. 838, 108 Am. St.
Vernon, 104 App. Div. 17, 93 N. Y. Rep. 798, affirming S. C. 102 App.
S. 309. Div. 262, 92 N. Y. S. 624.
9 "Smith V. White Plains, 67 Hun ssMatter of Anderson, 178 N. Y.
81, 22 N. Y. Supp. 450. 416, 70 N. E. 921, reversing S. C. 91
"Matter of Ehrsam, 37 App. Div. App. Div. 563.
N. Y. 272. sTPeople v. Phillips, 88 App. Div.
9 2Matter of Grade Crossing 560, 85 N. Y. S. 200. See generally:
Comrs.. 154 N. Y. 550. Torge v. Salamanca, 176 N. Y. 324,
ssMatter of E. 187 St., 78 App. 68 N. E. 626, reversing 86 App. Div.
§ 329 PEOPEKTY DAMAGED OB INJUBEI 611
The Greater New York charter provides as follows: "After
the taking effect of this act there shall be no liability to abutting
owners for originally establishing a grade ; nor any liability for
changing a grade once established by lawful authority, except
where the owner of the abutting property has subsequently to
such establishment of grade built upon or otherwise improved
the property in conformity with such established grade and such
grade is changed after such buildings or improvements have
been made. * * * ^ grade shall be deemed established by
lawful authority within the meaning of this section where it waa
originally adopted by the action of the public authorities, or
where the street or avenue has been used by the public as of
right for twenty years and been improved by the public au-
thorities at the expense of the public or the abutting owners." "*
We believe no decisions of general interest have been rendered
on this provision.^^
§ 328 The same: Ohio. A statute provides for an as-
sessment of damages when an owner of a lot, or of land, bound-
ing or abutting upon a proposed improvement, claims that he
will sustain damages by reason of the improvement. ^ Where an
owner has graded his lot to correspond to an established grade,
he may recover damages for a change of grade. ^ Where the
traveled way was some feet below the margins and the grade
was changed and the street cut down to the new grade for the
whole width, it was held an abutter could not recover for cut-
ting down the margins to the old grade. ^
§ 329 (214). The same: Pennsylvania. An act of
1854 in relation to Philadelphia provided "that in any altera-
tion that may be made of the regulation of any portion of the
211, 86 N. Y. S. 672; Matter of 9 s§ 951 Greater New York Charter
Rogers Place, 65 App. Div. 1, 72 N. as amended by c. 466, Laws of 1901.
Y. S. 459; Matter of Trinity Ave., ^tgee Triest v. New York, 193 N.
81 App. Div. 215, 80 N. Y. S. 732; Y. 525, reversing 126 App. Div. 934;
Matter of Briggs Ave., 84 App. Div. Mayer v. New York, 193 N. Y. 535,
312, 82 N. Y. S. 575 ; Matter of Sum- affirming 127 App. Div. 926.
mit Ave., 84 App. Div. 455, 82 N. Y. iR. S. 1886, § 2315; R. S. 1890,
S. 1027; Matter of Tiffany St., 84 §2315.
App. Div. 525, 82 N. Y. S. 852; Peo- zSeasongood v. Cincinnati, 5 Ohio
pie V. Leonard, 87 App. Div. 269, 84 C. C. 225.
N. Y. S. 341 ; Matter of Borup, 89 3 Cincinnati v. Roth, 20 Ohio C. C.
App. Div. 183, 85 N. if. S. 828; Mat- 317.
ter of Anderson, 91 App. Div. 563, 87
N. Y. S. 24; S. C. reversed, 178 N. Y.
416, 70 N. E. 921.
612. EMINENT DOMAIN. § 330
city, in conformity with the provisions of this section, whereby
damages may ensue to private property, compensation shall
be made for such damages, to be ascertained and paid by law
as in case of damages for opening streets." This act only ap-
plies to the change of an established grade.* The right to dam-
ages is held to accrue when the new grade has been duly estab-
lished and confirmed according to law. The owner is not re-
quired to wait until the work is completed.^ Where a statute
provided that when the grade of a street was changed, thereby
causing damage to the owner or owners of property abutting
thereon, compensation should be made to such owners, it was
held that one might have compensation whose property abutted
on the street, though it did not abut upon the part where the
change was made.®
§ 330 (215). The same: Rhode Island. A statute
gave compensation to abutting owners for damages "by any
change in the grade of a highway." Where a grade was recog-
nized by the city as the grade of the street, and was afterwards
changed, it was held that the abutting owner was entitled to dam-
ages, though the first grade had never been formally established
by the board of aldermen.'^ But a subsequent case holds that
the statute only applies to a change from an established grade.^
One having a leasehold interest as tenant from year to year is
such an owner.^ Any claim for such damages was required to be
presented to the board of aldermen within forty days after the
change was completed ; it was held that after the forty days the
aldermen had no jurisdiction to allow it.-^"
§ 331. The same: South Carolina. By its charter the
city of Greenville had power "to lay out, adopt, alter, widen, and
open" streets, roads and ways and the charter provided that "any
person damaged by the closing or from the altering of any such
street, road or way, shall be duly compensated therefor by the
«In re Ridge Ave., 99 Pa. St. 469 ; SLewis v. Homestead, 194 Pa. St.
Philadelphia v. Wright, 100 Pa. St. 199, 45 Atl. 123.
235; Matter of Change of Grade of 'Aldrioh v. Providence, 12 K. I.
Germantown Ave., 15 Phila. 413; In 241.
re Levering St., 14 Phila. 349; sGardner v. Town Council of
In re Germantown Ave., 14 Phila. Johnstown, 16 R. I. 94, 12 Atl. 888 ;
351 ; In re Plan 166, 143 Pa. St. 414, O'Donnell v. White, 24 R. I. 483, 53
22 Atl./669. Atl. 633.
5Matter of Change of Grade of 5th sQiHigan v. Providence, 11 R. I.
and 6th streets, 12 Phila. 587 ; Camp- 258.
bell V. Philadelphia, 108 Pa. St. 300. lOAnness v. Providence, 13 R. I. 17.
§ 332 PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED. 613
city council." A change of grade is held to he an altering within
the charter for which compensation must be made." The stat-
ute is held to cover damages to the pipes of a water company. ^^
The measure of damages to abutting property is the difference
before and after the change.** The statutory remedy is exclu-
sive.**
§ 332 (216). The same: Tennessee. A statute provid-
ed that, when the owner of a lot desired to build, he might apply
to the city authorities and have the grade of the street fixed, and
if, after the building was constructed, the grade was changed,
he should have compensation for any damages. The grade of
a street was established in 1866, and plaintiff raised his building
to correspond. Two years later the grade was changed. It was
held that plaintiff could recover under the statute.*® It is held
that the statute should be liberally construed, and that a grade
may be established without an ordinance. If the city council
directs it engineer to fix grades, and he does so, such grades are
established within the statute.** A general act was passed in
1891, giving compensation for any damage to property by reason
of any change in the natural or established grade of any street
or highway or of other acts done for the repair or improvement
of such ways.*'' Where a city permitted the grade of a street
to be cut down by those who desired the earth, it was held liable,
though there was no formal order for the change.*® The meas-
11 Paris Mt. Water Co. v. Green- citizen to be reinbursed for damages
ville, 53 S. C. 82, 30 S. B. 699 ; Maul- done to his property by city author-
din V. Greenville, 53 S. C. 285, 31 S. ities, occasioned by works for the ad-
B. 252; Garraux v. Greenville, 53 S. vantage of the general public. The
C. 575, 31 S. B. 597; Greenville v. citizen whose property is thus in-
Mauldin, 64 S. C. 438, 42 S. E. 200; jured, ought not to be required to
Hauldin v. Greenville, 64 S. C. 444, bear the entire burden, the benefits of
42 S. E. 202. which he shares perhaps very
i2Paris Mt. Water Co. v. Green- slightly, in common with other in-
ville, 53 S. C. 82, 30 S. E. 699. habitants of the city, the improve-
isMauldin v. Greenville, 64 S. C. ments frequently being of no per-
444, 42 S. B. 202. sonal advantage to him, whatever."
uGarraux v. Greenville, 53 S. C. isChattanooga v. Geiler, 13 Lea,
575, 31 S. B. 597. And see Kendall 611.
V. Columbia, 74 S. C. 539, 54 S. E. iTActs of 1891, c. 31, p. 67. Same
777; Greenville v. Earle, 80 S. C. 321. amended in 1893, acts of 1893, c. 41,
iBMayor of Nashville v. Nichol, 3 p. 63; Shannon's Code, § 1988.
Bax. 338. The court says: "We isKnoxville v. Harth, 105 Tenn.
think, however, it is the duty of the 436, 58 S. W. 650, 80 Am. St. Rep.
court to give a liberal construction to 901.
statutes in favor of the right of a
G14 EMIJ!^ENT DOMAIN. § 333
lire of damages is the difference in value of the property before
and after the change. ^^
§ 333. The same: Vermont. An act of 1884 gave dam-
ages when a highway was raised or lowered more than three feet
in front of any dwelling house or other building.^" The dam-
ages recoverable are such as result from the excess of raising
or lowering over three feet.^^
§ 334 (216a). Same: Washington. A general statute
prohibits a change of grade so as to necessitate the raising or
lowering of buildings, without prepayment of the damages.^^
It is held to apply only to a change from a grade, either formally
adopted by ordinance or resolution, or by the actual improve-
ment of the street.*^
§ 335 (217). The same: Wisconsin. The charter of
Milwaukee required the city to establish the grade of all streets,
and contained this provision : "When the established grade shall
be thereafter altered, all damages, costs and charges arising there-
from shall be paid by the city to the owner of any lot or parcel
of land or tenement which may be affected in consequence of
the alteration of such grade." Under this statute it was held
that it was no defence to an action for damages by the changing
of an established grade, that the city had not established the
grade of all its streets f^ that the doing of the work by the plain-
tiff in front of his premises pursuant to an order of the council
was no bar to his recovery f^ that the signing of a petition for
a chainge of grade different from the one ordered was no bar;^"
nor the signing of a petition to complete the work already be-
gun. ^^ The building of a causeway forty feet wide in the mid-
dle of a street was held to be a change within the statute, though
twenty feet was left on each side at the old grade.^* The meas-
ure of damages is the depreciation in the value of the property
caused by the change, and in arriving at this it is proper to
consider the cost of adjusting the property to the new gxade,
the cost of making the change in the street which is a charge
isAcker v. Knoxville, 117 Tenn. 24Goodrich v. Milwaukee, 24 Wis.
224, 96 S. W. 973. 422.
20Vt. Stats. 1894, §§ 3357-3361. 25Pearce v. Milwaukee, 18 Wis.
21 Fairbanks v. Rockingham, 75 428.
Vt. 221, 54 Atl. 186; S. C. 73 Vt. 124, 26Luscombe v. Milwaukee, 36 Wis.
50 Atl. 802. 511.
22Gen. Stat., § 759. 27Herzer v. Milwaukee, 39 Wis.
2 3Sargent v. City of Taeoma, 10 108.
Wash. 212, 38 Pac. 1048. 28Dove v. Milwaukee, 42 Wis. 108.
§ 336 PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED. 615
upon the lot, the damage to trees if any, and also any benefit
which will accrue to the property by the change. ^^ The right
of action accrues when the work is done, and not when the order
is passed, and suit must be brought by the owner at the former
time.^" A law providing that the grade of certain streets could
be changed without making compensation, or, in effect suspend-
ing the operation of the charter as to such streets, was held void
as depriving the property owners affected of the equal protection
of the laws.*"- Other municipal charters have given damages
for a change of grade. Where a charter was repealed after an
ordinance was passed for a change of grade, but before the ordi-
nance became effective by publication, it was held to defeat the
claim for compensation.^^ Where the statute required an as-
sessment of damages before the work was done, a change with-
out complying is unlawful and an action will lie. And the plain-
tiff is not estopped because he made no objection to the doing of
the work.** Paving a street, whereby it is made slightly higher
in the middle is not a change of grade.** A statute gave com-
pensation in case a municipality should close up, use or obstruct
a highway so as materially to interfere with its usefulness as
such, to the injury or damage of abutting owners. It was held
not to apply to a change of grade.*'
§ 336 (218a). When the statute refers merely to a
change of grade must it be from a previously established
grade? Such statutes are remedial and should be liberally
construed and, therefore, should be held to apply to a change
from a natural grade, where the street has been used at such
grade.** This is in accordance with the rule adopted in con-
2 9French v. Milwaukee, 49 Wis. See State v. Superior, 108 Wis. 16,
584; Church v. Same, 34 Wis. 66; 83 N. W. 1100.
Stadler v. Same, 34 Wis. 98; Church s^Sanderson v. Herman, 108 Wis.
r. Same, 31 Wis. 512; Stowell v. 662, 84 N. W. 890, 85 N. W. 141.
Same, 31 Wis. 523; Tyson v. Same, ssgmith v. Eau Claire, 78 Wis.
50 Wis. 78. 487, 47 N. W. 830.
soTysonv. Milwaukee, 50 Wis. 78; asBartlett v. Tarrytown, 55 Hun
cmtra: McCarthy v. St. Paul, 22 492, 30 N. Y. St. 341, 8 N. Y. Supp.
Minn. 527. 739; Aldrich v. Providence, 12 R. I.
3iAnderson v. Milwaukee, 82 Wis. 241. And see Cambridge v. County
279, 52 N. W. 95. Comrs., 125 Mass. 529 ; Snow v. Prov-
3 2Smith V. Eau Claire, 78 Wis. incetown, 109 Mass. 123; Lane v.
487, 47 N. W. 830. Boston, 125 Mass. 519; Matter of
33jorgenson v. Superior, 111 Wis. Greer, 39 App. Div. N. Y. 22; Blair
561, 87 N. W. 565 ; Friedrich v. Mil- v. Charleston, 43 W. Va. 62, 64 Am.
waukee, 114 Wis. 304, 90 N. W. 174. St. Rep. 837, 35 L.R.A. 852.
616
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 337
struing constitutions giving compensation for property damaged
or injured by public improvements.^'^ Some courts hold that the
statute refers only to a grade established by actual improvement
of the street or one formally adopted by ordinance or resolu-
tion.**
§ 337 (218b). What constitutes an established grade.
Many statutes in express terms limit the remedy for a change
of grade to a change from a previously established grade. The
authorities differ as to what constitutes an established grade
within the meaning of such statutes. Some hold that the grade
must have been established by some express action of the munici-
pal authorites adopting or fixing the grade.*® Others hold that
a grade may be established by implication, or by improving the
street at its natural grade or otherwise.*"
§ 338 (218c). What constitutes a change of grade.
Macadamizing or paving a street, whereby the surface is slightly
raised, is not a change of grade.* ^ So merely leveling the sur-
face to make it uniform.*^ Raising or lowering a part of the
STEachus V. Los Angeles Consol.
El. R. R. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 37 Pac.
750, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149; City of
Bloomington v. Pollock, 141 111. 346,
31 N. E. 146; Sheey v. Kansas City
Cable R. R. Co., 94 Mo. 574, 7 S. W.
579; Smith v. Kansas City etc. R.
R. Co., 98 Mo. 20, 11 S. W. 259;
Davis V. Mo. Pae. R. R. Co., 119 Mo.
180, 24 S. W. 777, 41 Am. St. Rep.
648, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 117;
Smith V. City of St. Joseph, 122 Mo.
643, 27 S. W. 344; Dale v. City of St.
Joseph, 59 Mo. App. 566; Norris-
towu's Appeal, 3 Walker (Pa. Supm.
Ct.) 146; City of Ft. Worth v.
Howard, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 537, 22 S.
W. 1059.
3 8 Gardiner v. Town Council of
Johnston, 16 R. I. 94, 12 Atl. 888;
O'Donnell v. White, 24 R. I. 483, 53
Atl. 633 ; Sargent v. City of Tacoma,
10 Wash. 212, 38 Pac. 1048.
ssMattingly v. Plymouth, 100 Ind.
545; City of Anderson v. Bain, 120
Ind. 254, 22 N. E. 323; City of Val-
paraiso V. Adams, 123 Ind. 250, 24
N. E. 107; City of Huntington v.
Griffith, 142 Ind. 280, 41 N. E. 8, 589 ;
Kepple V. Keokuk, 61 la. 653;
Fanner v. Cedar Rapids, 116 la. 322,
89 N. W. 1105.
< "Gibson v. Zimmerman, 27 Mo.
App. 90; Folmsbee v. Amsterdam,
142 N. Y. 118, 36 N. E. 821; Stenson
V. Mt. Vernon, 104 App. Div. 17, 93
N. Y. S. 309; Cincinnati v. Roth, 20
Ohio C. C. 317 ; Chattanooga v. Gei-
ler, 13 Lea, 611; see also cases cited
in last section and Smith v. Board of
Comrs., 50 Ohio St. 628, 35 N. B.
796; Neubert v. City of Toledo, 9
Ohio C. C. 462; Matter of Grade
Crossing Comrs., 154 N. Y. 550.
"Warren v. Henry, 31 la. 31;
Coates V. Iowa, 68 la. 550 ; Bogard v.
O'Brien (Ky.), 20 S. W. 1097; Zear-
foss v. Lansdale, 1 Mont. Co. L. R. R.
157; Sanderson v. Herman, 108 Wis.
662, 84 N. W. 890, 85 N. W. 141.
4 2Farrington v. Mt. Vernon, 166
N. Y. 233, 59 N. E. 826, affirming S.
C. 51 App. Div. 250, 64 N. Y. S. 863;
Comesky v. Suffern, 179 N. Y. 393,
72 N. E. 320, reversing S. C. 83 App.
Div. 137, 81 N. Y. S. 1049; Bissell v.
§ 339 PEOPEKTT DAMAGED OE INJURED. 617
street,** building a causeway in the middle,** or a viaduct over
it,*' have been held to be changes of grade. Filling a street
which has settled, so as to compensate for the settling, is not a
change of grade.*® Where a bank ten feet wide was left between
the traveled way and the lot lines, its gradual removal by the
city and others, wanting to use the earth, was held not to be a
change of grade.*'' It is immaterial that the change is made
by a railroad, with the approval of the municipal authorities.**
Where the grade of two parallel adjacent streets is changed, the
grade of an intersecting street between the two is not thereby
changed by implication to correspond.*^
§ 339 (218d). The right and remedy are wholly de-
pendent upon the statute. There being no constitutional
right to compensation for a change of grade, the whole matter is
in the control of the legislature, which may give compensation to
such extent and under such circumstances and conditions as it
sees fit^" If a right to compensation is created and no remedy
provided a common law action will lie.'^ So if the initiative
is cast upon the municipality and it fails to have the damages
assessed,^^ or otherwise fails to comply with the law in making
the change.^* If the statute provides a remedy, that is exclu-
sive.'^* A repeal of the statute takes away the remedy.'"''
Larchmont, 57 App. Div. 61, 67 N. Y. eoMatter of Beale St., 39 Cal. 496.
S. 692; Stenson v. Mt. Vernon, 104 siMcCarthy v. St. Paul, 22 Minn.
App. Div. 17, 93 N. T. S. 309. 527; Taylor v. St. Paul, 25 Minn.
4 3Kokomo V. Mahan, 100 Ind. 242. 129.
So where the sidewalk is lowered; S2Lafayette v. Wortman, 107 Ind.
McGar v. Bristol, 71 Conn. 652, 48 404; Jorgenson v. Superior, 111 Wis.
Atl. 1000; Hinckley v. Franklin, 69 561, 87 N. W. 665; Friedrich v. Mil-
iar. H. 614, 45 Atl. 643. waukee, 114 Wis. 304, 90 N. W. 174.
<4Stiekford v. St. Louis, 7 Mo. BSHolley v. Torrington, 63 Conn.
App. 217; affirmmg, 75 Mo. 309; 426, 28 Atl. 613 ; Cook v. Ansonia, 66
Dove V. Milwaukee, 42 Wis. 108. Conn. 413, 34 Atl. 183; City of To-
4 5Wiikin V. St. Paul, 33 Minn, peka v. Sells, 48 Kan. 520, 29 Pac.
181. See ante, § 138. 604; Lafayette v. Nagle, 113 Ind.
4 6Garrity v. City of Boston, 161 425.
Mass. 530, 37 N. E. 672. B4Cole v. Muscatine, 14 la. 296;
47Whitmore v. Tarrytown, 137 N. Reilly v. Ft. Dodge, 118 la. 633, 92
Y. 409, 33 N. E. 489. N. W. 887 ; Golding v. Attleborough,
48lnterstate Consol. T. R. R. Co. 172 Mass. 223, 51 N. E. 1076; Abel v.
V. Early, 46 Kan. 197, 26 Pac. 422; Minneapolis, 68 Minn. 89; Heiser v.
Matter of Stack, 50 Hun 385, 3 N. Y. New York, 104 N. Y. 68, affirming 29
Supp. 231. Hun 446; Melenbacker v. Salamanca,
49Morton v. Burlington, 106 la. 188 N. Y. 370, 80 N. E. 1090, a/^irmmj;
50, 75 N. W. 662. 116 App. Div. 691 ; Hoy v. Sala-
618
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 340
§ 340 (218e). When the action accrues. The language
of the statute may determine when the action accrues, but, in
the absence of anything express in the statute, the better rule is
that it accrues when the work is done,®'' though some courts have
held that it accrues when the change is ordered.®'^
§ 341 (218f). Whether the statute applies to changes
ordered before but made after it takes effect. It has been
held that such a statute did not apply to a change of grade or-
dered before the statute took effect but which was not executed
until afterwards.^* But the contrary would seem to be the
better rule, and the one in harmony with the prevailing rule as
to when the action accrues.®'
§ 342 (218g). Elements and measure of damages.
Where compensation is given generally for damages to abutting
property by a change of grade, the measure of damages is the
diminution in value, caused by the change.®" If the property
is not lessened in value there can be no recovery, though expense
will have to be incurred in adjusting the property to the new
manca, 57 Misc. 81 j Anness v. Provi-
dence, 13 R. I. 17 ; Garraux v. Green-
ville, 53 S. C. 575, 31 S. E. 597; Ken-
dall V. Columbia, 74 S. C. 539, 54 S.
E. 777.
6 6 Smith V. White Plains, 67 Hun
81, 22 N. Y. Supp. 450; Smith v. Eau
Claire, 78 Wis. 487, 47 N. W. 830.
5 6Pickel3 V. Ansonia, 76 Conn. 278,
56 Atl. 552; Hempstead v. Des
Moines, 63 la. 36; Brown v. Lowell,
8 Met. 172; Hodgman v. Concord, 69
N. H. 349, 41 Atl. 287 ; People v. Zoll,
97 N. Y. 203; Phipps v. North Pel-
ham, 61 App. Div. 442, 70 N. Y. S.
630 ; O'Brien v. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co.,
119 Pa. St. 184, 13 Atl. 74; Ogden v.
City of Philadelphia, 143 Pa. St. 430,
22 Atl. 694; Jones r. Bangor, 144 Pa.
St. 638, 23 Atl. 252; North Chester v.
Eckfeldt, 1 Monaghan (Pa. Supm.
Ct.), 732; Tyson v. Milwaukee, 50
Wis. 78.
6 7McCarthy v. St. Paul, 22 Minn.
527; Matter of Change of Grade of
Sth and 6th sts., 12 Phila. 587; Ker-
shaw V. Philadelphia, 20 Phila. 318;
Campbell v. Philadelphia, 108 Pa. St.
300. Bee generally post § 970.
ssCotes V. Davenport, 9 la. 227.
6 9City of Bloomington v. Pollock,
141 111. 346, 31 N. E. 146; S. C. 38
111. App. 133; cmd see cases cited in
last section.
soPlatt V. Town of Milford, 66
Conn. 320, 34 Atl. 82; McCosh v.
Burlington, 72 la. 26; Stewart v.
Council BluflFs, 84 la. 61, 50 N. W.
219; Richardson v. Webster City, 111
la. 427, 82 N. W. 920; Millard v.
Webster City, 113 la. 220, 84 N. W.
1044; Parker v. City of Atchison, 46
Kan. 14, 26 Pac. 435; Chase v. City
of Portland, 86 Me. 367, 29 Atl. 1104;
Woodbury v. Beverly, 153 Mass. 245,
26 N. E. 851 ; Dale v. City of St. Jo-
seph, 59 Mo. App. 566; Mauldin v.
Greenville, 64 S. C. 444, 42 S. E. 202;
Acker v. Knoxville, 117 Tenn. 224, 96
S. W. 973; Fairbanks v. Rocking-
ham, 75 Vt. 221, 54 Atl. 186; French
V. Milwaukee, 49 Wis. 584.
§ 3i3
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OB INJUEED.
619
grade." ^ There can be no recovery of nominal damages."^ In-
terference with access, the cost of adjusting the property to the
new grade, injury from surface water, and whatever affects the
value of the property may be taken into consideration.®^ The
statute may limit the right of compensation to improved prop-
erty,®* or to the buildings alone. "^
§ 343 (218h). Estoppel to claim damages. The fact
that an abutter has dedicated or conveyed land for the street,
or released any claim for damages in consequence of its estab-
lishment, does not estop him from claiming compensation for
a change of grade.®" Nor is the plaintiff estopped by the fact
that he has done the work in front of his property in compli-
ance with an order of the council,®'' nor by the fact that he has
requested the completion of a change already begun.®* Where a
person builds to the natural grade after a different grade has
been established, he cannot recover for damages caused by bring-
ing the street to the established grade.®* Where an abutter
built on a ridge to the natural grade and the grade of the street
was afterwards lowered, it was held he was not estopped
siHempstead v. Des Moines, 52 la.
303.
saBurkham v. Ohio & M. R. R. Co.,
122 Ind. 344, 23 N. E. 799.
6 3Shelton Co. v. Birmingham, 62
Conn. 456, 26 Atl. 348 ; HoUey v. Tor-
rington, 63 Conn. 426, 28 Atl. 613;
Cook V. City of Ansonia, 66 Conn.
413, 34 Atl. 183; Pickles v. Ansonia,
76 Conn. 278, 56 Atl. 552 ; City of To-
peka V. Martineau, 42 Kan. 387, 22
Pac. 419, 5 L.R.A. 775 ; Chase v. City
of Portland, 86 Me. 367, 29 Atl. 1104;
Woodbury v. Beverly, 153 Mass. 245,
26 N. E. 851 ; Newark v. Weeks, 71 N.
J. L. 448, 59 Atl. 901; Mauldin v.
Greenville, 64 S. C. 444, 42 S. E. 202;
Church V. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 66;
Stadkr v. Ibid., 34 Wis. 98 ; Church
V. Ibid., 31 Wis. 512; Stowell v.
Ibid., 31 Wis. 523; French v. Ibid.,
49 Wis. 584; Tyson v. Ibid., 50 Wis.
78; post § 737.
6 4Conkliu V. City of Keokuk, 73
la. 343, 35 N. W. 444 ; Chase v. Sioux
City, 86 la. 603, 53 N. W. 333.
6 6People V. Gilon, 76 Hun 346, 27
N. Y. Supp. 704.
6 6Fernald v. Boston, 12 Cush. 574;
Bartlett v. Tarrytown, 52 Hun 380,
24 N. Y. St. 272, 5 N. Y. Supp. 240.
s'Pearce v. Milwaukee, 18 Wis.
428.
ssHerser v. Milwaukee, 39 Wis.
108 ; Hickman v. City of Kansas, 120
Mo. 110, 25 S. W. 225; Klaus v. Jer-
sey City, 69 N. J. L. 127, 54 Atl. 220 ;
and see Luscombe v. Milwaukee, 36
Wis. 511. But where the property
owner, after an ordinance for a
change of grade had been passed,
petitioned for the making of the im-
provement, he was held to be
estopped. Preston v. Cedar Rapids,
95 la. 71, 63 N. W. 577. And see gen-
erally: York V. Cedar Rapids, 130
la. 453, 103 N. W. 790; Wheat v.
Van Tine, 149 Mich. 314, 112 N. W.
933; Jorgensen v. Superior, 111 Wis.
561, 87 N. W. 565.
6 90maha v. Williams, 52 Neb. 40.
C)20 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 344
to recover damages on the ground that he should have foreaeen
that a change would be necessary J"
§ 344 (219). Statutes giving damages for railroads in
streets. The code of Iowa, § 464, empowers cities to grant or
forbid the laying of railroad tracks in streets, "but no railway
track can thus be located and laid down until after the injury
to the property abutting on the street, alley or public places upon
which such railroad is proposed to be located has been ascertained
and compensated" in the manner provided by law. This was
held to apply as to any tracks laid after its passage, and that
a recovery was not limited merely to damages from change of
grade.'^^ It was held not to apply to a horse railway,''^ nor to
a railroad crossing a street. '^^ But if the crossing is diagonal,
so that any part of the track or embankment is opposite the plain-
tiff's lot,'^* or if the crossing is above or below grade, necessitating
an approach in front of plaintiff's property,''^ there may be a
recovery. No right can be acquired until the compensation has
been ascertained and paid and a company laying down and
using a track without making compensation, and its successors
in title, are trespassers.''*
Where permission to lay a railroad in a street was granted
upon condition of paying all damages to private property, it
was held that only actionable damages were intended.'''^ But
where the condition was that the railroad company should pay
all damages that might accrue to the property owners on the
street by reason of the construction of the road, it was held that
'OMcGar r. Bristol, 71 Conn. 652, Johnsbury etc. R. R. Co. 64 Vt. 52, 24
42 Atl. 1000. Atl. 361.
TiDrady v. D. M. & Ft. D. R. R. TBNicks v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
Co., 57 la. 393, 10 N. W. 754; Mer- 84 la. 27, 50 N. W. 222; Hitchcock v.
chants' Union Barb Wire Co. v. Chi- Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 88 la. 242, 55
cago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 70 la. 105, N. W. 337; Middleton v. Mason City
28 N. W. 494. etc. R. R. Co. 127 la. 433, 103 N. W.
7 2 Sears v. Marshalltown Street 364.
Ry. Co., 65 la. 742, 23 N. W. 150. 7 6Harbach v. Des Moines etc. R. R.
73Morgan v. Des Moines & St. Co., 80 la. 593, 44 N. W. 348, 1 Am.
Louis Ry. Co., 64 la. 589, 21 N. W. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 449, 11 L.R.A.
96, 52 L.R.A. 462. But see New 113.
Castle & Franklin R. R. Co. v. Mc- '^Sargeant v. Ohio & Mississippi
Chesney, 85 Pa. St. 522. R. R. Co., 1 Handy, Ohio, 52; Hen-
7 4Enos V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., derson Belt R. R. Co. v. Deehamp, 95
78 la. 28, 42 N. W. 575; Gates v. Ky. 219, 24 S. W. 605 ; Same v. Same,
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 82 la. 518, 48 14 Ky. L. E. 44.
N. W. 1040. And see Wead v. St.
§ 344 PSOPEETr DAMAGED OE INJXJEED. 621
a recovery could be had, not only for the depreciation in value
of the property, but also for interruption and damage to business
during the progress of the v?ork.'^® Where a statute provides
that when tracks are laid upon a public street, the company shall
be responsible for injuries done by such location to private
property lying upon or near the street, one vphose property is
situated a few feet beyond the terminus of the road is entitled
to recover. ''^ Under the provision of a street railway company's
charter that "whenever any estate abutting on a street or high-
way upon or over which the rails of said corporation shall be
laid shall be injured thereby the said corporation shall be liable
to pay the owner or owners thereof the damages thereby occa-
sioned to said estate," damages can be recovered for injuries re-
sulting from the laying of the rails only as distinguished from
those resulting from the using of them as laid.*" But unless
limited by the statute the measure of damages is the depreciation
in value caused by the construction and use of the tracks.*^
Abutters on both sides of the street may recover though the rail-
road is laid wholly on one side.*^ A statute giving compensa-
tion for damage caused by electric lines for the transmission
of intelligence and in case of electric light and electric power
lines and passed before electric railways were in common use,
was held not to apply to the latter.** A statute of Massachusetts
in relation to elevated railroads in the streets of Boston gave
compensation to abutting owners "who are damaged by reason
of the location, construction, maintenance and operation of said
lines of railway." The word "damage" "is held to include
only damage that is direct and proximate, as distinguished from
7 8 St. Louis etc. E. R. Co. v. Capps, siNJcks v. Chicago etc. E,. R. Co.,
67 m. 607; S. C. 72 111. 188; Same 84 la. 27, 50 N. W. 222; Boyne City
V. Haller, 82 111. 208. etc. R. E. Co. v. Anderson, 146 Mich.
7 9Lake Roland El. R. R. Co. v. 328, 109 N. W. 429, 117 Am. St. Rep.
Webster, 81 Md. 529, 32 Atl. 186. 642, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 306; Railway
"The right to redress depends upon Co. v. Gardner, 45 Ohio St. 309, 13
the question whether damage was N. E. 69; post, § 735.
done, and not on the proximity or S2Kuhl v. Chicago & N. W. R. R.
distance of the operative cause of the Co., 101 Wis. 42, 77 N. W. 155; Lenz
injury.'' Under a similar statute v. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., Ill Wis.
property 300 feet away was held to lfl8, 86 N. W. 607.
be "near to" the street occupied. ssMcDermott v. Warren etc. E. R.
Wheeling etc. E. R. Co. v. Laughlin, Co., 172 Mass. 197, 51 N. E. 972.
15 Ohio C. C. 1.
soVose V. Newport St. R. E. Co.,
17 E. I. 134, 20 Atl. 267.
622 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 345
that which is remote and consequential, and to include only
that which is special and peculiar to the petitioner and to those
similarly situated, as distinguished from that which is com-
mon, affecting generally persons and property in the vicinity." **
The statute applies alike to those who own the fee and to those
who own a less estate. An act of Missouri required street rail-
road companies to have determined in advance, in the mode
pointed out in the statute, the damages that would be done by
the building and operation of such railroads to the real and
personal property on the line of the road, and section 3 of the
act was as follows : "Damages in this act is hereby defined to be
the depreciation in the value of the property that may result
from the construction and operation of the proposed railway."
^Notwithstanding the very clear and specific directions of the
statute the supreme court held that a street surface railroad
was a legitimate street use and that, though the abutting prop-
erty was depreciated in value thereby, the property was not
taken or damaged within the meaning of the constitution or
statute.*®
§ 345 (220). Statutes giving damages in other cases.
The charter of a railroad company required it "to pay all dam-
ages that may arise to any person or persons." This was held
to embrace damages of every description, incidental and con-
sequential, as well as direct, and to apply to those no part of
whose land was taken as well as to those over whose land the road
was laid.*® Injury to a building by excavating on the adjoining
lot, whereby the foundations were weakened,*'^ also by raising
the grade of the street in front, whereby access was impeded and
8 4Baker v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 183 Strickford v. Boston etc. R. R. Co.,
Mass. 178, 66 N. E. 711. 73 N. H. 1, 59 Atl. 367; Pittsburg,
8 6Ruekert v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co., Va. etc. R. R. Co. v. Rose, 74 Pa. St.
163 Mo. 260, 63 S. W. 814; Nagel v. 362; Wead v. St. Johnsbury etc. R.
Lindell Ry. Co., 167 Mo. 89, 66 S. W. R. Co., 64 Vt. 52, 24 Atl. 361 ; Hodges
1090. r. Seaboard etc. R. R. Co., 88 Va. 653,
The following cases arose under 14 S. E. 380; Richmond Traction Co.
such statutes, but involve questions v. Murphy, 98 Va. 104, 34 S. E. 982;
that will be considered elsewhere : Trustees v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co.,
O'Brien v. Baltimore Belt R. R. Co., 77 Wis. 158, 45 N. W. 1086 ; Grafton
74 Md. 363, 22 Atl. 141; Onset St. R. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 21
R. Co. V. County Comrs., 154 Mass. Fed. 309.
395, 28 N. E. 286; Grand Rapids & ssfiradley v. New York & New
Indiana R. R. Co. v. Heisel, 47 Mich. Haven R. R. Co., 21 Conn. 294.
393; Taylor v. Bay City St. R. R. STSame.
Co., 80 Mich. 77, 45 N. W. 335;
§ 345 PBOPBBTT DAMAGED OE INJURED. 623
water turned on the property/® were held to be within the
statute. The charter of a gas and water company required
it to make compensation for "any injury done to private prop-
erty." The court interpreted this as follows : " 'Private prop-
erty' necessarily includes everything that can be held or owned
by private persons and 'injury' any and every damage to which
it can or may be subjected." *®
A statute of Massachusetts provided as follows: "Every rail-
road corporation shall be liable to pay all damages that shall
be occasioned by laying out and making and maintaining their
road, or by taking any land or materials as provided in the
preceding section." *" The following cases of damage have been
held to be within the statute : The draining of plaintiff's well by
a deep cut,*^ injury to plaintiff's building by blasting/^ and
injury by raising the grade of the street in front of plaintiff's
property.®^ An important case arose out of the following facts :
Plaintiff owned premises in Lowell abutting on Western avenue.
A railroad company crossed the avenue near the plaintiff's prem-
ises, and between them and the center of the city. The track
was several feet above the grade of the street, and on either side
suitable approaches were made. The result of this was to cause
numerous detentions to plaintiff, to impair the convenience of
the road, and to depreciate the value of plaintiff's property. JSTo
part of the plaintiff's property was taken. The court held that
the plaintiff was not entitled to damages.®* It is difficult to
reconcile this case with an earlier one in the same court. A
corporation was authorized to erect dams on a stream, by a stat-
ute which provided that any person "sustaining any damage
to his land" by reason thereof might obtain compensation. The
plaintiff had a soap and candle mill on the stream. The dam
8 s Same; and Nicholson v. New Am. St. Rep. 320, where a well was
York & New Haven R. R. Co., 22 drained by a cut for a sewer, and the
Conn. 74; Burritt v. New Haven, 42 statute as to damage was similar.
Conn. 174. See also McNamara v. Common-
ssLycoming Gas & Water Co. v. wealth, 184 Mass. 304, 68 N. E. 332.
Moyer, 99 Pa. St. 615. 9 2Dodge v. Commissioners of
90R. S. 1836, c. 39, § 56; R. S. Essex, 3 Met. 380.
1882, c. 112, § 95. 9 3Gardiner v. Boston & Worcester
9 1 Parker V. Boston & Maine R. R. R. R. Co., 9 Cush. 1.
Co., 3 Cush. 107, 50 Am. Dec. 709. To 9 4 Proprietor of Locks and Canals
the same effect are Trowbridge v. v. Nashua & Lowell R. R. Co., 10
Brookline, 144 Mass. 139, and Bick- Cush. 385.
ford V. Hyde Park, 173 Mass. 552, 73
624 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 345
cut off his water commuiiication with Boston, whereby transpor-
tation was rendered more expensive. It was held that he could
recover.®^ In the former case there was an interference with a
highway by land, in the latter an interference with a highway
by water. In both cases the interference caused a depreciation
of the plaintiff's property. In neither case was any part of the
plaintiff's property taken.
Under a statute which provided for the payment of "aU dam-
ages that shall be sustained by any persons in their property
* * * by the construction of any aqueducts, etc., for tiie
purpose of the act," it was held that an injury by transporting
materials over land was embraced by the act and the remedy pro-
vided by the act was exclusive.** But a statute giving damages
for property taken or affected by a public work does not cover
damages by negligence or unskilfulness.®^ An act which pro-
vides that the mayor and aldermen of a city shall have power
to ascertain any damage done to property by a certain improve-
ment, and to provide for payment of the same, imposes an im-
perative duty and vests a right of action in the ovsmer of prop-
erty so injured, whether the city makes such provision or not.**
In Pennsylvania it has been held that an act requiring com-
pensation for any injury or damage to private property by par-
ticular works includes all damages, consequential and remote.**
^BBoston & Roxbury Mill Corpora- claims as the commonwealth would
tion V. Gardner, 2 Pick. 33. have been held liable for, and hence
9 slower V. Boston, 10 Cush. 235. was held not liable for consequential
STBailey v. Mayor etc. of New damages. Delaware Division Canal
York, 3 Hill, 531. Oo. v. McKeen, 52 Pa. St. 117.
9 sGregg V. Mayor etc. of Balti- Where a company was authorized to
more, 56 Md. 256. improve a stream and required to
9SBuckwalter v. Black Rock file a bond "sufficient to indemnify all
Bridge Co., 38 Pa. St. 281 ; Watson v. persons holding property on said
Pittsburgh & Connellsville E,. E. Co., stream for any loss by reason of said
37 Pa. St. 469; Mifflin v. Railroad improvement," this was held not to
Co., 16 Pa. St. 182; see also Coster v. enlarge the company's liability so as
Albany, 52 Barb. 276. In the follow- to make it responsible for conse-
ing case it was held that legal injury quential damages. Woodward v.
only is intended; Shrunk v. Schuyl- Webb, 65 Pa. St. 254. But where a
kill Navigation Co., 14 S. & R. 71. gas company gave a voluntary bond
Where a canal was transferred by to pay the plaintiff "all damages of
the State to a private company, who whatsoever nature or kind" that he
agreed to pay "any and all claims for might sustain by constructing or re-
damages or other demands against pairing pipe lines across certain de-
the commonwealth,'' the company scribed property, the language was
was held bound to pay only such held to cover consequential damages.
§ 345 PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED. 625
Under an act which provides for an assessment of damages sus-
tained by reason of any excavation or embankment made in the
construction of a railroad, proceedings cannot be had to assess
damages for an additional track in a street.^ Under an act
giving compensation "to all parties interested for all damages
by them sustained by reason of the exercise of such pov^ers,"
it was held that damage to goods could be recovered.^ Where
a canal was abandoned and granted to a city by the State upon
condition that the city should "be liable for all damages which
might accrue from the vacation of said canal," it was held the
city would only be liable for such damages as would have been
a legal claim against the State.^ A statute authorizing a com-
pany to take land and material, for improving the navigation of
a river, "being accountable to the owners thereof for all dam-
ages, if any," does not make the company liable for consequential
damages, as by changing the current so as to wash away the
plaintiff's banks.* Statutes giving damages for telephone poles
and fixtures in a street,® for a public urinal in a street,® and for
the vacation of a highway,'^ are cited in the margin. A naviga-
tion company was made liable for consequential damages to
property situated on either side of its improvements. This was
held to refer to contiguous property and not to property situated
some ways below a dam and injured thereby.* A statute of
Massachusetts authorized the State Board of Agriculture to take
measures for the extermination of the gypsy moth, and to enter
upon lands for that purpose, and provided that "the owner of
any land so entered upon, who should suffer damage by such
entry and acts done thereon," by the board, might recover there-
for from the city or town in which the land was situated. This
was held not to extend to personal property on the land, such
Pennsylvania Nat. Gas Co. v. Cook, sHubbard v. City of Toledo, 21
123Pa. St. 170, 16Atl. 762. And see Ohio St. 379. To same effect, Coster
as in line with the text; Common- v. Albany, 43 N, Y. 399.
wealth V. Snyder, 2 Watts 418; Bos- <Brooks v. Cedar Brook etc. Imp.
ton Belting Co. v. City of Boston, 152 Co., 82 Me. 17, 19 Atl. 87, 17 Am. St.
Mass. 307, 25 N. E. 613. Rep. 459, 7 L.R.A. 460.
1 Cumberland Valley E. R. Co. v. 6 Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. r. Mack-
Rhoadarmer, 107 Pa. St. 214. enzie, 74 Md. 36, 21 Atl. 690.
zKnock V. Metropolitan Railway sBadger v. Boston, 130 Mass. 170.
Co., 4 L. R. C. P. 131 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 78. 'Brandenburg v. Hittel (Ind.) 37
To same effect; Jabb v. The Hull N. E. Rep. 329.
Dock Co., 9 A. & E. N. S. 443, 58 E. C. 'Ihmsen v. Monongahela Nav. Co.,
L. R. 441. 32 Pa. St. 153.
Em. D.— 40.
62G EMINENT DOMAIN. § 345
as cord wood, and that there could be no recovery under the
statute for its destruction.* Another act of the same State to
provide for a metropolitan water supply, provided for taking
the business part of the town of West Boylston and contained a
provision as follows: "In case any individual or firm owning
on April 1, 1895, an established business on land in the town of
West Boyleston, whether the same shall be taken or not under
this act, or the heirs or personal representatives of such individ-
ual or firm, shall deem that such business is decreased in value
by the carrying out of this act, whether by loss of custom or
otherwise, and is unable to agree with said board as to the
amount of damages to be paid for such injury, such damages
shall be determined and paid in the manner hereinbefore pro-
vided." It was held that though such damages were not recov-
erable under the constitution, there was nothing to prevent the
legislature from providing for such compensation,^" and various
cases construing the act as to what constituted an established
business and as to the elements and measure of damages are
referred to in the margin. ^"^ Where an act gave compensation
for "all damages sustained by any person or corporation by the
taking of land or any right therein under this act," it was held
that one, no part of whose land was taken, could not recover
for the temporary flooding of his land during the construction
of the works. ■'^ A statute of New York to provide for an addi-
tional water supply for the city of ISTew York gives compensa-
tion not only for the injury or destruction of an established busi-
ness but also to employees of six months' standing in any such
business or upon land taken who are thrown out of employ-
ment.^^
Statutes giving compensation in general terms for property
damaged or injured are similar, in effect, to the constitutional
sGlobe Fire Ins. Co. v. Lexington, Commonwealth, 188 Mass. 59, 74 N.
173 Mass. 6. E. 287, 69 L.R.A. 599; Whiting v.
lOEarle v. Commonwealth, 180 Commonwealth, 196 Mass. 468, 82 N.
Mass. 579, 63 N. E. 10, 91 Am. St. E. 670.
Rep. 326, 57 L.R.A. 292. izMcSweeney v. Commonwealth,
iilhid.; Gavin v. Commonwealth, 185 Mass. 371, 70 N. E. 429. See also
182 Mass. 190, 65 N. E. 37 ; Sa\vyer v. Whitney v. Commonwealth, 190 Mass.
Commonwealth, 182 Mass. 245, 65 N. 531, 77 N. E. 516.
E. 52, 59 L.R.A. 726; Fairbanks v. isSee Laws of Xew York, 1905, c.
Commonwealth, 183 Mass. 373, 67 N. 724, § 42 as amended by § 9, c. 315
E. 335; Sawyer v. Commonwealth, Laws of 1906; Matter of Simmons, 58
185 Mass. 356, 70 N. E. 438 ; Allen v. Misc. 581, 109 N. Y. S. 1036.
§ 346 PEOPEETY DAJIAGED OR IXJUEED. €27
provisions considered in the subsequent sections of this chapter
and decisions thereunder are grouped with those construing
such constitutional provisions, under the appropriate headings.
Where there are different statutes of this sort in the same State,
giving compensation for property damaged by different sorts
of public Tvorks or improvements, they should be regarded as
resting upon the same reasons and should be so construed, if
possible, as to be uniform in their operation and in the results
which they accomplish.^*
II. — In Constitutions.
§ 346 (221). Constitutional provisions. When the peo-
ple of Illinois revised their constitution in 1870, they intro-
duced an important change into the provision respecting the
power of eminent domain. The provision reads as follows:
"Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use
without just compensation." ^° Nearly every other State which
has revised its constitution since 1870 has followed the example
set by Illinois by adding the word damaged, or its equivalent, to
the provision in question.^" Prior to 1870, as appears from the
preceding sections, statutes had been passed in many of the
i4Sheldon v. Boston etc. R. E. Co., i, § 17, 1876. "Taken, destroyed or
172 Mass. 180, 182, 51 N. E. 1078; damaged." Minnesota art. i, § 13,
Hyde v. Fall River, 189 Mass. 439, 75 as amended in 1896. In the new eon-
N. E. 953, 2 L.R.A.(lsr.S.) 269. stitution of Pennsylvania, adopted in
i5Art. II, § 13. 1874, a provision was inserted as fol-
i6"Taken or damaged." Illinois, lows: "Municipal and other cor-
art. ii, § 13, 1870; West Virginia, art. porations and individuals invested
iii, § 9, 1872; Missouri, art. i, § 20, with the privilege of taking private
1875; Nebraska, art. 1, § 21, 1875; property for public use shall make
Colorado, art. ii. § 14, 1876; Cali- just compensation for the property
fornia, art. i, § 14, 1879; Louisiana, talcen, injured or destroyed by the
art. 156, 1879; Mississippi, art. iii, § construction or enlargement of its
17, 1890; Montana, art. iii, § 14, works, highways or improvements,
1889; North Dakota, art. i, § 4, 1889; which compensation shall be paid
Oklahoma, § 32, 1907 ; South Dakota, before such taking, injury or destrue-
art. vi, § 13, 1889; Utah, art. i, § 22, tion." Art. i, § 8. The new constitu-
1895; Virginia, art. i, § 6, 1902; tions of Alabama adopted in 1875 and
Washington, art. i, § 16; Wyoming, 1901 contain the same provision,
art. i, § 32. "Taken, injured or de- Art. xiii, § 7. In both States the gen-
stroyed." Kentucky, § 242, 1891. eral provision as to taking remains.
"Taken, appropriated or damaged." The exceptions are Florida, Idaho,
Arkansas, art. ii, § 22, 1874. "Taken, New York, North Carolina and South
damaged or destroyed." Texas, art. Carolina.
628 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 347
States giving compensation for property damaged or injured
in particular cases or for particular public uses. These statutes
related mostly to the change of street grades. In England,
since 1845, compensation has been allowed by act of Parliament
for property "injuriously affected" by the construction of pub-
lic works. ^^ The proper meaning of the words damaged or
injured in these late constitutions is now to be considered.
§ 347 (222). The terms "damaged," "injured" and "in-
juriously affected" are synonymous. The legal profession
are familiar with a distinction between damage and injury.
Damnum absque injuria has been the answer to many a lawsuit,
which, being interpreted, means that there may be damage or
loss without any violation of legal right. In common usage,
however, these words are . practically synonymous. Webster
defines damage as "any hurt, injury or harm to one's estate;"
and injury he defines as "any wrong or damage done to a man's
person, rights, reputation or goods." The people of Pennsyl-
vania, when they said that private property should not be injured
for public use without compensation, undoubtedly understood
and intended the same thing as the people of Illinois, who said
that it should not be damaged for public use without compensa-
tion. The evil to be remedied was the same in both States.
In England the word damaged, in a statute providing compensa-
tion for land damaged, was held equivalent to the words injuri-
ously affected and given the same construction.-^* Likewise the
words all damages, in a similar statute.-'* So also the word
injured.^" The word injured, in a New Jersey statute, was
construed by the courts of that State to mean the same as the
words injuriously affected, in the English statute.^^ So of the
word damaged in the constitution of Colorado.*^ The Supreme
Court of Georgia, referring to the words damaged, injured and
I'Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 2iColumbia Delaware Bridge Co. v.
§ 68. Geisse, 35 N. J. L. 558.
isHall V. Mayor of Bristol, L. R. 2 2 2Town of Longmont v. Parker, 14
C. P. 322; see also Eipley v. Great Colo. 386, 23 Pae. 443, 20 Am. St.
Northern Ry. Co., L. E. 10 Ch. App. Rep. 277, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
435. 91. "In those eases the words are
i9East & West India Docks etc. 'injuriously affected,' which are cer-
Co. V. Gattke, 3 McN. & G. 155 ; New tainly in meaning and intention the
River Co. v. Johnson, 2 E. & E. 435; same as the word 'damaged' in our
S. C. 105 E. C. L. R. 434. constitution."
2 0Rickett's Case, 2 Bng. & Irish
App. 193.
§ 348
PEOPEETV DAMAGED OE I^fJUEED.
629
injuriously affected, says: "All these terms are believed to be
equivalent in meaning and extent." ^^ And the Supreme Court
of Washington, speaking of these words in recent constitutions,
says that, though the constitutions differ slightly in phraseology,
''their substance is exactly the same." "* And so of other
courts.^'' '
§ 348 (223). Damages from change of grade. All
damage resulting to abutting property by reason of lowering or
raising the street in front of it, is within the constitutional pro-
visions in question, and compensation must be made therefor.^"
2 3Peel V. Atlanta, 85 Ga. 138, 11 S.
E. 582, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 413.
z^Brown v. City of Seattle, 5
Wash. 35, 31 Pac. 313, 32 Pac. Rep.
214, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 64.
2 5Tidewater Ry. Co. v. Shartzer,
107 Va. 562, 59 S. E. 407.
2 6Montgomery v. Townsend, 80
Ala. 489; S. C. 84 Ala. 478, 4 So. 780;
Winter v. City Council, 83 Ala. 589 ;
City Council of Montgomery v. Mad-
dox, 89 Ala. 181, 7 So. 433, 2 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 426 ; Town of Avon-
dale V. McFarland, 101 Ala. 381, 13
So. 504; Montgomery v. Lemle, 121
Ala. 609, 25 So. 919; New Decatur v.
Scharfenberg, 147 Ala. 367, 41 So.
1025, 119 Am. St. Rep. 81 ; Reardon
V. San Francisco, 66 Cal. 492, 56 Am.
Rep. 109; De Long v. Warren (Cal.)
36 Pac. 1009 ; Eaehus v. Los Angeles
Consol. El. R. R. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 37
Pac. 750, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149; Ban-
croft V. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432;
Eaehus V. Los Angeles, 130 Cal. 492,
62 Pac. 829; Smith v. Los Angeles,
136 Cal. 156, 68 Pac. 595; Atlanta v.
Green, 67 Ga. 386 ; Moore v. Atlanta,
70 Ga. 611 ; Castlebury v. Atlanta, 74
Ga. 164; Atlanta v. Wood, 78 Ga.
276; Atkinson v. Atlanta, 81 Ga. 625,
7 S. E. 692; Smith v. Floyd County,
85 Ga. 422, 11 S. E. 850; City Council
of Augusta V. Schrameck, 96 Ga. 426,
23 S. E. 400; Bariield v. Macon Co.,
109 Ga. 386, 34 S. E. 598; Rough ton
V. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 948, 39 S. E. 316;
Ficken v. Atlanta, 114 Ga. 970, 41 S.
E. 58; Columbus v. McDaniel, 117 Ga.
823, 45 S. E. 59; East Rome v. Lloyd,
124 Ga. 852, 53 S. E. 103; Atlantic
etc. Ry. Co. v. McKnight, 125 Ga. 328,
54 S. E. 148; Macon v. Daly, 2 Ga.
App. 355, 58 S. E. 540; Pekin v.
Brereton, 67 III. 477 ; Bloomington v.
Brokaw, 77 111. 1.94; Pekin v. Winkel,
77 111. 56; Elgin v. Eaton, 83 111. 535,
25 Am. Rep. 412; S. C. 2 III. App. 90;
Springer v. City of Chicago, 135 111.
552, 26 N. E. 514, 12 L.R.A. 609, 4
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 52; Tinker v.
City of Rockford, 137 111. 123, 27 N.
E. 74; Tinker v. City of Rockford
(111.) 28 N. E. 573; Hohman v. City
of Chicago, 140 111. 226, 29 N. E. 071 ;
City of Bloomington v. Pollack, 141
111. 346, 31 N. E. 146; City of Joliet v.
Blower, 155 111. 414, 40 X. E. 619;
Schroeder v. Joliet, 189 111. 48, 59 N.
E. 550, 52 L.R.A. 634; Chicago v.
Jackson, 196 111. 496, 63 N. E. 1013;
Chicago V. Lonergan, 196 111. 518, 63
N. E. 1018; Grant Park v. Trah, 218
111. 516, 75 N. E. 1040; City of Elgin
V. McCullum, 30 111. App. 416; Os-
good V. Chicago, 44 111. App. 532;
City of Springfield v. Griffith, 46 111.
App. 246; City of Savanna v. Loop,
47 111. App. 214; City of Joliet v.
Blower, 49 111. App. 464; Hermann
V. City of East St. Louis, 58 111. App.
166; Hopkins v. City of Ottawa, 59
111. App. 288; North Alton v. Dorsett,
59 UK App. 612; East St. Louis v.
630
EM12^-J:NT DOMAIIT.
§ 348
It is immaterial wlietlier the whole surface of the street is raised
or lowered or only a part of it, as where a causeway is built in
Murphy, 89 111. App. 22; Danville v.
Sehultz, 99 111. App. 287 ; Barrington
V. Meyer, 103 111. App. 124; Wheeler
V. Bloomington, 105 111. App. 97;
Grant Park v. Trah, 115 111. App.
291 ; Charleston v. Newman, 130 111.
App. 6; Henderson v. McClain, 102
Ky. 402, 43 S. W. 700, 39 L.R.A. 349;
Layman v. Heeler, 113 Ky. 221, 67
S. W. 995; Hay v. Lexington, 114 Ky.
665, 71 S. W. 867; Ludlow T. Det-
weller, 20 Ky. L. R. 894, 47 S. W.
881; Louisville v. Hegan, 20 Ky. L.
R. 1532, 49 S. W. 532; Mt. Sterling
V. Jephson, 21 Ky. L. R. 1028, 53 S.
W. 1046; Covington v. Taffee, 24 Ky.
L. R. 373, 68 S. W. 629 ; Manning v.
Shreveport, 119 La. 1044, 44 So. 882;
Diekerman v. Duluth, 88 Minn. 288,
92 N. W. 1119; Salden v. Little Falls,
102 Minn. 358, 113 N. W. 884, 120
Am. St. Rep. 635, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.)
790; Vicksburg v. Herman, 72 Miss.
211, 16 So. 434; Rainey v. Hinds
County, 78 Miss. 308, 28 So. 875:
Yazoo etc. R. R. Co. v. Lefoldt, 87
Miss. 317, 39 So. 459; Werth v.
Springfield, 78 Mo. 107 ; Householder
V. City of Kansas City, 83 Mo. 488 ;
Davis V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 119 Mo.
180, 24 S. W. 77, 41 Am. St. Rep.
648, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 117;
Hickman v. City of Kansas, 120 Mo.
no, 25 S. W. 225; Spencer v. Met.
St. R. R. Co., 120 Mo. 154, 23 S. W.
126, 22 L.R.A. 668; Clinkingbeard v.
City of St. Joseph, 122 Mo. 641, 27
S. W. 521; Smith v. City of St.
Joseph, 122 Mo. 643, 27 S.
W. 344; Smith v. City of Kansas
City, 128 Mo. 23, 30 S. W. 314;
Farrar v. Midland Elec. Ry. Co., 162
Mo. 469, 63 S. W. 115; Imber v. City
of Springfield, 30 Mo. App. 689 ; Car-
son V. City of Springfield, 53 Mo.
App. 289 ; Walker v. Sedalia, 74 Mo.
App. 70; Hampton v. Kansas City,
74 Mo. App. 129 ; Restesky v. Delmar
Ave. etc. R. R. Co., 106 Mo. App. 382,
85 S. W. 665 ; Less v. Butte, 28 Mont.
27, 72 Pac. 140, 98 Am. St. Rep. 545,
61 L.R.A. 601; Schaller v. City of
Omaha, 23 Neb. 325, 36 N. W. 533;
City of Omaha v. Kramer, 25 Neb.
49^ 41 N. W. 295, 13 Am. St. Rep.
504; City of Omaha v. Schaller, 26
Neb. 522, 42 N. W. 721 ; Hammond v.
City of Harvard, 31 Neb. 635, 48 N.
W. 462; Lowe v. Omaha, 33 Neb.
587, 50 N. W. 760; Fremont etc. R.
R. Co. V. Setright, 34 Neb. 253, 51
N. W. 833; Svanson v. City of
Omaha, 38 Neb. 550, 57 N. W. 289;
Dayton v. City of Lincoln, 39 Neb. 74,
57 N. W. 754; Harvard v. Crouch, 47
Neb. 133, 66 N. W. 276; Douglas
County V. Taylor, 50 Neb. 535;
Omaha L. & T. Co. v. Douglas
County, 62 Neb. 1, 86 N. W. 936;
New Brighton v. United Presbyterian
Church, 96 Pa. St. 331 ; Pusey v. Alle-
gheny, 98 Pa. St. 522 ; New Brighton
V. Peirsol, 107 Pa. St. 280 ; O'Brien v.
Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 119 Pa. St. 184,
13 Atl. 74; Ogden v. City of Philadel-
phia, 143 Pa. St. 430, 22 Atl. 694;
O'Brien v. City of Philadelphia, 150
Pa. St. 589, 24 Atl. 1047, 30 Am. St.
Rep. 832; Lawrence v. Philadelphia,
154 Pa. St. 20, 25 Atl. 1079 ; Mellor
v. City of Philadelphia, 160 Pa. St.
614, 28 Atl. 991; Brady v. Wilkes-
barre, 161 Pa. St. 246, 28 Atl. 1085;
City of Philadelphia v. Rudderow,
166 Pa. St. 241, 31 Atl. 53; Lewis v.
Borough of Darby, 166 Pa. St. 613, 31
Atl. 335; Seaman v. Borough of
Washington, 172 Pa. St. 467, 33 Atl.
756; In re Chatham St., 191 Pa. St.
604, 43 Atl. 365; Kelenke v. West
Homestead, 216 Pa. St. 476, 65 Atl.
1079; Bond v. Philadelphia, 218 Pa.
St. 475, 67 Atl. 805 ; Norristown's Ap-
peal, 3 Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. 146;
§ 348
PKOPEETX DAMAGED OE INJUEED.
631
the middle,^ '^ or an embankment on one side,^* or the sidewalk
only is raised or lowered.^^ When a roadway forty feet wide
was graded doAvn by a turnpike company in the middle of a
highway sixty feet wide, and thirty years after the public au-
thorities graded down the sides of the street to correspond, it
was held to be a change of grade.^" Where a street is opened
and graded in one proceeding, compensation should be assessed
both for the taking and the grading.^ ^ But where a change is
made from the natural grade after a street is opened, compen-
In re Levering Street, 14 Phil. 349;
In re Germantown Ave., 14 Phil. 351 ;
Lloyd V. Philadelphia, 17 Phil. 202;
Wilkesbarre Paper Mfg. Co. v.
Wilkesbarre, 5 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 333; Cooper v. Seranton City,
21 Pa. Supr. Ct. 17; Seale v. Lead,
10 S. D. 312, 39 L.R.A. 345; Texar-
kana v. Talbot, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 202,
26 S. W. 451 ; San Antonio v. Mullaly,
11 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 33 S. W. 256;
City of Ft. Worth v. Howard, 3 Tex.
Civ. App. 537, 22 S. W. 1059; Kim-
ball V. Salt Lake City, 32 Utah 253,
90 Pac. 395 ; Hempstead v. Salt Lake
City, 32 Utah 261, 90 Pac. 397;
Swift V. Newport News, 105 Va. 108,
52 S. E. 821, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 404;
Brown v. City of Seattle, 5 Wash.
35, 31 Pac. 313, 32 Pac. Rep. 214, 7
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 64; Swope v.
Seattle, 35 Wash. 69, 76 Pac. 517;
Compton V. Seattle, 38 Wash. 514, 80
Pac. 757 ; Hart v. Seattle, 42 Wash.
113, 84 Pac. 640; Fletcher v. Seattle,
43 Wash. 627, 86 Pac. 1046, 88 Pac.
843; Johnson v. Parkersburg, 16 W.
Va. 402, 37 Am. Rep. 779; Hutchin-
son v. Parkersburg, 25 W. Va. 226;
Blair v. Charleston, 43 W. Va. 62,
64 Am. St. Rep. 837, 35 L.R.A. 852;
Barnes v. Grafton, 61 W. Va. 408, 50
S. E. 608; Crowe v. Charlestown, 02
W. Va. 91 ; Chicago v. Taylor, 125 U.
S. 161 ; McElroy v. Kansas City, 21
Fed. 257; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v.
Chicago, 26 Fed. 415; Blanchard v.
City of Kansas, 5 McCrary 217;
Queen v. Vestry of St. Luke's etc., L.
R. 6 Q.B.572;S. C.7L.R.Q.B. 148;
Queen v. The Wallasey Local Board
of Health, L. R. 4 Q. B. 351 ; Queen v.
Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 2 A. & E.
N. S. 347; S. C. 42 E. C. L. R. 706;
Adams v. Toronto, 12 Ontario, 243;
Veomans v. Wellington, 4 U. C. App.
301; Pratt V. City of Stratford, 16
U. C. App. 5; Moore v. Great South-
ern etc. R. R. Co., 10 Irish C. L. R.
46; Tuohey v. Same, 10 Irish, C. L.
R. 98.
2'Eachus V. Los Angeles Consoli-
dated Electric R. R. Co., 103 Cal. 614,
37 Pac. 750, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149;
Rainey v. Hinds County, 78 Miss. 308,
28 So. 875; Chouteau v. St. Louis, 8
Mo. App. 48; see also the following
cases under statutes, but involving
the same principle: Stickford v. St.
Louis, 7 Mo. App. 217; affirmed in
75 Mo. 309; Dore v. Milwaukee, 42
Wis. 108.
2 8Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 111.
337, 25 Am. Rep. 321.
2 9 City Council of Montgomery v.
Maddox, 89 Ala. 181, 7 So. 433, 2
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 426; Grant
Park V. Trah, 218 111. 516, 75 N. E.
1040, affirming S. C. 115 111. App.
291. And see cases cited in next sec-
tion.
soHarp v. Glenolden, 28 Pa. Supr.
Ct. 116. See Thompson v. Macon
City, 106 Mo. App. 84, 80 S. W. 1.
siPusey V. Allegheny, 98 Pa. St.
522; Sedgeley Ave., 217 Pa. St. 313,
66 Atl. 546.
632
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 34S
sation must be made for the change.^ ^ The contrary is held in
3 2Eachus V. Los Angeles Consol.
El. E. E. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 37 Pac.
750, 42 Am. St. Eep. 149; City of
Bloomington v. Pollack, 141 111. 346,
31 N. E. 146; City of Elgin v. Eaton,
83 111. 535, 25 Am. Eep. 412; Man-
ning T. Shreveport, 119 La. 1044, 44
So. 882; Sallden v. Little Falls, 102
Minn. 358, 113 N. W. 884, 120 Am. St.
Rep. 635, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 790; Davis
V. Missouri Pac. E. E. Co., 119 Mo.
180, 24 S. W. 777, 41 Am. St. Eep.
648, 9 Am. E. E. & Corp. Eep. 117 j
Hickman v. City of Kansas, 120 Mo.
110, 25 S. W. 225; Smith v. St. Jo-
seph, 122 Mo. 643, 27 S. W. 344; Less
V. Butte, 28 Mont. 27, 72 Pac. 140,
98 Am. St. Eep. 545, 61 L.E.A. 601 ;
New Brighton v. United Presbyterian
Church, 96 Pa. St. 331; Hendrick's
Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 358; Jones v.
Bangor, 144 Pa. St. 638, 23 Atl. 252 ;
O'Brien v. City of Philadelphia, 150
Pa. St. 589, 24 Atl. 1047, 30 Am. St.
Eep. 832; Winner v. Graner, 173 Pa.
St. 43, 33 Atl. 698; Klenke v. West
Homestead, 216 Pa. St. 476, 65 Atl.
1079; Norristown's Appeal, 3 Walk-
er's Pa. Supm. Ct. 146; Wilkesbarre
Paper Mfg. Co. v. Wilkesbarre, 5 Lu-
zerne Legal Eeg. Eep. 333; City of
Ft. Worth V. Howard, 3 Tex. Civ.
App. 537, 22 S. W. 1059 ; Fletcher v.
Seattle, 43 Wash. 627, 86 Pac. 1046,
88 Pac. 843. In the first case cited
the court says: "The same rule is
applicable when a street is for the
first time reduced to an established
grade as when a change in the grade
has been made after the street has
once been brought to such grade.
The suggestion that, when the owner
dedicates his land for a street, it is
with the understanding and consent
on his part, binding also upon his
grantees, that it will be subsequently
fitted for use by grading, applies with
as much force to any subsequent
change in the established grade as to
the first establishment of a grade.
The power of the city to determine
the grade is not exhausted with its
first exercise, and the dedication by
the owner must be deemed to have
been made with a knowledge of this
principle as much as with a consent
to the establishment of any grade.
The purchaser of a city lot fronting
upon a. street takes it subject to a
right in the public to make the street
available for the enjoyment of the
easement therein for which the street
was originally dedicated; but we are
not aware that it has ever been held,
where the foregoing constitutional
provision prevailed, that the public
had a right to establish any grade
it might choose, irrespective of the
damage such owner might sustain.
This right to establish a grade in the
street is attended with the corres-
ponding obligation imposed by the
constitution to make compensation
for any damage to the private prop-
erty which may be caused by the pub-
lie in its exercise of the right. It
may be conceded that the dedication
of a street carries with it the right
to make such a reasonable grade as
will adapt it for use, for in such a
case the grading of the street would
have the efl^ect to increase rather
than to diminish the value of the lots
adjacent thereto by making them ac-
cessible to the public ; but, if the mu-
nicipality deems it desirable to estab-
lish such a grade as will cause a
damage rather than a benefit to tlie
lots, the owner is entitled to compen-
sation for the amount of this dam-
age. The establishment of the grade
is for the benefit of the public rather
than of the adjacent owner, and if,
in establishing such grade, the owner
suffers damage, his property has been
damaged 'for public use.'"
§ 348
I'EOrEIlTY DAMAGED OK. INJUEED.
G33
Colorado.^' One who buys property on a street after a grade
has been established should improve with reference to the estab-
lished grade and not with reference to the natural grade. And
where, in such a case, the purchaser improved with reference
to the natural grade, and the city afterwards cut down the street
three feet to the established grade, it was held that no recovery
could be had.^* And generally if improvements are put upon
property after a grade has been established, no damages can be
recovered for injury to such improvements by bringing the street
to the grade so established.^^ The constitution does not apply
to a change of grade made prior to its adoption,^" but it is no
bar to a recovery that the change was ordered or the grade estab-
lished prior to the adoption of the constitution, if the actual
change was not made until afterwards.*'' Nor that the improve-
33Leiper v. Denver, 36 Colo. HO,
85 Pac. 849, 118 Am. St. Eep. 101, 7
L.E.A.(N.S.) 108. The court says:
"We are now constrained to hold that
for reasonable, and carefully made,
changes of the grade of a, public
street from the natural surface to a
legally established grade in the first
instance, a municipality is not liable
to the abutting lot owner for conse-
quential damages to his property."
p. 113.
34Denver v. Vemia, 8 Colo. 399.
3 5Manning v. Shreveport, 119 La.
1044, 44 So. 882; Davis v. Mo. Pac.
R. E. Co., 119 Mo. 180, 24 S. W. 777,
41 Am. St. Eep. 648, 9 Am. E. E. &
Corp. Eep. 117; Clinkingbeard v. St.
Joseph, 122 Mo. 641, 27 S. W. 521 ;
Axford V. Philadelphia, 19 Phila.
483; Blair v. Charleston, 43 W. Va.
62, 64 Am. St. Eep. 837, 35 L.E.A.
852. Compare Nolte v. Cincinnati, 3
Ohio C. C. 503. In this case it was
held, that if the work of bringing a
street to an established grade was
not done in a reasonable time, prop-
erty owners might consider the grade
abandoned, and improve their prop-
erty with reference to the existing
grade, and recover damages to such
improvements if the change was
afterwards made. The court says:
"To say that, in a large city, where
property is of so great value, and
taxes high, the city can by a mere
paper ordinance, fix a grade which
may require heavy cuts and fills to
be made, and keep back any improve-
ment according to the grade for a
great many years, and prevent the
abutting proprietor from making any
improvements on his property except
according to such grade, and which
improvement may be entirely inacces-
sible until the grade is made, and
which the city may never carry out,
seems to us as sacrificing the in-
terests of property holders in a man-
ner the spirit of our law does not
warrant." p. 507.
36Folkenson v. Easton Borough,
116 Pa. St. 523.
3 7Eachus V. Los Angeles Consol.
El. E. E. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 37 Pac.
750, 42 Am. St. Eep. 149; City of
Bloomington v. Pollack, 141 111. 346,
31 N. E. 146; Ogden v. City of Phila-
delphia, 143 Pa. St. 430, 22 Atl. 694;
Swift V. Newport News, 105 Va. 108,
62 S. E. 821, 3 L.E.A.(N.S.) 404.
Compare Chicago v. Eumsey, 87 111.
348; In re Plan 166, 143 Pa. St. 414,
22 Atl. 689.
G34 EMINEITT DOMAIN. § 348
ments were made before the constitution was changed.*® The
right to compensation accrues when the change of grade is ac-
tually made and is governed by the law in force at that time.*^
If a change of grade is made without the authority of the city, it
Avill not be liable for damages resulting therefrom,**' but a grade
not legally established may be ratified and adopted so as to bind
the city.*^ When a city ordered a change of grade of a railroad,
necessitating a change of grade in the streets crossing it, the
latter change is authorized as much as if specified in the order.* ^
The fact that a change of grade was made by a city to enable
it to construct a system of sewers calculated to abate a nuisance,
does not affect the right to compensation.** Where a change of
grade damaged lots on an intersecting street by preventing the
flow of surface water therefrom, it was held that the owner could
recover.** And so generally when property is damaged by in-
terfering with surface water.*^ If the change is made by a
railroad company, with or without authority, the company is
liable.*® A deed, or dedication of land for a street is no bar to
recovery.*'' Where a sidewalk was built by special assessment
and the grade changed in doing so, it was held that the assess-
ment was no bar to a recovery of damages for the change of
grade.*® But if one requests the change to be made, he is es-
topped to claim damages because of the change.*^
ssDickerman v. Diilutli, 88 Minn. <4In re Chatham Street, 191 Pa.
288, 92 N". W. 1119; Kimball v. Salt St. 604, 43 Atl. 365.
Lake City, 32 Utah 253, 90 Pac. 395. * 5Barfield v. Macon County, 109
ssEast Rome v. Lloyd, 124 Ga. 852, Ga. 386, 34 S. E. 596 ; Hay v. Lexing-
53 S. E. 103; Devlin v. Philadelphia, ton, 114 Ky. 665, 71 S. W. 867; Mt.
206 Pa. St. 518, 56 Atl. 21; ante, Sterling v. Jephson, 21 Ky. L. R.
§ 338. 1028, 53 S. W. 1046.
<0Bibb County v. Reese, 115 Ga. ^sAtlantic etc. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
346, 41 S. E. 636; Werth v. Spring- Knight, 125 Ga. 328, 54 S. E. 148;
field, 22 Mo. App. 12 ; Gardner v. St. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co. v. Lefoldt, 87
Joseph, 96 Mo. App. 657, 71 S. W. Miss. 317, 39 So. 459; Farrar v. Mid-
63. And see Vaile v. City of Inde- land Elec. Ry. Co., 162 Mo. 469, 63
pendence, 116 Mo. 333, 22 S. W. Rep. S. W. 115.
695; Huckenstein v. City of Alle- 4 'Houston v. Bartels, 36 Tex. Civ.
gheny, 165 Pa. St. 367, 30 Atl. Rep. App. 498, 82 S. W. 323; Fletcher v.
982. Seattle, 43 Wash. 627, 86 Pac. 1048,
4iBibb County v. Reese, 115 Ga. 88 Pac. 843.
346, 41 S. E. 636; Imler v. City of 4SGrant Park v. Trah, 218 111.
Springfield, 30 Mo. App. 669. 516, 75 N. E. 1040, affirming S. C.
4=Lewis v. Homestead, 194 Pa. St. 115 111. App. 291.
190. 45 Atl. 123. 4 9New Decatur v. Scharfenberg,
"City of Philadelphia v. Rudde- 147 Ala. 367, 41 So. 1025, 119 Am. St.
row, 166 Pa. St. 241, 31 Atl. 53. Rep. 81.
350
PEOPEKTY DAMAGED OE INJUEED.
6c:
§ 349 (223a). Viaducts, tunnels, causeways, bridge
approaches and the like in streets. The construction of via-
ducts, bridges and tunnels and approaches thereto, for the pur-
pose of carrying streets over or under railroad tracks, streams or
other obstructions, though often of great public utility, is fre-
quently attended with great damage to property abutting on such
improvements. All such damage is within the constitution and
may be recovered.^* Such improvements stand upon the same
footing as a change of grade.^^ So a recovery may be had where
the grade of a street is raised for the purpose of forming a
levee,^^ or where an approach to a bridge is built therein which
affects the abutting property by impeding access and by the
dust, noise and jarring caused by traffic on the same.'^
§ 350 (224). Decisions in Alabama and Pennsylvania.
socity of Pueblo v. Strait, 20 Colo.
13, 36 Pac. 790, 47 Am. St. Rep. 273,
24 L.II.A. 392; Smith v. Floyd
County, 86 Ga. 422, 11 S. E. 850;
Bentley v. Atlanta, 92 Ga. 623, 18 S.
E. 1013; Pause v. Atlanta, 98 Ga.
92, 58 Am. St. Rep. 290; Stack v.
East St. Louis, 85 111. 377, 28 Am.
Rep. 619; Springer v. City of Chi-
cago, 135 III. 552, 26 N. E. 514, 12
L.R.A. 609, 4 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
52; Tinker v. City of Rockford, 137
111. 123, 27 N. E. 74 ; Tinker v. City
of Rockford (111.), 28 N. E. 573;
Hohman v. City of Chicago, 140 III.
226, 29 N. E. 671; Hermann v. City
of East St. Louis, 58 111. App. 166;
Chicago V. JlcShane, 102 111. App.
239; Chicago v. Anglmn, 104 III. App.
188; Star & Crescent Milling Co. v.
Sanitary District, 120 111. App. 555;
Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Cumnock,
25 Ky. L. R. 1330, 77 S. W. 933;
Spencer r. iletropolitan St. R. R.
Co., 120 Mo. 154, 23 S. W. 126, 22
L.R.A. 668; City of Omaha v. Kra-
mer, 25 Neb. 492, 41 N. W. 295, 13
Am. St. Rep. 504; Fremont etc. R. R.
Co. V. Setright, 34 Neb. 253, 51 N. W.
833; County of Chester v. Brower,
117 Pa. St. 647, 12 Atl. 577; Brower
V. County of Chester, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 1 ;
Beaver v. City of Harrisburg, 156 Pa.
St. 547, 27 Atl. 4; Case v. Pennsyl-
vania Co., 159 Pa. St. 273, 28 Atl.
161 ; Lafean v. York County, 20 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 573; Coyne v. Memphis, 118
Tenn. 651, 102 S. W. 355 ; Burton Lum-
ber Co. v. Houston, 45 Tex. Civ. App.
363; Chicago v. Taylor, 125 U. S.
161; Chicago v. Le Moyne, 119 Fed.
662, 56 C. C. A. 278. And see Eachus
V. Los Angeles Cousol. El. R. R. Co.,
103 Cal. 614, 37 Pac. 750, 42 Am. St.
Rep. 149; Shano v. Bridge Co., 189
Pa. St. 245, 42 Atl. 128, 69 Am. St.
Rep. 808; In re Walnut St. Bridge,
191 Pa. St. 153, 43 Atl. 88; Cobb v.
Warren St. Ry. Co., 218 Pa. St. 366,
G7 Atl. 654. In Chicago v. Rumsey,
87 111. 348, suit was brought for dam-
ages to property abutting on the open
approach to a tunnel under the Chi-
cago river. A recovery was denied
because the ordinance was passed,
the contracts let and the work com-
menced before the new constitution
took effect. And see South v. East
London Ry. Co., 42 L. J. 477.
siSee ante, § 138.
6 2Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 111.
337, 25 Am. Rep. 321; Beckett v.
Midland Ry. Co., 1 L. R. C. P. 241 ;
S. C. 3 L. R. C. P. 82.
Esstack v. East St. Louis, 85 111.
377.
G36 EMIICENT DOMAIN. § 350
What constitutes a construction or enlargement of works,
highways or improvements. These States have a limited
extension of the right to damages, requiring municipal and
other corporations and individuals invested with the power of
eminent domain to make compensation for property taken, in-
jured or destroyed by the construction or enlargement of their
works, highways or improvements.^* In Pennsylvania the ques-
tion as to what constitutes a construction or enlargement of a
street or highway does not appear to have been discussed. Suits
for damages arising from a change of grade, whether from a
natural grade or an established grade have uniformly been up-
held,^^ and a liberal construction of the constitution has been
favored.*® The purport of the decisions is that any change of
grade is within the provision in question. A different view
was at first taken in Alabama but has since been repudiated.
In City Council of Montgomery v. Townsend,'^ it was held that
it was not every change of grade that could be considered a "con-
struction" or "enlargement" of a street or highway, but only
such as could not have been reasonably and fairly foreseen at
the time of the original establishment of the street or high-
way.''^ In City Council of Montgomery v. Maddox,*' Somer-
siAnte, §§ 16, 49. In re Levering St., 14 Phil. 349;
5 6New Brighton v. United Presby- Lloyd v. Philadelphia, 17 Phil. 202;
terian Church, 96 Pa. St. 331 ; Pusey Wilkesbarre Paper Mfg. Co. v.
V. Allegheny, 98 Pa. St. 522; Hen- Wilkesbarre, 5 Luzerne Leg. Ecg.
drick's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 358 ; New Eep. 333.
Brighton v. Piersol, 107 Pa. St. 280; 6 6New Brighton v. United Prcs-
O'Brien V. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 119 byterian Church, 96 Pa. St. 331;
Pa. St. 184, 13 Atl. 74; Ogden V. City County of Chester v. Brower, 117
of Philadelphia, 143 Pa. St. 430, 22 Pa. St. 647, 12 Atl. 577.
Atl. 694; O'Brien v. City of Phila- 5780 Ala. 489, 2 So. Rep. 155; 84
delphia, 150 Pa. St. 589, 24 Atl. 1047 ; Ala. 478, 4 So. 780
Mellor V. City of Philadelphia, 160 6 sin City Council of Montgomery
Pa. St. 614, 28 Atl. 991 ; Brady v. v. Townsend, 84 Ala. 478, 482, 4 So.
Wilkesbarre, 161 Pa. St. 246, 28 Atl. Rep. 780, it is said: '"A material
1085; City of Philadelphia v. Rudde- change, operating injuriously to ad-
row, 166 Pa. St. 241, 31 Atl. 53; joining premises, occasioned by a
Lewis V. Borough of Darby, 166 Pa. contingency which could not have
St. 613, 31 Atl. 335; Seaman v. been reasonably and fairly foreseen,
Washington, 172 Pa. St. 467, 33 Atl. or, made merely because the cor-
756; In re Chatham, 191 Pa. St. porate authorities may judge that
604, 43 Atl. 365; Klenlce v. West the public convenience would be in-
Homestead, 216 Pa. St. 476, 65 Atl. creased thereby, or the general ap-
1079; Bond v. Philadelphia, 218 Pa. pefirance of the street improved, is
St. 475, 67 Atl. 805 ; Norristown's Ap- a new description of injury in the
peal, 3 Walker's Pa. Supm. Ct. 146; enlarged sense of the constitution,
§ 350
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED.
637
ville, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, expressed him-
self as follows: "I have no difficulty, for myself, in reaching
the conclusion that, under the provisions of our present consti-
tution, if the contiguous proprietor of a house and lot is injured,
in the sense of being damaged, by the grading of a street, in the
mode exhibited by the evidence in this case, and this grading
is done by the authority of the municipality, and by reason
of this improvement the pecuniary value of the property is
diminished, the owner is entitled to be compensated for the dam-
ages he has sustained. This rule has the advantage of being
plain in meaning, and of easy application in practice. It har-
monizes, moreover, in policy with that distinguishing feature of
modem republican constitutions which has in view the protec-
tion of private rights and personal liberty, against the unjust
oppression and encroachments of governmental power; and the
measure of damages in such cases will be the decrease in the
which casts upon the property owner
an additional burden, entitling him
to compensation.' It is not every
change operating an increase of con-
venience which falls within this
rule. Changes generally have for
their object increase of convenience.
This power may be exercised com-
pletely at one time, or, on several
occasions, as circumstances may sug-
gest; and it authorizes the munici-
pality to so alter the grade or sur-
face of the streets, as to make them
useful, convenient and safe for travel
and transportation, as the same may
be likely to be in request generally,
or on the particular street. To
come within the clause of the con-
stitution we are discussing, the
change, alteration or improvement
must go beyond this. It must be the
result of a contingency not likely to
be foreseen, or anticipated, or must
be an increasing convenience above
the ordinary standard of 'useful,
convenient and safe,' or, must be
made for ornamentation or for the
purpose of improving the general ap-
pearance of the street. We have
thus attempted to define, as well as
we can, the two classes of street
alteration or improvement. The
power to make such as fall within
the one class, is conclusively pre-
sumed to have been conferred by the
act of dedication, or by the judg-
ment of condemnation. In fact, it
is so generally conferred, that it may
almost be said to be inherent in mu-
nicipal organization. For the
proper exercise of this power, the
attingent property holder, though
injured, is without redress. For in-
jury suffered from the other, he is
entitled to compensation under the
new provision of our constitution
of 1875. But whether the case falls
within the one class or the other,
must depend on so many phases and
shadings of fact, that it can rarely,
if ever, become a question of law.
Larger license must be allowed in a
city than in a village, in a commer-
cial center and crowded thorough-
fare, than in an obscure off-street.
Hence, it is a mixed question of law
and fact, to be pronounced on by a
jury under proper instructions."
5989 Ala. 181, 7 So. 433, 2 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 426.
638 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 351
actual value of the property occasioned by the improvement thus
made for the public benefit. Unless this construction be given
the constitution, it will fail, in my opinion, to afford that just
indemnity for the wrongs of the citizens which was intended
to be accomplished by its framers ; which was, I repeat, to re-
quire the public to bear the burden of municipal improvements
of this nature made for the public benefit, and not to crush the
private citizen by imposing upon him alone the entire damage
which may have been caused to his property. Such an improve-
ment seems to me to be a 'construction or enlargement' of a high-
way, within the meaning of the clause under consideration.
And I do not see that any dedication of a street, however long
ago it may have been made, could operate to withdraw the case
from the operation of the law, in force at the time the improve-
ment is made, which declares, in effect, that the municipality
shall indemnify the citizen for any injury or damage to his
property resulting from such improvement, equally with any
injury or damage done him by the actual taking of such prop-
erty. It can make no difference in the justice of the case if
one's property is reduced to one-half its original value by an
actual taking, or by indirectly covering up his premises with
earth piled up at his doorstep in leveling a street or in digging
down a sidewalk so as to render a ladder necessary for access to
the place of his abode or his business." But the judges were
equally divided on the question of adopting the views of Justice
Somerville or adhering to the views expressed in Townsend's
case. In the more recent case of Town of Avondale v. McFar-
land,®" the majority of the court adopted the opinion of Justice
Somerville in Maddox's case, and Townsend's case was overruled
in so far as it conflicted with that opinion.
A county has been held to be a municipal corporation within
the meaning of the constitution.®^
§ 351 (225). Damages by railroads in streets. Where
a railroad is laid down in a public street or alley, the abutting
property is damaged within the meaning of the constitution,
to the extent of the depreciation caused by the construction and
operation of the road.''^ In Pennsylvania, where the consti-
6 0101 Ala. 381, 13 So. 504. Delaware County's Appeal, 119 Pa.
siBrower v. County of Chester, 1 St. 159, 13 Atl. 62.
Pa. Co. Ct. 1; County of Chester v. 6 2Columbu3 & W. R. E. Co. v.
Brower, 117 Pa. St. 647, 12 Atl. 577; Withrow, 82 Ala. 190; Alabama M.
§ 351
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE IN'JUEED.
639
R. R. Co. V. Coskey, 92 Ala. 254, 9
So. 202; Highland Ave. & B. E. R.
Co. V. Matthews, 99 Ala. 24, 10 So.
267 ; Birmingham Ry. Lt. & P. Co. v.
Oden, 146 Ala. 495, 41 So. 129; Hot
Springs R. R. Co. v. Williamson, 45
Ark. 429; Little Rock etc. Ry. Co. v.
Greer, 77 Ark. 387, 96 S. W. 129;
Mullin V. So. Pac. R. R. Co., 83 Cal.
240, 23 Pac. 264; Eaehus v. Los An-
geles Consol. El. R. R. Co., 103 Cal.
614, 37 Pac. 750, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149;
Montgomery v. Santa Ana & W. R.
R. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786, 10
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 25, 43 Am.
St. Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654; St. Clair
V. San Francisco etc. Ry. Co., 142
Cal. 647, 76 Pac. 485; Smith v.
Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 146 Cal.
164, 79 Pac. 868, 106 Am. St. Rep. 17;
Reynolds v. Presidio etc. R. R. Co.,
I Cal. App. 229, 81 Pac. 1118; Denver
V. Boyer, 7 Colo. 113, 2 Pac. 6; Den-
ver etc. R. R. Co. V. Schmitt, 11 Colo.
56; Denver etc. R. R. Co. v. Bourne,
II Colo. 59; Denver etc. R. R. Co. v.
Domke, 11 Colo. 247; Union Pac. R.
R. Co. V. Foley, 19 Colo. 280, 35 Pac.
542; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Benson,
19 Colo. 285, 35 Pac. 544; Colorado
Mid. R. R. Co. V. Trevarthen, 1 Colo.
App. 152, 27 Pac. 1012; Denver etc.
R. R. Co. V. Coates, 1 Colo. App. 336,
28 Pac. 1129; Campbell v. Metropoli-
tan St. R. R. Co., 82 Ga. 320, 9 S. E.
1078; Fouche v. Rome St. R. R. Co.,
84 Ga. 233, 10 S. E. 1046, 1 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 188 ; Ivey v. Georgia etc.
R. R. Co., 84 Ga. 536, 11 S. E. 128;
Georgia etc. R. R. Co. v. Ray, 84 Ga.
376, 11 S. E. 352; Brunswick & W.
R. R. Co. V. Waycross, 88 Ga. 68, 13
S. E. 835; Harvey v. Georgia So. etc.
R. R. Co., 90 Ga. 66, 15 S. E. 783;
Streyer v. Georgia etc. R. R. Co., 90
Ga. 56, 15 S. E. 637; Powell v. Macon
etc. R. R. Co., 92 Ga. 209, 17 S. E.
1027; Atlantic etc. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Knight, 125 Ga. 328, 54 S. E. 148;
Atlanta etc. R. R. Co. v. Atlanta etc.
R. R. Co., 125 Ga. 529, 54 S. E. 736;
Mix V. La Fayette etc. E. R. Co., 07
HI. 319; Stone v. Fairbury etc. R. R.
Co., 68 111. 394, 18 Am. Rep. 556;
Chicago & Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Francis, 70 111. 238; Stetson v. Chi-
cago & Evanston R. R. Co., 75 111. 74 ;
Patterson v. Chicago, D. & V. R. R.
Co., 75 111. 588; Chicago, M. & St.
Paul Ry. Co. v. Hall, 90 111. 42; S. C.
8 111. App. 621; Pittsburgh, Ft.
Wayne & Chicago R. R. Co. v. Reide,
101 111. 157; Chicago & Western I.
R. R. Co. V. Ayers, 106 111. 511; Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co. V. McAuley, 121
111. 160; Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Heiss, 141 111. 35, 31 N'. E. 138, 0 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 407 ; Chicago etc.
R. R. Co. v. Wedel, 144 111. 9, 32 N.
E. 547; Davenport etc. Terminal Co.
V. Johnson, 188 111. 472, 59 N. E. 497 ;
111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Turner, 194 111.
575, 62 N. E. 798, affirming S. C. 97
111. App. 219; Aldis v. Union El. R.
R. Co., 203 111. 567, 68 N. E. 95;
Spalding v. Macomb etc. Ry. Co., 225
111. 585, 80 N. E. 327; Chicago &
Western Indiana R. R. Co. v. Berg,
10 111. App. 607 ; Same v. George, Id.
646; Same v. Phillips, Id. 648;
Chicago & Eastern 111. R. R. Co. v.
Loeb, 8 111. App. 627; Maltman v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 41 111. App.
229; McCarty v. Chicago etc. R. R.
Co., 34 111. App. 273; Chicago etc.
R. R. Co. v. Leach, 41 111. App. 584;
Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Piatt, 53
111. App. 263 ; Lake St. El. R. R. Co.
V. Brooks, 90 111. App. 173; 111. Cent.
R. R. Co. V. Schmidgall, 91 111. App.
23; HI. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Kreeble, 95
111. App. 185; Griveau r. South Chi-
cago City Ry. Co., 130 111. App. 519;
Ball V. Maysville etc. R. R. Co., 102
Ky. 486, 43 S. W. 731, 80 Am. St.
Rep. 362 ; Willis v. Ky. & Ind. Bridge
Co., 104 Ky. 186, 46 S. W. 488; Louis-
ville So. R. R. Co. V. Cogar, 15 Ky.
L. R. 444; Loiiisville So. R. R. Co.
V. Hooe, 18 Ky. L. R. 521, 35 S. W.
266, 38 S. W. 131; Chesapeake etc.
Ry. Co. V. Rice, 20 Ky. L. R. 1930, 90
640
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 351
tution only gives compensation for property injured by the
"construction or enlargement" of works or improvements,®* it
is held that compensation may be had for damages by the con-
struction of railroads in streets, though not for damages caused
by their operation, as by smoke, noise, cinders, etc.®* But in
S. W. 541 ; Koch V. Ky. & Ind. Bridge
Co., 26 Ky. L. R. 216, 80 S. W. 1133;
Hepting v. New Orleans Pac. E. R.
Co., 36 La. An. 898; Griffin v. Shreve-
port etc. R. R. Co., 41 La. An. 808,
6 So. 624; McMahan v. St. Louis etc.
R. R. Co., 41 La. An. 827, 6 So. 640;
Helmer v. Colo. Southern etc. R. R.
Co. (La.), 47 So. 443; Alabama & V.
R. R. Co. V. Bloom, 71 Miss. 247, 15
So. Rep. 72; Gottschalk v. C. & B.
& Q. R. R. Co., 14 Neb. 550 ; Omaha
etc. R. R. Co. V. Rogers, 16 Neb. 117;
Omaha Belt R. R. Co. v. McDermott,
25 Neb. 717, 41 N. W. Rep. 648;
Omaha etc. E. R. Co. v. Janecek, 30
Neb. 276, 40 N. W. 478, 27 Am. St.
Rep. 399; Nebraska etc. R. R. Co. v.
Scott, 31 Neb. 571, 48 N. W. 390; Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co. V. O'Conner, 42
Neb. 90, 60 N. W. 326; Jaynes v.
Omaha St. R. R. Co., 53 Neb. 631, 74
N. W. 67, 39 L.R.A. 751 ; Galveston
etc. R. R. Co. V. Eddins, 60 Tex. 656;
Same v. Bock, 63 Tex. 245; Same v.
Fuller, 63 Tex. 467 ; Texas etc. R. R.
Co. V. Goldberg, 68 Tex. 685; Lyles
V. Texas etc. R. R. Co., 73 Tex. 95;
Morrow v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co.,
81 Tex. 405, 17 S. W. 44; Williams v.
Galveston etc. R. R. Co., 1 Tex. App.
Civil Cas. 131 ; Galveston etc. Ry. Co.
V. Graves, Ibid., 301; Belt Line St.
Ry. Co. v. Crabtree, 2 Tex. App. Civil
Cas. p. 579; Aycock v. San Antonio
Brewing Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 341,
63 S. W. 953; Rische v. Texas Trans.
Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 33, 66 S. VV.
324; Schier v. Cane Belt Ry. Co., 45
Tex. Civ. App. 295 ; Stockdale v. Rio
Grande Western Ry. Co., 28 Utah
201, 77 Pac. 849; Kaufman v. Tacoma
etc. R. R. Co., 11 Wash. 632, 40 Pac.
637; Seattle Transfer Co. v. Seattle,
27 Wash. 520, 68 Pac. 90; Lund v.
Idaho etc. R. R. Co., 50 Wash. 574,
97 Pac. 665; Arbens v. Wheeling &
H. E. E. Co., 33 W. Va. 1, 10 S. E.
14, 5 L.E.A. 371; Fox v. Baltimore
& 0. R. R. Co., 34 W. Va. 466, 12 S.
E. 757; Stewart v. Ohio Riv. R. E.
Co., 38 W. Va. 438, 18 S. E. 604;
Guinn v. Ohio Eiv. E. E. Co., 46 W.
Va. 151, 33 S. E. 87, 76 Am. St. Eep.
806; Hart v. Piedmont etc. E. E. Co.,
52 W. Va. 396, 44 S. E. 155; Pennsyl-
vania E. E. Co. V. Miller, 132 U. S.
75, 10 S. C. Eep. 34, 1 Am. E. E. &
Corp. Eep. 15; Hot Springs E. E. Co.
V. Williamson, 136 U. S. 121, 10 S. C.
Eep. 955; Osborne v. Mo. Pac. E. E.
Co., 147 U. S. 248, 13 S. C. Rep. 299;
Mollandin v. Union Pacific R. R. Co.,
4 McCrary, 290, 14 Fed. Rep. 394;
Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. Rep. 398;
Osborne v. Mo. Pac. R. E. Co., 35 Fed.
Eep. 84; Jackson v. Chicago etc. R.
R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 656; Beckett v.
Midland Ry. Co., 1 L. R. C. P. 241,
affirmed, 3 L. R. C. P. 82; Queen v.
Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 2 A. & E.
N. S. 347, 42 E. C. L. R. 706; Har-
rocks V. Met. E. E. Co., 4 B. & S. 357,
116 E. C. L. E. 314.
6 3 See ante, § 49.
61 Duncan v. Pennsylvania E. R.
Co., 94 Pa. St. 435; S. C. 13 Phil. 68;
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 115
Pa. St. 514; Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
V. Lippincott, 116 Pa. St. 472, 9 Atl.
871 ; Pennsylvania E. E. Co. v. Mar-
chant, 119 Pa. St. 541, 13 Atl. 690, 4
Am. St. Eep. 659; Pennsylvania S.
V. E. E. Co. V. Ziemer, 124 Pa. St.
560, 17 Atl. 187; Baltimore & C. V.
E. E. Extension Co. v. Duke, 129 Pa.
§ 351
PKOPEETT DAMAGED OE INJURED.
641
Pennsylvania S. V. E. Co. v. Walsh,"^ whei'e a railroad was laid
close to plaintiff's curb line, the court seems to hold that the
interference with access by the passage of trains may be taken
into account. In Missouri it is held that a railroad, laid so as
to conform to the grade of the street, is not a taking or dam-
aging of the abutting property within the meaning of the con-
stitution, though such property is depreciated thereby."" But
if the railroad is laid otherwise than upon the grade of the street,
St. 422, 18 Atl. 566; Cass v. Pennsyl-
vania Co., 159 Pa. St. 273, 28 Atl.
161 ; Ryan v. Penn. S. V. R. R. Co., 2
Mont. Co. L. R. 31 ; Quigley v. Penn.
S. V. R. R. Co., 2 Mont. Co. L. R. 109;
O'Brien v. Penn. S. "V. R. R. Co., 4
Mont. Co. L. R. 57. In Beck v. Erie
Terminal R. R. Co., 11 Pa. Co. Ct.
363, it was held that abutters on the
north side of a street were not en-
titled to damages for a railroad on
the south half of the street, if they
still had convenient access to their
property. Compare Shano v. Bridge
Co., 189 Pa. St. 245, 42 Atl. 128, 69
Am. St. Rep. 808.
65124 Pa. St. 544, 17 Atl. 186; S. C.
5 Mont. Co. L. R. 57. The court says :
"It was urged, however, that the
mere laying down of the tracks in
front of the plaintiff's property was
not, of itself, an injury; that it was
a benefit, in view of the fact that the
street had been greatly improved by
having been repaved with Belgian
blocks in a superior manner ; and the
injury was the sole result of the use
and operation of the road. This is
plausible, but unsound. Where the
question is the obstruction of access
to property by the building of a rail-
road, it is impossible to separate tiie
construction from the operation of
the road. Such a doctrine would be
a misapplication of the rule laid
down in Railroad Co. v. Marchant,
supra. It would be an unsavory tech-
nicality to hold that a railroad laid
down by the curb in front of a man's
door, with trains constantly passing
Em. D.— 41.
and repassing, did not interfere with
his access to his house, and was not
an injury caused by the construction
of the road. No authority for such
a proposition can be found in any-
thing this court has ever said."
6 6Henry Gauss & Sons Mfg. Co. v.
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co., 113 Mo. 308,
20 S. W. 658, 18 L.R.A. 339, 7 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 235. This case is
commented on somewhat in Osborne
v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 147 U. S. 248,
13 S. C. 299, in a way that warrants
the inference that the latter court
regarded the former decision as er-
roneous. The subject of railroads in
streets is elaborately considered in
De Geofroy v. Merchants' Bridge Ter-
minal Ry. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 79 S. W.
386, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524, 64 L.R.A.
959, wherein the court, sitting in
bank, says: "That the power of a
city or other municipal corporation
in Missouri to authorize the construc-
tion of railroads in the public streets
is 'a modified right, a right hedged
about with many qualifications;'
that it does not include the right to
grant a railroad the exclusive use of
the surface of a street even when laid ,
at grade. Neither can the municipal
authority grant the power to a rail-
road company of such use of a street
as will destroy or unreasonably in-
terfere with the right of an abutting
property holder of access to or egress
from hia property or deprive him of
his easement of light and air from
the street. The street on which a
railroad is constructed on the grade
G42
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 351
the abutter is entitled to compensation.®'' The same rule ap-
plies to street railways as to commercial railways, for the ques-
tion does not depend upon what is a legitimate street use, but on
whether the abutting property is damaged for public use.*^ But
a distinction seems to be made in Pennsylvania and this may be
justified by the peculiar provisions of the constitution of that
State.®" It is immaterial whether the fee of the street is in
the public or in the adjoining owner.'''' So a recovery may be
cannot be used for side tracks, the
storing of cars, for water tanks or
like structures." p. 715. See Ruck-
ert V. Grand Ave. Ry. Co., 163 Mo.
260, 63 S. W. 814; Nagel v. Lindell
Ry. Co., 167 Mo. 89, 66 S. W. 1090.
6 7Sheehy v. Kansas City Cable R.
R. Co., 94 Mo. 574, 7 S. W. 579, 4 Am.
St. Rep. 396; Smith v. Kansas City
etc. R. R. Co., 98 Mo. 20, 11 S. W.
259; Gates v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., Ill Mo. 28, 19 S. W. 957; Brady
V. Kansas City Cable R. R. Co., Ill
Mo. 329, 19 S. W. 953; Spencer v.
Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 120 Mo.
154, 23 S. W. Rep. 126, 22 L.R.A.
668 ; De Geof roy v. Merchants Bridge
Terminal Ry. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 79 S.
W. 386, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524, 64
L.R.A. 959 ; Spencer v. Met. St. R. R.
Co., 58 Mo. App. 513.
ssBirmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v.
Oden, 146 Ala. 495, 41 So. 129; Mont-
gomery V. Santa Ana etc. Co., 104
Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786, 43 Am. St.
Rep. 89, 25 L.R.A. 654; Reynolds v.
Presidio etc. R. R. Co., 1 Cal. App.
229, 81 Pac. 1118; Campbell v. Met-
ropolitan St. R. R. Co., 82 Ga. 320,
9 S. E. 1078; Fouche v. Rome St. R.
R. Co., 84 Ga. 233, 10 S. E. 726, 1 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 188; Aldis v.
Union El. R. R. Co., 203 111. 567, 68
N. E. 95; Sheehy v. Kansas City
Cable R. R. Co., 94 Mo. 574, 7 S. W.
579, 4 Am. St. Rep. 396; Brady v.
Kansas City Cable R. R. Co., Ill Mo.
329, 19 S. W. 953 ; Spencer v. Met. St.
R. R. Co., 58 Mo. App. 513; Hot
Springs R. R. Co. v. Williamson, 136
U. S. 121, 10 S. C. 955. But see San
Antonio Rapid Transit St. Ry. Co.
V. Limburger, 88 Tex. 79, 30 S. W.
533, 53 Am. St. Rep. 730; Ruckert v.
Grand Ave. Ry. Co., 163 Mo. 260, 63
S. W. 814; Nagel v. Lindell Ry. Co.,
167 Mo. 89, 66 S. W. 1090.
6 9Lockart v. Craig St. R. R. Co.,
139 Pa. St. 419, 21 Atl. 26; S. C. 8
Pa. Co. Ct. 470; Raiferty v. Central
Traction Co., 147 Pa. St. 579, 23 Atl.
884, 30 Am. St. Rep. 763, 6 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 287; Lockart v. Craig
St. R. R. Co., 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 470; Com-
monwealth V. West Chester, 9 Pa. Co.
Ct. 542 ; Heilman v. Lebanon & A. R.
R. Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 241 ; Dilly v.
Wilkesbarre Pass. R. R. Co., 12 Pa.
Co. Ct. 270 ; Township of Mahaney v.
Beaver Meadow etc. R. R. Co., 13 Pa.
Co. Ct. 344 ; Perry v. Wilkesbarre etc.
Pass. R. R. Co., 4 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
Rep. 519. But where a street railway
was laid under an ordinance which
made it liable for all damages to
abutting property, it was held liable
for the diminution in the value of the
property. May v. Carbondale Trac-
tion Co., 167 Pa. St. 343, 31 Atl. Rep.
667. The constitution of Pennsyl-
vania limits the liability for property
injured but not taken to corporations
and individuals "invested witli the
privilege of taking private property
for public use.'' Ante, § 49. Street
railway corporations are not usually
vested with such power.
TODenver v. Bayer, 7 Colo. 113;
Gottschalk v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 14
Neb. 550; Stewart v. Ohio Riv. R. R.
§ 35S
PEOPEKTY DAJIACIED OR USTJtJEED.
643
had for damages caused by laying an additional track in a
street/^ or by moving a track nearer the plaintiff's property.''^
§ 352 (226). Damages by other uses of streets. Dam-
ages resulting to abutting property by any improvement or use
of streets for public purposes are undoubtedly within the con-
stitution. Where a city erected a tank and steam engine in
front of plaintiff's property, for the purpose of supplying water
to its citizens, Avliich caused smoke and cinders to be thrown
upon his property and depreciated its value, it was held that he
could recover.'^^ So where the city placed a standpipe in the
street near plaintiff's property.''* If abutting property is in-
jured by the construction of sewers or drains in the street,'"
or by ditches or canals for conveying water,''" a recovery may be
had. In Missouri the erection of telephone poles in a street
is held not to come within the constitutional i:>rovision as to
damage.''^ But we think this is clearly an error.''^ ^Vhere an
abutter has built an area to afford light to his basement, under a
revocable license from the city, the city may fill up the area
and cut off the light, and tlie abutter will have no claim, as for
property damaged, injured, or destroyed within the constitu-
tion.'® In Pennsylvania it has been intimated but not decided
Co., 3S W. Va. 438, 18 S. E. 604;
ante, § 128.
71 Denver etc. R. R. Co. v. Domke,
11 Colo. 247; Denver etc. R. R. Co.
V. Costes, 1 Colo. App. 336, 28 Pae.
Rep. 1129; Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co.
V. Reich, 101 111. 157 ; Hogan v. Chi-
cago etc. R. R. Co., 208 111. 161, 69
N. E. 853; McCarty v. C. B. & Q. R.
R. Co., 34 111. App. 273; Maltman v.
Chicago etc. R. E. Co., 41 111. App.
229 ; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. O'Con-
nor, 42 Xeb. 90, 60 N. W. 326 ; North-
ern Central R. R. Co. v. Holland, 117
Pa. St. 613, 12 Atl. 575; Dilley v.
Wilkesbarre Pass. R. R. Co., 12 Pa.
Co. Ct. 270.
7 2Patent v. Phil. & Reading R. R.
Co., 14 Weekly Notes (Pa.) 545;
Maltman v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 41
111. App. 229.
73Morrison V. Hinkson, 87 111. 587,
29 Am. Rep. 77.
74Barrows v. City of Sycamore, 150
111. 588, 37 N. E. 1096, 10 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 62, 41 Am. St. Rep. 400.
7 5Gerst »-. St. Louis. 185 Mo. 191,
84 S. W. 34, 105 Am. St. Rep. 580;
City of Plattsmouth v. Boeck, 32
Neb. 297, 49 N. W. 167 ; Ladd v. City
of Philadelphia, 171 Pa. St. 485, 33
Atl. 62; Chatham Street, 16 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 103; Johnson v. St. Louis,
137 Fed. 439; Stainton v. Metropoli-
tan Board of Works, 26 L. J. Ch. 300.
'STown of Longmont v. Parker, 14
Colo. 380, 23 Pae. Rep. 443, 20 Am.
St. Rep. 277, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp Rep.
91 ; Walley v. Platte & D. Ditch Co.,
15 Colo. 579, 20 Pae. 129.
7 7 Julia Building Association v.
Bell Telephone Co., 88 Mo. 258, 57
Am. Rep. 398.
7 86'ee ante, § 187; Maxwell v. Cen-
tral D. & P. Tel. Co., 51 W. Va. 121,
41 S. E. 125.
79Winter v. City Council, 83 Ala.
589.
644: EMUfElIfT DOMAIN. § 353
that an abutter may have his action at law for any damages
sustained by the laying of a gas main underneath the sidewalk
adjacent to his property.*"
§ 353 (226a). Damages by the vacation of streets.
This subject has been fully considered in a former chapter, both
as to when such damages are a taking and when damage or in-,
jury within constitutions and statutes,*^ though not with refer-
ence to the effect of the constitutional provisions now under con-
sideration. But the authorities hold that an abutter is not en-
titled, by virtue of these provisions, to recover damages occa-
sioned by the vacation of a street, or part of a street, if his prop-
erty does not abut upoii the part vacated, and he is not deprived
of an outlet from his property.®^ Property which abuts on the
vacated part or is deprived of an outlet is damaged within the
constitution.**
§ 354 (227). Impeding access to premises by interfer-
ing with public ways not in front of same. We have already
seen that if, by any authorized use or improvement of the street
in front of property, access thereto is impeded or it is other-
wise depreciated in value, the property is damaged and a recov-
ery may be had. But it frequently happens that a public im-
provement on a street or public way affects the value of property
which does not abut upon the improvement, and the question
is whether in such case the property is damaged or injuriously
affected. This question has received careful consideration both
in England and the United States.
In the case of McCarthy v. Metropolitan Board of Works,**
the plaintiff, McCarthy, resided and carried on business as a
dealer in lime, brick, sand, ballast and other building materials
on premises near a dock, known as Whitef riars' Dock, which was
a public dock on the Thames. The dock was separated from
plaintiff's premises by a public street twenty feet wide and the
soMcDevitt v. People's Nat. Gas re Melon St., 1 Pa. Supr. 63. Com-
Cc, 160 Pa. St. 367, 28 Atl. 948. pare Town of Lake v. Burky, 57 111.
ilAnte, §§ 197-208. App. 547. But see §§ 200-208.
8 2Glasgowv. City of St. Louis, 107 ssBigelow v. Balerino, 111 Cal.
Mo. 198, 17 S. W. 743, 5 Am. R. R. & 559, 44 Pac. 307.
C!orp. Rep. 192; Bailey v. Culver, 84 84L. R. 7 C. P. 508; affirmed in
Mo. 531; Parker v. Catholic Bishop Exch. Chamber, L. R. 8 C. P. 191 (5
of Chicago, 146 111. 158, 34 N. E. 478; Moak's Rep. 256) ; affirmed in House
In re Vacation of Howard Street, 142 of Lords, L. R. 7 Eng. & Irish App.
Pa. St. 601, 21 Atl. 974; Hare v. 243 (10 Moak's Rep. 1).
Rice, 142 Pa. St. 608, 21 Atl. 976; In
§ 354 PEOPEETY DAMAGED OR IKJUEED. 645
distance from this street to the river along the dock was 352
feet. The dock was largely used by the plaintiff in the way of
his business, but he had no right or easement in the dock other
than as one of the public, nor was there appurtenant or otherwise
belonging to his premises any other right or privilege in or to
the dock. By reason of its proximity to the plaintiff's premises,
and the access thereby afforded to and from the Thames, the
premises were rendered more valuable to sell or occupy with
reference to the uses to which any owner might put them. In
the execution of the works authorized by the Thames embank-
ment acts, a solid embankment was carried along the foreshore
of the Thames, thus permanently stopping up and destroying
Whitefriars' Dock. By reason thereof access along the dock from
the plaintiff's premises to and from the Thames was prevented,
and his premises were permanently damaged and diminished in
value. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, which held that his premises were injuriously af-
fected, and this decision was affirmed by the Exchequer Chamber
and House of Lords. Many elaborate opinions were delivered
in which the grounds of the decision were fully considered and
all prior decisions touching the questions in issue were re-
viewed. We shall refer to the principles of this case further
on. The McCarthy case was fully approved by the House of
Lords in, Caledonia Ry. Co. v. Walker's Trustees,*^ which in-
volved a similar state of facts. There are many other English
cases which go upon the same ground.*"
In Eigney v. Chicago,^'' it appeared that Eigney owned an
improved lot on Kinzie street, which street was intersected at
857 Appeal Cas. 259. struction is temporary only, being oo-
seChamberlain V. The West End of casioned by the construction of the
London etc. Ry. Co., 2 Best & Smith, works, the premises are not inju-
605, 110 E. C. L. R. 604, 31 L. J. Q. riously affected within the mean-
13, 201; affirmed same, 617; Glover ing of the Lands Clauses Act,
V. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., 20 L. and compensation must be sought
J. N. S. Q. B. 376; Wood v. Stour- under a different provision. Rickett
bridge Ry. Co., 16 Q. B. N. S. 222; 111 v. Metropol. Ry. Co., 5 Beat & Smith,
E. C. L. R. 221; Cameron v. Charing 149, 117 E. C. L. R. 149, affirmed L.
Cross Ry., 16 C. B. N. S. 430; 111 E. R. 2 House of Lords, 175. See the
C. L. R. 430; 33 L. J. C. P. 313; ease of the Caledonian Railway Co.
Senior v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 2 H-. v. Ogilvy, 2 Macq. So. App. 229;
& C. (Ech.) 258; Wadham v. North- Regina v. Met. Board of Works, 4 L.
eastern Ry. Co., 14 L. R. Q. B. 747; R. Q. B. 358.
Ford V. Metropolitan R. R. Co., L. R. 87Rigney v. Chicago, 102 III. 64.
17 Q. B. D. 12. But, where the ob-
646 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 354
right angles by Halsted street, at a point 220 feet west of Rig-
ney's property. The city built a viaduct on Halsted street over
Kinzie street, so as entirely to prevent access to Halsted street
from Kinzie except by stairs. The evidence showed that Hal-
sted street was an important thoroughfare, upon which horse
car lines were operated, affording communication with all parts
of the city. No change whatever was made in Kinzie street
in front of Kigney's property or elsewhere, but, as a result of
the construction of the viaduct, and cutting off access to Halsted
street along Kinzie street, Rigney's property was depreciated
one-fourth or more. The supreme court of Illinois held that
Rigney's property was damaged within the meaning of the con-
stitution.** These cases settle the doctrine that an obstruction
or interference with a public street or way need not necessarily
be in front of or contiguous to the property claimed to be af-
fected thereby, in order to authorize a recovery. It is sufficient
if it is such an obstruction or interference as produces a diminu-
tion in the value of the property, as distinguished from mere
personal inconvenience to the owner.**
The conclusions thus stated in the first edition have been
verified by numerous decisions since rendered, and, we believe,
without any material dissent, except in the case of Missouri,
as shown below. If a street or public way communicating with
the plaintiff's premises is obstructed elsewhere. than in front of
the plaintiff's property, as by a viaduct or bridge, or approach
thereto, or by a railroad crossing a street in a cut or on an
embankment, or otherwise, and the result of such obstruction is
to render such property less valuable either to sell or to use, then
the property is damaged, and compensation may be recovered
to the extent of the depreciation.®"
88A somewhat similar case is Pulcyn, 129 111. App. 179; Danville
found in East St. Louis v. Lockliead, etc. K. E. Co. v. Tedrick, 137 111. App.
7 111. App. 83; also East St. Louis v. 553; Republican Valley R. R. Co. v.
O'Flynn, 19 111. App. 64. Fellons, 16 Neb. 169; Atchison etc.
89Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Walker's R. R. Co. v. Boener, 34 Neb. 240, 51
Trustees, 7 Appeal Cas. 259. N. W. 842, 33 Am. St. Rep. 637 ; S. C.
soTexarkana v. Leads, 66 Ark. 40, affirmed, 45 Neb. 453, 63 N. W. 787;
48 S. W. 807, 74 Am. St. Rep. 68; Ft. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. O'Neill, 58
Collins etc. Ry. Co. v. France, 41 Neb. 239, 78 N. W. 521 ; O'Brien v.
Colo. 512, 92 Pac. 953; Harvey v. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co., 119 Pa.
Georgia Southern etc. R. R. Co., 90 St. 184, 13 Atl. 74; Mellor v. City of
Ga. 66, 15 S. E. 783 ; Burky v. Town Philadelphia, 160 Pa. St. 614, 28 Atl.
of Lake, 30 111. App. 23; Chicago v. 991; In re Melon Street, 182 Pa. St.
§ 354
PEOrEETY DAMAGED OE IXJUEED.
Gil
397, 38 Atl. 482, 28 L.R.A. 27S; Foust
V. Pa. E. E. Co., 212 Pa. St. 213, 61
Atl. 829; Eobbins v. Scranton, 217
Pa. St. 577, 66 Atl. 977; Walsh v.
Scranton, 23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 276 ; Hag-
gerty v. Scranton, 23 Pa. Supr. St.
279 ; Harvey v. G. C. & S. F. E. E. Co.,
3 T«x. Ct. of App. 336, §§ 278-280;
Brown v. City of Seattle, 5 Wash. 35,
31 Pac. 313, 32 Pac. Eep. 214, 7 Am.
R. E. & Corp. Eep. 64; Mason City
etc. E. E. Co. V. Wolf, 148 Fed. 961,
78 C. C. A. 589 (Neb. Case) ; Mc-
Quade v. The King, 7 Can. Exch. 318;
Macarthur v. The King, 8 Can. Exch.
245; anie, §§ 189, 198-208. Compare
the following cases which are more or
less opposed to the text: Gilbert v.
Greeley etc. R. E. Co., 13 Colo. 501, 22
Pac. 814; Union Pac. E. R. Co. v.
Foley, 19 Colo. 280, 35 Pac. 542;
Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Benson, 19
Colo. 285, 35 Pac. 544; Jacksonville
etc. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 34 Fla. 346,
16 So. 282, 26 L.R.A. 410; Davenport
V. Dedham, 178 Mass. 382, 59 N. E.
1029; Davenport v. Hyde Park, 178
Mass. 385, 59 N. E. 1030; Putnam v.
Boston etc. R. R. Co., 182 Mass. 351,
65 N. E. 790; Detroit v. C. H. Little
Co., 146 Mich. 373, 109 N. W. 671 ; S.
C. 141 Mich. 637, 104 N. W. 1108;
Matter of Grade Crossing Comrs., 166
N. Y. 69, 59 N. E. 706; McGee's Ap-
peal, 114 Pa. St. 470, 8 Atl. 237; Law-
rence V. City of Philadelphia, 154 Pa.
St. 20, 25 Atl. 1079; Howell v. Mor-
risville, 212 Pa. St. 349, 61 Atl. 932;
Santry v. Pennsylvania S. V. E. E.
Co., 4 Mont. Co. L. E. 144; Enochs v.
Philadelphia, 2 Pa. Dist. Ct. 83;
Smith V. St. Paul etc. Ey. Co., 39
Wash. 355, 81 Pac. 840, 109 Am. St.
Eep. 889, 70 L.E.A. 1018; Ponischil
V. Hoquiam S. & D. Co., 41 Wash.
303, 83 Pac. 316; Mottman v. Olym-
pia, 45 Wash. 361, 88 Pac. 579.
In Mellor v. City of Philadelphia,
160 Pa. St. 614, 28 Atl. 991, the plain-
tiff's property was on the north side
of Trenton avenue. The property on
the south side of Trenton avenue was
occupied by railroad tracks, running
parallel to the avenue. To avoid
grade crossings the side streets ad-
jacent to the plaintiflT were lowered
so as to go under the tracks and, as
we understand it, under Trenton ave-
nue also. Access from Trenton ave-
nue to the side streets, except for
pedestrians, was rendered impossible.
Trenton avenue upon which the
plaintiff's property abutted remained
unchanged, but access to the nearest
side streets was cut off. . In holding
that the plaintiff's property was in-
jured, within the meaning of the con-
stitution, the court says: "Defend-
ant's contention was that this pro-
vision is inapplicable to any of the
cases under consideration, because
neither of the properties front or
abut on either of the streets the
grade of which was changed. This
would, indeed, be a very narrow and
unreasonable construction of the
words above quoted, especially in
view of the history and object of the
constitutional provision. It was in-
tended to provide against the great
injustice that was continually re-
sulting from the ruling of this court
in O'Connor v. Pittsburgh, 18 Pa. St.
189, that 'the constitutional pro-
vision for the case of private prop-
erty taken for public use extends not
to the case of property injured or de-
stroyed.' In connection with this
statement of the controlling prin-
ciple in that case, Mr. Chief Justice
Gibson suggested that the omission
might be supplied by ordinary legis-
lation, but no such legislative action
was ever taken. It was not until the
adoption of our present constitution,
nearly a quarter of a century there-
after, that an appropriate remedy
was provided in the form of the sec-
tion above quoted. In doing this, the
people of the commonwealth recog-
nized, in a practical way, the justice
of compensating private property
648
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 354
A recent case in Missouri is apparently in conflict with these
views. The plaintiff's premises were situated upon High street,
which was crossed by a railroad two blocks or more away. The
crossing was of such a character as completely to obstruct the
street at that point. Two streets intersected High street, at right
angles, between the plaintiff's premises and the crossing. The
jury found that the plaintiff's premises were damaged or de-
preciated to the amount of two thousand dollars, and he recov-
ered judgment for that sum. The Supreme Court reversed the
case, holding that the plaintiff's damages were the same in
kind as those suffered by the public generally, and that for such
damages no recovery could be had, even under the word dam-
aged in the new constitution.^' This case was approved and
followed in two similar cases, decided a year or so later. ^^ In
owners, not only for property taken,
but also for property injured or de-
stroyed by municipal and other cor-
porations and individuals of the
specified class, by the construction
and enlargement of their works,
highways, or improvements. There
is nothing in the phraseology of the
section that can be even tortured into
a limitation of its provisions to prop-
erty fronting or abutting on the par-
ticular work, highway, or improve-
ment by the construction or enlarge-
ment of which said property was in-
jured or destroyed. The section in
question cannot be thus narrowly
construed without reading into it
words which are not in it, and were
never intended to be there. It was
contended on behalf of the city that,
inasmuch as the properties of the
several plaintiffs do not front on
Orthodox street, they 'are not en-
titled to any damages; that, because
Trenton avenue has not been
changed, the plaintifi's, no matter
how much they may have been in-
jured, are not entitled to damages
for the alteration of the side street;'
and points for charge substantially
to that effect were submitted. The
learned trial judge very properly re-
fused to thus narrowly and unreason-
ably construe the constitution. He
rightly conceded, however, 'that
where the street which undergoes an
alteration is not sufficiently near to
the property of a citizen as to make
the injury approximate and imme-
diate and substantial, he would have
no right to claim damages for change
of grade of such a street;' and, in
connection therewith, he appropri-
ately added: 'In case of properties
situated as these properties are, and
so affected by the change of grade
that their ingress and egress to
and from their houses is virtu-
ally injured, — partly destroyed, —
and where the injury is so obvious
that it admits of comparatively easy
calculation as to the extent of the
diminution of the value of the prop-
erty, I cannot doubt that such a case
is covered by the constitution.' "
siRude V. St. Louis, 93 Mo. 408,
6 S. W. 257.
9 2Fairchild v. City of St. Louis,
97 Mo. 85, 11 S. W. 60; Canman v.
City of St. Louis, 97 Mo. 92, 11 S.
W. 60. To same effect Gates v. Kan-
sas City etc. R. R. Co., Ill Mo. 28,
19 S. W. 957. And see Burde v. St.
Joseph, 130 Mo. App. 453, 110 S. W.
27.
§ 354: PEOPEETY DAMAGED OK Ilf JUEED. 649
these cases the street on which the plaintiffs abutted was ob-
structed by a railroad crossing below grade and the street was
closed at that point. In one case the plaintiff's property was
350 feet from the obstruction, and in the other 125 feet. If
the plaintiff's premises were depreciated in value by reason of
the obstruction complained of, then, it seems to us, both the
premise and conclusion of the court are wrong. When prop-
erty is so situated with respect to a public way that its perma-
nent obstruction depreciates its market value, then the owner
of the property suffers a special and peculiar damage by reason
of such obstruction, different from that of the public generally."'*
It is tacitly conceded by the Missouri court, and is unquestion-
ably the law, that, if the plaintiff's damages were special and
peculiar, then he had a right of action under the constitutional
provision in question. The right to damages cannot be reduced
to a question of distance, but depends upon the fact of the mar-
ket value of the premises being actually depreciated by reason
of the obstruction or improvement. The supreme court of Mis-
souri seems to have come to the same conclusion as to what is a
special or peculiar damage in a subsequent case and to thus have
cut away the ground upon which the decisions above referred to
were based. A switch track was laid across the street on which
plaintiff abutted, connecting with a brewery. The court found
that the track was laid for a private use, that the permission
to use the street was therefore void and the track a public nui-
sance. The plaintiff's property was 75 feet from the crossing
but the evidence showed that its value would be depreciated by
the obstruction. This was held to be such a special injury as
entitled the plaintiff to an injunction. No reference is made to
the cases above cited.®*
S3 Ante, §§ 174, 191, 199. Where Mo. App. 498; Wesson v. Washburn
property is so situated with respect Iron Co., 13 Allen 95; Blane v.
to any kind of a public nuisance that Khimpke, 29 Cal. 156 ; Frink v. Law-
it is permanently depreciated in rence, 20 Conn. 117, 50 Am. Dec. 274;
value if the nuisance is regarded as Brown v. Watrous, 47 Me. 161 ;
permanent, or the value of its use is Ottawa Gas Light Co. v. Graham, 28
lessened if it is regarded as tempo- 111. 73, 81 Am. Dec. 263; Illinois
rary, then the owner of the property Central R. R. Co. v. Grabill, 50 111.
suffers a special and peculiar dam- 242; Attorney General v. Londsdale,
age, different from that of the public 7 L. R. Eq. Cas. 390. See also
generally, for which a private action opinions in the McCarthy case, ante.
will lie. Stetson v. Faxon, 19 Pick. 9<Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch
147; Francis v. Schoellkoff, 53 N. Y. Brewing Ass., 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W.
152; Givens v. Van Studdiford, 4 707, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 420.
C50 EMINENT DOMAIN. S 354
The contention that such an interpretation of the constitu-
tion will give rise to an indefinite number of claims, is one which
has been often made, but is without merit. The constitution
guarantees compensation for property damaged or injured for
public use. The right to compensation is coextensive with the
damage or injury, both in space and in amount. This point was
fully considered in the McCarthy case, and in reference to it
Justice Bramwell says: "If it is to be asked where the line
is to be drawn, I answer not by distance in point of measure-
ment. Premises might be injuriously affected by the stopping
of a landing place ten miles away, if there was no other within
twenty of the premises affected. The line is to be drawn by as-
certaining whether the premises are actually or potentially af-
fected for present or other purposes, or the man, whether it
is only the person who happens to be using them. It is said
this might give the right to make an immense number of claims.
Suppose it did. Suppose there were one thousand claims of
£1,000 each. If they are well founded, £1,000,000 of property
is destroyed, and why is not that part of the cost of the improve-
ment; and, if taken into account as such, why should not the
loser of it receive it ?" ®^ And the supreme court of Wisconsin,
in an action for wrongfully obstructing a street, says: "True,
there may be many such individual owners, but that cannot
affect individual rights. There may be twenty or there may
be fifty of them, but if each has suffered great damage to his
estate by the unlawful closing of a street, why shall not each
have his action ? Neither twenty men nor fifty men constitute
The court says : "The city having no dence is that these proposed crossings
rightful authority to enact the ordi- will have the effect to divert travel
nance, the switch tracks constructed to streets west of the brewery, and
thereunder on the public highway thereby decrease the value of the
would be a public nuisance; and, in plaintiff's property, and take away
order for the plaintiff to maintain some of the trade which he at this
this injunction, he must show some time enjoys. The evidence satisfied
special injury over and above the the trial court, and it satisfies us,
general injury to the general public. that plaintiff will suffer an injury
Some of the evidence offered by the which entitles him to maintain this
defendant is that the construction of suit."
the switch will not decrease the value SBMcCarthy v. Metropolitan Board
of the plaintiff's property. On the of Works, L. R. 8 C. P. 191, 210. In
other hand, it is alleged and shown the House of Lords Lord Penzance
that plaintiff's property is within gives expression to similar views as
seventy-five feet of the proposed follows:
crossing, and the weight of the evi- "It was asked, in argument, where
§ o5(i
PBOPEETY DAMAGED OE, INJUEED.
C51
the general public. The general public is composed of the great
mass of individuals who own no property in the vicinity and who
may wish to pass over the street or not, and who, if they do,
simply suffer the trifling inconvenience of being obliged to make
a circuitous trip." "*
§ 355 (228). Competing ferries, bridges, etc. It has
been held, by the supreme court of West Virginia, that where
a statute prohibited another ferry within half a mile of one al-
ready established, the statute would include a toll-bridge as well
as a ferry, and that the diminution in value of the ferry by rea-
son of the establishment of a toll-bridge within the prohibited
distance was a damage and not a taking within the constitu-
tion."'^ So the English courts have held a similar injury to be
an injurious affecting."* And where a railroad was built along
a stream, so as to interfere with a ferry, it was held that the
proprietor was entitled to compensation.®"
§ 356 (229). Interference with water rights. In Duke
of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Eoard of Works,' the plaintiff's
property consisted of a leasehold interest in a mansion house
are the claims to compensation to
stop, if the rule is so applied? The
answer, I think is, that in each case
the right to compensation will accrue
whenever it can be established to the
satisfaction of the jurj' or arbitrator
that a special value attaches to the
premises in question by reason of
their proximity to, or relative posi-
tion with, the highways obstructed,
and that this special value has been
permanently destroyed or abridged
by the obstruction. If this limit be
thought to be a wide one, and the
number of claimants under it likely
to be numerous, that is only the mis-
fortune of the undertaking, for the
limit does not exceed the range of the
injury. On the other hand, all claim
for compensation will vanish as, re-
ceding from the highway, the case
comes into question of lands of which
(though their owners may have used
the highway and found convenience
in so doing) it cannot be predicated
and proved that the value of the
lands depends on the position rela-
tively to the highway which they
occupy." Metropolitan Board of
Works V. McCarthy, L. E. 7, Eng. &
I. App. 243, 214.
9 6Tilley v. Mitchell & Lewis Co.,
121 Wis. 1, 98 N. W. 969, 105 Am. St.
Rep. 1007. To same effect: Park v.
C. & S. W. R. R. Co., 43 la. 636; In
re Melon St., 182 Pa. St. 397, 38 Atl.
482, 28 L.R.A. 275; Tidewater Ry.
Co. v. Shartzer, 107 Va. 562, 59 S. E.
407, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1053.
9 7Mason v. Harper's Ferry Bridge
Co., 17 W. Va. 396. According to the
views of the author, such an inter-
ference with an exclusive right is a
taking. See ante, §§ 215, 216.
9 8»S'ee Hopkins v. The Great West-
ern Railway Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. D.
224; Queen v. Cambria Railway Co.,
L. R. 6 Q. B. 422.
9 9 Cooling V. Great Northern R. R.
Co., 19 L. J. Q. B. 25.
15 L. R. Ex. 221, affirmed, 5 L. R.
Eng. & Irish App. 418.
652 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 356
and grounds abutting on the Thames River. He not only had
free access to the river, but the grounds were secluded and
quiet by reason of the river frontage and thereby rendered more
valuable to sell or occupy. The defendant constructed an em-
bankment along the river frontage -which was to serve as a pub-
lic highway. The result of this was to cut off access to the river
and to destroy the quiet and seclusion of the premises. It was
held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount of
the depreciation of his premises.^. Where a railroad was con-
structed along the shore of the sea below high-water mark, thus
interfering with one's access to the sea, his property was held
to be injuriously affected.^ So an interference with access to
a dock on a stream by a bridge is within the constitutional
provision as to damage.* Damage which results to a lower
proprietor by changes in the flow of a stream in consequence of
the removal of shoals is not actionable.® The right to recover
for diverting the waters of a stream to the damage of a lower
proprietor was referred to this provision of the constitution in
Eeading v. Althouse,® though we think such a diversion is
clearly a taking, as shown in a previous chapter. '^ Under the
English acts it is held that compensation in such cases must be
had under the clause giving damages for land injuriously af-
fected.*
^Compare Eegina v. Metropolitan wide, and known as Channel street.
Board of Works, L. E. 4 Q. B. 358; The defendants, the State harbor
38 L. J. Q. B. 201. commissioners, proposed to erect a
sQueen v. Eynd, 16 I. C. L. E. 29; wharf in Channel street in front of
Bell V. Hull etc. E. E. Co., 6 M. & W. plaintiff's property, thirty feet wide
699 ; but see Falls v. Belfast etc. E. and thus cut off his access to the bay.
E. Co., 12 I. C. L. E. 233. On a bill to enjoin, the opinion was
^Chicago etc. E. E. Co. v. Stein, 75 expressed that this would not be a
111. 41 ; Chicago & Alton E. E. Co. v. taking or damaging of the plaintiff's
Maher, 91 111. 312. It has been held property within the constitution, but
in Pennsylvania that an interference the decision itself was based on a
with the feeders of an artificial question of title,
stream which had flowed for over a, BRhodes v. Airedale Drainage
century was to be regarded as an in- Comrs., L. E. 1 C. P. Div. 402; S. C.
jury rather than a taking under their Same, p. 380.
present constitution. City of Eead- 693 Pa. St. 400; Lycoming Gas &
ing V. Althouse, 93 Pa. St. 400. In W. Co. v. Moyer, 99 Pa. St. 615.
Payne v. English, 79 Cal. 540, 21 Pac. tAnte, § 74.
952, plaintiff had piers and slips sBush v. Trowbridge Water Co.,
abutting on an arm of the bay of 44 L. J. Ch. 645; S. C. L. R. 10 Ch.
San Francisco, two hundred feet App. 459.
§ 357 PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED. G53
We have considered at length in a former chapter the right
to recover for damage to land by interfering with riparian rights
appurtenant thereto, or by flooding it permanently or temporari-
ly by works for public use, or by injuriously affecting it in
any way through the agency of water, and we should say that
any such damage, which is not held to be a taking, would
clearly be a damage or injury within the constitution. Causing
surface water to flow upon land where it is not accustomed to
flow, or obstructing its flow so as to cause a submergence or
saturation, by grading and improving streets,® or the building
of railroads,^*' or other works for public use,^^ have been held
to be remediable under this provision. So of a bridge, dam or
other works which interfere with the flow of a stream so as to
flood the land above or wash away the land below. •'^ Damage by
the pollution of a stream with sewage or otherwise, if not held
to be a taking, is clearly a damage or injury witliin the con-
stitution.'^ But where a railroad constructed its road along the
banks of a stream upon a sandy soil, it was held not liable for
injury to a mill pond by sand washed into the stream from the
railroad land and emhankment.-'*
§ 357 (230). Damages from the operation of a railroad
or its appurtenances on the private property of the com-
pany. Noise, smoke, vibrations, etc. The operation of a
railroad, the switching of cars to and fro, the use of coal bins,
stock yards, etc., may be a serious annoyance to the occupiers of
adjacent property, by reason of the noise, smoke, cinders, vi-
brations, smells, etc. The use and value of property may be
greatly impaired thereby. The question whether such an im-
pairment of property constitutes an independent cause of action
is quite distinct from the question whether such annoyances may
9Town of Avondale v. McFarland, Cal. 618, 42 Pac. 240; Bradbury v.
101 Ala. 381, 13 So. 504; Atlanta v. Vandalia Levee & Dr. Dist., 236 III.
Wood, 78 Ga. 276; Atchison v. At- 36; Delaware County's Appeal, 119
lanta, 81 Ga. 625, 7 S. E, 692; Carson Pa. St. 159, 13 Atl. 62; Fredericks v.
V. City of Springfield, 53 Mo. App. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 148 Pa. St.
289; In re Chatham Street, 191 Pa. 317, 23 Atl. 1067.
St. 604, 43 Atl. 365. isjoplin Consol. Min. Co. v. City
lOAnte, §§ 78-81, 112. of Joplin, 124 Mo. 129, 27 S. W. 406;
iiMayor etc. of Albany v. Sikes, Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283, 53 S.
94 Ga. 30, 20 S. E. 257, 26 L.R.A. W. 907, 48 L.R.A. 711; S. C. 182 Mo.
653; Ware v. Regents Canal Co., 3 1, 81 S. W. 165.
De G. & J. 212. KTrinity etc. R. R. Co. v.
i2Tyler v. Tehama County, 109 Meadows, 73 Tex. 32, 11 S. W. 145.
G54
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 357
be taken into consideration when part of a tract is taken, or when
a railroad is laid in a street or highway. In the latter case the
annoyances referred to are mere incidents to what is in law the
main grievance. ^^ But in the former case they constitute the
principal and only cause of complaint. Whether the impair-
ment caused by such annoyances constitutes a taking we have
already considered.'" But whether a taking or not, it would
seem that such an impairment of property was a damage or in-
jury within the purview of recent constitutions. Where the
use and operation of a railroad or switch yards on the private
property of the company adjacent to, or in the near vicinity
of the plaintiff's property, or across the street from him, de-
preciates the value of his property by reason of the noise, smoke,
vibration, etc., his property is damaged within the constitution
and he is entitled to compensation. ''' So where the damage re-
isfifee post, §§ 739-741.
i^Ante, § 235.
1 'Stone V. Fairbury, Pontiac &
North Western Ey. Co., 68 111. 394,
18 Am. Rep. 556; Chicago ete. R. R.
Co. V. Leah, 152 111. 249, 38 N. E.
556; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Drake,
148 111. 226, 35 N. E. 750, 9 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 73; 111. Cent. R. R.
Co. V. Trustees of Schools, 212 111.
406, 7' N. E. 39; Chicago etc. R. R.
Co. V. Coggswell, 44 111. App. 388;
Wisconsin Cent. R. R. Co. v.
Wieczorek, 51 111. App. 498; Met.
West Side El. R. R. Co. v. Goll, 100
111. App. 323; Davenport ete. Ry. Co.
V. Sinnet, 111 111. App. 75; 111. Cent.
R. R. Co. V. Trustees of Schools, 128
111. App. Ill; Willis V. Ky. & Ind.
Bridge Co., 104 Ky. 186, 46 S. W.
488; Covington ete. R. R. & Bridge
Co. V. Kleymeier, 105 Ky. 609,
49 S. W. 484; Chicago etc. R.
R. Co. V. Hazels, 26 Neb. 364,
42 N. W. 93; Omaha ete. R. R.
Co. V. Janecek, 30 Neb. 276, 46 N. W.
478, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 268;
Omaha etc. R. R. Co. v. Moschel, 38
Neb. 281, 56 N. W. 875; Gulf etc. R.
R. Co. V. Necco (Tex.) 15 S. W. Rep.
1102, 18 S. W. 564; Gainesville etc.
R. R. Co. V. Hall, 78 Tex. 09, 14
S. W. 259, 9 L.R.A. 298, 3 Am. R. E.
& Corp. Rep. 251 ; Ft. Worth etc. R.
R. Co. V. Downie, 82 Tex. 383, 17 S.
W. 620; Houston ete. R. R. Co. v.
Davis, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 212; Novich
V. Trinity ete. Ry. Co., 45 Tex. Civ.
App. 664; Stoekdale v. Rio Grande
Western Ry. Co., 28 Utah 201, 77 Pac.
849; Tidewater Ry. Co. v. Shartzer,
107 Va. 562, 59 S. E. 407, 17
L.R.A.(N.S.) 1053; Smith v. St.
Paul etc. Ry. Co., 39 Wash. 355, 81
Pac. 840, 109 Am. St. Rep. 889, 70
L.R.A. 1018; Mason City etc. R. E.
Co. V. Wolf, 148 Fed. 961, 78 C. C. A.
589. See Morrison v. Hinkson, 87
111. 587, 29 Am. Rep. 77. Compare
Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Lenz, 35
111. App. 330; Hammersmith etc. E.
R. Co. V. Brand, L. R. 4 Eng. & Ir.
App. 171. An elevated railroad
crossed the street on which the plain-
tiff's property abutted, 31 feet north
of his property. He brought suit for
damages to his property by the noise,
vibration, obstruction of view and
of light. The plaintiff does not ap-
pear to have made out a case of
nuisance or obstruction of light and
the court found that there was no
interference with any right, public
or private, and, therefore, no right to
§ 357
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE ijSTJUEED.
suits from the use of coal bins, water tanks, round houses and
the like, similarly situated with reference to the plaintifE's prop-
erty.'* Where a railroad was laid alongside a highway opposite
the plaintiff's farm and impaired the value of the farm by ren-
dering access thereto with teams and stock more dangerous, he
was held entitled to recover compensation.'*
A different view is taken of the constitution of Pennsylvania
by the supreme court of that State. Railroad companies in that
State are required to make compensation for property taken,
injured or destroyed by the construction or enlargement of
their works, and this compensation is required to be paid in
advance.^" It is held that one, no part of whose property has
been taken, cannot recover for the damages resulting from the
lawful and proper operation of a railroad adjacent to or in the
near vicinity of his property.^' Also that the word injured in
recover. Aldrich v. Met. W. S. El.
R. R. Co., 195 111. 456, 63 N. E. 155,
57 L.R.A. 237.
isWiley v. Elwood, 134 111. 281, 25
X. E. 570; Kuhn v. 111. Cent. R. R.
Co., Ill 111. App. 323; Bramlette v.
Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 113 Ky.
300, 68 S. W. 145 ; Omaha etc. R. R.
Co. V. Janecek, 30 Neb. 276, 46 N.
W. 478, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 268; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v.
O'Connor, 42 Neb. 90, 60 N. W.
326; Louisville & N. Terminal Co.
V. Jacobs, 109 Tenn. 727, 72 S.
W. 954, 61 L.R.A. 188; Same v.
Lellyett, 114 Tenn. 368, 85 S. W. 881,
1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 49; Ft. Worth etc. R.
R. Co. V. Downie, 82 Tex. 383, 17 S.
W. 620; Daniel v. Ft. Worth etc. Ry.
Co., 96 Tex. 327, 72 S. W. 578 ; Rainey
V. Red River etc. Ry. Co., 99 Tex.
276, 89 S. W. 768, 90 S. W. 1096, 122
Am. St. Rep. 622, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.)
590 ; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Shaw, 99
Tex. 559, 92 S. W. 30, 122 Am. St. Rep.
663, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 245; Texas etc.
Ry. Co. V. Edrington, 100 Tex. 496,
101 S. W. 441, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 988.
So of the power house of an electric
railway. Chicago North Shore St.
Ry. Co. V. Payne, 192 III. 239, 61 N.
E. 467 ; King v. Vicksburg Ry. & Lt.
Co., 88 Miss. 456, 42 So. 204, 117 Am.
St. Rep. 749, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1036.
But the construction of a freight
house and railroad yards across the
street from the plaintiff cannot be
enjoined because the locality is a,
residence neighborhood. Walther v.
Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 215 III. 456,
74 N. E. 401.
isLake Erie & W. R. R. Co. v.
Scott, 132 111. 429, 24 N. E. 78, 8
L.R.A. 330, S. C. 32 111. App. 292.
It has been held in Illinois that lots
adjacent to a railroad, no parts of
which were taken, were damaged to
the extent of "the depreciation in
market value of the same by reason
of the construction and maintenance
of the road." Eberhart v. Chicago
etc. R. R. Co., 70 111. 347.
208ee ante, § 49.
21 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Lip-
pincott, 116 Pa. St. 472; Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co. V. Marehant, 119 Pa.
St. 541, 13 Atl. 690, 4 Am. St. Rep.
059 ; Dooner v. Pennsylvania R. E.
Co., 142 Pa. St. 36, 21 Atl. 755; Penn-
sylvania Company for Insurance v.
Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co., 151 Pa.
St. 334, 25 Atl. 107.
656 emijN'ent DOMAiif, § 358
the constitution embraces only such wrongs as would be action-
able but for the statutory authority, and such as are occasioned
by the construction and enlargement of works and improvements,
as distinguished from their use or operation.^^
The supreme court of Georgia takes a similar view, although
the constitution of that State provides in general terms that
private property shall not be taken or damaged for public
purposes without just compensation first paid.^* A plaintiff
sued for damages to his property by reason of railroad tracks
and yards near his property. A common law nuisance was clear-
ly shown by reason of the noise, smoke, cinders, vibrations, etc.,
in the operation of the yards; also that the property in ques-
tion was materially depreciated in value. A majority of the
court held that there could be no recovery, and elaborate opinions
were given on both sides of the question.^*
A recovery may be had for damage caused by dust and dirt
drifting upon one's premises from a bridge or embankment.^''
Damage arising from the fact that premises can be overlooked
from a railroad embankment, or by persons traveling over the
same in coaches, have been held not to be within the English
act ; ^^ also damages caused by vibrations made by passing
trains. ^^
§ 358 (231). Miscellaneous cases. Obstructing the ac-
cess of light to premises is a damage for which a recovery may
be had.^* Plaintiffs had a rifle range, and, for the purpose of
22/Sfee especially Pennsylvania R. 26Stack v. City of East St. Louis,
K. Co. V. Marchant, 119 Pa. St. 541, 85 111. 377, 28 Am. Rep. 619; Chicago
13 Atl. 690, 4 Am. St. Rep. 659. etc. R. R. Co. v. Coggswell, 44 111.
This case was affirmed in the Su- App. 388; Shano v. Bridge Co., 189
preme Court of the United States, Pa. St. 245, 42 Atl. 128; Turner v.
but the latter court only considered Sheffield & Rotherham R. R. Co., 10
whether the constitution of Pennsyl- M. & W. 425; East and West India
vania, as construed by the Supreme Docks and Birmingham Junction Ry.
Court of that State, operated to de- Co. v. Gattke, 20 L. J. N. S. Ch. 217.
prive the plaintiff of his property 2 6Iu re Penny, 7 Ellis & B. 660; 90
without due process of law, or of the E. C. L. R. 658; 26 L. J. Q. B. N. S.
equal protection of the laws. 225; Shano v. Bridge Co., 189 Pa. St.
Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 245, 42 Atl. 128, 69 Am. St. Rep. 808.
153 U. S. 380, 14 S. C. 894. 27Brand v. Hammersmith City Ry.
2Un<e, § 23. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 130; S. C. (E.'cch.
2 4 Austin v. Augusta Terminal Co., Cham.) L. R. 2 Q. B. 223; S. C.
108 Ga. 671, 34 S. E. 852, 47 L.R.A. (House of Lords) L. R. 4 Eng. St.
755. Also Georgia R. R. & B. Co. v. Irish App. 171.
Maddox, 116 Ga. 64, 42 S. E. 315. 2 8Eagle v. Charing Cross Ry. Co.,
§ 358 PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED. 657
maintaining it, had an interest in three fields in a straight line.
On one field was the range. The plaintiffs had a verbal arrange-
ment with the owner of the next field, revocable on notice, by
which they paid him forty-nine pounds a year liquidated dam-
ages. The third field was leased to the plaintiffs. A road was
constructed through the middle field, which rendered the range
useless for the purpose for which plaintiffs held it. It was held
that the interest of plaintiffs in the first and third fields was
injuriously affected.*® The construction of street railway tracks
across the tracks of a commercial railroad, which intersect the
street, is not a taking or damaging of the property of the
commercial road.^" Where a railroad purchased the rear end of
plaintiff's lot and went under the surface in a tunnel, con-
structing a ventilating shaft therein, which was afterwards
enlarged so as to increase the annoyance to plaintiff by smoke,
gases, etc., it was held the plaintiff had no cause of action for
such increased discomfort.^' Where plaintiff's property was
diminished in value by the construction of a jail or fire-engine
house adjacent thereto, it was held that his property was not
damaged within the meaning of the constitution.^^ In an Illi-
nois case the plaintiff brought a suit for damages to his property
by reason of a small-pox hospital erected and maintained by
the defendant city on the opposite side of the street from the
plaintiff's property. The court held that the depreciation of
the plaintiff's property was not damage within the constitution
and that he could not recover. "We can see no difference in
2 L. R. C. 638; Turner v. Sheffield & 264, 26 L.R.A. 337, 11 Am. R. R. &
Rotherham R. R. Co., 10 M. & W. Corp. Rep. 507 ; New York etc. R. R.
425; London etc. R. R. Co. v. Trus- Co. v. Bridgeport Traction Co., 65
tees of Gower Walk School, L. R. 24 Conn. 410, 32 Atl. 953, 29 L.R.A. 367 ;
Q. B. D. 40, 326. See also Barrows v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. v. St. Jo-
City of Sycamore, 150 111. 588, 37 N. seph Terminal R. R. Co., 97 Mo. 457,
B. 1096, 41 Am. St. Rep. 400, 10 Am. 10 S. W. 826.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 62. siAttorney General v. Metropoli-
2 9Holt V. The Gas Light & Coke tan R. R. Co., L. R. (1894) 1 Q. B.
Co., 7 L. R. Q. B. 728. D. 384.
soChicago etc. R. R. Co. v. West 3 2Bacon v. Walker, 77 Ga. 336;
Chicago St. R. R. Co., 156 111. 270, 40 Long v. Klberton, 109 Ga. 28, 34 S. E.
N. E. 1008, 12 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 333, 77 Am. St. Rep. 363, 46 L.R.A.
522; Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v. West 428 ; Van de Vera v. Kansas City, 107
Chicago St. R. R. Co., 54 111. App. Mo. 83, 17 S. W. 695, 28 Am. St.
273 ; Chicago etc. Terminal R. R. Co. Rep. 396, 5 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
V. Whiting etc. R. R. Co., 139 Ind. 196. And see the following sections.
297, 38 N. E. 604, 47 Am. St. Rep.
Em. D.— 42.
658 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 359
principle," says the court, "between the right "of a city to estab-
lish and maintain a small-pox hospital and to erect and use jails,
fire engine houses, calabooses and the like." ^* A contrary con-
clusion has been reached in Kentucky, -where the constitution
requires compensation for property taken, injured or destroyed.
A small-pox hospital was erected on a twenty acre tract adjoin-
ing the plaintiff's farm of three hundred and twenty-five acres.
The hospital was 750 feet from the plaintiff's line and half a
mile from his residence. The plaintiff was held entitled to
recover the depreciation in value of his farm by reason of the
pest house.** Depreciation to abutting property caused by rais-
ing the grade of a railroad on its private right of way is not
damage within the constitution.*' So when the plaintiff's prop-
erty is injured by the laying out of a new highway, which di-
verts travel from past his premises.*® Loss by depreciation in
property pending proceedings to condemn it, which proceed-
ings were unreasonably delayed and finally abandoned, was held
to be damage within the constitution.*^
§ 359 (232), The words in question were intended to
enlarge the right to compensation. There can be no doubt
but what the words in question were intended to enlarge the
right to compensation. Any other construction would render
the words nugatory. They are "an extension of the common
provision for the protection of private property." ** "The
words, injured or destroyed, were not used in vain and without
meaning. It was intended that they should have effect, and
unless they operate to impose a liability not previously existing,
33Frazer v. Chicago, 186 111. 480, property." p. 367. See also Arnold
57 N. E. 1055, 78 Am. St. Rep. 296, v. Stanford, 113 Ky. 852, 69 S. W.
51 L.R.A. 306. 726. A general hospital was en-
34Paducah v. Allen, 111 Ky. 361, joined as a nuisance in Deaconess
63 S. W. 981, 98 Am. St. Rep. 42. Home & Hospital v. Bontjes, 207 111.
The court says : "We therefore con- 553, 69 N. E. 748, 64 L.R.A. 21,5.
elude that where a city or other s^Kotz v. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., 188
municipality erects and maintains a III. 578, 59 N. E. 240; Osburn v. Chi-
public institution, which, by reason cage, 105 111. App. 217.
of its nature, endangers the lives or seHuflF v. Donehoo, 109 Ga. 638, 34
health of the occupants of adjacent S. E. 1035; Elbert Co. v. Swift, 2
premises, as by subjecting them to Ga. App. 47, 58 S. E. 396.
contagious or infectious diseases, it STWinklemau v. Chicago, 213 111.
is not only a nuisance, but it is such 360, 72 N". E. 1066.
an invasion of the property rights of 3 9 Transportation Co. v. Chicago,
such adjacent holder as amounts 99 U. S. p. 642.
both to an injuring and a taking of
§ 359
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED.
659
they are without operation." *° The Supreme Court of the
United States, referring to the constittition of Illinois, says:
"The use of the word 'damaged' in the clause providing for
compensation to the oAvners of private property, appropriated
to public use, could have been used with no other intention than
that expressed by the State court. Such a change in the organic
cecity Council of Montgomery v.
Townsend, 80 Ala. 489, 492. To the
same effect are the following cases:
City Council of Montgomery v. Mad-
dox, 89 Ala. 181, 7 So. 433, 2 Am. R.
R. & Corp. Rep. 426; Hot Springs R.
R. Co. V. Williamson, 45 Ark. 429;
Reardon v. San Francisco, 66 Cal.
492, 56 Am. Rep. 109 ; Denver v.
Bayer, 7 Col. 113; City of Buffalo v.
Strait, 20 Col. 13, 36 Pac. 790; Camp-
bell V. Metropolitan St. R. R. Co., 82
Ga. 320, 9 S. E. 1078; Rigney v. Chi-
cago, 102 111. 04; Henderson v. Mc-
Clain, 102 Ky. 402, 43 S. W. 700, 39
L.R.A. 349; City of Vicksburg v.
Herman, 72 Miss. 211, 16 So. 434;
Van de Vere v. Kansas City, 107 Mo.
83, 17 S. W. 695, 5 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 196 ; Gottschalk v. Chicago, Bur-
lington & Quincy R. R. Co., 14 Neb.
550; Omaha & Republican Valley R.
R. Co. V. Struden, 22 Neb. 343;
Schaller v. City of Omaha, 23 Neb.
325, 36 N. W. 533 ; City of Omaha v.
Kramer, 25 Neb. 492, 41 N. W. 295,
13 Am. St. Rep. 504; Seace v. Wayne
County, 72 Neb. 162, 100 N. W. 149;
County or Chester v. Brower, 117 Pa.
St. 647, 12 Atl. 577; Searle v. Lead,
10 S. D. 312, 73 N. W. 101, 39 L.R.A.
345 ; Gainsville etc. R. R. Co. v. Hall,
78 Tex. 169, 14 S. W. 259, 3 Am. R. R.
& Corp. Rep. 251, 9 L.R.A. 298; Tide-
water Ry. Co. V. Shartzer, 107 Va.
562, 59 S. E. 407, 17 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 1053; Brown v. City of
Seattle, 5 Wash. 35, 31 Pac. 313, 32
Pac. 214, 7 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
64; Smith v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 39
Wash. 355, 81 Pac. 840, 109 Am. St.
Rep. 889, 70 L.R.A. 1018; Johnson v.
Parkersburg, 16 W. Va. 402, 37 Am.
Rep. 779. In Galveston etc. R. R.
Co. V. Fuller, 63 Tex. 467, the Su-
preme Court of Texas says: "This
language is broader than that used
in the former constitutions of this
State, and was doubtless intended to
meet all cases in which, even in the
proper prosecution of a public work
or purpose, the right or property of
any person, in a pecuniary way, may
be injuriously affected by reason of
the thing being made thereby less
valuable, or its use by the owner
restricted by the public use to which
it is wholly or partially applied,
without compensation having been
first made to the owner. It is also
not improbable that it was intended,
by the language found in the present
constitution, to meet and correct
r ils which had sometimes been
thought to result to the property-
owner from a narrow and technical
meaning sometimes put by the courts
upon the word 'taken' used in the
former constitutions of this State and
in the constitutions of the most of
the other States. The word 'prop-
erty,' as used in the section of the
constitution referred to, is doubtless
used in its legal sense, and means not
only the thing owned, but also every
right which accompanies ownership
and its incidents. Thus considered,
under the rules established by the
great weight of judicial decisions,
and opinions of elementary writers
eminent for their learning, the facts
of this case amount to a taking of
private property for a public use."
p. 469. * « * "The word 'dam-
aged' is evidently used in the sense
660
EMINEISTT DOMAIN-.
360
law of the State was not meaningless. But it would be meaning-
less if it should be adjudged that the constitution of 1870 gave
no additional or greater security to private property sought to
be appropriated to public use than was guaranteed by the former
constitution." *^
§ 360 (232a), The words in question should be liber-
ally construed. The provisions of the constitution requir-
ing compensation to be made for property taken, injured or dam-
aged for public use, are intended for the protection of private
rights. They are remedial in character. They should, there-
fore, be liberally construed in favor of the individual whose
property is affected, and the authorities so hold.*^ "The lan-
guage of the constitution is to be construed liberally so as to
carry out and not defeat the purpose for which it was
adopted." **
§ 361 (233), They include any physical injury to prop-
erty not held to be a taking. In the chapters on What Conr
in, which tlie word 'injured' is ordi-
na,rily understood. By damage is
meant 'every loss or diminution of
what, is . 9, man's own, occasioned by
the fault of another,' whether this re-
sults directly to the thing owned, or
be but an interference with the right
which the owner has to the legal and
pi:t)per use of his own. If by the con-
struction of a railway or other public
work an injury peculiar to a given
property be inflicted upon it, or its
owner be deprived of its legal and
proper use, or of any right therein or
thereto ; that is, if an injury, not
suffered by that particular property
or right only in common with other
property or rights in the same com-
munity or section, by reason of the
general fact that the public works
exist, be inflicted, then such property
may be said to be damaged." p. 470.
Compare Stanwood v. Maiden, 157
Mass. 17, 31 N. E. 702, 16 L.R.A. 591.
4iChicago v. Taylor, 125 U. S. 161,
8 S. C. 820. Section quoted and ap-
proved in Tidewater Ry. Co. v.
Shartzer, 107 Va. 562, 59 S. E. 407,
17L.R.A.(N.S.) 1053.
4 2City of Pueblo v. Strait, 20 Golo.
13, 36 Pac. 790, 47 Am. St. Rep. 273,
24 L.R.A. 392; Allen v. Common-
wealth, 188 Mass. 59, 74 N. E. 287, 69
L.R.A. 599; Schaller v. City of
Omaha, 23 Neb. 325, 36 N. W. 533;
City of Omaha v. Kramer, 25 Neb.
492, 41 N. W. 295, 13 Am. St. Rep.
504; Matter of Grade Crossing Com-
missioners, 59 App. Div. 498, 69 N.
Y. S. 52; S. C. affirmed, 168 N. Y.
659; Paris Mt. Water Co. v. Green-
ville, 53 S. C. 82, 30 S. E. 699; Tide-
water Ry. Co. V. Shartzer, 107 Va.
562, 59 S. E. 407, 17 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 1053. In Boyd v. United
States, 116 U. S. 616, 635, it is said
that "constitutional provisions for
the security of person and property
should be liberally construed. A
close and literal construction de-
prives them of half their efiicacy, and
leads to gradual depreciation of the
right, as if it consisted more in
sound than in substance. It is the
duty of courts to be watchful for the
constitutional rights of the citizen,
and against any stealthy encroach-
ments thereon."
4 3County of Chester v. Brower, 117
Pa. St. 647, 12 Atl. 577.
§ 362 PEOPEETT DAMAGED OE INJURED. 661
stitutes a Taking, we have endeavored to show that any physical
injury to property is a taking, but all the decisions do not bear
out this conclusion.** In States which hold that there is any
kind of physical injury which is not a taking, the words in
question would clearly cover such physical injury. Thus any
invasion of one's premises by water or gases, or by casting upon
them smoke or cinders, or affecting them by vibrations, if not
held to be a taking, would certainly be a damage or injury within
the constitutional provisions now under consideration.*' In
order that smoke, cinders, gases^ vibrations, etc., should amount
to a taking, they must constitute a common law nuisance.** But
the invasion of property by any of these agencies, in a degree
to materially affect its value, is a damage or injury, though not
a nuisance.*^ Probably mere noise would not give a right of
recovery unless it amounted to a nuisance,** nor vibrations, un-
less they produced a physical injury.**
§ 362 (234) . Also any interference with private rights
not held to be a taking. We have also endeavored to . show
that any interference with any private right appurtenant to
property, such as the right of support, the right to pure air, etc.,
was a taking for which compensation must be made under our
constitutions as they existed prior to 1870.'" Many courts,
*i8ee ante, §§ 62-68; chapters iii., Daniel v. Ft. Worth etc. Ey. Co., 96
iv., v., vi. Tex. 327, 72 S. W. 578; St. Louis etc.
*sAnte, §§ 356 et. seq.; 111. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Shaw, 99 Tex. 559, 92 S.
K. E, Co. V. Trustees of Schools, 212 W. 30, 122 Am. St. Rep. 663, 6 L.R.A.
111. 406, 72 N. E. 39; Davenport etc. (N.S.) 245; Texas etc. Ry. Co. V. Ed-
Ey. Co. V. Sinnet, 111 111. App. 75; rington, 100 Tex. 496, 101 S. W. 441,
Kuhn V. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., Ill 111. 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 988; Stockdale v.
App. 323 ; Henderson v. McClain, 102 Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., 28 Utah
Ky. 402, 43 S. W. 700, 39 L.E.A. 349; 201, 77 Pac. 849; Tidewater Ry. Co.
Willis V. Ky. & Ind. Bridge Co., 104 v. Shartzer, 107 Va. 562, 59 S.
Ky. 186, 46 S.W. 488; Covington etc. E. 407, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1053;
E. E. & Bridge Co. v. Kleymeier, 105 Smith v. St. Paul etc. Ey. Co., 39
Ky. 609, 49 S. W. 484; King v. Vicks- Wash. 355, 81 Pac. 840, 109 Am. St.
burg Ey. & Lt. Co., 88 Miss. 456, 42 Eep. 889, 70 L.E.A. 1018.
So. 204, 117 Am. St. Eep. 749, 6 ieAnte, §§ 235-238.
L.E.A. (N.S.) 1036; Louisville etc. i^See cases already cited in this
Terminal Co. v. Jacobs, 109 Tenn. section. Also ante, § 357.
727, 72 S. W. 954, 61 L.E.A. 188; ^sGossett v. Southern Ey. Co.,'115
Louisville etc. Terminal Co. v. Tenn. 376, 89 S. W; 737, 112 Am. St.
Lellyett, 114 Tenn. 368, 85 S. W. 881, Eep. 846, 1 L.E.A. (N.S.) 97.
1 L.E.A.(N.S.) 49; Gossett v. So. Ey. "111. Cent. E. E. Co. v. Trustees
Co., 115 Tenn. 376, 89 S. W. 737, 112 of Schools, 212 111 406, 72 N. E. 39.
Am. St. Eep. 846, 1 L.E.A. (N.S.) 97; so Ante, §§ 234-238.
662 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 363
however, have held otherwise. We think it clear that, where
such interference is held not to be a taking, it must be held
to be a damage or injury. So far, we think, no question can
arise as to the interpretation of the words under consideration.
§ 363 (235). And, generally, any damage to property
arising from an interference with a right, public or private,
which does not amount to a taking. After forty years of
litigation in England over the proper construction of the words,
injuriously affected, we think it may now be regarded as settled,
that they include any damage to property produced by an in-
terference with a right, either public or private, which the owner
or occupier is entitled to make use of in connection with the
property, and the loss or impairment of which renders the prop-
erty less valuable.^^ In McCarthy's Case the Lord Chancellor
says : "My Lords, in his very able argument at your Lordship's
bar, Mr. Thesinger stated what he would rely upon as a defini-
tion of the right to compensation, and, having considered this
case very fully, I myself should not be disposed to find fault
with any part of that definition, although definitions are always
matters of very considerable difficulty. Mr. Thesinger stated
that the test which he would submit as one which he thought
would explain and reconcile the various cases upon this subject,
was this, that where by the construction of works there is a
physical interference with any right, public or private, which
the owners or occupiers of property are by law entitled to make
use of, in connection with such property, and which right gives
an additional market value to such property, apart from the uses
to which any particular owner or occupier might put it, there is
a title to compensation, if, by reason of such interference, the
property, as a property, is lessened in value." ^*
Substantially the same test is adopted by the supreme court
of Illinois in interpreting the word "damaged" in the consti-
tution of that State. "In all cases," says the court, "to warrant
a recovery, it must appear that there has been some direct physic-
al disturbance of a right, either public or private, which the
plaintiff enjoys in connection with his property, and which
6iThe doctrine is settled and the 5 zMetropolitan Board of Works v.
cases reviewed in McCarthy v. Metro- McCarthy, 7 E. & I. App. Cas. 243,
politan Board of Works, L. R. 7 253.
Eng. & Irish App. 243, and Cale-
donian Railway v. Walker's Trustees,
L. R. 7 App. Cas. 259.
§ 363
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED.
663
gives to it an additional value, and that by reason of such dis-
turbance he has sustained a special damage with respect to his
property in excess of that sustained by the public generally." ®*
In a more recent case the same court has held the disturbance
of the right need not necessarily be a "direct physical disturb-
ance" in order to bring the case within the constitution. A
railroad was constructed alongside a highway and the farm op-
posite was diminished in value because access thereto over the
highway was rendered dangerous and inconvenient by the opera-
tion of the road. It was held that the farm was damaged within
the meaning of the constitution.^*
B3Rigney v. Chicago, 102 111. 64,
81. This language is quoted and ap-
proved as a proper Interpretation of
the Illinois constitution by the Su-
preme Court of the United States in
the case of Chicago v. Taylor, 125 U.
S. 161. And see Aldrieh v. Met. West
Side El. R. R. Co., 195 111. 456, 63
N. E. 155, 57 L.R.A. 237; 111.
Cent. R. R. Co. v Trustees of Schools,
212 111 406, 72 N. E. 39; Chicago etc.
R. R. Co. V. Coggswell, 44 111. App.
88; Met. West Side El. R. R. Co. v.
Goll, 100 111. App. 323.
5 4 Lake Erie & W. R. R. Co. v.
Scott, 132 111. 429, 24 N. E. 78, 8
L.R.A. 330. After referring to the
Rigney case, above cited, the court
says: "We are inclined to think that
there is no good reason for dis-
tinguishing between an injury aris-
ing from an interference with ap-
pellee's right to the advantages the
highway gave his farm, caused by a
physical obstruction placed therein,
as in the foregoing case, and where
the same kind of an injury is pro-
duced by the operation of trains be-
side it. In either case the advan-
tages given the farm by the highway
have to some extent been destroyed,
and the land lessened in value. If it
be conceded that the result of oper-
ating the road has in fact injured
appellee's farm in a way not common
to the public, and thereby made it
less valuable, it would seem to follow
as a necessary consequence that it
has been damaged for public use.
Such operation, being lawful, and
confined to the right of way, does
not release appellant from liability;
for it would clearly be liable for
damages caused by an unlawful act,
and, as we understand the constitu-
tional provision that private prop-
erty shall not be taken nor damaged
for public use without just compen-
sation, it means to cover cases
where damages are caused by acts
that are legal, and entirely within
the power of the corporation perform-
ing them, but in the doing of which,
for the use and benefit of the public,
private property is damaged. It fol-
lows, therefore, that appellant's
proposition that 'a corporation is not
liable unless an individual doing the
same thing on his private property
would be,' as applied to this case is
not sound. An individual cannot
legally take or damage private prop-
erty for public use, but a railroad
company can lawfully do either, if in
so doing it makes compensation."
This is from the opinion of the ap-
pellate court, adopted and approved
by the Supreme Court. The leaving
of abutting property in a condition,
or the use of it in a way, to endanger
travel on the adjacent street, is un-
664
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 363
In speaking of the word damaged in the constitution of Ne-
braska, the supreme court of that State says : "It -was to grant
relief in cases where there was no direct injury to the real
estate itself, but some physical disturbance of a right which the
owner possesses in connection with his estate, by reason of which
he sustains special injury in respect to such property in excess
of that sustained by the public at large." ^* Similar conclusions
have been reached in other States.^" The test here proposed is
doubtedly a public nuisance. Elliott,
Roads and Streets, p. S42 et seq. The
operation of a railroad on private
property adjacent to a street or high-
way, without authority of law, in
such a manner as to frighten horses
and endanger travel, would, there-
fore, be to maintain a public
nuisance. If the use of the property
on the opposite side of the street was
thereby interfered with so as to
diminish its rental or salable value,
the owner would suffer a special dam-
age, and would be entitled to main-
tain a private action. Consequently,
it, would follow that when the same
damage results from a, railroad au-
thorized by law, the owner would
have a remedy under the constitu-
tion; and the case is no exception to
the general rule.
sBGottschalk v. Chicago, Burling-
ton & Quincy R. R. Co., 14 Neb. 550,
560; Omaha Belt R. R. Co. v. Mc-
Dermott, 25 Neb. 717, 41 N. W. 648;
Stehr v. Mason City etc. Ry. Co., 77
Neb. 641, 110 N. W. 701. But com-
pare City of Omaha v. Kramer, 25
Neb. 492, 41 N. W. 295, 13 Am. St.
Rep. 504; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v.
Hazels, 26 Neb. 364, 42 N. W. 93;
Schaller v. City of Omaha, 23 Neb.
325, 36 N. W. 533. See next section.
BSEachus V. Los Angeles Consol.
El. R. R. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 37 Pac.
7S0, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149; City of
Pueblo V. Strait, 20 Colo. 13, 36 Pac.
790; Peel v. Atlanta, 85 Ga. 138, 11
S. E. 582, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
413; Campbell v. Metropolitan St.
:rt. R. Co., 82 Ga. 320, 9 S. E. 1078;
Bramlette v. Louisville etc. R. E.
Co., 113 Ky. 300, 68 S. W. 145; Lud-
low V. Detwiller, 20 Ky. L. R. 894,
47 S. W. 881 ; City of Vicksburg v.
Herman, 72 Miss. 211, 16 So. 434;
King V. Vicksburg Ry. & Lt. Co., 88
Miss. 456, 42 So. 204, 117 Am. St. Rep.
749, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1036; Vail de
Vere v. Kansas City, 107 Mo. 83, 17
S. W. 695, 28 Am. St. Rep. 396, 5
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 196; Penn-
sylvania R. R. Co. v. Marchant, 119
Pa. St. 541, 13 Atl. 690, 4 Am. St.
Rep. 659; Pennsylvania S. V. R. R.
Co. V. Walsh, 124 Pa. St. 544, 17 Atl.
186; Foust v. Pa. R. R. Co., 212 Pa.
St. 213, 61 Atl. 829; Trinity & S. R.
R. Co. V. Meadows, 73 Tex. 32, 11
S. W. 145; Gainsville etc. R. R. Co.
V. Hall, 78 Tex. 169, 14 S. W. 259, 9
L.R.A. 298, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
251; Ft. Worth etc. R. R. Co. v.
Downie, 82 Tex. 383, 17 S. W. 620;
Brown v. City of Seattle, 5 Wash. 35,
31 Pac. 313, 32 Pac. Rep. 214, 7 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 64; Mason City
etc. R. R. Co. V. Wolf, 148 Fed. 961,
78 C. C. A. 589. In the last case,
which is under the constitution of
Nebraska, the court says: "The
right of recovery under the State
constitution is not limited to those
cases in which the property of a pri-
vate owner is actually invaded or ap-
propriated by a railroad company-.
It extends to cases whejre the value
of the property is depreciated by the
disturbance of some right, either pub-
lic or private, which the owner en-
§ 365 PEOPEKTY DAMAGED OE INJUEED. 665
one which can be readily applied in all cases, which gives ample
scope to the words in question, and which affords full protec-
tion to the owners of private property, without casting any un-
necessary burden upon those engaged in works of a public nature.
§ 364 (235a). When claim based on an interference
with a public right, the plaintiff's damages must be special
and peculiar. According to the rule laid down in the last sec-
tion the owner of property may recover, as for a damage or
injury, under the constitution, though the only actual injury or
wrongful act complained of consists of an obstruction or inter-
ference with a right which he enjoys in common with the pub-
lic. In such case, it is the universal rule that the plaintiff must
show an injury or damage which is special and peculiar to him-
self ; as distinguished from that suffered by the public at large.''^
But diminution in value of the property, resulting from the in-
terference, is a special and peculiar injury within the rule.^^
§ 365 (235b). Different views regarding the proper
construction of the word "damaged" or "injured." In en-
deavoring to give a general interpretation to the words damaged
or injured, as used in recent constitutions, courts have usually
adopted one or the other of the following views: 1. That the
words embrace only what are known as actionable damages, that
is, such damages as would forrh the basis of an action at common
joys in connection therewith. It 124 Cal. 274, 57 Pac. 82; Town of
matters not whether the disturbance Longmont v. Parker, 14 Colo. 386, 23
proceeds from works and operations Pac. 443, 20 Am. St. Rep. 277, 2 Am.
upon public highways, or from those R. R. & Corp. Rep. 91 ; Fairchild v.
upon grounds acquired and owned by City of St. Louis, 97 Mo. 85, 11 S. W.
the company itself; and in the latter 60; Carman v. City of St. Louis, 9V
case the method of acquisition. Mo. 92, 11 S. W. 60; Glaessner v.
whether by purchase or by the exer- Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass., 100
cise of the power of eminent domain. Mo. 508, 13 S. W. 707, 2 Am. R. R. &
is immaterial. The right of recovery Corp. Rep. 420 ; Van de Vere v. Kan-
includes damage to the property sas City, 107 Mo. 83, 17 S. W. 695, 28
from noise, smoke, cinders, and vibra- Am. St. Rep. 396, 5 Am. R. R. &
tions of the ground, and the obstruc- Corp. Rep. 196; Gates v. Kansas City
tion or impairment of the right of etc. R. R. Co., Ill Mo. 28, 19 S. W.
the owner to make use of public high- Rep. 957; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v.
ways in the vicinity. The measure Marchant, 119 Pa. St. 541, 13 Atl.
of the recovery is the difference be- 690; Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co. v.
tween the market value of the prop- Walsh, 124 Pa. St. 544, 17 Atl. 186;
erty before the construction and oper- Trinity etc. R. R. Co. v. Meadows, 73
ation of the railroad and its market Tex. 32, 11 S. W. 145.
value afterwards." p. 967. ssAnte, § 199; post, § 951.
5 'Brown v. Board of Supervisors,
666
EMIN^ENT DOMAIN.
§ 365
law, but for the statutory authority.^* 2. That they embrace
only damages caused by some physical injury to the property,
or by an interference with some private right appurtenant to the
property, or of some public right, which the owner is entitled
to make use of in connection with the property.^" 3. That
5 9Brown v. San Francisco, 124 Cal.
274, 57 Pac. 82; Town of Longmont
V. Parker, 14 Colo. 386, 23 Pac. 443,
28 Am. St. Eep. 396, 2 Am. R. E. &
Corp. Rep. 91; Peel v. Atlanta, 85
Ga. 138, 11 S. E. 582, 2 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 413; Campbell v. Metro-
politan St. R. R. Co., 82 Ga. 320, 9 S.
E. 1078; Austin v. Augusta Terminal
Ry. Co., 108 Ga. 671, 34 S. E. 852, 47
L.R.A. 755; Ga. R. R. & B. Co. v.
Maddox, 116 Ga. 64, 42 S. E. 315;
Baker v. Boston El. Ry. Co., 183
Mass. 178, 66 N. E. 711; Coster v.
Albany, 43 N. Y. 399; Pennsylvania
R. R. Co. V. Marchant, 119 Pa. St.
541, 13 Atl. 690; Pennsylvania S. V.
R. R. Co. V. Walsh, 124 Pa. St. 544,
17 Atl. 186; Trinity & S. R. R. Co. v.
Meadows, 73 Tex. 32, 11 S. W. 145;
Gainsville etc. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 78
Tex. 169, 14 S. W. 259, 3 Am. R. E. &
Corp. Eep. 251 ; Haney v. G. C. & S.
F. E. R. Co., 3 Tex. Ct. of App. p.
336, §§ 278-280; Smitb v. St. Paul
etc. Ry. Co., 39 Wash. 355, 81 Pac.
840, 109 Am. St. Rep. 889, 70 L.R.A.
1018. And see Henderson Belt R. R.
Co. V. Deehamp, 95 Ky. 219, 24 S. W.
605; McMahon v. St. Louis etc. R. R.
Co., 41 La. An. 827, 6 So. 640. In the
case of Peel v. Atlanta, 85 Ga. 138,
11 S. E. 582, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
413, it is said : "The effect of such
provisions is not to authorize com-
pensation in all cases where property
may be injured by public works, but
only where the enjoyment of some
right of the plaintiff in reference to
his property is interfered with, and
the property thereby rendered less
valuable. The test is, would the in-
jury, if caused by a private person
without authority of statute, give the
plaintiff a cause of action against
such person? If so, then he is en-
titled to compensation notwith-
standing the statute which legalizes
the damaging work. The constitu-
tional or statutory provision simply
prevents the defendant from shield-
ing himself under legislative au-
thority against liability for damages
consequent upon the work. Hence, if
no part of the plaintiff's land is
taken, and no other right of his is
disturbed, he cannot have compensa-
tion." And in Trinity etc. R. E. Co.
v. Meadows, 73 Tex. 32, 11 S. W. 145,
the court says: "We do not under-
stand that it was intended to give an
action against those constructing
public works, for acts which if done
by persons in pursuit of a private
enterprise would not have been
actionable. * * * If a corporation do
an act which it acquires a right to
do by virtue of its franchise granted
for public use, and if a person hav-
ing no franchise could not have done
the act lawfully, and the property of
another is directly damaged, then we
understand that the constitutional
provision requires that notwithstand-
ing the franchise the corporation
shall be liable." On the subject of
actionable damage see Stanwood v.
Madden, 157 Mass. 17, 31 N. E. 702,
16 L.E.A. 591 ; Nichols v. Eichmond,
162 Mass. 170, 38 N. E. 501.
6 0 Van de Vere v. Kansas City, 107
Mo. 83, 17 S. W. 695, 28 Am. St. Eep.
396, 5 Am. E. E. & Corp. Rep. 196.
"Whether the plaintiff must now, in
all cases, where claiming that his
property has been 'damaged' for pub-
§ 365
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE INJUEED,
667
they cover any loss or injury whieli may properly be taken into
consideration, in estimating damages to the balance of a tract
when part is taken.®' 4. That they embrace any depreciation
caused by the construction and operation of works for public
use, no matter how occasioned.*^ The third and fourth of these
rules of construction doubtless amount to the same thing, that
property is damaged whenever it is depreciated in value by the
construction or operation of works for public use. The first rule
is doubtless too restricted, since in some cases and in some juris-
dictions, it would exclude compensation for injuries, which were
lie use, show that the injury is one
for which he might have maintained
an action if the act had not been done
by authority of law, we need not say
in this case. What we do say is this :
that he must show that the property
itself, or some right or easement con-
nected therewith, is directly affected,
and that it is specially affected."
See also cases cited in last section
and Gates v. Kansas City etc. R. R.
Co., Ill Mo. 28, 19 S. W. 957.
siBrewer, J., in Omaha Horse R.
R. Co. V. Cable Tramway Co., 32 Fed.
727, in speaking of the construction
of the word "damaged," says: "It is
futile to attempt a general answer,
or to lay down a rule to determine all
cases. One proposition may be af-
firmed. Whenever a proposed public
use causes to property, no part of
which is taken, an injury of such a
character as, if it accrued when a
portion of the property was taken,
would be a proper element of dam-
ages to the part not taken, there is
a damage within the scope and pro-
tection of this constitutional pro-
vision, entitling the owner to compen-
sation." As to what damages may
thus be taken into consideration see
post, § 748.
62ln City of Omaha v. Kramer, 25
Neb. 492, 41 N. W. 295, 13 Am. St.
Rep. 504, the court says that "the
words, 'or damaged,' in section 21,
art. 1, of the constitution, include all
actual damages, resulting from the
exercise of the right of eminent do-
main, which diminish the market
value of private property. ♦ * *
The fact that damages are conse-
quential will not preclude a recovery
if the construction and operation of
the public improvement is the cause
of the injury, and it is not necessary
that the damages be caused by tres-
pass, or an actual physical invasion
of the owner's real estate. The test
is, excluding general benefits, is the
property in fact damaged ? If so, the
owner is entitled to compensation. It
is not within the scope of the au-
thority of the law-making depart-
ment of the government to take the
property of A. and give it to B., even
if B. has the right to condemn prop-
erty for public use. This being so,
it is equally beyond the power of such
department to confer the right on B.
to damage or destroy the property of
A. without making compensation
therefor. The right of the legislature
to authorize the taking of private
property for public use is based on
the condition that an equivalent in
value be paid to the owner. If the
property is diminished in actual
value by reason of a public improve-
ment, it is to the extent of the dimi-
nution taken for public use, as much
as if it was directly appropriated.
The cases differ in regard to the
mode of appropriation only. In the
668 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 3615
intended to be idemnified.®^ The matter is further considered
in the following section.
§ 366 (236). Damages not embraced by the words in
question. It is evident that the rule of interpretation laid
down in section 365 will not embrace every species of loss or de-
preciation to property which is due directly to public improve-
ments. Unless property is physically affected or the owner is
disturbed in the enjoyment of some right which he is entitled
to make use of in connection with his property, he cannot re-
cover. If the loss or depreciation arises from the mere proximity
of the work or improvement, as from its unsightly nature or
its incongruity with the uses to which the neighboring property
is put, there can be no recovery. There are no decided cases to
which we can refer on this point, but we can easily illustrate
our meaning. Suppose the public authorities purchase or con-
demn a lot in a fashionable residence locality and erect and main-
tain a jail thereon, and suppose the direct effect is to depreciate
the surrounding property twenty-five to fifty per cent. Is the
property so depreciated damaged, injured, or injuriously af-
fected within the meaning of the provisions in question? We
answer in the negative, because the owners have not been dis-
turbed, either in the enjoyment of their estates, or of any right
connected with their estates. Their property and rights remain
as before. The same effect might be produced if an individual
should establish on the same lot a boarding-house, a school or
a factory. It seems to us the true rule is that, unless the depre-
ciation is due to the disturbance of some right, no recovery can
be had. In any other case the loss is the same as is often sus-
tained by one proprietor by the lawful use of adjacent or neigh-
boring property, and is damnum absque injuria.
one case, all the property is taken, mere diminution in value would sus-
while in the other it is taken only to tain a recovery. In the Kramer case
the extent that, it is diminished in the street in front of plaintiff was
value ; and in either case the owner occupied by a viaduct. In the Hazels
is entitled to be compensated for his case the street on which plaintiflF'
loss." The case of Pennsylvania R. abutted was obstructed and closed a
R. Co. V. Marchant, 119 Pa. St. 541, block west of his property. Com-
13 Atl. 690, 4 Am. St. Rep. 659, is pare Woodbury v. Beverly, 153 Mass.
referred to and disapproved. The 245, 26 N. E. 851.
Kramer case is approved in Chicago <>3See Woodbury v. Beverly, 153
etc. R. R. Co. V. Hazels, 26 Neb. 364, Mass. 245, 26 N. E. 851 ; Tidewater
42 N. W. Rep. 93. But in neither of Ry. Co. v. Shartzer, 107 Va. 562, 59
these cases was it decided that a S. E. 407, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1053.
§ 366 PBOPEK.TT DAMAGED 03i INJURED. 669
The foregoing remains as written in the first edition, but the
conclusions stated have been verified by recent decisions. In
speaking generally of the constitutional provisions in question,
the supreme court of California says: "The constitution does
not, however, authorize a remedy for every diminution in the
value of property that is caused by a public improvement. The
damage for which compensation is to be made is a damage to
the property itself, and does not include a mere infringement
of the owner's personal pleasure or enjoyment. Merely render-
ing; private property less desirable for certain purposes, or even
causing personal annoyance or discomfort in its use, will not
constitute the damage contemplated by the constitution ; but the
property itself must suffer some diminution in substance, or
be rendered intrinsically less valuable, by reason of the pub-
lie use. The erection of a county jail or a county hospital may
impair the comfort or pleasure of the residents in that vicinity,
and to that extent render the property less desirable, and even
less salable; but this is not an injury to the property itself, so
much as an influence affecting its use for certain purposes. But
whenever the enjoyment by the plaintiff of some right in ref-
erence to his property is interfered with, and thereby the prop-
erty itself is made intrinsically less valuable, he has suffered
a damage for which he is entitled to compensation." ®*
Although the opinion has been expressed in some cases that
there could be a recovery for mere depreciation caused by a
public improvement or the use of public works,®^ yet a recovery
has not been allowed in any case, unless there was some physical
injury to the plaintiff's property, as by noise, smoke, gases, vi-
brations or otherwise, an interference with the street in front of
his property, or with some right appurtenant thereto, or which
he was entitled to make use of in connection with his property.
On the other hand, several cases have held that mere deprecia-
tion, caused by the proximity of a public improvement, afforded
no ground for redress. Thus it has been held that the erection
of a fire-engine house "" or jail "' on a lot adjoining plaintiff's
afforded no cause of action, though his property was depreciated
6 4Eachus V. Los Angeles Consol. Mo. 83, 17 S. W. 695, 5 Am. R. R. &
El. R. R. Co., 103 Cal. 614, 37 Pac. Corp. Rep. 196, 28 Am. St. Rep. 396.
750, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149. 67Bacon v. Walker, 77 Ga. 336;
esSee cases cited in last section. Long v. Elberton, 109 Ga. 28, 34 S.
note 62. E. 333, 77 Am. St. Rep. 363, 46 L.R.A.
eeVan de Vere v. Kansas City, 107 428.
670 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 366
thereby. So where the plaintiff's property was depreciated by
the laying out of a new road which diverted travel from past his
premises.** The principle of these decisions would cover the
case of a school-house, court-house, market or other public build-
ing, erected upon adjacent property. In almost every city there
are localities in which the erection and use of such a building
would depreciate the surrounding property. In such case there
is no invasion or physical injury of the property affected, nor
an interference with any right, public or private, connected there-
with. The only ground of complaint is, that one owner, by a
perfectly legitimate use of his property, has depreciated the
value of the adjoining property. The same result might have
happened by the establishment of a store or factory. Every
owner takes the chance of having the value of his property en-
hanced or diminished by the use made of surrounding property,
and the character of the improvements put upon it. He has no
cause of complaint on account of the nature of such uses or im-
provements, unless they amount in law to a nuisance.*^ The
grievances which lead to the insertion of the words "damaged"
or "injured" in recent constitutions, did not consist in the fact
that such damages as have just been referred to went without
redress, but in the fact that, under the restricted interpretation
put upon the word "taken," private property might be subjected
to physical injuries, and valuable rights appurtenant thereto or
connected therewith, might be impaired or destroyed for public,
use without compensation.'"* These words were not inserted
for the purpose of preventing the public from doing what every,
private individual may do without liability to his neighbor.
They were not intended to confer a right of action for a use of
property by the public, which a private individual might make
without legislative authority.'' "^
esHuff V. Donehoo, 109 Ga. 638, 34 Maddox, 89 Ala. 181, 7 So. 433, 2 Am.
S. E. 1035 ; Elbert County v. Swift, 2 R. R. & Corp. Rep. 426; City of
Ga. App. 47, 58 S. E. 396. Vicksburg v. Herman, 72 Miss. 211,
6 9In Peel v. Atlanta, 85 Ga. 138, 16 So. 434; Van de Vere v. Kansas
11 S. E. 582, 2 Am. R. R. & Corp. City, 107 Mo. 83, 17 S. W. 695, 28 Am.
Rep. 413, the city bought a lot next St. Rep. 396, 6 Am. R. R. & Corp.
to plaintiff and laid it out as a street. Rep. 196; Trinity & S. R. R. Co. v.
It was held the plaintiff's property Meadows, 73 Tex. 32, 11 S. W. 145;
was not damaged. And see Trinity Brown v. City of Seattle, 5 Wash. 35,
etc. R. R. Co. V. Meadows, 73 Tex. 32, 31 Pac. 313, 32 Pac. Rep. 214, 7 Am.
11 S. W. 145. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 64.
roCity Council of Montgomery v. 'i/See Aldrich v. Met. West Side
§ 366
PEOPEETY DAMAGED OE IiVJCEED.
671
El. R. R. Co., 195 111. 456, 63 N. E.
155, 57 L.R.A. 237; Smith v. St. Paul
etc. Ry. Co., 39 Wash. 355, 81 Pac.
840, 109 Am. St. Rep. 889, 70 L.R.A.
1018.
The leading cases in the United
States on the construction of the
words in question are here given:
City Council of Montgomery v. Town-
send, 80 Ala. 489 ; Hot Springs R. R.
Co. V. Williamson, 45 Ark. 429;
Reardon v. San Francisco, 66 Cal.
492, 56 Am. Rep. 109 ; Eachus v. Los
Angeles Consol. El. R. R. Co., 103
Cal. 614, 37 Pac. 750, 42 Am. St.
Rep. 149; Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo.
113 ; City of Pueblo v. Strait, 20 Colo.
13, 36 Pac. 790, 47 Am. St. Rep. 273,
24 L.R.A. 392; Atlanta v. Green, 67
Ga. 386; Campbell v. Metropolitan
St. R. R. Co., 82 Ga. 320, 9 S. E. 1078;
Rigney v. Chicago, 102 111. 64; Chi-
cago &, Western Indiana R. R. Co. v.
Ayres, 106 111. 511 ; Lake Erie & W.
R. R. Co. V. Scott, 132 111. 429, 24 N.
E. 78, 8 L.R.A. 330; Wiley v. El wood,
134 IlL 281, 25 N. E. 570; Chicago
etc. R. R. Co. V. Drake, 148 111. 226,
35 N. E. 750, 9 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 73 ; Gottschalk v. Chicago, Bur-
lington & Quincy R. R. Co., 14 Neb.
550; Omaha etc. R. R. Co. v. Janecek,
30 Neb. 276, 46 N. W. 478, 27 Am. St.
Rep. 399, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep.
268; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Mar-
chant, 119 Pa. St. 541, 13 Atl. 690, 4
Am. St. Rep. 659; Mellor v. City of
Philadelphia, 160 Pa. St. 614, 28 Atl.
991; Galveston etc. R. R. Co. v.
Fuller, 63 Tex. 467; Gainsvill^ etc.
R. R. Co. V. Hall, 78 Tex. 169, 14 S.
W. 259, 9 L.R.A. 298, 3 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 251 ; Johnson v. Parkers-
burg, 16 W. Va. 402. The leading
cases in England are McCarthy v.
Metropolitan Board of Works, 7 Eng.
& I. App. 243; Caledonian Railway
V. Walker's Trustees, 7 App. Cas. 259.
Damages by reason of negligence in
the construction of works are, of
course, not included. Edmundson v.
Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co., Ill Pa. St.
316.
CHAPTER IX.
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY.
§ 367 (237). Power of the legislature generally. The
power of eminent domain, being an incident of sovereignty, is
inherent in the federal government and in the several States, by
virtue of their sovereignty.^ It does not exist in any subordinate
political division or public corporation unless granted by the
sovereign power. Consequently it does not exist in any terri-
torial government unless it has been expressly granted by con-
gress.^ This power, with all its incidents, is vested in the
legislatures of the several States by the general grant of legis-
lative powers contained in the constitution. From this it fol^
lows, first, that the power can only be exercised by virtue of a
legislative enactment ; ^ second, that the time, manner and oc-
1 Fulton V. Town of Dover, 8 Hous-
ton (Del.), 78; S. C. 6 Del. Ch. 1;
Jones V. No. Ga. Elec. Co., 125 Ga.
618, 54 S. C. 85, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 122;
Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Harless,
131 Ind. 446, 29 N. E. 1062, 15 L.R.A.
505; Lafayette etc. Ry. Co. v. But-
ner, 162 Ind. 460, 70 N. E. 529; Sisson
V. Board of Supervisors, 128 la. 442,
104 N. W. 454, 70 L.R.A. 440; Peo-
ple V. Fisher, 190 N. Y. 468, 83 N. E.
482; Darlington v. United States, 82
Pa. St. 382; Spring City Gas Light
Co. V. Pennsylvania S. V. R. R. Co.,
167 Pa. St. 6, 31 Atl. 368; Winona
etc. R. R. Co. V. Watertown, 4 S. D.
323, 56 N. W. 1077; Painter v. St.
Clair, 98 Va. 85, 34 S. E. 989 ; Balti-
more & Ohio R. R. Co. V. P. W. & Ky.
R. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 812, 841 ; Kohl
V. United States, 91 U. S. 367;
United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315,
320; Jones v. Walker, 2 Paine C. C.
688. Ante, §§ 1-3.
2Newcomb v. Smith, 1 Chand. Wis.
71 ; Pratt v. Brown, 3 Wis. 603; Oury
V. Goodwin, 3 Ariz. 255, 26 Pac. 255;
Sanford v. Tucson, 8 Ariz. 247, 71
Pac. 247.
sin re Pet. of Alston, 1 Penn. Del.
359; Parham v. Decatur County, 9
Ga. 341 ; Tyson v. Rogers, 33 Ga. 473;
Sholl V. German Coal Co., 118 III.
427; Leeds v. Richmond, 102 Ind.
372; Richland School Tp. v. Over-
meyer, 164 Ind. 382, 73 N. E. 811;
Lake Keon Nav. etc. Co. v. Klein, 63
Kan. 484, 65 Pac. 684, 93 Am. St.
Rep. 299 ; Bethum v. Turner, 1 Me.
Ill, 10 Am. Dec. 36; Schmidt v. Dens-
more, 42 Mo. 225; Helena Power
Transmission Co. v. Spratt, 35 Mont.
108, 88 Pac. 773, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 567;
Claremont Ry. & Lt. Co. v. Putney,
73 N. H. 431, 62 Atl. 727; Matter of
Niagara Falls & W. R. R. Co., 108 N.
Y. 375, 15 N. E. 429; Matter of
Poughkeepsie Bridge Co., 108 N. Y.
483, 15 N. E. 601 ; Matter of Union
Elevated R. R. Co., 113 N. Y. 275, 21
672
i 367
THE STATUTOKY AUTHOBITT.
673
casion of its exercise are wholly in the control and discretion of
the legislature, except as restrained by the constitution,* "It
lies in its discretion to determine to what extent, on what occa-
sions, and under what circumstances this power shall be exer-
cised." ®
N. E. 81 ; Bridal Veil Lumber Co. v.
Johnson, 30 Ore. 205, 46 Pac. 790, 60
Am. St. Rep. 818, 34 L.R.A. 368;
Jacobs V. Clearview Water Supply
Co., 220 Pa. St. 388, 69 Atl. 870; Wal-
lace V. Richmond, 94 Va. 204;
Painter v. St. Clair, 98 Va. 85, 34 S.
E. 989; City of Tacoma v. State, 4
Wash. 64, 29 Pac. 847 ; Long v. Bill-
ings, 7 Wash. 267, 34 Pac. 936; St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 34
Fed. 774; United States v. Rauers,
70 Fed. 748.
In matter of Poughkeepsie Bridge
Co., 108 N. Y. 483, 490, it is said:
"The power of eminent domain which
resides in the State as an attribute
of sovereignty, is nevertheless dor-
mant until called into exercise by an
act of the legislature. Until a statute
authorizes an exercise of the power,
it is latent and potential merely, and
not active or efficient, and the State
can neither exercise the prerogative,
nor can it delegate its exercise, ex-
cept through the medium of legisla-
tion. Therefore it is that whenever
an attempt is made either by the of-
ficers of the State or by a corporation
organized for a public purpose to
take private property under the'
power of eminent domain, the of-
ficers or body claiming the right
must be able to point to a statute
conferring it. In the absence of stat-
utory authority private property can-
not be invaded by this power, how-
ever strong may be the reasons for
the appropriation."
4 Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Har-
less, 131 Ind. 446, 29 N. E. 1062, 15
L.R.A. 505; Lafayette etc. Ry. Co. v.
Butner, 162 Ind. 460, 70 N. B. 529;
Em. D.— 43.
Richland School Tp. v. Overmeyer,
164 Ind. 382, 73 N. E. 811; Central
Branch U. P. R. R. Co. v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. R. R. Co., 28 Kan. 453;
Van Witsen v. Gutman, 79 Md. 405,
29 Atl. 608, 24 L.R.A. 403; Swan v.
Williams et al., 2 Mich. 427; Fair-
child V. St. Paul, 46 Minn. 540, 49 N.
W. 325; State v. Engleman, 106 Mo.
628, 17 S. W. 759 ; Simpson v. Kansas
City, 111 Mo. 237, 20 S. W. 38; Sea-
comb V. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co., 49
How. Pr. 75; Bachler's Appeal, 90
Pa. St. 207 ; Winona etc. R. R. Co. v.
Watertown, 4 S. D. 323, 56 N. W.
1077; Samish River Boom Co. v.
Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586, 73
Pac. 670; Secombe v. Railroad Co.,
23 Wall. 108; St. Louis R. R. Co. v.
Thomas, 34 Fed. Rep. 774. In Swan
V. Williams, 2 Mich. 427, the court
says : "It rests in the wisdom of the
legislature to determine when, and
in what manner, the public neces-
sities require its exercise, and with
the reasonableness of the exercise of
that discretion courts will not inter-
fere." Wilkin V. First Div. of St.
Paul & Pacific R. R. Co., 16 Minn.
271; Weir v. St. Paul, Stillwater &
Taylor's Falls R. R. Co., 18 Minn.
155; Roanoke City v. Berkowitz, 80
Va. 616; post, § 369.
BVan Witsen v. Gutman, 79 Md.
405, 29 Atl. 608. In Richland School
Tp. V. Overmeyer, 164 Ind. 382, 73 N.
B. 811, the court says : "The right to
appropriate private property to pub-
lic use lies dormant in the State
until legislative action is had, point-
ing out the occasions, the modes, con-
ditions and agencies for its appropri-
ation," p. 385.
C74 EMIKEIfT DOMAIIT. § 368
§ 368 (237). People's charters. The constitution of
Missouri permits cities of over one hundred thousand population
to frame their own. charters. Provisions for the exercise of the
eminent domain pov^er contained in such charters are valid, the
power emanating directly from the people, instead of through
the legislature.® The sarae ruling has been made in Minnesota.'
When it is said, as in the last section, that the exercise of the
power must originate with the legislature, the statement is made
in view of the usual conditions in which all legislative power is
vested in that body. The sovereign powers reside in the people
as the ultimate source and they may delegate their exercise di-
rectly to municipalities. And a constitutional provision author-
izing cities to frame their own charters, authorizes the adop-
tion of such provisions for the exercise of the eminent domain
power as are necessary to enable them to construct and carry on
such local improvements as the local needs require.* In the
case referred to there was an enabling act passed by the legis-
lature in pursuance of the constitutional provision, and it was
held that this might be treated as an implied authority from the
legislature to insert in the charter the necessary eminent domain
provisions.
§ 369 (238). The necessity or expediency of exercising
the power is exclusively for the legislature. Whether the
power of eminent domain shall be put in motion for any par-
ticular public purpose, and whether the exigencies of the occa-
sion and the public welfare require or justify its exercise, are
questions which rest entirely with the legislature.® "When the
sKansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 County v. Coburn, 130 Cal. 631, 63
Mo. 458, 41 S. W. 943. Pae. 78; Alameda v. Cohen, 133 Cal.
'State V. District Court, 87 Minn. 5, 65 Pac. 127; Oritz v. Hansen, 35
146, 91 N. W. 300. Colo. 100, 83 Pac. 964; Tanner v.
■sibU. 'Treasury Min. & Reduction Co., 35
9Aldridge v. Tuscumbia, Courtland Colo. 593, 83 Pac. 464, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.)
& Decatur R. R. Co., 2 Stew. & Por. 106; Waterbury v. Piatt Bros. & Co.,
199, 23 Am. Dec. 297; Sadler V. Lang- 76 Conn. 435, 56 Atl. 856; White-
ham, 34 Ala. 311 ; New & Old Decatur man's Executrix v. Wilmington &
Belt etc. R. R. Co. v. Karcher, 112 Susquehanna R. R. Co., 2 Harr.
Ala. 676, 21 So. 825; Gilmer v. Lime (Del.) 514; Parliam v. Justices etc.
Point, 18 Cal. 229; Sherman V. Brick, of Decatur County, 9 Ga. 341;
32 Cal. 241, 91 Am. Dec. 577; Lent v. Thomas v. Milledgeville R. R. Co., 99
Tillson, 72 Cal. 404; Moran v. Ross, Ga. 714, 27 S. E. 756; Thorn v. Ga.
79 Cal. 159, 21 Pac. 547; Wulzen v. Mfg. etc. Co., 128 Ga. 127, 57 S. E.
Board of Supvrs., 101 Cal. 15, 35 Pac. 75; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
353, 40 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; San Mateo R. R. Co. v. Town of Lake, 71 111. 333;
§ 369
THE STATUTOEY AUTIIOEITY.
675
Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Pontiac,
169 111. 155, 48 N. E. 485; Baugh-
man v. Heinzelman, 180 111. 251, 54
N. E. 313; Pittsburg etc. Ry. Co. v.
Sanitary District, 218 111. 286, 75 N.
E. 892; Gillette v. Aurora Ry. Co.,
228 111. 261, 81 N. E. 1005; Water
Works Co. V. Burlihart, 41 Ind. 364;
Consumers' Gaa Trust Co. v. Harless,
131 Ind. 446, 29 N. E. 1062, 15 L.R.A.
505 ; Mull V. Indianapolis etc. Trac-
tion Co., 169 Ind. 214, 81 N. E. 657;
Bankhead v. Brown, 25 la. 540 ; Cher-
okee V. The S. C. & I. F. Town Lot
& Land Co., 52 la. 279; Bennett v.
Marion, 106 la. 628, 76 N. W. 844;
Sisson V. Board of Supervisors, 128
Ind. 442, 104 K W. 454, 70 L.R.A.
440 ; Challiss v. Atchison, T. & S. F.
R. R. Co., 16 Kan. 117, 126; Lake
Keon Nav. etc. Co. v. Klein, 63 Kan.
484, 65 Pac. 684, 93 Am. St. Rep. 299 ;
Moseley v. York Shore Water Co., 94
Me. 83, 46 Atl. 809 ; Kennebec Water
District v. Waterville, 96 Me. 234, 52
Atl. 774; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me.
351, 61 Atl. 785, 109 Am. St. Rep. 526,
70 L.R.A. 472; Talbot v. Hudson, 16
Gray, 417, 424; Haverhill Bridge
Props. V. County Corns, of Essex, 103
Mass. 120, 4 Am. Rep. 518; Holt v.
Somerville, 127 Mass. 408; Appleton
V. Newton, 178 Mass. 276, 59 N. E.
648; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 427;
State Park Comrs. v. Henry, 38
Minn. 266, 36 N. W. 874; State v.
Rapp, 39 Minn. 65, 38 N. W. 926;
Fairchild v. St. Paul, 46 Minn. 540,
49 N. W. 325; Stewart v. Great
Northern R. R. Co., 65 Minn. 515, 68
N. W. 208; Minneapolis etc. R. R.
Co. V. Hartland, 85 Minn. 76, 88 N.
W. 423; Dickey v. Tennison, 27 Mo.
373; Simpson v. Kansas City, 111 Mo.
237, 20 S. W. 38; City of Cape
Girardeau v. Houck, 129 Mo. 607, 31
S. W. 933; Southern 111. & Mo.
Bridge Co. v. Stone, 174 Mo. 1, 73
S. W. 453, 63 L.R.A. 301 ; Welton v.
Dickson, 38 Neb. 767, 57 N. W. 559,
41 Am. St. Rep. 771, 22 L.R.A. 496;
Paxton etc. Irr. Canal & L. Co. v.
Farmers' etc. Irr. & L. Co., 45 Neb.
884, 64 N. W. 343, 29 L.R.A. 853;
Howard v. Board of Supervisors, 54
Neb. 443, 74 N. W. 953; Coster v.
Tide Water Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54 and
518; State v. City of Orange, 54 N. J.
L. Ill, 22 Atl. 1004, 14 L.R.A. 62;
Buffalo & New York R. R. Co. v.
Brainard, 9 N. Y. 100; People v.
Smith, 21 N. Y. 595; Matter of Wil-
liam A. Fowler, 53 N. Y. 60; Matter
of Niagara Falls & W. R. R. Co., 103
N. Y. 375, 15 N. E. Rep. 429; Matter
of Poughkeepsie Bridge Co., 108 N.
Y. 483, 15 N. E. Rep. 601 ; People v.
Adirondack R. R. Co., 160 N. Y. 225 ;
People V. Fisher, 190 N. Y. 468, 83
N. E. 482; Beekman v. Saratoga &
Schenectady R. R. Co., 3 Paige, 45;
Harris v. Thompson, 9 Barb. 350;
Matter of Deansville Cemetery Ass.,
5 Hun 482; Call v. Wilkesboro, 115
N. C. 337, 20 S. E. 468 ; Dalles Lum-
bering Co. V. Urquhart, 16 Ore. 67, 19
Pac. 78; Bridal Veil Lumbering Co.
V. Johnson, 30 Ore. 205, 46 Pac. 790,
60 Am. St. Rep. 818; 34 L.R.A. 368;
Apex Transportation Co. v. Garbade,
32 Ore. 582 ; Winona etc. R. R. Co. v.
Watertown, 4 S. D. 323, 56 N. W.
1077 ; Anderson v. Turbeville, 6
Coldw. 150; Ryan v. Terminal Co.,
102 Tenn. Ill, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L.R.A.
303 ; Tyler v. Beacher, 44 Vt. 648, 8
Am. Rep. 398 ; Roanoke City v. Ber-
kowitz, 80 Va. 616; Tait'a Executor
V. Central Lunatic Asylum, 84 Va.
271, 4 S. E. 697; Painter v. St. Clair,
98 Va. 85, 34 S. E. 989 ; Baltimore &
Ohio R. R. Co. V. Pittsburg, Wheel-
ing & Ky. R. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 812;
Smeaton v. Martin, 57 Wis. 364;
State V. Stewart, 74 Wis. 620, 43 N.
W. 947; Wisconsin Water Co. v.
Winans, 85 Wis. 26, 54 N. W. 1003,
39 Am. St. Rep. 813, 20 L.R.A. 662;
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Thomas,
.34 Fed. 774.
676
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 369
use is public, the necessity or expediency of appropriating any
particular property is not a subject of judicial cognizance." ^*
"The general principle is now well settled that when the uses
are in fact public, the necessity or expediency of taking private
property for such uses by the exercise of the power of eminent
domain, the instrumentalities to be used and the extent to which
such right shall be delegated are questions appertaining to the
political and legislative branches of the government." ^^
The question of necessity is sometimes confounded with that
of public use,^^ and it has sometimes been maintained that the
exercise of the power of eminent domain must be founded on a
public necessity.'^ But we know of no case in which it has been
"It is not indispensable that the
legislature shall determine that any
given enterprise is necessary or
proper, before putting in opera-
tion the power of eminent do-
main. This power is primarily an
absolute one, and theoretically exists
in this absolute form in the ultimate
source of authority in every organ-
ized society. In the constituted gov-
ernment of this State, the right of
exercising it has been confided to the
legislature, restricted by only two
conditions: one, that compensation
shall be made to the owner of the
property taken; the other, that the
use for which property may be taken
shall be a public use. In other re-
spects it is without limit. Whether
the purpose to be subserved be neces-
sary or wise, is for the legislature
alone." Ct. of Errors and Appeals
in National Docks E. R. Co. v. Cen-
tral R. R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755, 763.
lOBoom Co. V. Patterson, 98 U. S.
403, 406. Similar language will be
found in the following cases: Geisy
V. Cincinnati, Wilmington & Zanes-
ville R. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308;
County Court v. Griswold, 58 Mo.
175; Chicago & Eastern Ill.R.R. Co.
V. Wiltse, 116 111. 449; Towns v. Kla-
math County, 33 Ore. 225, 233; and
in many of the cases cited in the last
note.
iiMatter of Niagara Falls &
Whirlpool R. R. Co., 108 N. Y. 375,
383, 15 N. E. 429.
12 Ante, § 255.
isCary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass.
364, 25 N. E. 92. In this case money
had been given to a town for a public
library to be managed and controlled
by a board of trustees consisting of
the selectmen, the school committee
and settled ministers of the place.
The legislature afterwards created a
corporation, to be managed and con-
trolled by a different body, and di-
rected the transfer of the property
to this corporation. The act also pro-
vided for the acquisition of the prop-
erty by the new corporation under
the power of eminent domain. After
the transfer the property was to be
used in the same manner and for the
same purposes as before. The court
appears to hold that so much of the
act as provided for the acquisition
of the property under the eminent
domain power, was invalid, because
the proposed taking was not founded
on a public necessity. "Property can
be taken in this way only in the exer-
cise of the paramount right of the
government, founded on a public
necessity. * * ♦ The question
arises, whether taking property
from one party, who holds it for a
public use, by another, to hold it in
§ 370
THE STATUTOET AUTIIOKITY.
C77
adjudicated that an appropriation of private property for a rec-
ognized public use, or an authority to make such appropriation,
was void because, in the opinion of the court, there was no neces-
sity for an exercise of the eminent domain power.-'*
§ 370 (239). When the power of eminent domain has
been delegated, the propriety of its exercise rests with the
grantee. AVhen authority to take property for public use has
been conferred by the legislature, it rests with the grantee to
determine whether it shall be exercised, and when and to what
extent it shall be exercised,^^ provided, of course, that the power
the same manner for precisely the
same public use, can be authorized
\mder the constitution. Can such a
taking be founded on a public neces-
sity? ' * '^ In every ease it is a
judicial question whether the taking
is of such a nature that it is or may
be founded on a public necessity. If
it is of that nature, it is for the
legislature to say whether in a par-
ticular case the necessity exists. We
are of opinion, that the proceeding
authorized by the statute was in its
nature merely a transfer of property
from one party to another, and not
an appropriation of property to pub-
lic use, nor a taking which was, or
which could be found by the legisla-
ture to be, a matter of public neces-
sity." The true ground and reason
of this decision would seem to be
that an act which merely accom-
plishes the transfer of property from
one owner to another, does not sub-
serve any public purpose and is not,
therefore, a public use.
i<"The authority to detei-mine in
any case whether it is necessary or ex-
pedient to peiTuit the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, when not
prohibited by the constitution, rests
with the legislative department of
the State; and the propriety of tak-
ing private property for public use
is not a judicial question, but one of
political sovereignty, and a hearing
upon the facts of such propriety or
necessity is not required." Richland
School Tp. V. Overmeyer, 164 Ind.
382, 385, 386, 73 N. E. 811. Compare
Stearns v. Barre, 73 Vt. 281, 50 Atl.
1086, 87 xVm. St. Rep. 721, 58 L.R.A.
240.
iBSt. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Fay-
etteville, 75 Ark. 532, 87 S. W. 1174;
United States v. Baltimore etc. R. R.
Co., 27 App. Cas. D. C. 105; Chicago
& Eastern 111. R. R. Co. v. Wiltse,
116 111. 449, 454, 6 N. E. 49; O'Hare
V. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 139 111. 151,
28 N. E. 953; Schuster v. Sanitary
District, 177 111. 626, 52 N. E. 855;
Bass V. City of Ft. Wayne, 121 Ind.
389, 23 N. E. 259, 1 Am. R. R. &
Corp. Rep. 173; Richland School Tp.
V. Overmeyer, 164 Ind. 382, 73 N. E.
811 ; Williams v. Gary, 73 la. 194, 34
N. W. 813; Barrett v. Kemp, 91 la.
290, 59 N. W. 76; Cotton v. Miss-
issippi & Rum River Boom Co., 22
Minn. 372; Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. St.
Louis etc. Ry. Co., 202 Mo. 656, 101
S. W. 576; Matter of Union El. R.
R. Co., 113 N. Y. 275, 21 N. E. 81;
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Diehm, 128
Pa. St. 509, 18 Atl. 522; Heine v.
Columbia etc R. R. Co., 16 Pa. Dist.
Ct. 840; Memphis etc. R. R. Co. v.
Union Ry. Co., 116 Tenn. 500, 95 S.
W. 1019; Samish River Boom Co. v.
Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586, 73
Pac. 670; United States v. Certain
Lands, 145 Fed. 654.
678
EMINENT DOMAIN.
370
is not exceeded or abused. These questions are political in tlieir
nature, and not judicial. Thus, whether a particular road, street
or alley shall be laid out,^® or an existing street widened,^'' or
any similar improvement made,^* in the absence of any special
statutory provisions, rests entirely with the local authorities
vested with power in the premises.'® The courts cannot in-
quire into the motives which actuate the authorities or enter into
the propriety of making the particular improvements.^*
The same may be said of individuals and corporations vested
isCommission's Court of Lowndes
Co. V. Bowie, 34 Ala. 461 ; St. Louis
etc. K. R. Co. V. Fayetteville, 75 Ark.
532, 87 S. W. 1174; City of Santa
Ana V. Harlin, 99 Cal. 538, 34 Pac.
224; Symons v. San Francisco,
(Cal.) 42 Pac. 913; Santa Ana v.
Brunner, 132 Cal. 234, 64 Pac. 287;
Alameda v. Cohen, 133 Cal. 5, 65
Pac. 127; Harwinton v. Catlin, 19
Conn. 520; Borough of Stonington v.
States, 31 Conn. 213; Poulan v. At-
lantic Coast Line E. E. Co., 123 Ga.
605, 51 S. E. 657; Dunlap v. Mount
Sterling, 14 111. 251 ; Curry v. Mount
Sterling, 15 111. 320; Chicago etc. R.
E. Co. V. Pontiac, 169 111. 155, 48 N.
E. 485; English v. Danville, 170 111.
131, 48 N. E. 328 ; Lawliss v. Eeese, 4
Bibb 309 ; Baldwin v. Bangor, 36 Me.
518 ; Methodist Church v. Baltimore,
6 Md. 391, 48 Am. Dec. 540;
Knoblauch v. Minneapolis, 56 Minn.
321, 57 N". W. 928; City of Kansas v.
Baird, 98 Mo. 215, 11 S. W. 242, 562;
State V. Engleman, 106 Mo. 628, 17
S. W. 759; State v. Bishop, 39 N. J.
L. 226; Matter of Folts Street, 18
App. Div. N". Y. 568; Fanning v.
Gilliland, 37 Ore. 369, 61 Pac. 636,
67 Pac. 209, 82 Am. St. Eep. 758;
West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 16 Vt.
446; Gallup v. Woodstock, 29 Vt.
347.
"Dunham v. Hyde Park, 75 111.
371 ; Gilbert v. New Haven, 39 Conn.
467; New Orleans v. Steinhardt, 52
La. Ann. 1043, 27 So. 586.
isKelsey v. King, 32 Barb. 410;
Stout V. Freeholders, 25 N. J. L. 202;
Iron E. E. Co. v. Ironton, 19 Ohio St.
299; Wulzen v. Board of Suprvs.,
101 Cal. 15, 35 Pac. 353, 40 Am. St.
Rep. 17; Lynch v. Forbes, 161 Mass.
302, 37 N. E. 437; Sample v. Carroll,
132 Ind. 496, 32 N. E. 220, 42 AM. St.
Eep. 402.
19 Cases apparently holding a con-
trary doctrine are. White's Case, 2
Overton, 109; Lecoul v. Police Jury,
20 La. An. 308.
2 0Dunham v. Hyde Park, 75 HI.
371; Eichland School Tp. v. Over-
meyer, 164 Ind. 382, 73 N. E. 811.
In the latter case the statute pro-
vided that whenever in the opinion
of the township trustee it shall be
considered necessary to purchase any
real estate upon which to build a
school house, he might proceed to ac-
quire the same by condemnation.
The case was a proceeding of this
sort and the court says: "The Gen-
eral Assembly of Indiana has dele-
gated to school corporations the
power of eminent domain, and to the
township trustee the authority to de-
termine the necessity for its exercise.
In acquiring land for a school-house,
and for other purposes connected
therewith, no right to a hearing as
to the necessity or expediency of the
appropriation has been reserved to
the landowner, either in the consti-
tution or laws of the State. The dis-
cretion conferred upon the township
trustee under these statutes is
broad, comprehensive and absolute.
§ 371
THE STATUTOEY AUTHOBITY.
679
with the power of eminent domain and acting from considera-
tions of private emolument, so far as relates to the necessity or
propriety of exercising the power or of taking the particular
property. ^^ But an abuse of the discretion and authority con-
ferred by eminent domain statutes, may be prevented or re-
dressed by the courts.^^ Sometimes the constitution or statute
requires the question of necessity to be determined as a judicial
question.-^
§ 371 (240). The authority to condemn must be ex-
pressly given or necessarily implied. The exercise of the
power being against common right, it cannot be implied or in-
ferred from vague or doubtful language, but must be given in
express terms or by necessary implication."* "When the right
to exercise the power can only be made out by argument and
and the court cannot control its exer-
cise in a proceeding of this kind;
nor can the court substitute its judg-
ment, or the judgment of the jury,
for that of the officer designated by
law, as to the expediency or necessity
of making the proposed appropri-
ation of land."
21 Gates V. Boston etc. R. R. Co.,
53 Conn. 333 ; O'Hare v. Chicago etc.
K. R. Co., 139 III. 151, 28 N. E. 923;
St. Paul V. Nickl, 42 Minn. 262, 44 N.
W. 59 ; Matter of Union Elevated R.
R. Co., 113 N. Y. 275, 21 N. E. 81;
N'orton y. Wallkill etc. R. R. Co., 42
How. Pr. 228; Pennsylvania R. R.
Co. V. Diehm, 128 Pa. St. 509, 18 Atl.
522; Colorado Eastern R. R. Co. v.
Union Pac. R. E. Co., 41 Fed. 293;
Douglass v. Byrnes, 59 Fed. 29.
2 2Williams v. Carey, 73 la. 194,
34 N. W. 813; Ham. v. Levee Comrs.,
83 Miss. 534, 35 So. 943; Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co. V. Diehm, 128 Pa. St.
509, 18 Atl. 522. And see ante § 314.
2 3See post, § 598.
2 4MeCarthy v. So. Pac. Co., 148
Cal. 211, 82. Pac. 615; Butler v.
Thomasville, 74 Ga. 570 ; Oconee Elee.
Lt. & P. Co. v. Carter, 111 Ga. 106, 36
S. E. 457; Ga. R. R. & B. Co. v.
Union Point, 119 Ga. 809, 47 S. E.
183; Stowe v. Newborn, 127 Ga. 421,
56 S. E. 516; Phillips v. Scales
Mound, 195 111. 353, 63 N. E. 180;
Gillette v. Aurora Rys. Co., 228 111.
261, 81 N. E. 1005 ; Allen v. Jones, 47
Ind. 438 ; Gano v. Minneapolis etc. R.
R. Co., 114 la. 713, 87 N. W. 714, 89
Am. St. Rep. 393, 55 L.R.A. 263;
Perry v. Wilson, 7 Mass. 393;
Schmidt v. Densmore, 42 Mo. 225;
S. W. Mo. Lt. Co. v. Scheurich, 174
Mo. 235, 73 S. W. 496; ClaremontRy.
& Lt. Co. V. Putney, 73 N. H. 431, 62
Atl. 727; Erie R. R. Co. v. Steward,
170 N. Y. 172, 63 N. E. 118; Man-
hattan Ry. Co. V. Astor, 126 App.
Div. 907; Miami Coal Co. v. Wighton,
19 Ohio St. 560; State ex rel. v.
Salem Water Co., 5 Ohio C. C. 58;
Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 93
Pa. St. 150; Woods v. Greensboro
Nat. Gas Co., 204 Pa. St. 606, 54 Atl.
470; Penn. Telephone Co. v. Hoover,
209 Pa. St. 555, 58 Atl. 922, affirming
S. C. 24 Pa. Supr. Ct. 96; Snee v.
West Side Belt R. R. Co., 210 Pa. St.
480, 60 Atl. 94; Pfoutz v. Penn. Tele-
phone Co., 24 Pa. Supr. Ct. 105;
Middle Creek Elec. Co. v. Hughes, 34
Pa. Co. Ct. 270; City of Tacoma v.
State, 4 Wash. 64, 29 Pac. 847 ; West-
ern Union Tel. Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co.,
195 U. S. 540, 26 S. C. 133; Same v.
Same, 195 U. S. 594, 25 S. C. 150 j
680 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 371
inference, it does not exist.^^ "There must be no effort to prove
the existence of such high corporate right, else it is in doubt;
and, if so, the State has not granted it." ^® If the act is silent
on the subject, and the powers given by it can be exercised with-
out resort to condemnation, it is presumed that the legislature
intended that the necessary property should be acquired by
contract.^'' Thus the authority to construct and maintain
booms, ^* or bridges,^® does not carry with it the right to condemn
property. If the act makes no provision for compensation, it
is presumed that the legislature did not intend that the power
of eminent domain should be exercised.^" A city had power
to construct and regulate sewers, drains and cisterns, also to
provide on what terms real estate in such city might be drained
by means of surface or under drains over and across other real
estate therein. It was held that neither provision gave power
to condemn.^ ^ A statute in relation to Detroit gave power to
open, extend, widen or straighten streets or alleys. A subse-
quent provision as to compensation omitted the case of widening.
It was held that the power to widen could not be exercised by
condemnation.^^ Statutory authority to lay out and establish
streets, alleys and avenues, was held not to confer the power to
condemn land for such purposes.^^ In this case there was no
United States v. Eauers, 70 Fed. Rep. Point Boom Co. v. Eeilly, 44 Wis.
748. "In favor of such right there 295.
can be no implication unless it arises 2 9Thatcher v. The Dartmouth
from a necessity so absolute that, Bridge Co., 18 Pick. 501 ; Payne v.
without it, the grant itself will be Kansas & A. E.. R. Co., 46 Fed. Rep.
defeated. It must, also, be a neces- 546. But where power was given to
sity which arises from the very na- construct a bridge coupled with a
ture of things, over which the cor- provision for the ascertainment of
poratiou has no control; it must not damages for property taken therefor,
be a necessity created by the company the right to condemn was held to be
itself for its own convenience or for necessarily implied. Linton v.
the sake of economy." Pennsylvania Sharpsburg Bridge Co., 1 Grant's
R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 150, Cases, 414.
159. soChamberlain v. Elizabethport
2 5Penn. Telephone Co. v. Hoover, Steam Cordage Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 43;
209 Pa. St. 555, 58 Atl. 922. Chaffee's Appeal, 56 Mich. 244; In re
26/6id. Manderson, 51 Fed. 301, 2 CCA. 490;
2 ^Chamberlain v. Elizabethport In re Montgomery, 48 Fed. 896.
Steam Cordage Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 43; siAUen v. Jones, 47 Ind. 438; see
Leeds v. Richmond, 102 Ind. 372. also Leeds v. Richmond, 102 Ind. 372.
28Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. 32Chaffee's Appeal, 56 Mich. 244.
Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308, 323; Perry v. 33Ga. R. R. & B. Co. v. Union
Wilson, 7 Mass. 393; The Stevens Point, 119 Ga. 809, 47 S. E. 183; City
§ 372 THE STATU'TOKY AUTHOEITY. 6S1
general law to which the city in question could resort, and it
attempted to provide by ordinance a mode of condemnation.
But where a county board of supervisors was empowered to build
and keep in repair county buildings and to provide suitable
rooms for the use of the county, it was held that this was suiR-
cient authority to condemn land for a court liouse;^* In an-
other case, where commissioners were empowered to select a site
for a city hall, either certain lands owned by the city or any
other lands, and to cause a city hall to be erected thereon, it was
held by the Court of Appeals of iffew York, that, in case land
not owned by the city had been selected, there would have been
no power to condemn, and, if the commissioners could not have
agreed with the owner, they could have proceeded no further
in the matter.^^ As a rule, a municipal corporation cannot con-
demn property beyond its limits, unless authority to do so is
expressly given.^"
The rule that the power to condemn is not to be implied, is
further illustrated in subsequent sections which treat of the con-
struction of statutes giving authority to condemn. ^'^ 'No general
rule can be laid down as to when the right to condemn will be
implied or inferred, and when not. Such implication will more
readily be made in favor of public corporations exercising pow-
ers solely for the public use and benefit than in favor of private
individuals or corporations organized for pecuniary profit.^*
§ 372 Same: Illustrations. A statute provided that
when the property and franchises of a corporation were sold at
judicial sale, the purchasers should become the owners of the cor-
porate rights, liberties, privileges and franchises of such corpo-
ration and should constitute a new corporation, entitled to all
such rights, liberties, franchises and privileges. It was held that
if the old corporation had the power of eminent domain, the new
one would also.^® Where a company was organized to supply
electricity for light, heat and power and was authorized to use
of Taeoma v. State, 4 Wash. 64, 29 Warner v. Town of Gunnison, 2 Colo.
Pac. 847 ; Georgia R. R. & B. Co. v. App. 430, 31 Pac. 238, where, however,
Decatur, 129 Ga. 502, 59 S. E. 217. the power was held to have been eon-
3 4 Supervisors of Culpepper County f erred.
V. Gorrell, 20 Gratt. 484. iTPost, §§ 378^02.
ssPeople ex rel. Hayden v. City of ssQuoted and approved in Leitzsey
Rochester, 50 N. Y. 525. v. Columbia Water Power Co., 47 S.
soHoughton v. Huron Copper Co., C. 404, 34 L.R.A. 215.
57 Mich. 547; Drain Commissioners soBrinkerhoff v. Newark etc. Trac-
V. Baxter, 67 Mich. 127. See also tion Co., 66 N. J. L. 478, 49 Atl. 812.
682
EMINENT DOilAIN.
§ 37:
any public street, lane, alley or highway for its distributing
Avorks, it was held power to condemn the necessary easement
in the street was implied.*" Where a corporation is organized
for a public purpose and it is authorized to take and to purchase
necessary lands and the statute contains provisions as to making
compensation, the intent to confer the power of eminent domain
is shown.* ^ The telegraph includes the telephone and laws con-
ferring the power of eminent domain for the construction of lines
of telegraph are held to apply to companies for the construction
of telephone lines.*^ The contrary is held in Mississippi where
they have been kept distinct in legislation.*^ The act of congress
declaring all railroads to be post roads and providing "that any
telegraph company now organized, or which may hereafter be or-
ganized under the laws of any State in the Union, shall have the
right to construct, maintain and operate lines of telegraph
* * * over and along any of the military or post roads of the
United States which have been or may hereafter be declared
such by act of congress," does not confer upon telegraph com-
panies the power to condemn the right to place their lines upon
railroad rights of way.**
4 0Brown v. Radnor Tp. Elec. Lt.
Co., 208 Pa. St. 453, 57 Atl. 904;
Radnor Tp. Elec. Lt. Co.'s Petition,
208 Pa. St. 460, 57 Atl. 1135; Radnor
Tp. Elec. Lt. Co. v. Brown, 208 Pa.
St. 461, 57 Atl. 1135.
"Rockingham County L. & P. Co.
V. Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46,
66 L.R.A. 581.
4 2 Chesapeake etc. Tel. Co. v. B. &
O. Tel. Co., 66 Md. 399 ; N. W. Tele-
phone Exch. Co. V. Chicago etc. Ry.
Co., 76 Minn. 334, 79 N. W. 315;
Same v. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140,
83 N. W. 527, 86 N. W. 69; People's
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Berks etc. Turn-
pike Road Co., 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 401;
Pa. Telephone Co. v. Hoover, 27 Pa.
Co. Ct. 61 ; San Antonio etc. Ry. Co.
V. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 93 Tex. 313,
55 S. W. 117, 77 Am. St. Rep. 884,
40 L.R.A. 459 ; Gulf etc. R. R. Co. v.
S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 18 Tex. Civ.
App. 500, 45 S. W. 151; Same v.
Same, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 488, 61 S. W.
400; Wis. Telephone Co. v. Oshkosh,
62 Wis 32, 21 N. W. 828; Roberts v.
Wis. Telephone Co., 77 Wis. 589, 46
N. W. 800; State v. Sheboygan, 111
Wis. 23, 86 N. W. 657; Cumberland
Telephone Co. v. United Elec. Co., 17
Fed. 825.
4SAlabama etc. Ry. Co. v. Cumber-
land Tel. & Tel. Co., 88 Miss. 438, 41
So. 258.
4 4 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pa.
R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, 25 S. C. 133;
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pa. R. R.
Co., 195 U. S. 594, 25 S. 0. 150; N. W.
Telephone Exch. Co. v. Chicago etc.
Ry. Co., 76 Minn. 334, 79 N. W. 315.
The following additional cases are
referred to on the question of what
language is suOBcient to confer the
power of eminent domain; Enfield
Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford etc. R. R.
Co., 17 Conn. 454; S. C. 17 Conn. 40,
42 Am. Dec. 716; Hartshorn v. 111.
Val. Traction Co., 210 III. 609, 71 N.
E. 012; Helm v. Grayville, 224 111.
§ 374
THE STATUTOEY AUTHOEITT.
G83
§ 373 (241). How the authority may be given. This
is purely a matter of legislative discretion, unless limited by the
constitution. The authority may be given by a special act to
a particular person or corporation, or by a general act or gen-
eral incorporation laws.*^ Municipal corporations may be au-
thorized to make certain improvements, or compelled to do so,
in the discretion of the legislature.*"
§ 374 (242). To whom authority may be given. For-
eign corporations. Strictly speaking, the legislature cannot
delegate the power of eminent domain.*'^ It cannot divest itself
of sovereign powers. But, in exercising the power, it can select
such agencies as it pleases, and confer upon them the right
to take private property subject only to the limitations contained
in the constitution.*® Accordingly it has been held that the
274, 79 N. E. 689 ; Smith v. Claussen
Park Dv. & L. District, 229 111. 155,
82 N. E. 278; David Bradley Mfg.
Co. V. Chicago etc. Traction Co., 229
111. 170, 82 N. E. 210; Mercer County
V. Wolff, 237 111. 74; Shreveport
Traction Co. v. Kansas City etc. Ry.
Co., 119 La. 759, 44 So. 457; Clare-
mont Ry. & Lt. Co. v. Putney, 73 N.
H. 431, 62 Atl. 727; State v. Newark,
54 N. J. L. 62, 23 Atl. 129; Wendel
V. Board of Education (N. J. L.),
70 Atl. 152; State v. City of Newark,
.54 N. J. L. 62, 23 Atl. 129 ; Commis-
sioners V. Judges of Queens County,
17 Wend. 9; Matter of Rochester
Electric R. R. Co., 57 Hun 56, 10 N.
Y. Supp. 379; Adee v. Nassau Elec.
R. R. Co., 72 App. Div. 404, 76 N. Y.
S. 589; S. C. affirmed, 177 N. Y. 548,
69 N. E. 1120; Schenectady Ry. Co.
V. Peck, 88 App. Div. 201, 84 N. Y. S.
759; State v. Salem \Vater Co., 5
Ohio C. C. 58; Ralm Tp. v. Tamaque
etc. R. R. Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 29;
City of Springville v. Fullmer, 7
Utah 450, 27 Pac. 577.
4 5De Witt v. Duncan, 46 Cal. 342;
Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 159, 21 Pac.
547; Chestates Pyrites Co. v. Caven-
ders Creek Gold Min. Co., 119 Ga.
354, 46 S. E. 422, 100 Am. St. Rep.
174; Weir v. St. Paul, Stillwater &
Taylor's Falls R. R. Co., 18 Minn.
155 ; Central R. R. Co. v. Penn. R. R.
Co., 31 N. J. *Eq. 475; National
Docks R. R. Co. V. Central R. R. Co.,
32 N. J. Eq. 755; Buffalo & New
York R. R. Co. v. Brainard, 9 N. Y.
100.
4 6Matter of Sixth St., 11 Phila-
delphia 414.
47Sholl V. German Coal Co., 118 111.
427; Brewster v. Hough, 10 N. H.
138. Nor can a municipal corpora-
tion bin.d itself by an agreement not
to execise the power of eminent do-
main with which it is vested. Matter
of Opening First St., 66 Mich. 42,
33 N. W. 15.
4 8 Yost's Report, 17 Pa. St. 424;
Matter of Deansville Cem. Ass. 5
Hun 482; State v. Rapp, 39 Minn.
65, 38 N. W. 926; Wisconsin Water
Co. V. Winans, 85 Wis. 26, 54 N. W.
1003, 39 Am. St. Rep. 813, 20 L.R.A.
062. In State v. Rapp, 39 Minn. 65,
38 N. W. 926, the court says : "The
manner of the exercise of this right
is, except as to compensation, unre-
stricted by the constitution, and ad-
dresses itself to the legislature as a
question of policy, propriety, or fit-
ness, rather than of power. They are
G84
EMIA'EITT DOMAI::?.
§ 374
right may be conferred upon corporations, public *' or private,^"
upon individuals,^^ upon foreign corporations,^^ or a consoli-
under no obligation to submit the
question to a judicial tribunal, but
may determine it themselves, or dele-
gate it to a municipal corporation, to
a commission, or to any other body
or tribunal they see fit."
"State V. Eapp, 39 Minn. 65, 38
N. W. 926; Winona etc. E. R. Co. v.
City of Watertown, 4 S. D. 323, 56
N. W. 1077 ; Matter of Thompson, 57
Hun 419, 10 N. Y. Supp. 705; Spring
City Gas Light Co. v. Pennsylvania
S. V. R. E. Co., 167 Pa. St. 6, 31 Atl.
368.
6 0 Denver Power & Irr. Co. v. Den-
ver & R. G. R. R. Co., 30 Colo. 204,
69 Pac. 568, 60 L.R.A. 383; New
York etc. R. R. Co. v. Long, 69 Conn.
424; Mims v. Macon & Western R. R.
Co., 3 Ga. 333; Hand Gold Mining Co.
v. Parker, 59 Ga. 419; Brown v.
Gerald, 100 Me. 351, 61 Atl. 785, 109
Am. St. Rep. 526, 70 L.R.A. 472;
Tide Water Canal Co. v. Archer, 9
Gill & J. (Md.) 479; Fort St. Union
Depot Co. V. Morton, 83 Mich. 265, 47
N. W. Rep. 228, 3 Am. R. E. & Corp.
Eep. 438; Concord E. E. Co. v. Gree-
ley, 17 N. H. 47 ; Ash v. Cmumings, 50
N. H. 591; Bloodgood v. Mohawk &
Hudson R. R. Co., 18 Wend. 9; Buf-
falo City E. E. Co. v. Brainard, 9 N.
Y. 100; Matter of Union El. R. R.
Co., 113 N. Y. 275, 21 jST. E. 81; L. C.
& C. R. R. Co. V. Chappell, Rice (S.
C.) 383; Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98
U. S. 403. In Matter of Union El.
R. E. Co., 113 N. Y. 275, 21 N. E. 81,
it is said: "Much has been said
upon this subject of the exercise of
the right of eminent domain by pri-
vate corporations, and it is not neces-
sary to dwell upon it here at any
length. The right resides in the
State at any time to resume the pos-
session of private property for public
use, upon just compensation being
made. What it can thus do directly,
it may, in the furtherance of a public
purpose, delegate the right to do to
a corporation, which has been created
to subserve some supposed public con-
venience or necessity, and thus be-
comes invested with a guusi public
character." Compare People v. Salem,
20 Mich. 452.
siMoran v. Eoss, 79 Cal. 159, 21
Pac. 547; Pocautico Water Works
Co. V. Bird, 130 N. Y. 249, 29 N. E.
246; Matter of Petition of Kerr, 42
Barb. 119; also cases in last note.
Compare Finney v. Sommerville, 80
Pa. St. 59.
5 2Columbus W. W. Co. v. Long, 121
Ala. 245, 25 So. 702; Eussell v. St.
Louis S. W. Ey. Co., 71 Ark. 451, 75
S. W. 725; Dodge v. Council Bluffs,
57 la. 560; Abbott v. New York etc.
E. E. Co., 145 Mass. 450; Gray v. St.
Louis & San Francisco Ey. Co., 81
Mo. 126; St. Louis etc. E. E. Co. v.
Lewsight, 113 Mo. 060, 21 S. W. 210;
Southern 111. & Mo. Bridge Co. v.
Stone, 174 Mo. 1, 73 S. W. 453, 63
L.R.A. 301; S. C. affirmed sub. nom.
Stone V. So. 111. & Mo. Bridge Co.,
206 U. S. 267, 27 S. C. 605; Helena
Power' Transmission Co. v. Spratt, 35
Mont. 108, 88 Pac. 773, 8 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 567; Matter of Peter Town-
send, 39 N. Y. 171; New York etc.
E. E. Co. V. Welsh, 143 N. Y. 411, 38
N. E. 378, 42 Am. St. Eep. 734;
Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. Town-
send, 24 Barb. 658; New York & Erie
E. E. Co. V. Young, 33 Pa. St. 175;
Gulf etc. Ry. Co. v. S. W. Tel. & Tel.
Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App. 488, 61 S. W.
406; Miocene Ditch Co. v. Lyng, 138
Fed. 544, 70 C. C. A. 458. In Iowa it
was held that, though a foreign cor-
poration did not have power to con-
demn land in that State, a domestic
companj', organized at the instance of
§ 374 THE STATUTORY AUTIIOEITT. C85
dated company composed in part of a foreign corporation,"' and
upon the federal government.''* Such has been the common prac-
tice since the Revolution, and the right to do so has never been
a matter of serious question ; and it may be regarded as settled
law that, in the absence of special constitutional restriction, it
is solely for the legislature to judge what persons, corporations
or other agencies may properly be clothed with this power.'*
The general grant of the power of eminent domain to all
corporations of a certain class or organized for certain purposes,
is held not to include foreign corporation.®* This is in accord-
ance with the rule of strict construction universally applied to
such statutes,®'^ and also in accordance with the rule that statutes
are presumed to refer and apply only to persons and things
within the State enacting them.** Where a statute provided for
the issuing of permits to foreign corporations to do business in
the State upon certain conditions and enacted that "such cor-
porations, on obtaining such permits, shall have and enjoy all
of the privileges conferred by the laws of this State on corpora-
tions organized under the laws of this State," it was held that
a foreign telephone company, upon complying with the statute,
would have the same right to condemn property as a domestic
a. foreign company, could condemn Henderson Bridge Co., 141 Fed. 51, 72
land for the purpose of leasing it to C. C. A. 539; Baldwin v. Postal Tel.
such foreign corporation. Lower v. Cable Co., 78 S. C. 419; Barnett v.
Chicago & Quiney E. E. Co., 59 la. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 79 S. C. 462.
563. But a statute giving to telegraph and
5 3 Toledo, A. A. & G. Ey. Co. v. telephone companies the right to con-
Dunlap, 47 Mich. 456 ; Trester v. struct their lines across and along •
Missouri Pac. E. E. Co., 33 Neb. 171, streets, highways, railroads, canals,
49 N. W. 1110. turnpikes, etc., was held to include
5 4Burt V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 108 foreign companies. Cumberland Tel.
Mass. 356, 8 Am. Eep. 339 ; Gilmer v. & Tel. Co. v. Yazoo etc. E. E. Co., 90
Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229. Miss. 686, 44 So. 166; State v. Eed
65Ash V. Cummings, 50 N. H. 591; Lodge, 30 Mont. 338, 76 Pac.
and cases cited in note 48. 758. An Iowa statute conferred
5 6Chestates Pyrites Co. v. Caven- power upon "railroad corporations
ders Creek Gold Min. Co., 119 Ga. organized under the laws of this
354, 46 S. E. 422, 100 Am. St. Eep. State;" held, necessarily, a denial of
174; Helena Power Transmission Co. the right to foreign corporations.
V. Spratt, 35 Mont. 108, 88 Pac. 773, Holbert v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. E. E.
8 L.E.A.(N.S.) 567; Central Union Co., 45 la. 23.
Telephone Co. v. Columbus Grove, 8 si Post, § 388.
Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 81; Duke V. Postal 682 Lewis' Sutherland Stat.
Tel. Cable Co., 71 S. C. 95, 50 S. E. Constr. §§ 513. 514.
675; Evansville etc. Traction Co. v.
686 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 374
corporation.'* A constitutional provision of Montana that for-
eign corporations should not enjoy within the State any greater
rights or privileges than domestic corporations of similar charac-
ter was held not to confer by implication the same rights and
privileges, but to be a mere limitation upon the power of the
legislature.^" The right in question, in the case referred to, was
that of eminent domain. A statute of Missouri provided that
on complying with certain conditions foreign corporations "shall
be subject to all the liabilities, res.trictions and duties which arc
or may be imposed upon corporations of like character organ-
ized under the laws of this State, and shall have no other or
greater ■powers." The clause in italics was held to mean that
they should have the same powers as domestic corporations and
that the words were effective to confer such powers, and an
Illinois corporation was held entitled to condemn property in
Missouri, even though it did not have power to do so in its own
State."
Some State constitutions prohibit the exercise of the power
by foreign corporations."^ A proceeding by a foreign corpora-
tion as lessee of a domestic corporation, was held within the
prohibition by the ISTebraska supreme court.^^ Proceedings in-
stituted in violation of the provision should be dismissed when-
ever the fact appears.** A prohibition that a foreign corporation
may not "condemn or appropriate" lands, was held not to pre-
vent its acquiring property by agreement.®'' And where land
has been acquired by violation of such a provision, one who has
accepted the compensation awarded, is estopped from questioning
the company's title,"® and the title has been held to be good
against all except the State."^ It has been argued that the pro-
hibition would apply to a corporation created by congress,®* and
ssSanAntonioetc. Ry. Co. V. S. W. ezAnte, §§ 17, 39.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 93 Tex. 313, 55 S. W. esstate v. Scott, 22 Xeb. 628. And
117, 77 Am. St. Rep. 884, 49 L.R.A. see Koening v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co.,
459. See Evansville etc. Traction Co. 27 Neb. 699, 43 N. W. 423.
V. Henderson Bridge Co., 141 Fed. 51, 64Xrester v. Missouri Pae. R. R.
72 C. C. A. 539 ; Miocene Ditch Co. v. Co., 23 Xeb. 242, 36 N. W. 502.
Lyng, 138 Fed. 544, 70 C. C. A. 458. 6 5 St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Foltz,
BOHelena Power Transmission Co. 52 Fed. 627.
V. Spratt, 35 Mont. 108, 88 Pac. 773, eelMd.
8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 567. e-jiyers y. McGavock, 39 Xeb. 843,
61 Southern III. & ilo. Bridge Co. 58 N. W. 522, 42 Am. St. Rep. 627.
V. Stone, 174 Mo. 1, 73 S. W. 453, 63 ssHid.
L.R.A. .301; S. C. 194 Mo. 175, 92
S. W. 475.
§ 376
THE STATUTORY AUTIIOPaTY.
687
this -would doubtless be true if it had no express authority to
condemn. But congress may create a corporation "with power
to condemn property in a State, for a purpose within its con-
stitutional powers, as in aid of interstate commerce, despite any
prohibition, contained in the constitution or laws of the State.*"*
§ 375 (242a). Direct appropriation by the legislature.
It is competent for the legislature to appropriate property direct-
ly, by an act duly passed, instead of conferring authority to do
so, and this has occasionally been done.''''
§ 376 (243). Delegation and transfer of authority by
grantees of the legislature : Contractors and agents : Re-
ceivers. When authority to take property by virtue of the pow-
er of eminent domain is conferred by the legislature, it becomes
a personal trust, and cannot be delegated or transferred, except
by legislative sanction.'^-'- Purchasers under a mortgage,''" grant-
esCalifornia v. Central Pac. E. R.
Co., 127 U. S. 1, 39; Mining Co. v.
Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 186, 8 S.
C. 737 ; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western
Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 12; 6 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 607 et seq.
70Mims V. Macon & Western R. R.
Co., 3 Ga. (3 Kelly) 333; Gillette v.
Aurora Rys. Co., 228 111. 261, 81 N. E.
1005; State v. Spencer, 53 Kan. 655,
37 Pac. 174; Hingham. & Quincy
Bridge & Turnpike Co. v. County of
N'orfolk, 6 Allen 353; Matter of
Union Ferry Co., 98 N. Y. 139;
Matter of Application of Mayor etc.
of New York, 99 N. Y. 569 {affirming
34 Hun 441 ) ; Genet v. Brooklyn, 99
N. Y. 296; McCormack v. City of
Brooklyn, 108 N. Y. 49, 14 N. E. 808;
Mott V. Eno, 181 N". Y. 346, 74 N. E.
229, reversing 97 App. Div. 580, 90
N. Y. S. 608 ; Matter of Department
of Public Works, 53 Hun 280, 25 N.
Y. St. 9, 6 N. Y. Supp. 750; State v.
Collis, 20 App. Div. N. Y. 341;
Matter of Riverside Parks, 59 App.
Div. 603, 69 N. Y. S. 742; S. C.
affirmed, 167 N. Y. 627, 60 N. E.
1116; Delap v. City of Brooklyn, 3
Miscl. 22, 22 N. Y. Supp. 179; Smed-
ley v. Erwin, 51 Pa. St. 445; In re
Towanda Bridge Co., 91 Pa. St. 216;
Township of Mahoney v. Comry, 103
Pa. St. 362; Painter v. St. Clair, 98
Va. 85, 34 S. E. 989; Baltimore &
Ohio R. R. Co. V. B. W. & Ky. R. R.
Co., 17 W. Va. 812, 841; State v.
Hogue, 71 Wis. 384, 36 N. W. 860;
Boom Co. V. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403 ;
United States v. Harris, 1 Sumner
21.
'iHarris v. Inhabitants of Marble-
head, 10 Gray 40; Stewart's Appeal,
56 Pa. St. 413; Lyon v. Jerome, 26
Wend. 485, reversing S. C. in 15
Wend. 569. "This is an exceedingly
delicate and important power, and
only exists in the State by virtue of
her right of eminent domain as sover-
eign. In expressly granting this
power, a confidence in the grantee of
the power, as to its exercise, is im-
plied. It cannot, therefore, be dele-
gated. It must be exercised by the
grantee in person, and not by proxy
or substitute. The commissioner can
act by others. He must judge him-
self. He only can decide upon the
necessity or expediency in any case
of appropriating private property to
public use; but He may employ his
subordinate officers or agents to carry
such decision into effect. Lyon v.
Jerome, 20 Wend. 485, 498.
7 2 Atkinson v. Marietta R. R. Co.,
15 Ohio St. 21.
688
EMIJifElST DOMAIN.
§ 376
ees ''^ or lessees ''* of the property and franchises of a corpora-
tion authorized to condemn property for public use, cannot, by
virtue of such purchase, grant or lease, exercise such power.
Being a personal trust, the power must be exercised by the
grantee in person/^ and, in case of corporations, by the govern-
ing body of the corporation, which ordinarily is the board of
directors.'^® From these principles it follows that, where cor-
porations, or others who are empowered to take materials for
the construction of works, employ contractors who engage to
furnish their own materials, the power of eminent domain does
not pass to the contractors by virtue of the contract, but they
must provide their materials as best they can.''^ A city, hav-
'SMahouey v. Spring Valley Water
Works, 52 Cal. 159; Abbott v. New
York & N. E. R. E. Co., 145 Mass.
450. In the last of these cases the
court reviews a number of acts from
which an intent that the power to
condemn should pass with the prop-
erty and franchises of a railroad was
inferred.
■^iMuU V. Indianapolis etc. Trac-
tion Co., 169 Ind. 214, 81 N. E. 657;
Worcester v. Norwich & Worcester R.
R. Co., 109 Mass. 103; Lewis v. Ger-
mantown etc. E. R. Co., 16 Phila.
608; Barker v. Hartman Steel Co., 6
Pa. Co. Ct. 183; Hespenheide's Ap-
peal, 4 Penny. 71 ; Western Union
Tel. Co. V. Pa. R. R. Co., 195 U. S.
594, 25 S. C. 150.
7 5Lyon V. Jerome, 26 Wend. 485.
7 6Eastern R. R. Co. v. Boston &
Maine R. R. Co., Ill Mass. 125, 130,
15 Am. Rep. 13.
7 7 Schmidt v. Densmore, 42 Mo.
225; Lyon v. Jerome, 26 Wend. 485;
St. Peter v. Dennison, 58 N. Y. 416,
17 Am. Rep. 258. A contrary doe-
trine is maintained in Illinois. Hinde
V. Wabash Navigation Co., 15 111. 72;
Lesher v. The Wabash Navigation
Co., 14 111. 85, 56 Am. Dec. 494. In
this case, however, there appears to
have been a resolution of the canal
commissioners authorizing the appro-
priation, but the court disregarded it
in their decision. In Vermont Cen-
tral R. R. Co. V. Baxter, 22 Vt. 365,
it was held that one who contracted
to build a section of road and to
furnish all materials, necessarily
took the company's power to appro-
priate them in imntum, and that the
company was liable directly to the
owner therefor. The statute in that
case provided that, where a. railroad
company had by its engineers, agents
or servants taken any materials from
contiguous lands for use in the con-
struction of its road, and had failed
to have the damages therefor as-
sessed within two years, the owner
might have his common law remedy
therefor. (§ 30, C. 26 Compiled
Stats. 1850). The court held that
the contractors were agents or ser-
vants within the statue. Bliss v.
Hosmer, 15 Ohio, 44, may also seem
at first blush to be opposed to the
text. That was trespass against the
contractor on a canal for taking ma-
terials, and judgment was given for
the defendant. The statute pro-
vided that the commissioners and any
agent, superintendent and engineer
employed by them might enter on pri-
vate property and take materials.
The contract provided that the con-
tractors should furnish their own
materials, but, if they could not ob-
tain them at a fair price, the com-
§ 3Y7
THE STATUTOEY AUTHOEITY.
689
ing power to condemn property for water works, cannot, by a
contract with a water company which has no such power, con-
fer upon the latter the power of condenmation.''* The receiver
of a corporation invested with the power may exercise it, when
authorized to do so by the court.''®
§ 377 (244). A lease of the property and franchises of
a corporation does not destroy its right to condemn.*"
This is true though the term of the lease is for the entire life of
the corporation.®^ The lease is but a mode of enabling the cor-
poration to discharge its duties to the public, and the necessities
of further condemnations would be the same, whether the duties
which the corporation owes to the public are discharged by the
corporation directly, or by its lessee.*^ It has been held that the
lessee may prosecute proceedings in the name of the lessor.*'
missioners or their engineer would
give an order for appropriating tliem.
An order was, in fact, given by the
engineer to talce the materials in
question. In this case, therefore, the
statute expressly authorized any
agent or engineer of the commission-
ers to enter and take materials,
which differs materially from the
case of Lyon v. Jerome, ante. Such
a contract, however, does not prevent
the corporation or principal from
appropriating materials by condem-
nation for the benefit of the con-
tractor. Ten Broeck v. Sherrill, 71
N. Y. 276.
7 8 State V. Salem Water Co., 5
Ohio C. C. 58.
7 9Morrison v. Forman, 177 111. 427,
53 N. E. 73, in which the court says :
"A court of equity having in charge
the property of a railroad company
is authorized to do any act within
the corporate power the performance
of which is necessary to preserve the
property of the company for the ben-
efit of the company and its creditors.
If, when property comes into the
hands of the court, the corporation
is engaged in some proper and legiti-
mate undertaking the completion
whereof is essential to the successful
Em. D. — ii.
maintenance and operation of the
road and to the preservation of the
property, the court may proceed to
complete the imdertaking, and if re-
quired will transfer to and clothe its
receiver with such power and au-
thority as the corporation possessed
to institute the appropriate legal
proceedings to condemn any real
estate which ought to be acquired in
order to finish and make useful and
available that which the corporation
was engaged in constructing when
the court displaced it in the posses-
sion of its property." p. 430.
soBeekman v. Lincoln etc. R. R.
Co., 79 Neb. 89; Matter of New York,
Lackawanna & Western Ky. Co., 35
Hun 220, affirmed in 99 N. Y. 12;
Snyder v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co.,
210 Pa. St. 500, 60 Atl. 151.
siMatter of New York etc. Ry. Co.,
99 N. Y. 12.
s2Kip V. New York & Harlem R.
R. Co., 67 N. Y. 227; Deitrichs v.
Lincoln & Northwestern R. R. Co.,
13 Neb. 361; Chicago & Western In-
diana R. R. Co. V. Illinois Central R.
R. Co., 113 111. 156.
ssGlaser v. Glenwood R. R. Co.,
208 Pa. St. 328, 57 Atl. 713.
690
EMINEIifT DOMAIN.
§ 378
But the lessee may not condemn property for itself under cov-
er of proceedings in the name of the lessor and under the
powers conferred upon the latter.** And in the case referred
to it was held to be a question of fact whether such an attempt
was being made.
§ 378 (245). The manner of proceeding may be
changed at the pleasure of the legislature. It is no part of
the contract between the State and a corporation vested with the
power of eminent domain, that the mode of condemning prop-
erty shall remain unchanged.*^ Consequently the tribunal to
assess damages may be changed,^® jurisdiction may be> trans-
ferred from one court to another *'' and a right of appeal may
be gTanted where none existed before.** These and like matters
relate to the remedy which, according to well settled principles,
may be changed without impairing existing contracts, provided
no substantial right secured by the contract is impaired. The
substantial right in the case under consideration is the right
to take private property by compulsory proceedings.^® It fol-
lows that laws changing the procedure apply to pending pro-
ceedings, unless a contrary intent is expressed.®"
s^Beclonan v. Lincoln etc. R. R.
Co., 79 Neb. 89.
SBSpringfield etc. R. R. Co. v. Hall,
67 111. 99; Cowan v. Penobscott R. R.
Co., 44 Me. 140; Long's Appeal, 87
Pa. St. 114; McCrea v. Port Royal
R. R. Co., 3 S. C. 381, 16 Am. Rep.
729; Mississippi R. R. Co. v. McDon-
ald, 12 Heisk. 54; Bait. & Susque-
hanna R. R. Co. V. Nesblt, 10 How.
395; Bolilman v. Green Bay & Minn.
Ry. Co., 40 Wis. 157.
8 6 Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. Co. v.
Patton, 9 W. Va. 648.
8 "United Railroad & Canal Co. v.
Weldon, 47 N. J. L. 59.
ssFarnum's Petition, 51 IST. H. 376;
Long's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 114.
ssMeCrea v. Port Royal R. R. Co.,
3 S. C. 381, 10 Am. Rep. 729.
soChicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Guthrie,
192 111. 579, 61 N. E. 658; Heinl v.
Terre Haute, 161 Ind. 44, 66 N. E.
450; Ross v. Board of Supervisors,
128 la. 427, 104 K. W. 506, 1 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 431; Paterson etc. Traction
Co. V. De Gray, 70 N. J. L. 59, 56 Atl.
250; Van Emburgh v. Paterson etc.
Traction Co., 70 N. J. L. 668, 59 Atl.
461 ; Matter of Ludlow Street, 172 X.
Y. 542, 65 N. E. 494, affirming S. C. 59
App. Div. 180, 68 N. Y. S. 1046; Mat-
ter of Commissioner of Pub. Works,
111 App. Div. 285, 97 N. Y. S. 503;
S. C. affirmed, 185 N. Y. 391, 78 N. E.
146; Wheeling etc. R. R. Co. v. To-
ledo etc. R. R. Co., 72 Ohio St. 368,
74 N. E. 209, 106 Am. St. Rep. 622;
Texas Midland R. R. Co. v S. W.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 198,
58 S. W. 152; Gulf etc. Ry. Co. y. S.
W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App.
488, 61 S. W. 406; Chelan County v.
Navarre, 38 Wash. 684, 80 Pac. 845.
See post, § 380. Where a party claims
that a law passed pending proceed-
ings applies and the court orders ac-
cordingly and the proceedings are so
conducted; he cannot object after-
wards that the law was not applie-
§ 379 THE STATUTORY AUTIIOPaTY. C91
§ 379 (246). The right to impose additional liabilities.
The charter of a corporation being a contract, the right secured
by it cannot be impaired by subsequent legislation. A statute
imposing upon such corporations a liability for consequential
damages to property by reason of works already executed, where
no such liability existed before, has accordingly been held to
be imconstitutional and void.®^ If the right to repeal, alter or
amend such charter is reserved, a liability for consequential
damages as to the future may imdoubtedly be imposed."^ What-
ever may be the limitation of the right so reserved, it is cer-
tain that, under it, the legislature has the right to make any
reasonable amendments regulating the mode in which the fran-
chise granted shall be used and enjoyed, and to impose any
reasonable duties and obligations upon the corporation. To make
the corporation liable for consequential damages to private prop-
erty as to any future Avorks by it constructed, or any future ex-
ercise by it of the power of eminent domain, wovild certainly
be reasonable, for it is but just that such a corporation should
make good to an individual any loss svistained by him in respect
of his property by reason of the exercise of the corporate pow-
ers. Where the right to occupy the streets of a city is granted
to a railroad corporation by the municipality, such right is sub-
ject to any conditions which may be imposed by general law
prior to its exercise. ^Vhere the right to lay a double track in
a street was granted to a corporation, and after one track was
laid a law was passed requiring compensation to be made to
abutting owners for damages occasioned by laying railroads in
streets, it was held the second track could not be laid without
making compensation as required by the act."^
Whether such corporations can be subjected to additional
able. Columbia Heights Realty Co. Atl. 575; Pierce on Railways, p. 456;
V. Macfarland, 31 App. Cas. D. C. Parker v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 109
112. Mass. 500; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S.
9 1 Bailey V, Philadelphia, Wilming- .319, 324; Worcester >. Norwich &
ton & Bait. R. R. Co., 4 Harr. (Del.) Worcester E. R. Co., 109 Mass. 103;
389, 44 Am. Dee. 593 ; Towie v. East- Portland & Oxford Central R. R. Co.
ern R. R. Co., 18 N. H. 547, 47 Am. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 46 Me. 69.
Dec. 153; Monongahela Navigation ssDrady v. Des Moines & Ft. D. R.
Co. V. Coon, 6 Pa. St. 379, 47 Am. R. Co., 57 la. 393; S. P. Mulholland
Dee. 474. v. D. M. & W. R. R. Co., 00 la. 740 ;
9 2Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Blair, To same effect, Taylor v. Bay City
20 P. St. 71; Northern Central R. R. St. R. R. Co., 80 Mich. 77, 45 N. W.
Co. V. Holland, 117 Pa. St. 613, 12 335.
692 EMINEIfT DOMAISr. § 379
liabilities as to future exercises of tlie power of eminent do-
main or future improvements of property already condemned,
-when no right to alter, repeal or amend their charter is reserved,
is a question of great importance, because Upon its solution de-
pends the efficacy, as to such corporations, of the constitutional
and statutory provisions giving compensation for property dam-
aged or injured, as well as for property taken. In Pennsylvania
it is held that such liability can be imposed without impairing
the obligation of the charter.®* The reasoning of the court is
as follows : "The Constitution of the United States undoubtedly
precludes a State from impairing the obligation of a charter
even through an amendment of its organic law ; but this restrict
tion has never been held to forbid such remedial legislation as
may be requisite to give effect to antecedent rights, or provide
a remedy for injuries that previously went unredressed. A child
was entitled to support from its father at common law, but
he could not recover damages for the frustration of this right
through the parent's death from injuries occasioned by the
negligence of an individual or body corporate. The act which
now affords a remedy for such deprivations, and under which
damages are constantly assessed and judgments rendered, is of
recent origin, and was passed since the creation of the Pennsyl-
vania Kailroad Company, and yet it has never, that I am aware
of, been contended that it was invalid as to pre-existing corpo-
rations or impaired their chartered privileges. In like manner
the citizen has a natural right to compensation, for the conse-
quences of acts done for the public benefit that are injurious
to his estate or person, and a statute which affords a remedy can-
not justly be assailed as unconstitutional. Such an argument
would obviously be fallacious if advanced on behalf of an indi-
vidual, and the principle is the same when the defendant is a
corporation. A power conferred by a charter cannot be abro-
gated without impairing the obligation of the contract ; but the
legislature does not, in making such a grant, contract that per-
sons who are injuriously affected by the exercise of the power are
not entitled to indemnity, nor that it will not provide a means
for rendering their demand effectual. This may be tested by
supposing the incorporation of a railway company in a State
siDuncan v. Pennsylvania Rail- preme Court, 43 Legal. Intel. 79:
road Co., 94 Pa. St. 435, 443. See Northern Central R. R. Co. v. Hol-
also Patent v. Philadelphia etc. R. R. land, 117 Pa. St. 613, 12 Atl. 575.
Co., 17 Phil. 291, affirmed by Su-
§ 380
THE STATUTOBY ATJTHOEITY.
693
■where, as was long the case in Rhode Island, there is no consti-
tutional restraint on the right of eminent domain, and the sub-
sequent enactment of a law providing that land should not be
taken for the use of the road without payment. Would any one
contend that such a statute impaired vested rights, or was with-
in the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States ? If
the question must be answered in the negative, the legislature
might obviously proceed to give a remedy for property injured
or destroyed." This ruling has since been approved by the
Supreme Court of the United States.®^ But a statute imposing
additional liability will not apply in case of works previously
constructed.'®
§ 380 (247). Effect of the repeal, amendment or ex-
piration of statutes. The lapse of the time within which the
compulsory powers conferred by a statute can be exercised puts
an end to any further proceedings, as well as to the right to
condemn. *'' Where the act imposes no limit, none can be im-
posed by construction.'* Whether compulsory powers have ex-
pired or have otherwise been lost by delay or neglect, often be-
comes a question of difficulty. Where a railroad company was
SBPennsylvauia R. E. Co. v. Miller,
132 U. S. 75, 10 S. C. Rep. 34, 1 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 15; affirming S.
C. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Duncan,
111 Pa. St. 352, 5 Atl. Rep. 742. The
court says: "Although it may have
been the law in respect to the defend-
ant, prior to the constitution of 1873,
that under its charter, and the stat-
utes in regard to it, it was not liable
for such consequential damages, yet
there was no contract in that charter,
or in any statute in regard to the de-
fendant, prior to the constitution of
1873, that it should always he exempt
from such liability, or that the State,
by a new constitutional provision, or
the legislature, should not have
power to impose such liability upon
it in cases which should arise after
the exercise of such power. But the
defendant took its original charter
subject to the general law of the
State, and to such changes as might
be made in such general law, and sub-
ject to future constitutional pro-
visions or future general legislation,
since there was no prior contract
with the defendant, exempting it
from liability to such future general
legislation in respect of the subject
matter involved."
ssLampley v. Atlantic Coast Line
E, R. Co., 71 S. C. 156, 50 S. E. 773.
9 'New York etc. R. R. Co. v. Bos-
ton etc. R, R. Co., 36 Conn. 196;
Hartford etc. R. R. Co. v. Montague,
72 Conn. 687, 45 Atl. 961 ; Hartford
etc. R. R. Co. V. Wagner, 73 Conn.
506, 48 Atl. 218 ; In re Hartford etc.
E. R. Co., 74 Conn. 662, 51 Atl. 943;
Peavey v. Calais R. R. Co., 30 Me.
498; Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co. v.
St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228; Morris &
Essex R. R. Co. v. Central R. R. Co.,
31 N. J. L. 205 ; State v. Bergen Neck
R. R. Co., 53 N. J. L. 108, 20 Atl.
762.
ssThicknesse v. Lancaster Canal
Co., 4 M. & W. 471.
694
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 380
required to commence its road and expend ten per cent of its
capital in five years and complete its road in a certain other
period and in default of so doing the statute provided its cor-
porate existence and powers should cease, and the company had
done neither, it was held that the statute executed itself, that no
proceedings or forfeiture were necessary, and that consequently
it could not condemn after the periods specified had elapsed.®'
The same effect was given to a forfeiture clause, the words of
which were, "This act and all the powers, rights and franchises
herein and hereby granted shall be deemed forfeited and ter-
minated." ^ On the other hand a provision in the charter of
a bridge corporation that the bridge should be commenced with-
in two years, "or this act and all rights and privileges granted
hereby shall be null and void," was held not to be self-executing,
and the corporation was permitted to condemn after the two
years had expired.^ Upon the expiration or repeal of a statute
9 9Matter of Brooklyn etc. R. R.
Co., 72 N. Y. 245, S. C. 55 How. Pr.
14.
iBrooldyn Steam Transit Co. v.
City of Brooklyn, 78 N. Y. 524.
2 New York & L. I. Bridge Co. v.
Smith, 148 N. Y. 540, 42 N. E. 1088.
After referring to the cases above
cited the court says: "It requires,
however, strong and unmistakable
language, such as each of the cases
referred to presents, to authorize the
court to hold that it was the inten-
tion of the legislature to dispense
with judicial proceedings on the in-
tervention of the attorney general.
In the case at bar the words of for-
feiture are, 'All rights and privileges
granted hereby shall be null and
void.' It cannot be said that the
words 'shall be null and void' dis-
close the legislative intent to make
this clause self-executing. The words
'null and void,' as used in this con-
nection, clearly mean voidable. The
word 'void' is often used in an un-
limited sense, implying an act of no
effect, a nullity ah initio. Inskeep v.
Lecony, 1 N. J. Law, 112. In the case
at bar it was not so employed, but
rather in its more limited meaning.
We think these words mean no more
than if the legislature had said, in
ease of default, the corporation 'shall
be dissolved.' The attorney general
was authorized to treat the charter
of the bridge company as voidable,
and by appropriate legal proceedings
to have terminated its corporate ex-
istence. The Supreme Court of the
United States, in passing upon the
meaning of the words 'void and of no
effect,' uses this language: 'But
these words are often used in stat-
utes and legal documents * * * in
the sense of 'voidable' merely, — that
is, capable of being avoided, — and not
as meaning that the act or transac-
tion is absolutely a nullity, as if it
never had existed, incapable of giv-
ing rise to any rights or obligations
under any circumstances.' Ewell v.
Daggs, 108 U. S. 148, 2 Sup. Ct. 408."
Where an act provided for extending
a street and directed the corporation
counsel to commence proceedings
therefor within three months, it was
held the power was not lost by a
neglect to proceed within the time
limited. Stevenson v. Mayor etc. of
§ 380
THE STATUTOllY AUTIIOEITY.
095
all inchoate proceedings founded thereon fall to the ground,^
unless there is a saving clause in the repealing acf* A saving
clause in the repeal of a drainage law that the repeal should not
affect any pending proceeding in which a ditch has been or-
dered established, was held not to save a proceeding pending on
appeal from county commissioners, as the appeal had the effect to
vacate the order establishing the ditch^ The repeal of an act
does not affect the substantial rights of the parties acquired un-
der it.**
The effect of a change or amendment of a statute pending
New York, 3 N. Y. Supr. 133. A pro-
vision in a railroad charter that, if
the road is not commenced and com-
pleted within a specified time, the
company should forfeit all rights ac-
quired under the act, can only be
taken advantage of by the State. A
failure to comply is no defense to
condemnation proceedings. Matter
of Brooklyn El. E. R. Co., 125 N. Y.
434, 26 N. E. 474.
sCohen v. Gray, 70 Cal. 85;
County of Menard v. Kincaid, 71 111.
587; Taylor v. Strayer, 167 Ind. 23,
78 N. B. 236, 119 Am. St. Rep. 469;
Clemans v. Hatch, 168 Ind. 291, 78
N. E. 1065; Williams v. County
Comrs. of Lincoln County, 35 Me.
345; State v. Passaic, 36 N. J. L.
382; Commonwealth v. Beatty, 1
Watts 382; Hampton v. Common-
wealth, 19 Pa. St. 329; Boyer's Peti-
tion, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 531; Hatfield
Township Pvoad, 4 Yeates 392; Terry
V. McClung, 104 Va. 599, 52 S. E.
355; Stephens v. Marshall, 3 Chand.
Wis. 222; Pratt v. Brown, 3 Wis.
603; French v. Owen, 5 Wis. 112;
Brocklebank v. Whitehaven Junction
Ry. Co., 15 Sim. 632. Contra: Bur-
rows V. Vandevier, 3 Ohio 383. Where
an act approved March 31, 1866,
required a road to be laid on or be-
fore March 1, 1866, it was held to
be directory as to time. People ex
rel. etc. v. Board of Supervisors, 33
Cal. 487.
<Downs V. Tovra of Huntington, 35
Conn. 588 ; County of Menard v. Kin-
caid, 71 111. 587; McClarren v. Jef-
ferson School, 169 Ind. 140, 82
N. E. 73, 13 L.R.A.(]Sr.S.) 417;
Champlain v. McCrea, 165 N. Y.
264, 59 N. E. 83. And see generally
as to saving clauses and saving stat-
utes, 1 Lewis' Suth. Stat. Constr.
§ 287; 2 /6id. §§ 351-355. Under the
English Acts, where a company has
given an owner notice that it will
require his lands, it may go on and
complete the purchase after the ex-
piration of its compulsory powers.
Salisbury v. Great Northern R. R.
• Co., 17 Q. B. 840, 21 L. J. Q. B. 185,
16 Jur. 740; and see Birmingham R.
R. Co. V. Queen, 15 Q. B. 647, 20 L. J.
Q. B. 304; Ystalyfera Iron Co. v.
Neath R. R. Co., 17 L. R. Eq. 142, 43.
L. J. Ch. 476, 29 L. T. N. S. 662;
Rangely v. Midland R. R. Co., 37 L.
J. Ch. 313, 3 L. R. Ch. 306.
BTaylor v. Strayer, 167 Ind. 23, 78
N. E. 236, 119 Am. St. Rep. 469.
BDuluth v. Duluth Telephone Co.,
84 Minn. 486, 87 N. W. 1127; Dow v.
Electric Co., 68 N. H. 59, 31 Atl. 22;
S. C, sub nom., Electric Co. v. Dow,
166 U. S. 489, 17 S. C. 645; Geneva
etc. Ry. Co. v. N. Y. Cent. etc. R. R.
Co., 163 N. Y. 228, 57 N. E. 498;
Rochester etc. Water Co. v. Roches-
ter, 176 N. Y. 36, 68 N. E. 117, af-
firming S. C. 84 App. Div. 71, 82 N.
Y. S. 450. See generally, 1 Lewis'
Suth. Stat. Constr. §§ 282-285.
C96
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 380
proceedings under it must depend largely upon the circum-
stances of the particular case. If the right to condemn or the
jurisdiction of the particular court or tribunal before which
the proceedings are pending is taken away, the proceedings
must necessarily fall to the ground; but if there is simply a
change in the mode of procedure, then they may be continued
under the new statute.'' Where an amendatory act provides
an unconstitutional method of assessing damages, the amend-
ment is void and the original act remains in force, and pro-
ceedings had in accordance therewith are valid.* The charter
of Sing Sing, passed in 1859, provided that the proceedings to
lay out, open and widen streets should be according to the pro-
visions of the Revised Statutes in regard to laying out highways.
In 1880 the charter was revised and the same provision re-en-
acted ; it was held to mean the Revised Statutes as they were in
1859, and not as they had been amended by an act of 1875."
An act of 1835 provided a mode of assessing damages. An act
of 1838 provided a different mode. An act of 1842 abolishing
'Emerson v. Western Union R. E.
Co., 75 111. 176; Hyslop v. Finch, 99
111. 171 J Chicago etc. K. R. Co. v.
Guthrie, 192 111. 579, 61 N. E. 658;
Heinl v. Terre Haute, 161 Ind. 44,
66 N. E. 450; Ross v. Board of Super-
visors, 128 la. 427, 104 N. W. 506,
1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 431; Treacy v. Eliz-
abethtown etc. R. R. Co., 85 Ky. 270,
3 S. W. 168; S. C. 80 Ky. 266; Van
Emburgh v. Paterson etc. Traction
Co., 70 N. J. L. 668, 59 Atl. 461 ; Mat-
ter of Ludlow Street, 172 N. Y. 542,
65 N. E. 494, affirming S. C. 59 App.
Div. 180, 69 N. Y. S. 1046; Matter of
Commissioner of Public Works, 111
App. Div. 285, 97 N. Y. S. 503; S. C.
affirmed, 185 N. Y. 391, 78 N. E. 146;
Wheeling etc. R. R. Co. v. Toledo
etc. R. R. Co., 72 Ohio St. 368, 74 N.
E. 209, 106 Am. St. Rep. 622; Fene-
lon's Petition, 7 Pa. St. 173; Uwch-
lan Township Road, 30 Pa. St. 156;
Hickory Tree Road, 43 Pa. St. 139;
Tex. Midland R. R. Co. v. S. W. Tel.
& Tel. Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 198, 58
S. W. 152; Gulf etc. Ry. Co. v. S. W.
Tel. & Tel. Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App.
488, 61 S. W. 406; Chelan County v.
Navarre, 38 Wash. 684, 80 Pac. 845;
Bohlman v. Green Bay & Minnesota
Ry. Co., 40 Wis. 157. In New Hamp-
shire it is held that pending proceed-
ings are not affected by a statute re-
lating to procedure only. Colony v.
Dublin, 32 N. H. 432; Boston &
Maine R. R. Co. v. Cilley, 44 N. H.
578; Wentworth v. Farmington, 48
N. H. 207; Matter of New York, 34
N. Y. App. Div. 468. An act may be
passed and expressly made applicable
to pending proceedings. Bridgeport
V. Hubbell, 5 Conn. 237; City and
County of San Francisco v. Kiernan,
98 Cal. 614, 33 Pac. 720; Ross v.
Board of Supervisors, 128 la. 427,
104 N. W. 506, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 431.
sCampbell v. Detroit, 14 Mich.
276 ; Shepardson v. Milwaukee & Be-
loit R. R. Co., 6 Wis. 605.
9 Matter of Altering etc. Main
Street, 98 N. Y. 454, affirming S. 0.
30 Hun 424.
§ 381
THE STATUTOEY AUTHORITY.
697
the board created by the act of 1838 was held equivalent to a
repeal of a repealing act, and the act of 1835 was held to be
restored.^" A repeal of an act under which damages have been
assessed, after the right thereto has vested, does not affect the
rights of the parties. ^^ Generally the procedure should be ac-
cording to the law in force at the time.^^ Proceedings under
an act which has been repealed or has ceased to operate are void
and of no effect.'^
§ 381 (248). General and speciallaws : Repeal by im-
plication. As a rule, a general law does not repeal a prior
special law merely because it embraces the same subject mat-
ter.-^* An intent to repeal the special law must be manifested
either by express words, or by language extending the operation
of the general law to all cases embraced by it, or there must be
some inconsistency or absurdity in the two standing together.
Accordingly a general law in regard to the assessment of dam-
ages or other procedure in condemnation proceedings will not
supersede the provisions of special charters on the subject,^®
unless expressly made applicable to all cases for condemnation,^®
or plainly intended as a revision of all prior laws, general and
special, upon the subject. ^^
lODirectors of Poor v. Kailroad
Co., 7 W. & S. 236.
iiPeople V. Supervisors of West-
chester, 4 Barb. 64; People v. Com-
mon Council of Buffalo, 140 N. Y.
300, 35 N. E. 485 ; People v. Common
Council, 2 Misc. 7, 21 N. Y. Supp. 601.
i2McCrea v. Champlain, 35 App.
Div. N. Y. 89.
isByme v. Drain, 127 Cal. 663, 60
Pac. 433; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal.
560, 89 Pac. 352 ; State v. Tenny, 58
S. C. 215, 36 S. E. 555.
141 Lewis' Suth. Stat. Constr.
§§ 274, 275; Shroder v. Lancaster,
170 Pa. St. 136, 32 Atl. 587.
iBTenn. Coal, Iron & R. E. Co. v.
Birmingham So. Ry. Co., 128 Ala.
526, 29 So. 455 ; North Missouri R. R.
Co. V. Gott, 25 Mo. 540; State v.
Clarke, 25 N. J. L. 54; State v. Tren-
ton, 36 N. J. L. 198; Hudson River
R. R. Co. V. Cutwater, 3 Sand. 689;
Norfolk & Southern R. R. Co. v. Ely,
95 N. C. 77; Dallas County v. Plow-
man, 99 Tex. 509, 91 S. W. 221.
isSanta Cruz v. Enright, 95 Cal.
105, 30 Pac. 197 ; Paterson etc. Trac-
tion Co. v. De Gray, 70 N. J. L. 59,
56 Atl. 250 ; Van Emburgh v. Pater-
son etc. Traction Co., 70 N. J. L.
6^8, 59 Atl. 461; Marlor v. Phila-
delphia etc. R. R. Co., 166 Pa. St.
524, 31 Atl. 255; McCrea v. Port
Royal R. R. Co., 3 S. C. 381, 16 Am.
Rep. 729. But in Gardner v. Ga. R.
R. & B. Co., 117 Ga. 522, 43 S. C. 863,
a general law for the condemnation
of private property, which provided
that "all corporations or persons au-
thorized to take or damage private
property for public purposes shall
proceed as herein set forth,'' was held
not to aflfeet the procedure under a
special railroad charter.
1 'Organ v. Memphis etc. R. R.
Co., 51 Ark. 235, 11 S. W. 96; Treacy
V. Elizabethtown etc. R. R. Co., 85
698
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 38^
§ 382 (248). Two acts conferring same power.
There may be two complete acts in reference to the same sub-
ject matter, such as the construction of gravel roads, the acqui-
sition of parks, etc., though having inconsistent provisions, un-
der either of which proceedings may be had, if the legislature
expressly declares in the second that it was not their intention
to repeal any former act on the subject.-'* So a corporation
may have the option of proceeding under its special charter or
under the general law.-'® In cases where there are two stat-
utes available the proceedings should be wholly under one.^°
§ 383 (24D). Effect of a change in the form of muni-
cipal government. Municipalities frequently put off one
form of government for another, whereby radical changes are
made in the form of government. Towns and villages become
cities. One law of incorporation is exchanged for another.
The laws under -which such changes are made frequently do,
and always ought, to make provisions for all pending suits and
Ky. 270, 3 S. W. 168; S. C. 80 Ky.
260; Knight v. Aroostook Riv. R. R.
Co., 67 Me. 291; Hunt v. Card, 94
Me. 386, 47 Atl. 921 ; State v. Jersey
City, 54 N. J. L. 49, 22 Atl. 1052;
Lehigh Val. E. R. Co. v. Phillips-
burg, 73 N. J. L. 138, 62 Atl. 194;
lloore V. Sui^erior & St. Croix R. R.
Co., 34 Wis. 173.
isLos Angeles v. Leaves, 119 Cal.
164, 51 Pac. 34; Oakland v. Thomp-
son, 151 Cal. 572, 91 Pac. 387 ; Robin-
son V. Ripley, 111 Ind. 112; Driscoll
V. Taunton, 160 Mass. 486, 36 N. E.
495; Detroit v. Daly, 68 Mich. 503;
Trowbridge v. Detroit, 99 Mich. 443,
58 N. W. 308 ; Shroder v. Lancaster,
170 Pa. St. 136, 32 Atl. 587.
isMcMahon v. Cincinnati & Chi-
cago Short Line R. R. Co., 5 Ind. 413 ;
Cascades R. R. Co. v. Sohns, 1 Wash.
Ter. N. S. 558. .And see generally
where there are different statutes
■which may apply: City and County
of San Francisco v. Kiernan, 98 Cal.
014, 33 Pac. 720; Crow v. Judy, 139
Ind. 562, 38 N. E. 415; In re City of
Cedar Rapids, 85 la. 39, 51 N. W.
1142; Arnold v. Council Bluffs, 85
Iowa 441, 52 N. W. 347; Knight v.
Aroostook Riv. R. R. Co., 67 Me. 291 ;
Howes V. Belfast, 72 Me. 46 ; Kearney
Tp. V. Ballantine, 54 N. J. L. 194, 23
Atl. Rep. 821; State v. West Ho-
boken, 54 N. J. L. 508, 24 Atl. Rep.
477; New York etc. R. R. Co. v.
Welsh, 143 N. Y. 411, 38 N. E. 378,
42 Am. St. Rep. 734; City of Syra-
cuse V. Stacey, 86 Hun 441, 33 N. Y.
Supp. 929; Durham & N. R. R. Co.
V. Richmond & D. R. R. Co., 106 N.
C. 16, 10 S. E. 1041 ; Gwinner v. Le-
high R. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 126; Ap-
peal of Borough of Hanover, 150 Pa.
St. 202, 24 Atl. 669; Appeal of Hunt-
ington etc. R. R. Co., 149 Pa. St. 133,
24 Atl. 189; In re Public Alley, 160
Pa. St. 89, 28 Atl. 506; Seaman v.
Borough of Washington, 172 Pa. St.
407, 33 Atl. 756 ; In re Sewer St., 20
Phil. 367; West Whiteland Road, 4
Pa. Co. Ct. 511 ; Chestnut St., 8 Pa.
Co. Ct. 55; Sewickley Borough v.
Jennings, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 75; Tuttle
V. Knox County, 89 Tenn. 157, 14 S.
W. 486.
2 0 Verona v. Railroad Co., 187 Pa.
St. 358, 41 Atl. 276.
§ 383 THE STATUTOEY AUTIlOraiY. 699
proceedings and all accrued rights and liabilities in sucli a
way as to prevent confusion or loss. But sometimes this is not
done, and the question arises, what would be the effect of such
a change upon pending proceedings for condemnation? It
would be difficult to lay down any general rule for such cases,
but the following decisions may be noticed: County Commis-
sioners acquired jurisdiction to lay out a town way in the town
of Lawrence, in July, 1852. The way was finally located and
established April 12, 1853. On March 29, 1853, the town
became a city, by accepting a charter granted by the legislature.
By this charter jurisdiction of the subject matter was taken
away from the county commissioners as to the incorporated
territory. The charter continued the town officers until the
organization of the city government, which did not take place
till April 18, 1853. The lay-out was held valid.^i In another
case the Scheme and Charter for the city and county of St.
Louis was adopted on August 22, 1876, and by its terms was to
be operative in sixty days thereafter. A controversy arose
over its adoption, which was not determined until Mai'ch 5,
1877, and until then it was unknown whether it was adopted
or not. On ISTovember 26, 1876, proceedings were begun for
opening a street, pursuant to ordinances passed in January
and July, 1876. These proceedings were finally completed,
by the confirmation of the commissioner's report, on March 26,
1877. The proceedings were begun and carried on according
to the old charter. The new charter provided that all ordi-
nances for the opening of any street upon which proceedings
should not be begun when the charter went into operation should
stand repealed. In theory the new charter was in operation
from and after October 22, 1876. But the proceedings were
sustained on what was called the de facto principle. ^^ A stat-
ute of California provided that the board of water commission-
ers of a township should establish a ditch upon receiving a
petition from a majority of the persons in a township liable to
work on water ditches. Such petition was presented to the
commissioners of San Jose township and, pending proceedings
under it, Azusa township was set off from San Jose. The com-
missioners of Azusa township, in which the proposed ditch would
be, filed a supplemental petition and continued the proceedings.
2iDurant v. Lawrence, 1 Allen 22St. Louis v. Stoddard, 15 Mo.
125. App. 173.
TOO
EMia'ENT DOMAIW.
§ 384
This was held to be erroneous, and it was further held that new
proceedings would have to be begun, based upon a petition by the
required number of persons residing in the new township.^*
§ 384 (250). Conflict of jurisdiction between different
authorities having power in the same territory. Where a
city or borough is vested with power to lay out and improve
streets, the authorities of a town or county embracing such city
or borough are precluded from exercising the same power with-
in the same territory.^* Of course it is otherwise if the city
or borough has no authority in the premises.^' So it is held
that under a general drainage act a ditch cannot be established
wholly within a city which has full power to make sewers and
drains for any purpose for which they are needed.^* This
seems the reasonable rule. To hold otherwise might bring
about very disagreeable and disastrous conflicts of jurisdiction
and authority. Some courts have held, however, that in such
cases the jurisdiction is concurrent.^^ In many cases town
2 3 Dal ton V. Water Commissioners,
49 Cal. 222; see also, on the same
subject, Minhinnah v. Haines, 29 N.
J. L. 388; Road in Sterrett Tp., 123
Pa. St. 231, 16 Atl. 777; Shaaber v.
City of Reading, 133 Pa. St. 643, 19
Atl. 419.
2 4 Shields v. Highway Comrs., 158
111. 214, 41 N. E. 985; Gascho v, Solil,
155 Ind. 417, 58 N. E. 547; Gallagher
V. Head, 7J?Ia. 173; State v. Clarke,
25 N. J. L. 54; State v. Trenton, 36
N. J. L. 198; Cherry v. Board of
Comrs., 52 N. J. L. 544, 20 Atl. 970,
affirming S. C. 51 N. J. L. 417, 18
Atl. 299; In re Piscataway & B. Tps.,
54 N. J. L. 539, 24 Atl. 759 ; Freeman
V. Price, 63 N. J. L. 151, 43 Atl. 432;
Atlantic Coast Line Elec. E. R. Co.
V. Griffin, 64 N. J. L. 513, 46 Atl.
1062; Salsbury v. Gaskin, 66 N. J. L.
Ill, 48 Atl. 531; Pleasant Hill v.
Commissioners, 71 Ohio St. 133, 72 N.
E. 896; Easton Road Case, 3 Rawle,
195; Somerset etc. Road, 74 Pa. St.
01; South Chester Road, 80 Pa. St.
370; Cowan's Case, 1 Overton 310;
Street in Donnington, 3 Pa. Co. Ct.
455; Road in Huntington, 11 Pa. Co.
Ct. 119; Norwood v. Gonzales
County, 79 Tex. 218, 14 S. W. Rep.
1057. And see In re Twenty-eighth
St., 15 Phil. 350.
2 6 Washington v. Fisher, 43 N. J.
L. 377; State v. Troth, 34 N. J. L.
377; Road in Mercer, 14 S. & R. 447;
Matter of Callowhill St., 32 Pa. St.
361.
2 6 Anderson v. Endicutt, 101 Ind.
539.
2 7 Norwich v. Story, 25 Conn. 44;
Bennington v. Smith, 29 Vt. 254;
Windham v. Cumberland County
Commissioners, 26 Me. 406. In such
case the authorities first instituting
proceedings will be entitled to pro-
ceed. Monroe v. Danbury, 24 Conn.
199; Powers v. City Council of
Springfield, 116 Mass. 84. Special
cases: The charter of Newark, ap-
proved March 11, 1857, gave to the
city council the power to lay out and
open streets. By' act of March 20,
1857, exclusive power over the sub-
ject was conferred upon commis-
sioners to be appointed by the coun-
cil; held a repeal of the former act
as to the power in question. State
§ 385
TnE STATUTOEY AUTIIOEITT.
TOl
or county authorities have authority to lay out town or county
roads, while the city or village authorities have exclusive juris-
diction of purely local streets.^* The authorities of the larger
jurisdiction may lay out a way wholly within the smaller when
it is of the character over which they have jurisdiction.** In
Massachusetts it is held that the selectmen of a town may lay
out a highway wholly within their town, but extending to the
town limits and there connecting with other roads so as to
form a continuous inter-town thoroughfare, though the county
commissioners alone have jurisdiction to establish inter-town
ways.^° But the contrary is held in iN'ew Hampshire.^^
§ 385 (251). Statutes have no extra-territorial effect.
It is a general rule that statutes have no extra-territorial ef-
fect.^* It follows that one State cannot authorize the condem-
nation of property in another State ;^^ also, that it cannot au-
thorize works which will produce actionable damages in another
V. Newark, 28 X. J. L. 491. The city
of New Orleans was divided into
municipalities i held that one mu-
nicipality could not open a street, the
center line of which was the dividing
line between it and another munici-
pality, under a, statute formerly ap-
plicable to the whole city. Munici-
pality No. 1 V. Young, 5 La. An. 362.
And see People v. Lake County, 33
Cal. 487; Sparling ". Dwenger, 60
Ind. 72.
2 8State V. County Comrs., 23 Fla.
632; Harkness v. Waldo County
Comrs., 26 Me. 353; Herman v.
County Comrs., 39 Me. 583; City of
Deering v. County Comrs., 87 Me.
151, 32 Atl. 797 ; Cragie v. Mellen, 6
Mass. 7 ; Monterey v. County Comrs.,
7 Cush. 394; People v. Highway
Comr., 15 Mich. 347; Wells v. Mc-
Laughlin, 17 Ohio 97; Palo Alto
Road View, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 537 ; Kelly
V. Danby, 46 Vt. 504.
2 Din the following cases it was
held that county commissioners
could, under a proper petition, lay
out a way wholly within a town or
village: Harkness v. Waldo County
Comrs., 26 Me. 353; Herman v.
County Comrs., 39 Me. 583; Wells
V. McLaughlin, 17 Ohio 97 ; Kelly v.
Danby, 46 Vt. 504. Under a petition
for a way in two towns, a, way can-
not be laid out wholly in one of the
towns : Hopkinton v. Winship, 35 N.
H. 209; Petition of Newport, 39 N.
H. 67.
3 "Monterey v. County Comrs., 7
Cush. 394.
aiGriffin's Petition, 27 N. H. 343.
And see Biddeford v. County Comrs.,
78 Me. 105.
321 Lewis' Suth. Stat. Constr.,
§ 13.
ssSoutheru 111. & Mo. Bridge Co.
V. Stone, 174 Mo. 1, 73 S. W. 453, 63
L.E.A. 301; Crosby v. Hanover, 36
N. H. 404; Saunders v. Bluefield W.
W. & Imp. Co., 58 Fed. 133; St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. S. W. Tel. &
Tel. Co., 121 Fed. 276, 58 C. C. A.
198; Evansville Traction Co. v. Hen-
derson Bridge Co., 134 Fed. 973. In
Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404, the
attempt was to condemn a bridge
across the Connecticut River, one end
of which was in Vermont.
T02 EMINEN^T DOMAIN-. § 386
State,^* or in territory -within a State, jurisdiction over which
has been ceded to the United States.*^ Where a mill erected
in Massachusetts flowed lands in New Hampshire, it was held
that damages could not be assessed in iNew Hampshire under
the statutes of the latter State in relation to mills.^® And,
generally, the mill acts of one State do not apply to mills
erected out of the State, though flowing lands in the former
State.^^ But where a mill or other works in one State pro-
duces damage in another State, a common law action can be
maintained in the State where the works are situated.^*
The city of Worcester, Massachusetts, took the waters of
Tatnuck Brook for public use, as a water supply for said city.
The brook was a tributary of the Blackstone Eiver, and the
diversion of the waters of the brook diminished the supply of
water coming to mills on the Blackstone Kiver situated in
Ehode Island. In Manville Company v. Worcester,^' the
plaintiff, having a mill in the latter State, was allowed to main-
tain an action of tort in Massachusetts for damages caused by
the diversion. lii Banigan v. Worcester** it appeared that
several suits were begun in the superior court of Worcester
county, Massachusetts, under the statutes of the latter State,
by the owners of mill property situated on the Blackstone River
in Ehode Island, for a statutory assessment of damages by
reason of the diversion of Tatnuck Brook. These cases were
removed to the Federal court, and it was held by Carpenter,
J., that the suits were reiaovable, and that the petitions were
well brought under the statute.*^
§ 386 (252). When a naked or defective authority to
condemn may be exercised according to previous statutes,
3 4Farnum v. Blackstone Canal Co., 3 9138 Mass. 89.
1 Sumner 46; Holyoke Water Power ^ogo Fed. 392.
Co. V. Connecticut River Co., 22 "This view is also supported by
Blatch. 131. Brickett v. Haverhill Aqueduct Co.,
3 5United States v. Ames, 1 W. & 142 Mass. 394, where it was held that
M. 76. one who owned lands situated partly
3 6 Salisbury Mills v. Forsaith, 57 in Massachusetts and partly in New
N. H. 124. To the same effect, Woos- Hampshire, which were injured by
ter V. Great Falls Manf. Co., 39 Me. the diversion of a stream in Massa-
246. chusetts to supply a village, must
^Tlhid. seek his remedy under the statute for
3 8Wooster v. Great Falls Manf. his lands in both States, and that an
Co., 39 Me. 246; Mannville Co. v. action of tort would not lie.
Worcester, 138 Mass. 89.
§ 386 THE STATUTOEY AUTJIOEITY. '703
and when not. The provision of the constitution that com-
pensation must be made for property taken for public use is
absolute and imperative. When the legislature authorizes the
taking of private property it must make provision for ascertain-
ing and paying compensation. But such provision need not be
made in each particular act conferring authority. Where
authority to condemn is conferred by an act which is silent as
to compensation, it sometimes becomes a nice question whether
the provisions of prior statutes can be invoked to help it out.
Where an additional authority to condemn property' is conferred
upon a company it may be exercised according to the provisions
of prior statutes applicable to the company.*^ Where power
to lay out streets and alleys is conferred by special act upon a
particular borough, or is contained in a special charter, the
municipality may proceed according to the provisions of the
general law in regard to highways.** The same is true also
where the legislature direct or authorize the proper authorities
to lay out a particular street or highway.** In a case which
arose in Virginia it appeared that the government of county
affairs was vested in the county court which was authorized to
condemn property when necessary for the use of the county.
By a subsequent statute the management of the county affairs
was vested in a board of supervisors, whose duty it was among
other things, to provide suitable buildings for the use of the
county. It was held that the authority to condemn property
for county buildings was necessarily implied, and that com-
pensation could be assessed according to the prior statute, which
in terms applied only to the county court.* ^ A corporation
was created by special charter, with power to buy, maintain
or manage any works, public or private, which may tend, or
be designed, to improve, increase, facilitate or develop, trade,
travel, transportation of freight, live stock, passengers or any
other traffic by land or water in the United States. It was
authorized "to enter upon and occupy the lands of individuals
or companies, on making payment therefor or giving security
4 2Railroad Co. v. State, 9 Bax. Me. 431; Warner v. Hennepin
522; Heady v. Vevay etc. Turnpike County, 9 Minn. 139; Hamlin v. New
Co., 52 Ind. 117. Bedford, 143 Mass. 192.
4 3Barnes v. Springfield, 4 Allen < 5 Supervisors of Culpepper v. Gor-
488; Sharett's Road, 8 Pa. St. 89. rell, 20 Gratt. 484. Compare § 371
4 4Smedley v. Erwin, 51 Pa. St. and cases there cited.
445; City of Belfast, Appellants, 53
704 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 386
according to law." ]Sro mode of procedure was pointed out,
and it would appear that there was no general eminent domain
statute. It was held that the company could proceed to con-
demn under the law applicable to the particular kind of works
it proposed to construct; that is, it could use the railroad law,
if it proposed to construct a railroad, the natural gas law, if
it proposed to transport natural gas, and so on.*® General
eminent domain statutes are now common, which provide a
complete mode of procedure for the condemnation of property
and ascertaining the compensation. When such statutes are
in force a naked power to condemn may be exercised under the
general law.*'^ And where in ca,se of drainage laws, the mode
provided for ascertaining the compensation was held to be
invalid, it was held that resort could be had to the general law
to effect the condemnation.**
A Kentucky statute as to parks in cities of the first class,
authorized the condemnation of property, provided what the
petition should contain in certain cases and made full pro-
vision for the payment of the compensation, but contained a
provision as to procedure which was found to be nugatory. It
was held that the condemnation might be made by petition to
any court of competent jurisdiction and the proceedings con-
ducted according to the course of the common law.*®
4 6Carothers v. Philadelphia Co., common law; that the circuit court
118 Pa. St. 468, 12 Atl. 314. of Jefferson county, being a court of
■*7Poulan V. Atlantic Coast Line original and general jurisdiction, has
R. R. Co., 123 Ga. 605, 51 S. E. 657; jurisdiction of the proceeding. The
Stowe V. Newborn, 127 Ga. 421, 56 court can permit the jury to hear
S. E. 516; Mercer County v. Wolff, such evidence as may be offered as to
237 111. 74; Orange County v. Ells- the necessity of condemning prop-
worth, 98 App. Div. 275, 90 N. Y. S. erty, and as to its value, and have
576. the jury view the property sought to
4 8 Cleveland etc. Ry. Co. v. Polecat be condemned, and instruct it as to
Dr. Dist., 213 111. 83, 72 N. E. 684; the method of ascertaining and fixing
Smith V. Claussen Park D. & L. Dist., the value of the property taken, and
229 111. 155, 82 N. E. 278. as to the damages for taking same,
<i>Board of Park Comrs. v. Du if any results. It would be within
Pont, 110 Ky. 743, 62 S. W. 891. The the power of the court to fix the day
court says : "We are of the opinion upon which the money should be paid
that the legislature intended, upon to the owner of the property taken,
the filing of the petition for the con- and to adjudge that, upon the board's
demnation of private property for failure to pay it at that time, the
park purposes, the procedure should proceedings were to be void, or to be
be according to the course of the regarded as being abandoned. It
§ 386
THE STATUTOEY AUTHORITY.
705
A chapter of the general statutes of Minnesota, relating to
roads, cartways and bridges, contained complete provisions for
the laying out of town roads by town supervisors. It contained
a section as to town line roads as follows: "Whenever the
supervisors of any town receive a petition praying for the loca-
tion of a new road, or the altering or discontinuing of an old
one, on the line between two towns, such road shall be laid out,
altered, or discontinued by two or more of the supervisors of
each of said towns, either on such line or as near thereto as
the convenience of the ground will admit; and they may so
vary the same either to one side or the other of such line as
they think proper." The statute contained no other provision
as to procedure in case of such roads and there was no pro-
vision as to how the damages were to be paid or apportioned,
or how a record was to be made for each town. It was held
that the procedure as to town roads should be applied with
appropriate and necessary changes, that the papers should be
kept and record made by the town in which the petition was
filed and a copy filed in the other town, and that the damages
should be apportioned by the supervisors of the two towns
acting jointly.^**
seems to us that the court would
have complete jurisdiction to protect
the rights of all parties concerned;"
p. 754.
soHurst V. Martinsburg, 80 Minn.
40, 82 N. W. 1099. As such cases are
rare, we quote from the opinion as
follows: "The several provisions of
the chapter, so far as applicable to
the subject in hand, are not as full
and complete as well-considered and
carefully prepared statutes might be
made, but omissions as to the mode
and manner of conducting the pro-
ceedings thereby authorized may be
supplied by intendment, and do not
affect the constitutionality of the
law as a whole. Other sections of
this statute provide for laying out
town roads by town supervisors, for
notice to all interested parties, and
for damages and compensation for
land taken. And, unless the section
under consideration is to be stricken
Em. D. — 45.
from the statutes, and held entirely
meaningless, such other provisions
must be referred to, and applied to
proceedings to lay out a town-line
road under it. They may be resorted
to and applied without much diffi-
culty, and the legislature evidently
so intended. The supervisors receiv-
ing the petition for such town-line
road must take the active charge and
conduct of the proceedings, but in the
matter of determining whether the
road shall be laid out, and in assess-
ing damages, they can act only in
conjunction with the supervisors of
the adjoining town. The records may
be kept in the town in which the pro-
ceedings are commenced, and dupli-
cates filed in the adjoining town ; and
the matter of the division of the dam-
ages to be paid, between the towns,
must be left to the judgment and dis-
cretion of both boards. The notices
required to be given, in the case of
706
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 387
§ 387 (253). The authority must be strictly pursued.
This is a proposition so universally conceded and so often reit-
erated by the courts that it requires no discussion, and we shall
simply refer to some of the principal ' cases illustrating the
doctrine.®^ "As private property can be taken for public uses,
an ordinary town road must be served
in the same manner in this proceed-
ing. Three copies should be posted
in each town.
"Statutes must be so construed
as to give eflFect to every section and
part, and, when any doubts arise as
to the constitutionality thereof, such
doubts must be resolved in favor of
the law. That the legislature in-
tended that the section of the statute
under consideration should have
some force and effect is too evident
to be for a moment doubted. And
that it was further intended that
the other sections on the subject of
laying out town roads generally
should be resorted to and applied to
this section and proceedings under it,
we have no doubt. We so construe
and interpret it." pp. 42, 43.
Compare, with last two cases
Chaffer's Appeal, 56 Mich. 244, and
Wautauga Water Co. v. Scott, 111
Tenn. 321, 76 S. W. 888.
siMobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Ala. Mid.
R. R. Co., 87 Ala. 501, 6 So. 404; New
& Old Decatur Belt etc. R. R. Co. v.
Karcher, 112 Ala. 676, 21 So. 825;
Roberts v. Williams, 15 Ark. 43;
Beusley v. Mountain Lake Water Co.,
13 Cal. 306, 73 Am. Dee. 575; Curran
v. Shattuck, 24 Cal. 427; Lincoln v.
Colusa, 28 Cal. 662; Damrell v. Board
of Supervisors etc. 40 Cal. 154; Shep-
herd V. Turner, 129 Cal. 530, 62 Pac.
106; Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Four
Mile Ry. Co., 29 Colo. 90, 66 Pac.
002; Keefer v. Bridgeport, 68 Conn.
401, 36 Atl. 801; Brown v. Macfar-
land, 19 App. Caa. D. C. 525; Fla.
Cent. etc. R. R. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla.
319, 31 So. 287; Young v. McKenzie,
3 Ga. 31 ; Justices etc. v. Plank Road
Co., 9 Ga. 475; Hyslop v. Finch, 99
111. 171; Chicago & Alton R. R. Co.
V. Smith, 78 111. 96; Reid v. Ohio
Miss. R. R. Co., 126 111. 48, 17 ST. E.
807; Phillips v. Scales Mound, 195
111. 353, 63 N. E. 180; Funderburk v.
Spengler, 234 111. 574, 85 N. E. 193;
Finke v. Zeigemiller, 77 la. 253, 42
N. W. 183; Gauo v. Minneapolis etc.
R. R. Co., 114 la. 713, 87 N. W. 714,
89 Am. St. Rep. 393, 55 L.R.A. 203 ;
New Orleans v. Sohr, 16 La. An. 393;
Mayor etc. of Jefferson v. Delachaise,
22 La. An. 26; Calder v. Police Jury,
44 La. An. 173, 10 So. 726; Pingree v.
Co. Comrs., 30 Me. 351 ; Hubbard v.
Great Falls Mfg. Co., 80 Me. 39, 12
Atl. 878; Harris v. Inhabitants of
Marblehead, 10 Gray 40; Wamesit
Power Co. v. Allen, 120 Mass. 352;
Derby v. Framingham etc. R. R. Co.,
119 Mass. 516; Kroop v. Forman, 31
Mich. 144; Detroit Sharpshooters'
Association v. Highway Commis-
sioners, 34 Mich. 36; Toledo, Ann
Arbor & Northern Mich. R. R. Co. v.
Munson, 57 Mich. 42; Stockett v.
Nicholson, Walker, Miss. 75; St.
Louis V. Franks, 78 Mo. 41; Chicago
etc. R. R. Co. V. Young, 96 Mo. 39, 8
S. W. 776; Orrick School Dist. v.
Dorton, 125 Mo. 439, 28 S. W. 765;
Nishnabotna Dr. Dist. v. Campbell,
154 Mo. 151, 55 S. W. 276; Williams
V. Kirby, 169 Mo. 622, 70 S. W. 140;
In re Grading Bledsoe Hill, 200 Mo.
630, 98 S. W. 631 ; State v. Tarrelly,
36 Mo. App. 282 ; Taylor v. Todd, 48
Mo. App. 550; Spurgeon v. Bartlett,
56 Mo. App. 349 ; Rousey v. Wood, 57
Mo. App. 650; Glass v. Basin Min.
etc. Co., 22 Mon. 151, 55 Pac. 1047;
387
THE STATUTOIIY AUTIIOEITY.
707
against the consent of the owner only in snch cases, and by such
proceedings, as may be specially provided by law, and as these
proceedings are not according to the common law, and are in
derogation of pri-\'ate right, and as they wholly depend on stat-
ute regulation in this State, any one using this extraordinary
and harsh power must comply with all the provisions of the
statute." ^^ A strict compliance with the statute does not nec-
essarily mean a literal and exact compliance.^* A substantial
compliance will suffice.''* As to what is a substantial compli-
Helena v. Rogan, 26 Mont. 452, 68
Pae. 798; S. C. 27 Mont. 135, 69 Pac.
709 ; Nelson v. Harlan County, 2 Neb.
(Unof.) 537, 89 N. W. 458; State v.
Van Geison, 15 N. J. L. 339; Griscom
V. Gilmore, same, p. 475; State v.
Jersey City, 25 N. J. L. 309; State
V. Town of Bergen, 33 N. J. L. 72;
State V. Jersey City, 54 N. J. L. 49,
22 Atl. 1052; State v. Hernsley, 59
N. J. L. 149 ; State v. Larabee, 59 N.
J. L. 259 ; Hampton v. Clinton Water
etc. Co., 65 N. J. L. 158, 46 Atl. 650;
Whittingham v. Hopkins, 70 N. J. L.
322, 57 Atl. 402; Manda v. Orange,
75 N. J. L. 251 ; Leyba v. Armijo, 11
N. M. 437, 68 Pac. 939; Newell v.
Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 486; Miller v.
Brown, 56 N. Y. 383; Schneider v.
Rochester, 160 N. Y. 165; reversing
33 App. Div. 458 ; Matter of Schrei-
ber, 53 How. Pr. 359 ; Harbeck v. To-
ledo, 11 Ohio St. 219 ; Grant v. Hyde
Park, 67 Ohio St. 166, 65 N. E. 891 ;
Woodniff V. Douglass Co., 17 Ore.
314, 21 Pac. 49; Grande Ronde Elec.
Co. V. Drake, 46 Ore. 243, 78 Pac.
1031; Killbuck Private Road, 77 Pa.
St. 39; Appeal of Borough of Cur-
wensville, 129 Pa. St. 74; Harbaugh's
Road, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 671; Painter's
Lateral R. R. Co., 198 Pa. St. 461, 48
Atl. 299; Bell v. Ohio etc. R. R. Co.,
1 Grant 105 ; McCotter v. New Shore-
ham, 21 R. I. 43, 41 Atl. 572 ; Town of
Wayne v. Caldwell, 1 S. D. 483, 47
N. W. 547, 36 Am. St. Rep. 750;
Lewis V. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 5 S.
D. 148, 58 N. W. 580 ; Gulf etc. R. R.
Co. V. Poindexter, 70 Tex. 98, 7 S. W.
316; Galveston Wharf Co. v. Gulf etc.
R. R. Co., 72 Tex. 454, 10 S. W. 537;
Gulf, H. & S. A. R. R. Co. v. Mud
Creek, I. A. & M. Co., 1 Tex. App.
Civil Cas. p. 169; Post v. Rutland R.
R. Co., 80 Vt. 551, 69 Atl. 156;
Painter v. St. Clair, 98 Va. 85, 34 S.
E. 989 ; Adams v. Clarksburg, 23 W.
Va. 203; Fork Ridge Baptist Cem.
Ass. v. Redd, 33 W. Va. 262, 10 S. E.
405; Charleston & S. S. Bridge Co. v.
Comstock, 36 W. Va. 263, 15 S. E.
69; Bohbnan v. Green Bay & Minn.
Ry. Co., 40 Wis. 157; Eraser v.
Mulany, 129 Wis. 377, 109 N. W. 139;
Herron v. Improvem't Comrs., L. R.
(1892) A. C. 498. "The form by
which private property may be taken
for public purposes having been pre-
scribed, it must be strictly pursued,
or the attempt will be ineffectual and
the proceedings void, and all persons
acting under the color of them will be
trespassers." Stewart v. Wallis, 30
Barb. 344.
5 2Fork Ridge Baptist Cem. Ass. v.
Redd, 33 W. Va. 262, 10 S. E. 405.
6 3Darrow v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
169 Ind. 99.
5 4Darrow v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co.,
169 Ind. 99, 81 N. E. 1081 ; Nickerson
v. Lynch, 135 Mo. 471, 37 S. W. 128;
Jones V. Zink, 65 Mo. App. 409;
Dodge County v. Acorn, 61 Neb. 376,
85 N. W. 292; Charleston etc. S. S.
Bridge Co. v. Comstock, 36 W. Va.
263, 15 S. E. 69.
708
EMIITENT DOMAIN.
§ 388
ance will be considered in future chapters relating to procedure
and the validity of the proceedings when collaterally attacked.
Courts cannot dispense with the forms and conditions pre-
scribed by law, on the notion that they are not essential. The
very fact that they are prescribed naakes them matters of sub-
stance.®^ When the matter is in doubt the general rule applies
in favor of the property owner and against the party attempt-
ing to enforce the statute.
§, 388 (254). The authority to condemn will be strictly
construed. All grants of power by the government are to be
strictly construed, and this is especially true with respect to
the power of eminent domain, which is more harsh and per-
emptory in its exercise and operation than any other.®® "An
5 5 Hawkins v. Pittsburg, 220 Pa.
St. 7, 69 Atl. 283. "Every condition
prescribed in the grant must be com-
plied with, and the proceedings must
be conducted in the manner and with
the formalities prescribed in the
grant of power. Formalities and
modes of procedure prescribed are of
the essence of the grant, which the
courts cannot disregard on a concep-
tion that they are not essential."
State V. Jersey City, 54 N. J. L. 49,
22 Atl. Eep. 1052.
6 6Keynolds v. Spears, I Stew. 34;
Martin v. Eushton, 42 Ala. 289 ; Mo-
bile etc. E. E. Co. V. Ala. Mid. E. E.
Co., 87 Ala. 501 ; Oritz v. Hansen, 35
Colo. 100, 83 Pac. 964; Waterbury v.
Piatt Bros. & Co., 75 Conn. 387, 53
Atl. 958, 96 Am. St. Eep. 229; Florida
Cent. etc. E. E. Co. v. Bear, 43 Fla.
319, 31 So. 287; Alabama Great
Southern E. E. Co. v. Gilbert, 71 Ga.
591 ; Hopkins v. Fla. Cent. etc. E. E.
Co., 97 Ga. 107, 25 S. E. 452; Oconee
Elec. Lt. & P. Co. V. Carter, 111 Ga.
106, 36 S. E. 457; Chestates Pyrites
Co. V. Cavenders Creek Gold Min.
Co., 119 Ga. 354, 46 S. E. 422, 100 Am.
St. Eep. 174; Chicago & Eastern Illi-
nois E. E. Co. V. Wiltse, 116 111. 449,
6 N. E. 49 ; Harvey v. Aurora etc. E.
E. Co., 174 111. 295, 51 N. E. 163;
Phillips V. Scales Mound, 195 111. 353,
63 N. E. 180; Funderburk v. Speng-
ler, 234 111. 574, 85 N. E. 193; Chi-
cago etc. Ey. Co. v. Chicago Me-
chanics Inst., 239 111. 197 ; Eward v.
Lawrenceburgh etc. E. E. Co., 7 Ind.
711 ; Atchison etc. Ey. Co. v. Kansas
City etc. Ey. Co., 67 Kan. 569, 70
Pac. 939, 73 Pac. 899; Board of Park
Comrs. V. Du Pont, 110 Ky. 743, 62
S. W. 891; Breaux v. Bienvenu, 51
La. An. 687, 25 So. 321 ; Spofford v.
B. & B. E. E. Co., 66 Me. 26; Binney's
Case, 2 Bland. Ch. (Md.) 99; City of
Detroit v. Wabash etc. E. E. Co., 63
Mich. 712, 30 N. W. 321; Belcher
Sugar Eefining Co. v. St. Louis Grain
Elevator Co., 82 Mo. 121; Kansas
City Interurban Ey. Co. v. Davis, 197
Mo. 669, 95 S. W. 881, 114 Am. St
Eep. 790; Cox v. Tifton, 18 Mo. App,
450; Chandler v. Eeading, 129 Mo.
App. 63; Claremont Ey. & Lt. Co. v.
Putney, 73 N. H. 431, 62 Atl. 727;
Simpson v. South Staffordshire
Water Works Co., 34 L. J. Eq. 380;
Jersey City v. Central E. E. Co., 40
jST. J. Eq. 417; Watson v. The Ac-
quacknonck Water Co., 36 N. J. L.
195 ; Beck v. United N. J. E. E. Co.,
39 N. J. L. 45; Central E. E. Co. v.
Hudson Terminal Co., 46 N. J. L.
289; Hampton v. Clinton Water etc.
Co., 65 N. J. L. 158, 46 Atl. 650; Met-
lar V. Middlesex County etc. Traction
§ 388
THE STATUTOEY AUTHOEITY.
709
act of this sort," says Bland, J., "deserves no favor ; to construe
it liberally would be sinning against the rights of property." "'^
But, as in other cases, such a construction will, if possible, be
given to an act as will carry into effect the chief and manifest
Co., 72 N. J. L. 524, 63 Atl. 497, re-
versing S. C. sub nom. Middlesex etc.
Traction Co. v. Metlar, 70 N. J. L.
98, 56 Atl. 142; Mauda v. Orange, 75
N. J. L. 251 ; Belknap v. Belknap, 2
Johns. Ch. 463, 7 Am. Dec. 548 ; New
York etc. R. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y.
546, 7 Am. Rep. 385; Matter of
Poughkeepsie Bridge Co., 108 N. Y.
483, 15 N. E. 601 ; Matter of Union
El. R. R. Co., 113 N. Y. 275, 21 N. E.
81; Erie R. R. Co. v. Steward, 170
N. Y. 172, 63 N". E. 118, affirming S.
C. 61 App. Div. 480, 70 N. Y. S. 698;
Lea V. Johnson, 9 Iredell Law, 15;
Carolina etc. Ry. Co. v. Pennearden
L. & M. Co., 132 N. C. 644, 44 S. E.
358; Miami Coal Co. v. Wigton, 19
Ohio St. 560; City of Cincinnati v.
Sherike, 47 Ohio St. 217, 25 N. E.
169; Cleveland etc. Ry. Co. v. South,
78 Ohio St. 10; Central Union Tele-
phone Co. V. Colmnbus Grove, 8 Ohio
C. C. (N.S.) 81; Packer v. Sunbury
etc. R. R. Co., 19 Pa. St. 211 ; Pitts-
burgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co. v. Brace,
102 Pa. St. 23; Woods v. Greensboro
Nat. Gas Co., 204 Pa. St. 606, 54 Atl.
470; Pa. Telephone Co. v. Hoover,' 209
Pa. St. 555, 58 Atl. 922 ; Snee v. West
Side Belt R. R. Co., 210 Pa. St. 480,
60 Atl. 94; Lazarus v. Morris, 212 Pa.
St. 128, 61 Atl. 815; Pa. Telephone
Co. V. Hoover, 24 Pa. Supr. Ct. 96;
Pfoutz V. Pa. Telephone Co., 24 Pa.
Supr. Ct. 105; S. W. State Normal
School, 26 Pa. Supr. Ct. 99; Warren
Academy of Sciences, 29 Pa. Co. Ct.
30; Woolard v. Nashville, 108 Tenn.
353, 67 S. W. 801 ; O'Neal v. City of
Sherman, 77 Tex. 182, 14 S. W. 31 ;
Charlottesville v. Maury, 96 Va. 383,
31 S. E. 520; Painter v. St. Clair, 98
Va. 85, 34 S. E. 989; Norfolk etc. Ry.
Co. V. Lynchburg Cotton Mills Co.,
106 Va. 376, 56 S. E. 146; Seattle v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 22 Wash. 154, 60
Pac. 133; State v. Superior Court, 36
Wash. 381, 78 Pac. 1011; Mills v. St.
Clair County, 8 How. 569; City of
Madison v. Daley, 58 Fed. 751 ; West
V. Parkdale, 8 Ontario 59; Lamb v.
North London R. R. Co., 4 L. R. Ch.
522, 21 L. T. N. S. 98; Gray v. Liver-
pool & Bury Ry. Co., 9 Veav. 391.
"In construing statutes which are
claimed to authorize the exercise of
the power of eminent domain, a strict
rather than a liberal construction is
the rule. Such statutes assume to
call into active operation a power
which, however essential to the exist-
ence of the government, is in deroga-
tion of the ordinarj^ rights of private
ownership and of the control which
an owner usually has of his property.
The rule of strict construction of
condemnation statutes is especially
applicable to delegations, of the
power by the legislature to private
corporations. The motive of the pro-
moters of such corporations is
usually private gain, although their
creation may subserve a public pur-
pose. When such corporations claim
to exercise this delegated power, the
rule of strict construction accords
with the ordinary rule that delega-
tions of public powers to individuals
or private corporations are to be
strictly construed in behalf of the
public, and by the other principle
that private, rights are not to be di-
vested except hy the clear warrant of
law." Matter of Poughkeepsie Bridge
Co., 108 N. Y. 483, 490; 491.
57Binney's Case, 2 Bland. Ch. 99.
YIO
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 389
purpose for which it was passed,^* and such as will give effect
to all its words.*® It will be so construed as to support its
validity rather than otherwise.®" "Statutes granting these
powers are not to be construed so literally, or so strictly as to
defeat the evident purpose of the legislature. They are to
receive a reasonably strict and guarded construction, and the
powers granted will extend no further than expressly stated,
or than is necessary to accomplish the general scope and pur-
pose of the grant. If there remains a doubt as to the extent of
the power, after all reasonable intendments in its favor, the
doubt should be solved adversely to the claim of power." "^
§ 389 (254a). Provisions as to compensation and rem-
edy and in favor of the property owner should be liberally
construed. This is a familiar rule, but a few cases in which it
is enunciated are referred to.®^
§ 390 (255). Construction of statutes as to location.
In determining whether statutes confer the right to exercise the
ssThe Belloua Company Case, 3
Bland. Ch. 442 ; Canandaigua v. Ben-
edict, 24 App. Div. N. Y. 348; Nun-
namaker v. Colupibia W. R, R. Co.,
47 S. C. 485, 25 S. E. 751, 58 Am. St.
Kep. 905, 34 L.R.A. 222 ; Puyallup v.
Lacey, 43 Wash. 110, 86 Pac. 215;
Dyer v. Baltimore, 140 Fed. 880.
5 9Beck V. United N. J. R. R. Co.,
39 N. J. L. 45. Such statutes should
be given a consistent and reasonable
construction and such as will give ef-
fect to all the words, if possible. Mc-
Leod V. So. Deerfield Water Supply
Dist., 193 Mass. 6, 78 N. E. 764.
6 0 Commissioners' Court v. Street,
116 Ala. 28, 22 So. 629 ; Howard Mills
Co. V. Schwarts L. & C. Co., 77 Kan.
599, 95 Pac. 559; State v. Polk
County Comrs., 87 Minn. 325, 92 N.
W. 216, 60 L.R.A. 161; St. Joseph v.
Zimmerman, 142 Mo. 155; St. Louis
V. Brown, 155 Mo. 545, 56 S. W. 298;
Shively v. Lankford, 174 Mo. 535, 74
S. W. 835 ; Grossman v. Patton, 186
Mo. 661, 85 S. W. 548; Morris v.
Washington County, 72 Neb. 174, 100
N. W. 144; Littleton v. Berlin Mills
Co., 73 N. H. 1, 58 Atl. 877; Town of
Keysport v. Cherry, 51 N. J. L. 417,
18 Atl. 299; State Water Supply
Commission v. Curtis, 192 N. Y. 319,
affirming 125 App. Div. 117; Brown-
ing V. Collis, 21 N. Y. Misc. 155 ; Car-
roll V. Griffith, 117 Tenn. 500, 97 S. W.
66; Pittsburgh v. Scott, 1 Pa. St.
309; In re Barre Water Co., 62 Vt.
27, 20 Atl. 109, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp.
Rep. 136; Western Union Tel. Co. v.
Williams, 86 Va. 696, 11 S. E. 106, 2
Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 258, 19 Am.
St. Rep. 908.
eiNew York etc. R. R. Co. v. Kip,
46 N. Y. 546, 7 Am. Rep. 385.
6 2Torrington v. Messenger, 74
Conn. 321, 50 Atl. 873; Dyer v. Bel-
fast, 88 Me. 140, 33 Atl. 790; Matter
of Grade Crossing Comrs., 59 App.
Div. 498, 69 N. Y. S. 52; S. C. af-
firmed, 168 N. Y. 659, dl N. E. 1129;
Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Loose, 19 Pa.
St. 15; Nashville v. Nichol, 3 Bax.
338 ; Lenz v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., Ill
Wis. 198, 86 N. W. 607; ante, § 360;
West V. Parkdale, 8 Ont. 59.
§ 390 THE STATUTOEY AUTHOKITT. 711
power of eminent domain, the rules of strict construction are
to be applied. But when the power has undoubtedly been con-
ferred by a statute, then, in so far as it attempts to define the
location or route, it is to receive a reasonable rather than a
strict construction. It is against common right that a person or
corporation should have the power, but, having the power, it is
for the general good that they should not be hampered or em-
barrassed by a narrow and technical interpretation of it.*^
Power to construct a railroad "to the place of shipping lumber"
on a tide-water river authorizes an extension of the tracks over
flats and tide-water to a point where lumber may be conveniently
shipped."* Authority to build a railroad terminating at some
suitable point on another railroad "between Metser's ford and
Wager's ford on the river Schuylkill," was held not to authorize
a connection with the Schuylkill canal and the maintenance of a
canal basin as an appurtenance.®^ Where the route of a rail-
road was described in a statute in part as running through the
towns A, B, 0, D, etc., it was held that the order named was
not imperative.®* A railroad had power to appropriate con-
tiguous lands, not exceeding five acres, for warehouse purposes.
It was held it could only take lands immediately adjoining its
right of way.®^ A company was authorized to condemn lands
"adjoining their road as constructed on their right of way as
located." It was held not to authorize the taking of land^ ad-
joining a side or spur track.®* A company was authorized to
occupy a certain street and to take ground near or convenient
to said street for depot purposes. It purchased grounds so that
it had to cross another street in order to reach them. It was
held it had no power to cross such street, but should have selected
lands adjacent to the street occupied."® Authority to build an
elevated railroad on a street, does not authorize any part of a
esPierce on Railroads, p. 258; depot. Karnes v. Drake, 103 Ky. 134,
Petersburg Sch. Dist. v. Peterson, 14 44 S. W. 444.
N. D. 344, 103 2Sr. W. 756, 940; Ches- sspiymouth R. R. Co. v. Col well,
apeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. Key, 3 39 Pa. St. 337, 80 Am. Dec. 526.
Cranch. C. C. 599. 6 6 Commonwealth v. Fitchburg K.
6 4Peavey v. Calais R. R. Co., 30 R. Co., 8 Cush. 240.
Me. 498. A power to construct a rail- 6 7 Bird v. W. & M. R. R. Co., 8
road from a mine to the most conve- Rich. Eq. S. C. 46.
nient and suitable railroad depot esAkers v. United New Jersey R.
within three miles, was held not to R. Co., 43 N. J. L. 110.
authorize a road merely connecting « 'Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal,
with a railroad where there was no 93 Pa. St. 150.
712 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 390
depot or stairs on a cross street. ''" The location of a railroad
partly in another State -will not, for that reason, be held invalid
by the courts of the State to which the corporation belongs.'^
An act provided that a railroad might be constructed "to some
suitable point in Orange street, or some street north of said,
street, or south of Market street, in the city of Newark;" held
that the act related, not to the route, but to the termination of the
road, and that the company was not precluded from locating
upon or along Market street.''^ . A statute required that where
a new railroad was to be built between two points where "a
railroad is now constructed," it should be located ten miles at
least from the old road, was held not to prevent a new road with-
in less than ten miles of a road in process of construction.'^* A
railroad company was empowered to manufacture iron and steel
from ore obtained on its own lands ; held it could not locate its
road and station over an iron mine for the purpose of obtain-
ing the mine, and not in good faith for the purposes of its road.'*
A railroad charter provided that "nothing in this act contained
shall authorize said corporation to make a location of their
track within any city without the consent of the common council
of such city." This was held to apply not only to main track
but also to appurtenances, such as depots, engine houses, and the
like and to mean the territory of the city as it existed when the
location was made and not when the charter was passed.''^
where an avenue was directed to be laid out in a direct
line .between two points and the act also provided that it should
not be laid through any buildings, yards or orchards, without
the consent of the owner, it was held that deviations might be
made to avoid buildings.'® Authority to lay out a highway on
70Mattlage V. New York El. E. K. 'sCharles Street Avenue Co. v.
Co., 67 How. Pr. 232, 14 Daly 1. Merryman, 10 Md. 536. The follow-
'iPiedmont & Cumberland Ry. Co. ing cases illustrate the same prin-
V. Speelman, 67 Md. 260; and see eiple: State v. Wilton R. R. Co., 19
Matter of New York L. & W. R. R. N. H. 521 ; Fall River Iron Works Co.
Co., 88 N. Y. 279. v. Old Colony & Fall River R. E. Co.,
7 2McFariand v. Orange etc. R. R. 5 Allen 221; Heath v. Des Moines &
Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 17. St. Louis Ry. Co., 61 la. 11 ; Clark v.
7 3Macon & A. R. R. Co. v. Macon Blackmar, 47 N. Y. 150. Underagen-
& D. R. R. Co., 86 Ga. 83, 13 S. E. 157. eral railroad law a road may be built
7 4 Jenkins v. Central Ontario R. R. which is wholly within one city. Na-
Co., 4 Ont. 593. tional Docks R. R. Co. v. Central R.
'5111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, E. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755.
176 U. g. 646, 20 S. C. 509, affirming
S. C. 173 111. 471, 50 N. E. 1104.
§ 390 THE STATUTORY AUTHOKITT. Vl3
a line between two towns does not authorize a highway wholly
within one town, but bounded on one side by the division lineJ''
On the other hand, the fact that the statute provides that, in
case of a road on the line between two towns, the proceedings
shall be before the commissioners of both towns, does not pre-
vent the commissioners of one town, having jurisdiction to lay
out roads in their own town, from laying out a road along the
division line, but wholly in their town.''* Under authority to
lay out a road upon and along the division line between two
counties, it was held that the center of the road must coincide
with the division line and that where a creek formed the line a
lay-out was impossible.''* Under authority to lay out highways
from "town to town and from place to place," a highway may
be laid out wholly within a town.*"
A statute provided that land might be taken for a cemetery,
when "land necessary therefor cannot be obtained in any suitable
place at a reasonable price by contract with the owner." It
was held that by "any suitable place" the legislature meant
nothing less than the most suitable place, or a place as suitable
as any other, or as suitable as the town could afford to pay for.*^
A drainage statute provided for the appointment of an en-
gineer to survey and locate the ditch petitioned for, and author-
ized him to shorten or extend the ditch from the outlet named in
the petition far enough to reasonably effectuate the purpose for
which it was intended. This was held not to authorize the ex-
tension of a ditch four miles long, seven miles beyond the outlet
named in the petition.*^
As a general rule statutes conferring the power of eminent
domain upon corporations and individuals vest a large discre-
tion in the grantees as to the location of their lines and works,
and the courts cannot interfere with the exercise of this discre-
tion unless there is bad faith or an excess of authority.**
7 7Matter of the Town of Bridport, 8 2Lager v. Sibley County, 100
24 Vt. 176. Minn. 85, 110 N. W. 355.
7 8Mack V. Commissioners of High- "Union Pacific R. E. Co. v. Colo.
„ ^,, ._„ Postal Tel. Cable Co., 30 Colo. 133,
ways, 41 111. 378. ^^ p^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ g^ ^^^g.
V9Roaring Creek Road, 11 Pa. St. g^^^j^ ^ ^^^^^j,^ j32 j^^ ^gg^ 3^
356. N. E. 220; Bass v. City of Ft.
soNew Vineyard v. Somerset, 15 Wayne, 121 Ind. 389, 23 N. E. 259, 1
Me. 21. Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 173 ; New
siCrowell v. Londonderry, 63 N. H. York etc. R. R. Co. v. Daily, 57 Misc.
42. 311; Petersburg Sch. Dist. v. Peter-
714
EMIITEIS-T DOMAIN-.
§ 391
§ 391 (256). Construction of statutes as to the pur-
pose for which the power may be exercised: Railroads.
A railroad company had a general power to condemn property
for tlie purposes of its incorporation. It was licensed by the
city of Buffalo to lay its track along a street and across a canal
slip, provided it built and maintained a swing-bridge over the
slip. It was held that it could condemn land in order to obtain
room in which to swing the bridge.** So if it becomes the duty
of a railroad company to carry a.iighway over or under its road,
it may condemn the land necessary therefor.®* Under authority
to construct a "railway and works," land may be taken for a
station.*^ So under a general authority to condemn land for a
railroad, or for its corporate purposes, a railroad company may
condemn land for its necessary appurtenances, such as depots,
freight houses, terminal yards, switch and spur tracks and the
like.®'^ A statute provided that a company owning a completed
son, 14 N. D. 344, 103 N. W. 756,
940; Gano v. Bristol etc. R. R. Co.,
196 Pa. St. 442, 46 Atl. 372; Price v.
Pa. R. R. Co., 209 Pa. St. 81, 58 Atl.
137; Heine v. Columbia etc. R. R. Co.,
16 Pa.Dist.Ct. 840; Tenn. Cent. R.R.
Co. V. Campbell, 109 Tenn. 655, 73
S. W. 112; Samish Riv. Boom Co. v.
Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586, 73
Pac. 670; Douglass v. Byrnes, 59
Fed. 29 ; Colorado Eastern R. R. Co.
T. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 41 Fed. 293;
Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v.
Postal Tel. Cable Co., Ill Fed.
842, 49 C. C. A. 663; London
etc. R. R. Co. V. Truman, L.
R. 11 H. L. 45. Compare Morton
V. Mayor etc. of New York, 140 N.
Y. 207, 35 N. E. 490, 22 L.R.A. 241 ;
Lowell V. Washington County R. R.
Co., 90 Me. 80, 37 Atl. 869.
s^Matter of New York, Lacka-
wanna & Western R. R. Co., 33 Hun
148.
8 5 State V. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co.,
35 Minn. 131.
seCother v. Midland Ry. Co., 2
Phillips, 469.
8 7 Central Pac. Ry. Co. v. Feld-
man, 152 Cal. 303, 92 Pac. 849;
State V. Railroad Comrs., 56 Conn.
308; Gardner v. Ga. R. R. & B. Co.,
117 Ga. 522, 43 S. E. 863; Kansas
City etc. Ry. Co. v. La. Western E.
R. Co., 116 La. 178, 40 So. 627, 5
L.R.A.{N.S.) 512; Ewing v. Ala-
bama & Va. R. R. Co., 68 Miss. 551,
9 So. 295; New York etc. R. R. Co.
V. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546, 7 Am. Rep.
385; In re Iiong Island R. R. Co.,
143 N. Y. 67, 37 N. E. 636; Nashville
& Chattanooga R. R. Co. v. Cow-
ardine, 11 Humph. 348. In State
V. Railroad Comrs., 56 Conn. 308,
313, the court says: "Depots for
passengers and freight are essential
parts of railroads. A railroad is
incomplete without them. It is
doubtless true that in speaking of
the several parts of a railroad we
distinguish between the main tracks,
sidetracks or turnouts, and depots;
but when we speak of a railroad
from one place to another, we use
the word in a comprehensive sense
as embracing all these, and mean by
it, so far as real estate is concerned,
all the land and buildings owned by
§ 391 THE STATUTORY AUTHOEITY. TIS
railroad could condemn land "for necessary additional depot
grounds" on getting the approval of the railroad commissioners.
It was held that the right was not limited to the enlargement of
existing depot grounds, but that land might be condemned for
a new station.** Under authority to a company to take land
necessary for its works, it can only take land to be occupied
by its works, and cannot condemn land merely to get earth or
materials for construction.*^ Power to lay a double track means
on the same right of way.^* A railroad company cannot con-
demn for widening a street upon which it is proposed to lay its
track.®^ It has been held that a lessee company may condemn
for the purpose of enlarging the right of way of its lessor.®^ A
railroad company may not condemn for a dam across a navigable
stream for the purpose of obtaining water for locomotives.^^
But where authority is given to condemn for water stations, the
company may condemn for a dam and flowage, though the water
will set back twelve hundred feet.^* Where a railroad company
was chartered to construct a road from one specified place to
another, it was held that it could not condemn land to construct
a road for part of the distance.®^ A railroad crossed a bend in
the river. It had authority to take what was necessary for the
construction and operation of its road. It was held it could con-
demn land for a new channel so as to avoid two bridges and also
take the riparian rights on the old channel. ^^ But in Pennsyl-
the corporation and necessary or szHespenheide's Appeal, 4 Penny.
convenient for the transaction of its 71.
business." See Taussig v. St. Louis ssQulf etc. E. E. Co. v. Taequard,
Val. Transfer Ey. Co., 133 Fed. 220, 3 Tex. Ct. of App. p. 179, § 142.
66 C. C. A. 274. 3 4Smithko v. Pittsburgh etc. E.
ssjager v. Dey, 80 la. 23, 45 N. E. Co., 5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 543.
W. 391. SBKansas City Interurban Ey. Co.
ssEversfieldv. Mid-Sussex Ey. Co., v. Davis, 197 Mo. 669, 95 S. W. 881,
3 DeG. & J. 286; Bentinclc v. Nor- 114 Am. St. Eep. 790.
folk Estuary Co., 8 DeG. McN. & G. ssBigelow v. Draper, 6 N. D. 152.
714; see oiso Parsons V. Howe, 41 Me. State v. District Court, 34 Mont.
218; Nevf York etc. E. E. Co. v. 535, 88 Pac. 44, 115 Am. St. Eep.
Gunnison, 1 Hun 496; S. C. 3 N. Y. 540 is a similar case but the com-
Supm. Ct. Eep. 632. pany had express authority to divert
9 0People V. New York & Harlem the stream when necessary. Com-
E. E. Co., 45 Barb. 73. pare Cleveland etc. Ey. Co. v. South,
siChicago etc. E. E. Co. v. Gait, 78 Ohio St. 10, 84 N. E. 418.
133 111. 657, 23 N. B. 425, 24 N. E.
Kep. 674, 1 Am. E. R. & Corp. Eep.
365.
716
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 391
vania, "where the right of way was limited to sixty feet, except
for embankments, cuttings, sidings, turnouts, depots and sta-
tions, it was held the company could not take an extra width in
order to make a new channel for a stream and save two bridges.®^
Unless otherwise provided in the act, a company may be or-
ganized under a general railroad law to construct a railroad
wholly within a city, or across a river, and may condemn proper-
ty therefor.** A railroad a mile long and underground was held
within the authority." So one, three miles long and mostly in
one city.-^ In one case the authority was to construct, maintain
and operate a railroad "between the points named in the ar-
ticles of incorporation, commencing at or within, and extend-
ing to or into, any city, village, town or place named as a
terminus of its road." It was held to justify a road wholly with-
in one city.^ Under authority to construct a railway from one
place to another, a belt road may be built around a city.* Rail-
road corporations were required to specify in their certificate
of incorporation the names of the places of the termini of the
9 7Snee v. West Side Belt R. R.
Co., 210 Pa. St. 480, 60 Atl. 94. The
statute also gave authority to enter
upon all land upon which the rail-
road and appurtenances may be lo-
cated, "or which may be necessary
or convenient for the erection of the
same, or for any purpose necessary
or useful in the construction, main-
tenance or repair of said railroad
and therein and thereon to dig, ex-
cavate and embank, make, grade
and lay down and construct the
same." It was claimed that this
justified a taking for the proposed
new channel but the court held
otherwise. So in Philadelphia etc.
R. R. Co.'s Petition, 32 Pa. Co. Ct.
337. Where a railroad right of way
was limited to a width of sixty feet
"except in the neighborhood of deep
cuttings or high embankments," an
embankment three to five feet high
was held not to justify the taking of
a greater width. Curtis v. Colum-
bus etc. R. R. Co., 16 Pa. Dist. Ct.
1017.
ssNiemeyer v. Little Rock Junc-
tion R. R. Co., 43 Ark. Ill; Wiggins
Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis etc. R.
R. Co., 107 111. 450; National Docks
etc. R. R. Co. V. United N. J. R. R.
Co., 53 N. J. L. 217, 21 Atl. 570;
Cincinnati International R. R. Co.
V. Murray, 10 Ohio N. P. (N.SJ
301.
ssSparks v. Philadelphia etc. R.
R. Co., 212 Pa. St. 105, 61 Atl. 881.
iBridwell v. Gate City Terminal
Co., 127 Ga. 520, 56 S. E. 624, 10
L.R.A.(N.S.) 909.
2 State V. Union Terminal R. R.
Co., 72 Ohio St. 455, 74 N. E. 642.
Almost identical words were given
the same effect in Long Branch
Comrs. V. West End R. R. Co., 29
N. J. Eq. 566, approved in National
Docks Ry. Co. v. Central R. R. Co.,
32 N. J. Eq. 755.
3 State V. Martin, 51 Kan. 462, 33
Pac. 9; Collier v. Union Ry. Co., 113
Tenn. 96, 83 S. W. 155. But see
Gillette v. Aurora Ry. Co., 228 111.
261, 81 N. E. 1005.
§ 392 THE STATUTOKY AUTHORITY. 71 7
road, and the county or counties, city or cities through which
it should pass, and were authorized to construct a railroad "be-
tween the points named in the certificate, commencing at or
within and extending to or into any town, city or village named
as the place of termini of such road." It was held that the
termini of the road need not be within any city, village or
town.*
A traction act authorized railroad companies formed there-
under to condemn not exceeding sixty feet in width, "either
as an extension of the line of an existing railway, or a new line."
The word extension was held to refer to longitudinal extension
and not lateral extension, and that a company could not condemn
to widen an existing right of way.^
§ 392 (256a). Same: Branch and lateral railroads.
An act conferring authority upon a railroad to construct
branches from its main line, means the main line as it existed at
the time the act was passed.® The charter of a railroad company
gave it power to construct "branches or lateral roads in any di-
rection whatsoever in connection with the said railroad, not ex-
ceeding ten miles each in length." It was held that it could
construct a branch running in the same general direction as the
main line and connecting with another railroad. '^ It has been
held no objection that the branch is twice as long as the main
line.® The power to build laterals or branches implies the power
to condemn for that purpose.* A railroad, authorized to con-
struct a specified main line and branches, cannot construct the
branch and abandon the main line.^" Under a power to "con-
4Uiiion R. R. Co. v. Canton R. R. sVolmer v. Schuylkill Riv. E. S.
Co., 105 Md. 12, 65 Atl. 409. R. R. Co., 18 Phil. 248.
sMetlar v. Middlesex etc. Traction sNehall v. Galena etc. R. R. Co.,
Co., 72 N. J. L. 524, 63 Atl. 497, re- U 111. 273.
versing S. C. suh. nom. Middlesex loQcelet v. Met. Transit Co., 48
etc. Traction Cb. v. Metlar, 70 N. J. Hun 520, 15 N. Y. St. 936, 1 N. Y.
L. 98, 56 Atl. 142. Supp. 74. Bee further on the power
sCity of Philadelphia v. Philadel- to take for branch or lateral roads:
phia etc. R. R. Co., 19 Phil. 507. To Arrington v. Savannah & W. R. R.
same effect: People's Pass. R. R. Co., 95 Ala. 434, 11 So. 7; Graff v.
Co. V. Market St. Pass. R. R. Co., 8 Evergreen R. R. Co., 2 Pa. Co. Ct.
Pa. Co. Ct. 273. 502; Schofield v. Pennsylvania S. V.
'Blanton v. Richmond etc. R. R. R. R. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 122; Wheel-
Co., 86 Va. 618, 10 S. E. 925. And ing Bridge etc. Co. v. Camden Consol.
see Nehall v. Galena etc. R. R. Co., 14 Oil Co., 35 W. Va. 205, 13 S. E. 369.
111. 273; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v.
Waters, 105 Md. 396, 66 Atl. 685.
718
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 393
struct, maintain and operate branches within the limits of any
county through "which said road may pass," it was held that a
road wholly within a city could avail of the statute and that the
privilege was not confined to roads passing through a county. ^^
Power to construct switches, turnouts or branches does not justi-
fy a cut-off around a city between two points on the main line
and designed to take part of the through traffic.-'^
§ 393 (256b). Same: Street and elevated railroads.
The General Eailroad Law of Illinois provides for the organiza-
tion of corporations "for the purpose of constructing and oper-
ating any railroad" in the State. The Chicago and Southside
Rapid Transit Company was organized under the act for the
declared purpose of constructing a "railroad" between certain
termini in the city of Chicago. Its real purpose was to con-
struct an elevated railroad. The supreme court of Illinois held
that such a purpose was within the act and that such a road
could be built under the company's charter, and that land could
be condemned therefor.^^ But it is held that a system of street
iiGray v. Greenville etc. Ey. Co.,
59 N.J. Eq. 372, 46 Atl. 638.
i2Erie R. R. Co. v. Steward, 170
K. Y. 172, 63 N. E. 118, affirming 61
App. Div. 480, 70 N. Y. S. 698; Nor-
folk etc. Ry. Co. v. Lynchburg Cot-
ton Mills Co., 106 Va. 376, 56 S. E.
146. Compare Baltimore etc. R. R.
Co. V. Waters, 105 Md. 396, 66 Atl.
685.
i3Lieberman v. Chicago & S. S. R.
T. R. Co., 141 111. 140, 30 N. E. 544.
The court says: "We are able to
perceive no reason why the word
'railroad,' as here used, should not
be construed to apply to elevated
railroads as well as to any others.
While most railroads, for obvious
reasons, are so constructed as to
make their grade conform as nearly
as practicable to that of the earth's
surface, yet it is a fact, with which
every one is familiar, that they are
sometimes constructed wholly be-
neath the surface, and sometimes
upon an elevation above the surface.
It is also a matter of common knowl-
edge that an ordinary surface rail-
road may and often does, in different
parts of its line, run through tun-
nels excavated beneath the surface,
or upon structures so built as to ele-
vate it above the surface. But it has
never been supposed that, whether
they run beneath or above the sur-
face, they are any the less entitled
to the name of 'railroads.' Nor does
the fact that a railroad is wholly
underground or wholly raised above
the surface make it any the less a
railroad. The term 'railroad,' as
used in the act of 1872, is clearly
broad enough to include an elevated
railroad; and we think the legisla-
ture clearly intended to use the word
in a sense sufficiently broad and gen-
eral to include railroads of that char-
acter. The same word, when used in
the petitioner's articles of incorpora-
tion, must be deemed to be used in a
sense equally general. The peti-
tioner, then, by its incorporation, be-
came authorized to construct a rail-
road between the designated points;
§ 393 THE STATUTORY AUTHOEITY. 719
railroads cannot be constructed under this law.'* It is held in
Pennsylvania that an elevated street passenger railroad com-
pany Qould not be organized nor such a railroad constructed
under the General Railroad Law of that State. '^ But there had
been one course of legislation for ordinary steam railroads, and
another for street passenger railroads, and the two systems had
been kept quite distinct. Moreover the General Kailroad Law
expressly provided that the provisions of the act should "not be
construed so as to authorize the formation of street passenger
railway companies to construct passenger railways in any city
or borough of this commonwealth." A similar conclusion has
been reached by the New York courts in construing the General
Railroad Law of that State. ■''' In the first case cited, which was
a proceeding for condemnation, it was held that the General
Railroad Law did not confer power to construct an elevated
railroad through the city of New York, in the form of a two-
story viaduct, having a height of seventy-five feet, and crossing
the streets upon steel bridges sixty feet above the surface. Fol-
lowing this decision it was held in the other case that the same
law did not authorize the construction of an ordinary elevated
railroad along the streets of a city, and, of course, the company
could not have condemned the easements of abutting owners for
the purpose of its organization. But a company organized under
the general railroad act may make a connection with an elevated
railroad.-'^ The general railroad laws of New York and Mis-
souri have been held to authorize the formation of corporations
to construct and operate horse and street railroads.-'® Statutes
authorizing the condemnation of property for railroad purposes
have been held not to apply to street railroads.'^ But a general
and the authority thus obtained in- I'Beekman v. Brooklyn & B. R. R.
eluded, ex vi termini, that of con- Co., 89 Hun 84, 35 N. Y. Supp. 84.
structing an elevated railroad." isin re Washington St. & 0. R. R.
"Gillette v. Aurora Rys. Co., 228 Co., 115 N. Y. 442, 22 N. E. 356; St.
ni. 261, 81 N. E. 1005. Louis R. R. Co. v. Northwestern R.
isPotts V. Quaker City El. R. R. R. Co., 2 Mo. App. 69.
Co., 161 Pa. St. 396, 29 Atl. 108; S. isThompson-Houaton Electric Co,
C. 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 593; Commonwealth v. Simon, 20 Ore. 60, 25 Pac. 147, 23
V. Northeastern R. R. Co., 161 Pa. St. Am. St. Rep. 86, 10 L.R.A. 251, 3
409, 29 Atl. 112. Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep. 393; Ralm
isPeople's Rapid Transit Co. v. Tp. v. Tamaqua & L. St. R. R. Co.,
Dash, 125 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 25; 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 29.
Schafer v. Brooklyn & L. I. R. R.
Co., 124 N. Y. 630, 26 N. E. 311.
r20
EMINENT DOMAIN.
§ 393
statute of Louisiana conferring the power o± eminent domain
lipon any corporation constituted under the laws of that State
for the construction of railroads, was held to include stregt and
electric railroads.^* A general law conferred upon street rail-
road companies power to take and hold such land as might be
necessary for the purpose of installing and maintaining power
plants. This was held only to authorize the condemnation of
land for the site of a plant and not to authorize the taking of
water and water power to operate the plant.^^ Where a street
railroad company was empowered to condemn private property
when necessary for the construction, maintenance or operation
of its road, it was held that the company could not deviate
from the highway except to avoid obstructions or difficulties,
which could not reasonably be otherwise overcome.^^ The ques-
tion of necessity is one of fact to be found in each case and the
right to condemn depends upon this fact. Municipal authorities
cannot prevent condemnation in a proper case by refusing con-
sent to a location on private property,^* nor authorize condem-
nation in an improper case by giving such consent.^*
2 0Shreveport Traction Co. v. Kan-
sas City etc. Ey. Co., 119 La. 759,
44 So. 457. And see Birmingham
Union R. R. Co. v. Elyton Land Co.,
114 Ala. 70; South & North Ala. R.
R. Co. V. Highland Av. etc. R. R.
Co., 119 Ala. 105, 24 So. 114; Matter
of South Beach R. R. Co., 119 N. Y.
141, 23 N. E. 486, affirjning 53 Hun
131, 25 N. Y. St. 328, 6 N. Y. Supp.
172; Matter of Rochester Electric R.
R. Co., 57 Hun 56, 10 N. Y. S. 379.
ziClaremont Ry. & Lt. Co. v. Put-
ney, 73 N. H. 431, 62 Atl. 727. See
In re R. I. Suburban Ry. Co., 22 R.
I. 455, 48 Atl. 590 ; In re R. I. Sub-
urban Ry. Co., 22 R. L 457, 48 Atl.
591, 52 L.R.A. 879.
2 2Harvey v. Aurora etc. R. R. Co.,
174 111. 295, 51 N. E. 163. The court
says : "If, in the construction of the
road in the highway, difficulties or
obstructions were encountered which
rendered it impracticable to con-
struct the road in the highway, a
necessity might arise, within the
meaning of the law, which would au-
thorize the company to leave the
highway and go upon private prop-
erty until the difficulty encountered
was overcome, when a return could
be made to the highway; or if suffi-
cient land could not be had in the
street for sidetracks, turnouts, or
stations, and the same were neces-
sary for a successful operation of the
road, under the statute the company
^yould have the right to resort to pri-
vate property." S. C. Aurora etc.
R. R. Co. V. Harvey, 178 111. 477, 53
N. E. 331 ; Harvey v. Aurora etc. Ry.
Co. 186 111. 286, 57 N. E. 857.
Same point: Hartshorn v. 111. Val.
Traction Co., 210 111. 609, 71 N. E.
612.
2 3Harvey v. Aurora etc. Ry. Co.,
186 111. 283, 57 K. E. 857.
2 4 Dewey v. Chicago etc. Elec. Ry.
Co., 184 111. 426, 56 N. E. 804. A
street railway may construct its line
upon private property acquired by
purchase or consent. Farnum v.
§ 394 THE STATUTOET AUTHOEITT. 721
§ 394 (256c). Same: Roads and streets. Statutes giv-
ing authority to lay out private roads are very strictly con-
structed and confined to the particular cases -specified in the
statute.^^ But authority to lay out a private road to the near-
est highway does not mean that it must be laid out on the
shortest line to the highway.^® Authority to lay out private
roads from dwellings and plantations to a public highway, does
not authorize one from a coal bank or coal mine.^'^ Authority
to lay out highways and townways includes a public footway.^*
A statute permitting roads for private and public use to be laid
out "from one dwelling or plantation of an individual to any
public road, or from one public road to another, or from a lot
of land to a public road, or from a lot of land to a public water-
way," was held not to authorize a road connecting several lots
of land with a public road.^* Power to regulate and improve
streets does not confer authority to open streets.^* But power
to a city to condenan for its public corporate purposes includes
streets and alleys.*^ Authority to lay out and vacate public
roads, and to open or extend any street, lane or alley, was held
not to authorize the widening of a twenty-foot alley to a fifty-
foot street.*" Authority to widen and straighten a street is not
authority to extend it.** Authority to survey a highway that has
become uncertain does not justify the taking of land not in-
cluded in the street.** Under power to alter streets the width
may be diminished,*^ but an entirely new road cannot be laid
out between the termini of the old one.*® Power to lay out and
alter roads is power to lay out a new road and discontinue
Haverhill etc. St. Ky. Co., 178 Mass. soKnowles v. Muscatine, 20 la.
300, 59 N. E. 755. 248.
2 5Killbuck Private Eoad, 77 Pa. "State v. Superior Court, 44
St. 39; Klicker v. Guilbaud, 47 N. J. Wash. 476, 87 Pae. 521.
L. 277; Commissioners of Bibb ^^I" re Liberty Alley, 8 Pa. St.
County V. Harris, 71 Ga. 250; Lyon 381.
v. Hamor, 73 Me. 56. sswidening of Thirty-fourth St.,
2 estate v. Stockhouse, 14 8. C. ^^ ^^^^^- ^^'^^
^^y 34Beckwith v. Beckwith, 22 Ohio
St. 180. But see Culver v. Fair
Haven, 67 Vt. 163, 31 Atl. 143.
ssHeiple v. Clackamas County, 20
Ore. 147, 25 Pac. 291. And see Wil-
2 8Boston & A. K. E. Co. v. Boston, jiama v. Carey, 73 la. 194, 34 N. W.
140 Mass. 87. 813.
29Funderburk v. Spengler, 234 III. ssQloucester v. County Comrs., 3
574, 85 N. E. 193. Met. 375.
Em. D.^6.
27Ca]houn'8 Road, 8 Pa. Co. Ct.
222; Palmer's Private Eoad, 16 Pa.
Co. Ct. 340.
722 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 395
an old one for which the new is a substitute.^^ Under a general
power to lay out highways it was held that a town had power
to divert one channel of a stream into the other channel so as
to avoid two bridges.^* A statute for the laying out of public
roads was held to contemplate one of sufficient width and grade
to accommodate vehicles and not to justify the establishment of
a bridle path for horse-back travel only.^*
§ 395 (256d). Same: Statutes relating to thg taking
of materials for the repair of roads and bridges. It is com-
mon to provide by statute that the proper officers may enter
upon private property and take timber and materials for the re-
pair of roads and bridges, the compensation to be afterwards ad-
justed. Where the constitution does not require prepayment
for property taken, and adequate provision is made whereby the
owner may obtain compensation, such statutes are valid.*" Au-
thority to enter upon unimproved lands and take materials
for repairing highways and bridges does not authorize the taking
of timbers which the owner has prepared for his own use,"*"^ nor
justify an entry upon improved lands.* ^ Such an authority
must be construed as giving a reasonable discretion to the officer
charged with its execution. He is not confined to the land im-
mediately adjacent to the place where the material is used, but
he may not take the material at will anywhere in his jurisdic-
tion.**
§ 396 (256e). Same: Drains, levees, irrigation.
Under authority to construct ditches from a highway to a natural
water-course, one cannot be made to a pond.** Power to drain
the low or swamp lands of one man across the lands of another
does not authorize a drain onto the lands of another, unless it
connects with some pond or water-course so as to produce no
harm.*^ Where ditches were allowed to be established which
would be of benefit to any highway or street of any town or
city, the turnpike of an incorporated company was held to be
s'Millcreek Road, 29 Pa. St. 195. Matthews, 25 Ore. 484, 36 Pac. 529,
3 8 Anthony v. Adams, 1 Met. 284. 24 L.R.A. 355; Cherry v. Lane
3 9Terry v. McClung, 104 Va. 599, County, 25 Ore. 487, 36 Pac. 531.
52 S. E. 355. "Goodman v. Bradley, 2 Wis. 257.
40McOsker v. Burrell, 55 Ind. 425. 42Jackson v. Rankin, 67 Wis. 285.
And see Lindell v. Hannibal etc. R. <3Collins v. Crecy, 8 Jones L. 333.
R. Co., 25 Mo. 550; Palmer v. State, ■» 4McLaughlin v. Sandusky, 17 Neb.
Wright, (Ohio), 364; Branson v.G«e, 110.
25 Ore. 462, 36 Pac. 527; Cherry v. isSherman v. Tobey, 3 Allen 7.
§ 397 THE STATUTOEY AUTHORITY. T23
-within the act.**^ A statute for draining lands, provided for the
construction of levees, if necessary to accomplish the drainage
sought. Held not to authorize a levee sixty miles long not con-
nected with any drain or ditch.*'' A statute, for the purpose of
drainage, permitted the straightening, etc., of the channel of a
water-course. Held not to authorize such straightening as a
principal object, when the drainage was a mere incident.**
§ 397 (256e). Same: Dams, water and water power.
Under authority to erect a dam and reservoir for the use of
a corporation and of mills below, the corporation may maintain
a dam and sell part of the power to the lower mills.*® Power
to build a dam for working a water mill, does not authorize a
dam to raise water for floating logs to a steam mill.^" Authority
to condemn for a mill does not authorize a taking for a tail
race.®^ An existing corporation was authorized to take the
waters of certain specified ponds and to "construct, lay down
and maintain, any dam or dams, pipes, fountains, or reservoirs
whatsoever, upon or over any land whatsoever." The only pro-
vision for compensation was to persons suffering damage "by
the taking the water aforesaid." It was held it could only take
the waters mentioned and that it could not condemn land for a
dam or for flooding. ^^ An act in regard to the construction of
waterworks gave power "to lay down all such pipes and conduits
for water" as should be necessary and proper to carry into effect
the act. It was held that land might be taken for an open con-
duit to convey water from a pond to a pumping station. ^^ A
company was empowered to furnish the town of B with water
for the extinguishment of fires and "for domestic, sanitary and
other purposes." Held the words "other purposes," must be con-
strued to mean other like purposes, that is, such as were a public
use, and that water could not be taken for the purpose of furnish-
ing mechanical power.®* Where a water company has a sufiicient
46Neff V. Reed, 98 Ind. 341. sscheyney v. Atlantic City W. W.
"Updike V. Wright, 81 III. 49. Co., 55 N. J. L. 235, 26 Atl. 95. And
«8Scruggs V. Reese, 128 Ind. 399, see Rialto Irr. Dist. v. Brandon, 103
27 N. E. 748. Cal. 384, 37 Pac. 484.
■1 9 Amoskeag Mfg. Co. V. Worcester, 6 4In re Barre Water Co., 62 Vt.
60 N. H. 522. 27, 20 Atl. 109, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp.
soDixon V. Eaton, 68 Me. 542. Rep. 136; Smith v. Barre Water Co.,
51 Coulter V. Hunter, 4 Rand. 58, 73 Vt. 310, 50 Atl. 1055.
15 Am. Dec. 726.
5 2Pickman v. Peahody, 145 Mass.
480, 14 N. E. 751.
724 EMINENT DOMAIJf. § 398
supply of water for the inhabitants of the place named in its
charter, it cannot condemn an additional supply to furnish cus-
tomers outside of that territory.®' Power to condemn the water
of certain springs includes the power to condemn riparian rights
in the flow of the springs.^® The Missouri statute as to mills
and mill dams is held, in view of its history, to refer to grist-
mills only and not to authorize condemnation for water power to
generate electricity, though for public use.^^
§ 398 (256e). Same: Telegraphs and telephones. —
Electric companies. Power to condemn for a telegraph line
includes a telephone line.®* Authority to construct telephone
lines "along and parallel to any railroad in the State" was held
to authorize the construction of a line on the right of way and
to condemn for that purpose.®^ Where telegraph and telephone
companies had power to condemn property "for the purpose of
constructing new lines," it was held that a new route for an
old line was a "new line" within the statute.®"
§ 399 (256e). Same: Mxmicipal puqioses. A general
act entitled "An Act to empower cities to acquire land for public
use by condemnation," and which authorize them to condemn
land "for any lawful public use or purpose," applies only to
such public uses as the city is otherwise empowered to promote.®^
Under a power to construct a system of sewage disposal, a city
cannot condemn the right to discharge a sewer upon a tract of
land, leaving the owner to dispose of it as he can.®^ So under
a similar power to condemn for a sewerage system, it was held a
city could not condemn the right to pollute a stream with sew-
erage, temporarily, as for a period of five years.®^ Under au-
ssDetwiler v. Citizens Water Co., 160, 71 S. W. 270, 60 LJt.A. 145.
25 Pa. Co. Ct. 481. See ante, § 371.
ssWautauga Water Co. v. Scott, B9S. W. Telephone Co. v. Kansas
111 Tenn. 321, 76 S. W. 888. City etc. Ry. Co., 109 La. 892, 33 So.
57S. W. Mo. Lt. Co. T. Scheurich, 910.
174 Mo. 235, 73 S. W. 496; Scheurich soCumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
V. S. W. Mo. Lt. Co., 109 Mo. App. Yazoo etc. R. R. Co., 90 Miss. 686,
406, 84 S. W. 1003. See Howard 44 So. 166.
Mills Co. V. Schwartz L. & C. Co., sistate v. City of Newark, 54 N.
77 Kan. 599, 95 Pae. 559. J. L. 62, 23 Atl. 129. And see In re
ssGulf etc. R. R. Co. v. S. W. Tel. Thompson, 86 Hun 405, 33 N. Y.
& Tel. Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 500, 45 Supp. 467.
S. W. 151 ; Gulf etc. Ry. Co. v. S. W. ezColby v. La Grange, 65 Fed. Rep.
Tel. &, Tel. Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App. 554.
488, 61 S. W. 406; Ft. Worth etc. Ry. esWaterbury v. Piatt Bros. & Co.,
Co. V. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 96 Tex. 75 Conn. 387, 53 Atl. 958, 96 Am. St.
§ 400 THE STATTJTOEY AUTHOBITT. 725
thority to "acquire, to open and to lay out public grounds or
squares, streets, alleys and highways," land cannot be condemned
for a city prison.®'* Power to condemn "for public wharves,
docks, slips, basins and landings on navigable waters and for the
improvement of water-courses," was held not to authorize the
taking of land to enlarge a harbor.®^ Authority "to build, or
acquire by purchase, lease or gift, and to maintain ferries and
bridges, and the appurtenances thereto" authorizes condemnation
for a ferry landing and approaches.®* A city had power "to
improve rivers and streams flowing through such city or ad-
joining the same ; to widen, straighten and' deepen the channel
thereof and remove obstructions therefrom." Under this power
a city on one side of a stream was held to have power to condemn
land on the other side of the stream in order to straighten and
improve it.*'' A municipality may be authorized to condemn
property beyond its limits.**
§ 400 (2S6e). Same. Miscellaneous. A statute pro-
vided for the condemnation of land "to construct a canal or a
railroad or a turnpike, graded, macadamized or plank road or
bridge or a work of public utility." It was held not to authorize
condemnation for a ferry.*®
A statute authorizing the formation of corporations to im-
prove the navigation of any river does not authorize an incor-
poration to improve a stream not navigable for any purpose in
a state of nature.'^* Under authority to take materials "neces-
sary for the prosecution of the improvements intended by this
act and to make all such canals," etc., it was held that materials
could be taken for repairs as well as for construction.''^ Au-
thority to condemn land for a cemetery does not permit the tak-
Eep. 229. Other suits arising out of works. Indianapolis v. Consumers'
the same matter : Piatt Bros. & Co. Gas Trust Co., 144 Fed. 640, 75 C. C.
V. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 531, 45 Atl. A. 442, reversing S. C. sub nom.
154, 77 Am. St. Rep. 335, 48 L.R.A. Quimby v. Consumers' Gas Trust
691; Waterbury v. Piatt Bros. & Co., Co., 144 Fed. 362.
76 Conn. 435, 56 Atl. 856. e^Puyalluy v. Laeey, 43 Wash. 110,
oiEast St. Louis v. St. John, 47 86 Pac. 215.
111. 463. 6 8 State v. Superior Court, 35
6 6 South Haven v. Probate Judge, Wash. 303, 77 Pac. 382.
140 Mich. 117, 103 N. W. 521. 6 9Sandford v. Martin, 31 la. 67.
6 6Helm V. Graybill, 224 HI. 274, 7 0East Branch etc. Imp. Co. v.
79 N. E. 689. Under poSver to estab- Lumber Co., 69 Mich. 207, 37 N. W.
lish and construct gas works, held a Rep. 192.
city could purchase Natural Gas 71 Bates v. Cooper, 5 Ohio 115.
726
EMIITENT DOMAIN,
§ 401
ing of land for a road to a cemetery. ^^ Power to regulate public
landings does not give power to lay out new landings.^* Under
authority to condemn sites for school-houses, not exceeding one
acre, a district may condemn to enlarge a lot to a size not ex-
ceeding the limit fixed.''* A gas company authorized to condemn
land "for the laying of pipe lines for the transportation and dis-
tribution of natural gas," cannot condemn a right of way for
pipe lines and also for a telegraph or telephone line to be used
only in the operation of such pipe lines.''* A law specifying
particular purposes for which land may be condemned, by im-
plication, excludes other purposes.'®
§ 401 (257). Meaning of the words "to," "from," "at"
or "near" a place, in statutes describing termini and loca-
tion. These words must receive a reasonable construction, and
in such statutes have uniformly been held to be inclusive." Au-
thority to construct a road to or from a place is confined to the
72Fore V. Hoke, 48 Mo. App. 254.
■(3 Commissioners v. Judges, 17
Wend. 9 ; Pearsall v. Post, 20 Wend.
111.
7*Springboro School Dist., 21 Pa.
Co. Ct. 23.
7 6 Woods V. Greensboro Nat. Gas.
Co., 204 Pa. St. 606, 54 Atl. 470.
TSCity of Detroit v. Wabash etc.
R. E. Co., 63 Mich. 712, 30 N. W.
321 ; City of Syracuse v. Benedict,
86 Hun 343, 33 N. Y. Supp. 944; In
re Thompson, 86 Hun 405, 33 N. Y.
Supp. 467. And see many of the
cases cited in the preceding sections.
And see generally: Oconee Elec. Lt.
& P. Co. V. Carter, 111 Ga. 106, 36
S. E. 457; Potlatch Lumber Co. v.
Peterson, 12 Ida. 769, 88 Pac. 426,
118 Am. St. Eep. 233.
TiTo: Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v.
Union Springs etc. Ry. Co., 144 Ala.
639, 39 So. 473, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 144;
In re Kenan, 109 Ga. 819, 35 S. E.
312; Moses V. Pittsburgh etc. R. R.
Co., 21 m. 516; Indianapolis etc. R.
R. Co. V. Hartley, 67 111. 439;
Farmer's Turnpike v. Coventry, 10
Johns. 389 ; Rio Grande R. R. Co. v.
Brownsville, 45 Tex. 88.
From: Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v.
Union Springs etc. Ry. Co., 144 Ala.
639, 39 So. 473, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 144;
Hazelhurst v. Freeman, 52 Ga. 244;
Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v.
Chicago & Evanston R. R. Co., 112
111. 589; McCartney v. Chicago &
Evanston R. R. Co., 112 111. 611 ; St.
Louis etc. R. R. Go. v. Hannibal
Union Depot Co., 125 Mo. 82, 28 S.
W. 483 ; Western Pennsylvania R. R.
Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 155; Tenn-
essee & Alabama R. R. Co. v. Adams,
3 Head 596; In re Bronson, 1 On-
tario 415. See Brock v. Dore, 166
Mass. 161, 44 N. E. Rep. 142.
At or near: Mason v. Brooklyn
City & Newton R. R. Co., 35 Barb.
373; Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica &
Schenectady R. R. Co., 6 Paige 554;
State V. Hudson Tunnel R. R. Co., 38
N. J. L. 548; Central R. R. Co. v.
Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 31 N. J. Eq.
475; Griffin v. House, 18 Johns. 397;
Purifoy v. Richmond & D. R. R. Co.,
108 N. C. 100, 12 S. E. Rep. 741.
Generally: Pierce on Railroads,
p. 258. The only case holding a con-
trary doctrine is North Eastern R.
R. Co. V. Payne, 8 Rich. S. C. 177,
§ 402 THE STATUTOBY AUTHOEITY. 727
territory then within the corporate limits, and does not authorize
an extension into new territory afterwards addedJ® A statute
fixing a terminus of a railroad at or near a place was held to be
satisfied in one case by a location 2,475 feet from the place,''®
and in another by a location a mile and half away.®" Authority
to construct a railroad "on the most practicable route from the
town of Spartenburg, passing near the village of Union, to
connect" with a specified railroad, was held to mean that
the road should be so located as to be convenient and useful
to the inhabitants of Union and that the road could be built
through the village and land condemned therefor.*^ A statute
fixing the eastern terminus of the Union Pacific Railroad at a
point "on the western boundary of Iowa" was held to be satis-
fied by a point on the east shore of the Mississippi Eiver.*^
§ 402 (258). Change of location. In nearly all statutes
conferring the power of eminent domain, some discretion is left
with those who are vested with the power, in respect to the desig-
nation of the property to be taken. Formerly, when public
works were constructed mostly under special laws and charters,
it was common to specify with more or less particularity the
termini and route of any proposed railroad, canal or other public
way. In the present day it is more common to provide by gen-
eral laws for all works of this character under which both the
route and termini are left to the determination of those who
choose to avail themselves of the statute In such cases the arti-
cles of incorporation take the place, somewhat, of the former
special charters, and, in so far as they designate the location,
route or termini of the proposed work, would probably receive
a similar construction.*^ In either case there remains a dis-
which holds that authority to con- soParke's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 137.
struct a road "from Charleston" siHill v. Southern Ky. Co., 67 S.
would not permit the company to C. 548, 46 S. E. 486.
enter the city. 8 2Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Hall,
7 8 Commonwealth v. Erie & North 91 U. S. 343.
East R. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 339, 67 Am. saUnder authority to file amended
Dec. 471; Pontchartrain R. R. Co. v articles of incorporation to correct
La Fayette & Pontchartrain R. R. any defect or informality in the
Co., 10 La. Ann. 741 ; Chope v. Detroit original, it was held that a change
& Howell Plank Road Co., 37 Mich, could not he made in the location and
195, 26 Am. Rep. 512. termmi of the road. Matter of
79Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old Riverhead etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. Y.
Colony & Fall River R. R. Co., 5 App. Div. 514.
Allen 221.
728 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 402
cretion to be exercised in the actual location of the road accord-
ing to the general route and termini specified in the charter or
articles of incorporation. When the choice or discretion which
is thus given has been exercised, the power is exhausted, and
the location cannot be changed, in the absence of a statutory
provision permitting such changes to be made.** "The general
rule is," says the court in one case, "that where the termini and
general route of a railroad are prescribed by the charter, leaving
the determination of details to the discretion of the corporation,
the power of the company to fix the location of the road is ex-
hausted after such discretion has been exercised, and it cannot
relocate its road without statutory authority to do so, and being
without power to relocate its road the company is without power
to condemn a right of way for a line which it cannot lawfully
locate." *^ But this principle is not to be applied too rigidly.
A general or material change of location cannot be made. But
minor changes can be made, which experience or change of cir-
cumstances have demonstrated to be necessary or desirably. The
growth of a town in a certain direction may make a former loca-
tion of a depot very inconvenient. A railroad may be destroyed
by a mountain slide or a washout in such a way that reconstruc-
tion would be impracticable or impossible. In such cases it
8 4 state V. New Haven etc. Co., 45 Erie R. R. Co., 9 Paige 323; McMur-
Conn. 331 ; Leverett v. Middle trie v. Stewart, 21 Pa. St. 322 ; Mor-
Georgia etc. R. R. Co., 96 Ga. 385, row v. Commonwealth, 48 Pa. St. 305 ;
24 S. E. 154; Brown v. Atlantic etc. McKay v. Pa. Water Co., 6 Pa. Diet.
Ry. Co., 126 Ga. 248, 55 S. E. 24; Ct. 364 ; Lehigl Valley Coal Co. v. U.
Atlantic etc. Ry. Co. v. Kirkland, S. Pipe Line Co., 7 Luzerne Leg. Reg.
129 Ga. 552; Cairo etc. Ry. Co. v. Rep. 77 ; In re Providence & W. R. R.
Woodyard, 226 111. 331, 80 N. E. 882; Co., 17 R. I. 324, 21 Atl. Rep. 966;
Lusby V. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co., Pierce on Railroads, p. 254. Contra:
73 Miss. 360, 19 So. 239, 36 L.RA. E.x parte South Carolina R. R. Co.,
510; Morris & Essex R.R. Co. V. Cen- 2 Rich. L. S. C. 434. See Washing-
tral R. R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 205; Matter ton etc. R. R. Co. v. Coeur D'Alene
of Poughkeepsie Bridge Co., 108 N. R. & N. Co., 60 Fed. 981, 9 C. C. A.
Y. 483, 15 N. E. 601; Erie R. R. Co. 303; Kirkland v. Atlantic etc.
V. Steward, 170 N. Y. 172, 63 N. E. Ry. Co., 126 Ga. 246, 55 S. E. 23;
118, affirming S. C. 61 App. Div. 480, Doubet v. Independent District, 135
70 N. Y. S. 698 ; Brooklyn Central la. 95. A city cannot relocate an
R. R. Co. V. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., alley in the absence of special au-
32 Barb. 358; Mason v. Brooklyn thority. Hawkins v. Pittsburg, 220
City & Newton R. R. Co., 35 Barb. Pa. St. 7, 69 Atl. 283.
373; People v. New York & Harlem SBQairo etc. Ry. Co. v. Woodyard,
R. R. Co., 45 Barb. 73; Hudson & 226 111. 331, 80 N. E. 882.
Delaware Canal Co. v. New York &
§ 402 THE STATUTORY AUTHOKITT. 729
seems to us a change of location may be made so as to obviate
the inconvenience in the one case or the difficulty in the other.
And so are the authorities. Where the location of a lock-house
on a canal proves inconvenient or unsuitable, a new location can
be made.*® In another case two railroads intersected at G and
crossed the Y river, not far from that place, on independent
bridges. These were burnt during the war. After the war, both
roads being much crippled financially, they united in building
one bridge on the line of one of the roads, and the other con-
demned a short intersecting line in order to avail itself of the
new bridge. It was held that it might lawfully do so.*'' And
the location of a depot or station within a city or town may be
changed and land condemned for the new location.**
Where the statute gave the right to railroad corporations to
make a change of location, whenever a better and cheaper route
could be had, or whenever any obstacle occurred, either by way of
difficulty of construction or inability to procure right of way at
a reasonable cost, it was held that the privilege must be exercised
before completion.*® Where a railroad is permitted to deviate
not exceeding one mile from the route laid down in its maps and
plans, it may not extend its road a mile.*" The charter of a
horse railroad company authorized it to uso a certain street, and
provided that, in order to avoid an obstruction on that street,
it might use such portions of any of the adjacent streets as might
be necessary. It was held that, after the obstruction was re-
moved, it could lay its track on the first-named street.*^ Where
8 6Ligat V. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. 222 HI. 396, 78 N. E. 784; Chicago
St. 456. In this case the court says : etc. Ky. Co. v. Chicago Mechanics
"If a lot of ground, on which a lock- Inst., 239 111. 197.
house has been erected, should be ssMoorehead v. Little Miami R. R.
deemed no longer suitable or con- Co., 17 Ohio, 340 ; Little Miami R. R.
venient for its appropriate uses, the Co. v. Naylor, 2 Ohio St. 235, 59 Am.
canal commissioners have power to Dec. 667; Atkinson v. Marietta &
take possession of other ground for Cincinnati R. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21.
the purpose of erecting a new lock- soMurphy v. Kingston etc. R. R.
house. Their power is not exhausted Co., 11 Ontario 582, reversing S. C.
by the first appropriation. Errors of 11 Ontario 302. The following cases
location, in matters of that kind, construe statutes permitting a
which are but incidents to the main change of location: Boston etc. R.
work, may be corrected without spe- R. Co. v. Midland R. R. Co., 1 Gray
cial application to the legislature." 340; Hewitt v. St. Paul etc. R. R.
8 7Mis9issippi & Tennessee R. R. Co., 35 Minn. 226.
Co. V. Devaney, 42 Miss. 555. siphila. & Gray's Ferry Passenger
sschicago etc. R. R. Co. v. People, Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 102 Pa. St. 123. In
730 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 403
the power to change the location of a railroad was expressly
given by statute, it was held it could be exercised after a partial
construction of the road.^^ A statute provided that "every rail-
road corporation, except elevated railway corporations, may, by
a vote of two thirds of its directors, alter or change the route of
its road or its termini^ or locate such route or any part thereof,
or its termini, in a county adjoining any county named in its
certificate of incorporation, if it shall appear to them that the
line can be improved thereby." It was held that under this stat-
ute the terminus could only be changed to an adjoining county
for the purpose of improving the existing line by affording great-
er conveniences or facilities in operating that line, and not for
the purpose of getting new business.®*
§ 403 (259). Successive appropriations. In the ab-
sence of any restriction or limitation, the power to take private
property may be exercised by the grantee from time to time as
necessity requires. If this were not so, it would be necessary
to anticipate all future needs at the outset. The company con-
demning would thus not only have to take and pay for property
in advance, but it might be saddled with property which it could
never use at all. On the other hand, either from taking too nar-
row a view of the future or from the growth of business beyond
any reasonable anticipation, it might in a few years find itself
unable properly to discharge its duties to the public.** Accord-
Brown V. Atlantic etc. Ry. Co., 126 first exercise, every railroad com-
Ga. 248, 55 S. E. 24, it was held, con- pany, if financially able so to do,
struing a statute as to change of lo- would be likely, in order to provide
cation, that the change could not be for the future, to take more land
made after the road was constructed. than it needed, and this would have
9 2Eel River & Eureka R. R. Co. a tendency to work a greater hard-
V. Field, 67 Cal. 429 ; Cape Girardeau ship upon property owners than if
etc. Road Co. v. Dennis, 67 Mo. 438. only so much land was taken as
9 'Matter of Greenville etc. Ry. Co., would meet the needs of the railroad
172 N. Y. 462, 65 N. E. 278, affirming company, with the right to make ad-
S. C. 75 App. Div. 220, 78 N. Y. S. ditional condemnations to meet sub-
24. sequent necessities. As has already
'^Hamilton v. Annapolis & Elk been said, it would be well nigh im-
Ridge R. R. Co., 1 Md. 553; S. C. 1 possible for a railroad company to
Md. Ch. 107 ; In re Providence & W. R. determine, at its inception, how much
R. Co., 17 R. I. 324, 21 Atl. 965. In land it would need at the end of a
Gardner v. Ga. R. R. & B. Co., 117 .successful career of say twenty years ;
Ga. 522, 43 S. E. 863, the court says: but even if that could be done with
"If it should be held that a general precision, and it were financially able
power to condemn is exhausted in its to acquire the land, to require it to
§ 408
THE STATUTORY AUTHOEITY.
731
ingly a railroad company, after having located and completed
its road, may, as the expansion of its business requires, and with-
in the limitations imposed by statute, if any, take additional
land for right of way,'*° terminal facilities,^*^ depot accommoda-
tions,®^ side tracks,®^ branches,"® shops, ^ or for any other pur-
pose for which its compulsory powers may be exercised.^ A
company to supply a city with water may make successive ap-
propriations of land or water, as the population and demands for
water increase.* So in regard to a power to take lands in order
condemn land in advance of its needs
would be oppressive and subversive
of its rights." pp. 532, 533.
9 5 Cooper V. Anniston etc. R. E.
Co., 85 Ala. 106; Chicago & Western
Ind. R. R. Co. V. Illinois Central R.
E. Co., 113 III. 156; Chicago etc. Elec.
R. R. Co. V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 211
111. 352, 71 N. E. 1017; Prather v.
Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co., 52 Ind.
16; Peck v. New Albany & Chicago
R. R. Co., 101 Ind. 366; Matter of
South Brooklyn R. & T. Co., 50 Hun
405, 18 N. Y. St. 51, 2 N. Y. Supp.
613; Matter of New York Central etc.
R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 426.
9 6Gardner v. Ga. R. R. & B. Co.,
117 Ga. 522, 43 S. E. 863; Central
Branch U. P. R. R. Co. v. Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co., 26
Kan. 669.
9 7Deitrich3 v. Lincoln & North
Western R. R. Co., 13 Neb. 361.
9 8St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Petty,
57 Ark. 359, 21 S. W. 884, 20 L.R.A.
434; State Board v. People, 229 111.
430, 82 N. E. 324; Hurd v. Atchison
etc. Ry. Co., 73 Kan. 83, 84 Pae. 553 ;
Ewing V. Ala. & Va. R. R. Co., 68
Miss. 551, 9 So. 295; Philadelphia,
Wilmington & Bait. R. R. Co. v. Wil-
liams, 54 Pa. St. 103; Toledo & W. R.
R. Co. y. Daniels, 16 Ohio St. 390.
In the last case it is said: "Prima
facie power to do any act is power to
do it in such manner and at such
time as is usual, convenient and
reasonable, — in such way as prudent
men manage their own concerns."
ssPittsburgh, V. & C. R. R. Co. v.
Pittsburgh, C. & S. L. R. R. Co., 159
Pa. St. 331, 28 Atl. Rep. 155.
iChicago, Burlington & Quincy R.
R. Co. V. Wilson, 17 111. 123.
2Fisher v. Chicago & Springfield
R. R. Co., 104 111. 323; Brown v. Phil-
adelphia, W. & B. R. R. Co., 58 Md.
539 ; Cincinnati v. Cincinnati So. Ry.
Co., 1 Ohio N. P.(N.S.) 361; Vir-
ginia & Truckee R. R. Co. v. Lovejoy,
8 Nev. 100 ; Simpson v. Lancaster &
Carlisle Ry. Co., 15 Sim. 580 ; Stamps
V. Birmingham & Stone Valley Ry.
Co., 2 Phillips 673. A power to
widen a railroad right of way in
order to accommodate traffic and
secure the safety of persons and prop-
erty is not exhausted by one exercise.
Sutton V. Pa. R. R. Co., 211 Pa. St.
554, 60 Atl. 1090 ; Sutton v. Pa. R. R.
Co., 13 Pa. Dist. Ct. 474. In Hop-
kins V. Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co.,
94 Md. 257, 51 Atl. 404 and Dolfield
V. Western Md. R. R. Co., 107 Md.
584, the section is quoted to this
point and its doctrine pronounced
sound and salutary.
sThom V. Ga. Mfg. etc. Co., 128
Ga. 187, 57 S. E. 75; Johnson v. Utica
Water Works Co., 67 Barb. 415;
Water Commissioners v. Lawrence, 3
Edw. Ch. 552; Edgewood Water Co.
V. Troy Water Co., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 476;
Kellar v. Riverton Consolidated
Water Co., 34 Pa. Supr. Ct. 301.
732 EMINEITT DOMAIlf. § 404
to secure materials for an aqueduct.* A street or other railroad
company, authorized to lay two tracks upon a street, or one or
more tracks, may lay one at one time and one at another.^ So
a power to a street railroad company to construct, use and operate
all necessary and convenient turnouts, side tracks, etc., is not
limited to those necessary when the road is first constructed.®
A special act authorized the connection of two railroads by tracks
on the streets of a city upon consent of the people given, and
such consent was given and the tracks constructed. It was held
that the power was exhausted and that an additional track could
not be laid thirty years after, though a fresh consent was ob-
tained.'^ Where a railroad sixty-six feet wide is purchased by
another company which had power to condemn a hundred feet
in width, it was held the latter company, after operating the
road for several years, might widen to a hundred feet.* Where
park commissioners have power to connect any public park with
any part of any incorporated city by taking any street or streets
leading to such park, the power is not exhausted by taking one
street.^ The power to establish harbor lines, like the power to
establish the grade of streets,^" is a continuing power, and new
lines may be established which operate to discontinue old ones.'*
Where a railroad company is authorized to condemn not exceed-
ing one hundred feet for right of way, it cannot acquire a right
of way by purchase and then condemn an additional hundred
feet. 12
§ 404 (260). Where the provisions of one statute are
adopted by another, or extended to another jurisdiction.
This is frequently done in statutes relating to eminent domain,
and sometimes leads to great confusion and perplexity. The
courts will, if possible, in such cases effectuate the intention of
^Matter of Water Commissioners, ^Savannah & W. R. R. Co. v. Wood-
3 Edwards Ch. 552. ruff, 86 Ga. 94, 13 S. E. 156.
eWorkman v. So. Pae. R. R. Co., sChilds v. Central R. E. Co. of N.
129 Cal. 536, 62 Pac. 185 ; Ranson v. J., 33 N. J. L. 323.
Citizens R. R. Co., 104 Mo. 375, 16 sWest Chicago Park Comrs. v. Mc-
S. W. 416; Varwig v. Cleveland etc. Mullen, 134 HI. 170, 25 N. E. 676, 10
R. R. Co., 6 Ohio C. C. 439; People's L.R.A. 215.
Passenger Ry. Co. v. Baldwin, 14 ^oAnte, § 145.
Phila. 231 ; Dumnore v. Seranton Ry. uParist Steel Co. v. Bridgeport, 60
Co., 34 Pa. Supr. Ct. 294. Conn. 278, 22 Atl. 561.
sDetroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. v. i2Crandall v. Des Moines etc. R.
Board of Public Works, 126 Mich. R. Co., 103 la. 684.
654, 85 N. W. 1072.
§ 404 THE STATUTOEY AUTHOFaTY. 733
the legislature.^* Certain commissioners were authorized to re-
move all dams on a stream and to execute other works for the
benefit of health and drainage. The act provided that the dam-
ages should be assessed "in the same manner" as in laying out
highways. This was held to mean that similar proceedings
should be had, so far as applicable to the subject-matter, and
that much was left to implication in the manner of adapting the
proceedings to the subject-matter.^* A statute in reference to
assessing betterments in Boston was made applicable to the city
of Charlestown. In Boston the authority was vested in the board
of aldermen, which also had general authority to lay out streets.
In applying the act to Charlestovm it was held that the authority
did not vest in its board of aldermen, but in the body which had
jurisdiction in laying out and improving streets, viz. : the city
council.-'' A statute relating to the laying out of highways and
town ways by county commissioners was made applicable to the
laying out of streets by the city council of cities. It was held
that a provision that the county commissioners should, if re-
quested, view the premises, did not require that the city council
should view the premises, but that a view by a committee would
suffice.^® Where an act provided that in case of land taken for
i3It would take too much 8pace to 429; Craig v. Supervisors, 10 Wend,
state each case so as to show clearly 585; Matter of Riverside Park, 95
the points decided. The following App. Div. 552, 89 N. Y. S. 6; Road
are in point: Board of Directors York Water Co., 24 Pa. St. 397;
V. Redditt, 79 Ark. 154, 95 S. W. 482; Memphis v. Hastings, 113 Tenn. 142,
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. 86 S. W. 609, 69 L.R.A. 750; Lenz
Postal Tel. Cable Co., 120 Ga. 268, v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., Ill Wis. 198,
48 S. E. 15 ; Taylor v. Pettijohn, 24 86 N. W. 607 ; Broadbent v. Imperial
111. 312; Terre Haute v. Evansville Gas Light Co., 7 De G. M. & G. 436, 3
etc. R. R. Co., 149 Ind. 174, 46 N. E. Jur. N. S. 221, 26 L. J. Ch. 276;
77, 37 L.R.A. 189 ; Postal Tel. Cable Ferrar v. Comrs., 4 L. R. Exch. 227,
Co. V. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 30 Ind. 38 L. J. Exch. 102, 21 L. T. N. S. 295,
App. 654, 66 N. E. 919; Moseley v. 17 W. R. 709; Daugey v. London, 38
York Shore Water Co., 94 Me. 83, 46 L. J. C. P. 298, 17 W. R. 1106, 20
Atl. 809; Kennebeck Water Dist. v. L. T. N. S. 921.
Waterville, 96 Me. 234, 52 Atl. 774; i4Phillips v. County Commission-
Boston El. R. R. Co. v. Presho, 174 ers, 122 Mass. 258.
Mass. 99, 54 N. E. 348; Danforth v. iBLockwood v. Charlestown, 114
Groton Water Co., 176 Mass. 118, Mass. 416. For a similar case see
57 N. E. 351 ; Sawyer v. Met. Water Day v. Board of Aldermen of Spring-
Board, 178 Mass. 267, 59 N. E. 658 ; field, 102 Mass. 310.
Appleton V. Newton, 178 Mass. 276, isTaintor v. Cambridge, 192 Mass.
59 N. E. 648 ; McSweeney v. Com- 522, 78 N. E. 545.
monwealth, 185 Mass. 371, 70 N. B.
734 EMINENT DOMAIN. § 405
parks the proceedings should be the same as in case of street
openings, it was held to mean that the proceedings in park cases
should conform to the law applicable to streets as its exists from
time to time when park proceedings are begun.*' An act to en-
able cities to build sewers and to acquire lands for that purpose
required that the proceedings therefor should conform to the
proceedings now provided by law for the acquiring of land for
the opening of streets in such cities. It was held that in pro-
ceedings by a city to acquire land for a sewer, it must conform
to the special provisions in its charter for acquiring land for
a street, whatever they may be.*® If the act adopted or referred
to provides for an appeal or review, an appeal or review may be
had.*^ Where a telegraph company was authorized to condemn
and to proceed as provided in a specified chapter relating to rail-
roads, it was held that the chapter was adopted as then existing
and not as afterwards amended.*" References to sections of
other statutes by a wrong number will be corrected, when the
intent can be clearly made out, otherwise not.^*
§ 405 (261). Validity and effect of statutes legalizing
defective proceedings. The legislature may legalize irregu-
lar or defective proceedings which it might have authorized in
the form in which they have been taken.** If the defect is one
of power, it can be supplied by a subsequent act.*^ In all cases,
i7In re Vernon Park, 163 Pa. St. O'Brien v. Commissioners of Balti-
70, 29 Atl. 972. more County, 51 Md. 15; Pitkin v.
isState V. City of Jersey City, 54 Springfield, 112 Mass. 509; Spauld-
N. J. L. 49, 22 Atl. 1052. ing v. Nourse, 143 Mass. 490; State
19 Austin V. Belleville etc. R. E.. v. Bruggerman, 31 Minn. 493; State
Co., 19 111. 310; C. Street, 118 Pa. St. v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; State v.
171, 12 Atl. 345; In re Vernon Park, Union, 33 N. J. L. 350; State v. Ber-
163 Pa. St. 70, 29 Atl. 972. gen, 34 N. J. L. 438; State v. Passaic,
20Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Southern 36 N. J. L. 382; State v. Passaic, 37
R. R. Co., 98 Fed. 190. N. J. L. 65; People ex rel. etc. v.
21 Williamson v. Houser, 169 Ind. McDonald, 69 N. Y. 362; Board of
397, 82 N. E. 771; Board of Park Water Comrs. v. Dwight, 101 N. Y.
Comrs. V. Du Pont, 110 Ky. 743, 62 9; Burgett v. Norris, 25 Ohio St. 308;
S. W. 891; 2 Lewis' Suth. Stat. Mattingly v. District of Columbia,
Constr. § 410. And see generally on 97 U. S. 687 ; Bums v. Multnomah,
the subject of the section 2 Lewis' 8 Sawyer 543. Contra, Seibert v.
Suth. Stat. Constr. §§ 405^13. Linton, 5 W. Va. 57.
2 2Bennett v. Fisher, 26 la. 497; 2 3Spaulding v. Nourse, 143 Mass.
Eichman v. Board of Supervisors, 77 490; Himmelman v. Hoadley, 44 Cal.
la. 513, 42 N. W. 422; Clinton v. 213; Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50
Walliker, 98 la. 655, 68 N. W. 431 ; Cal. 265.
§ 406 THE STATUTOBY AUTHOEITY. 735
however, intervening rights must not be impaired.^* It is no
objection to such an act that it is passed while an appeal or
certiorari is pending to review the proceedings.^^ Where a ditch
had been constructed under an unconstitutional law, it was held
that the right of way might be recondemned and the assessment
of damages and benefits relevied under a valid law.^' But the
legislature cannot legalize what it could not authorize in the first
instance and so cannot legalize the laying out of a highway with-
out compensation.^''
§ 406 (261a). The legislature cannot surrender or pre-
clude itself from the exercise of the eminent domain power.
If this were not so it would be possible for one legislature to
block and render forever impossible the most needed and valua-
able public improvements. A legislature could grant a right of
way across the State and make a binding stipulation that it
should never be crossed by any other line of transportation or
communication. And if the eminent domain power could thus
be bargained away, so could the police power and power of taxa-
tion. The State might thus soon cease to be sovereign, and cor-
porations and franchise-holders become the dominant power.
The result of this process of reasoning is that the sovereign
powers of the State cannot be bargained away, restrained, sur-
rendered or extinguished by the action of the legislature.^* If
there is any exception to this rule it applies to the power of taxa-
tion only, which may be surrendered or commuted, as to par-
ticular persons or property, for a valuable consideration re-
ceived by the State. ^* But even this exception has not been es-
tablished without emphatic protest. Judge Cooley sums up his
2«Mattingly v. District of Colum- N. W. 1072; Heacock v. Sullivan, 70
bia, 97 U. S. 687 ; Schumaker v. Kan. 750, 79 Pac. 659.
Toberman, 56 Cal. 508; Holliday v. See further on the subject of eura-
City of Atlanta, 96 Ga. 377, 23 S. E. tive statutes the following : Spencer
Rep. 406; Board of Comrs.v. Fahlor, v. Merchant, 100 N. Y. 585; S. C.
132 Ind. 426, 31 2Sr. E. 1112. affirmed, Spencer v. Merchant, 125
25Statev. Newark, 27 N.J. L. 185; U. S. 345; People v. Stillings, 75
State V. Union, 33 N. J. L. 350. App. Div. 569, 75 N. Y. S. 333 ;
2 6Curran v. Sibley County, 56 People v. Stillings, 76 App. Div. 143,
Minn. 432, 57 N. W. 1070; Curran v. 78 N. Y. S. 942; Whitlock v. Haw-
Sibley County, 47 Minn. 313, 50 N. kins, 105 Va. 242, 53 S. E. 401; 2
W. 237; Lewis County v. McGeorge, Lewis' Suth. Stat. Constr. §§ 675-677.
47 Wash. 414, 92 Pac. 268. And see 2 8Cooley Const. Lim. 6th Ed. pp.
Sudberry v. Graves, 83 Ark. 344, 103 337-342.
S. W. 728. 29Cooley Const. Lim. 6th Ed. pp.
27Huteh V. Barnes, 124 la. 251, 99 148, 337, 338.
736 EMIifENT DOMAIN. § 406
discussion of this subject as follows : "It would seem, therefore,
to be the prevailing opinion, and one based upon sound reason,
that the State cannot barter away, or in any manner abridge or
weaken, any of those essential powers which are inherent in all
governments, and the existence of which in full vigor is impor-
tant to the wellbeing of organized society ; and that any contracts
to that end are void upon general principles, and cannot be saved
from invalidity by the provision of the national constitution now
under consideration. If the tax cases are to be regarded as an
exception to this statement, the exception is perhaps to be con-
sidered a nominal rather than a real one, since taxation is for
the purpose of providing the State a revenue, and the State laws
which have been enforced as laws in these cases have been sup-
posed to be based upon a consideration by which the State re-
ceives the benefit which would have accrued from an exercise
of the relinquished power in the ordinary mode." ^^ The au-
thorities are quite conclusive to the effect that the police power
cannot be surrendered or restricted.^ ^ And we believe that the
authorities are equally emphatic with respect to the eminent
domain power.^* An agreement or stipulation, either by the
State or a municipal corporation, that the power of eminent do-
main shall not be exercised in a particular manner or in respect
to certain property, is null and void.*^ The granting of an ex-
clusive privilege or franchise is neither in form or substance an
agreement that the power of eminent domain shall not be exer-
soCooley Const. Lim. 6th Ed. pp. 138; People v. Adirondack R. K.
341, 342. Co., 160 N. Y. 225, 238, 54 N. E. 689;
aiNew Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisi- In re Twenty-second Street, 102 Pa.
ana Light Co., 115 U. S. 650; New St. 108; S. C. 15 Phil. 409; Lock
Orleans Water Works Co. v. Rivers, Haven Bridge Co. v. Clinton County,
115 U. S. 674; Louisville Gas. Co. v. 157 Pa. St. 379, 27 Atl. 726; Corn-
Citizens' Gas Co., 115 U. S. 683; St. monwealth v. Broad St. Ry. Co., 219
Tammany Water Works v. New Or- Pa. St. 11, 67 Atl. 958.
leans Water Works, 120 U. S. 64; ssjud. A contract between a city
Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City and a railroad company that no
Co., Ill U. S. 746; Beer Co. v. Massa- street should be opened over its prop-
chusetts, 97 U. S. 25; Fertilizing Co. erty was held void. Matter of Open-
V. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659 ; Stone ing First Street, 66 Mich. 42, 33 N.
V. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814. W. 15. And see also, I«ggett v. De-
3 2Hyde Park v. Cemetery Ass., 119 troit, 137 Mich. 247, 100 N. W. 566;
111. 141, 7 N. E. 627 ; Brimmer v. Bos- In re Southern Boulevard R. R. Co.,
ton, 102 Mass. 19; Matter of Open- 146 N. Y. 352, 40 N. E. 1000; S. C.
ing First Street, 66 Mich. 42, 33 N. 143 N. Y. 258, 38 N. E. 276.
W. 15 ; Brewster v. Hough, 10 >r. H.
§ 408 THE STATUTORY AUTHOEITY. 737
cised to take or interfere with such franchise or privilege. The
exclusive feature is inserted in order to induce private parties
to invest their capital in an enterprise which might otherwise
be rendered valueless without redress by the making of similar
grants to others. The legislature thereby simply creates a valu-
able right or property, but this property remains subject to the
eminent domain power, like any other property.^* A provision
in a charter that the property of the company shall not be taken
for certain public uses, is void as a contract, and amounts simply
to the expression of a legislative intent that, for the time being,
the power of eminent domain shall not be so exercised.^ ^ The
legislature having full power to grant or withhold the exercise
of the right of eminent domain, it is competent for it to provide
that streets shall not be laid through cemeteries or railroad
grounds, but it is also competent to reverse this policy at any
time.
§ 407. Agreements not to condemn. Whether a pri-
vate corporation invested with the power of eminent domain, in
order to enable it to accomplish a public purpose, may bind itself
not to condemn specified property, or more than a specified
amount may be doubted. Such a covenant would seem to be
against public policy, as it might prevent improvements which
the public interests demand. And it has been so adjudicated.^"
It has been held that such a covenant does not run with the land
so as to bind the successors of the covenantor acquiring the rail-
road by foreclosure.^^ Also that a court of equity would not
enforce the covenant but leave the parties to their remedy at
law.^®
§ 408 (261b). Exercise of the power by Congress.
Congress, as the national legislature, may exercise the power of
eminent domain, for the promotion of any purpose within its
constitutional powers, and subject to the limitation contained in
the federal constitution.^^ As the local legislature of the Dis-
siAnfe, § 215; post, §§ 438, 439. s'Morris etc. R. R. Co. v. Hoboken
ssHyde Park v. Cemetery Ass., 119 «tc. E. R. Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 328, 59
111. 141, 7 N. E. 627; In re Twenty- Atl. 332.
second St., 102 Pa. St. 108, 15 Phil. ssibid.
409. ssLuxton v. North Eiv. Bridge Co.,
36Chioago etc. E. E. Co. v. III. 153 U. S. 525; Nahant v. United
Cent. E. E. Co., 113 111. 156; South States, 136 Fed. 273, 70 C. C. A. 641,
Chicago City E. E. Co. v. Calumet 69 L.E.A. 723.
etc. St. E. E. Co., 70 111. App. 254;
Cornwall v. Louisville etc. E. E. Co.,
87 Ky. 72, 7 S. W. 553.
Em. D.— 47.
r38
EMINEIifT DOMAIN.
§ 409
met of Columbia, it may exercise the power for any municipal
or legitimate public use.*" In taking property in the States, it
may provide a procedure of its own, or adopt or make use of
that provided by the States.*^
§ 409 (261c). Constitutionality of eminent domain
statutes generally. Statutes which provide for an exercise of
the eminent domain power must not only comply with the emi-
nent domain provisions of the constitution, but with those pro-
visions which relate to the manner and form of legislation or
which otherwise limit the power of the legislature The stat-
ute, either by itself or in connection with other legislation, must
provide for compensation.*^ The taking must be for a public
use *^ and that use must be defined in the act.** The statute
must not be obnoxious to the constitutional provisions as to local
and special legislation,*^ nor to the provision that a person shall
not be deprived of his property without due process of law,*"
nor to any other limitations.*''^ It must conform to the provi-
^oSlioemaker v. United States, 147
V. S. 282, 13 S. C. 361 ; United States
V. Cooper, 9 Mackey 104.
<i Jones V. United States, 48 Wis.
385 ; In. re Secretary of the Treasury,
45 Fed. 396, 11 L.R.A. 275.
*2Post, § 673. Brunswick & W.
R. K. Co. T. City of Waycross, 94
Ga. 102, 21 S. E. 145 ; Garbutt Lum-
ber Co. V. Georgia etc. Ry. Co., Ill
Ga. 714, 36 S. E. 942 ; Commonwealth
V. Boston Advertising Co.,_ 188 Mass.
348, 74 N. E. 601, 108 Am. St. Rep.
494, 69 L.R.A. 817 ; Morris v. Wash-
ington County, 72 Neb. 174, 100 X.
W. 144; Littleton v. Berlin Mills Co.,
73 N. H. 11, 58 Atl. 877; Cherry v.
Board of Comrs., 52 X. J. L. 544, 20
Atl. 970; Litchfield v. Pond, 180 X.
Y. 66, 78 N. E. 719, reversing S. C.
105 App. Div. 229, 93 N. Y. S. 1016 ;
In re Widening of Burnish St., 140
Pa. St. 531, 21 Atl. 500; Tuttle v.
Justice of Knox Count}', 89 Tenn.
157, 14 S. W. 486 ; Wautauga Water
Co. V-. Scott, 111 Tenn. 321, 70 S. W.
888; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wil-
liams, 86 Va. 696, 11 S. E. 108, 2 Am.
R. R. & Corp. Rep. 258, 19 Am. St.
Rep. 908.
*3See chap 7. State v. City of
Orange, 54 X. J. L. Ill, 22 Atl. 1004,
14 L.R.A. 62.
<4In re Theresa Drainage Dist., 90
Wis. 301, 03 X. W. 288.
*5City of Pasadena v. Stinson, 91
Cal. 238, 27 Pac. 604; Commissioners
of Parks and Boulevards v. Moesta,
91 Mich. 149, 51 X. W. 903; Xcw
York & L. I. Bridge Co. v. Smith, 148
X. Y. 540, 42 X. E. 1088 ; Swikehard
V. ilichels, 8 Miscl. 568, 29 X. Y.
Supp. 777 ; Matter of Lexington Ave.,
29 Hun 303, 63 How. Pr. 462; State
V. Cowles, 64 Ohio St. 162, 59 X. E.
•895; Appeal of Wilbert, 137 Pa. St.
494, 21 Atl. 74 ; Wagner v. Milwaukee
County, 112 Wis. 601, 88 X^. W. 577.
impost, §§ 564-569.. Smith v.
Cochrane, 9 Wash. 85, 37 Pac. Rep.
311, 494.
4 'Memphis etc. R. R. Co. r. Birm-
ingham etc. R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 571,
11 So. 642, 18 L.R.A. 166; New Y'ork
etc. R. R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417,
59 Atl. 510; People v. Township
409
THE STATUTORY AUTIIOEITY.
(39
sion as to the title of acts *® and to all other provisions as to the
manner of passing laws.*" A title which indicates the purpose
of the act to be that of creating municipal corporations or of
conferring additional powers thereon, is sufScient to cover pro-
visions conferring the right of eminent domain for municipal
public uses.°° An act requiring questions of necessity or public
utility to be determined by a court, was held not to be void as
imposing legislative duties on the court.® ^ And where an act
of the legislature confirmed the report of commissioners ap-
pointed by a court to devise and report a plan for the abolition
of certain grade crossings and provided for carrying out the
plan it was held not void as a usurpation of judicial functions
by the legislature, since the legislature might in the first instance
Board, 25 Mich. 153; Mt. Clemens v.
ilacomb Circ. Judge, 119 Mich. 293,
77 N. W. 936; Attorney General v.
Pingree, 120 Mich. 550, 79 N. W. 814,
46 L.R.A. 407 ; Tyson v. Washington
County, 78 Neb. 211, 110 N. W. 634;
State V. Commissioners, 54 Ohio St.
333, 43 N. E. 587 ; Dallas County v.
Plowman, 99 Tex. 509, 91 S. W. 221;
Senor v. Board of Comrs., 13 Wash.
48, 42 Pac. Rep. 552; State v. Froeh-
lich, 115 Wis. 32, 91 N. W. 115, 95
Am. St. Eep. 894, 58 L.R.A. 757.
4 8Poulan V. Atlantic Coast Line R.
R. Co., 123 Ga. 605, 51 S. E. 657;
Mull V. Indianapolis etc. Traction
Co., 169 Ind. 214, 81 N. E. 657; Sisson
V. Board of Supervisors, 128 la. 442,
104 N. W. 454, 70 L.R.A. 440 ; Enter-
prise V. Smith, 62 Kan. 815, 62 Pac.
324; Lien v. Norman County, 80
Minn. 58, 82 N. W. 1094; Sliively
V. Lankford, 174 J\Io. 535, 74 S. W.
835; Coward v. North Plainfield, 63
N. J. L. 61, 42 Atl. 805; Slocum v.
Neptune, 68 N. J. L. 595, 53 Atl. 301 ;
Van Cleve v. Passaic Val. Sewerage
Comrs., 71 N. J. L. 183, 58 Atl. 571 ;
Seaside Realty & Imp. Co. v. At-
lantic City, 74 N. J. L. 178, 64 Atl.
1081; Sweet v. City of Syracuse, 128
N. Y. 680, 27 N. E. 1081 ; Matter of
Clinton Ave., 57 App. Div. 166, 68
N. Y. S. 196; S. C. affirmed, 167 N. Y.
624, 00 N. E. 1108; Nicholson
Borough, 27 Pa. Supr. Ct. 570;
Marysville Water Co. v. West Fair-
view etc. St. Ry. Co., 13 Pa. Dist. Ct
365 ; Ryan v. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn
111, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L.R.A. 303
Franklin Turnpike Co. v. Long Dis
tance Tel. & Tel. Co., 118 Tenn. 88
Adams v. San Angelo Water Works
^Co., 80 Tex. 486, 25 S. W. 605
Borden v. Trespalacios R. & I. Co., 98
Tex. 494, 86 S. W. 11, 107 Am. St.
Rep. 640; State v. Superior Court, 28
Wash. 317, 68 Pac. 957, 92 Am. St.
Rep. 831; Weed v. Goodwin, 36
Wash. 31, 78 Pac. 36.
<9Spratt V. Helena Power Trans-
mission Co., 37 Mont. 60, 94 Pac.
631; Niagara Co. I. & W. S. Co. v.
(lollege Heights Land Co., Ill App.
Div. 170, 98 N. Y. S. 4; Memphis etc.
R. R. Co. V. Union Ry. Co., 116 Tenn.
500, 95 S. W. 1019; State v. Superior
Court, 44 Wash. 476, 87 Pac. 521.
6 "Coward v. North Plainfield, 63
N. J. L. 61, 42 Atl. 805.
BiMcGee v. Hennepin County, 84
Minn. 472, 88 N. W. C; State v.
Crosby, 92 Minn. 176, 99 N. W. 636.
See Tyson v. Washington County, 78
Neb. 211, 110 N. W. 634.
740 EMINENT D03IAIN. § 4:10
have decided upon the plan and provided for its accomplish-
ment.®^
§ 410. Parties availing of statute cannot object to its
validity. As the legislature may grant or withhold the privi-
lege of exercising the eminent domain power, it may annex such
conditions to the exercise of the privilege as it sees fit, provided
the same do not conflict with the constitution.®^ This question
was very elaborately considered in the Iowa case cited. The stat-
ute as to the taking of property by railroad companies provided
that "the corporation shall pay all the costs of the assessment
made by the commissioners and those occasioned by the appeal,
including reasonable attorneys' fees to be taxed by the court,
unless on the trial thereof the same or a less amount of dam-
ages is awarded than was allowed by the commissioners." The
court held the proposition above stated and also that the provi-
sion as to attorneys' fees was not class legislation because made
applicable to railroad companies only, and not to all persons and
corporations exercising the power of eminent domain.®*
It was further held in the same case that a corporation
availing itself of the privilege granted, was estopped to deny
the validity of the conditions imposed. And this is the general
rule.®® In the case cited from Ifew Hampshire the statute re-
quired the condemnor to pay the value of the property as fixed
by the committee or jury and fifty per centum additional. In
saProvidence etc. Steamboat Co. v. 114 la. 713, 87 N. W. 714, 89 Am.
Fall River, 183 Mass. 535, 67 N. E. St. Rep. 393, 55 L.R.A. 263; Xew-
647. buryport Water Co. v. Newbuiyport,
5 3Gano V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. 168 Mass. 541, 47 X. E. 533; GIou-
Co., 114 la. 713, 87 N. W. 714, 89 Am. eester Water Supply Co. v. Glou-
St. Rep. 393, 55 L.R.A. 263 ; Dow v. eester, 179 Mass. 365, 60 JT. E. 977 ;
Electric Co., 68 N. H. 59, 31 Atl. 22; Am. Unitarian Asso. v. Common-
Cincinnati etc. Traction Co. v. Felix, wealth, 193 Mass. 470, 79 N. E. 878 ;
5 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 270; Wiler v. People v. Calder, 153 Mich. 724;
Logan N'at. Gas & Fuel Co., 6 Ohio Dow v. Elec. Co., 68 N. H. 59, 31 Atl.
C. C. (N.S.) 206; S. C. affirmed with- 22; S. C. Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.
out opinion, 72 Ohio St. 628, 76 N. E. S. 489, 17 S. C. 645; Wiler v. Logan
1128. Xat. Gas & Fuel Co., 6 Ohio C. C.
6 4Gano V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. (N.S.) 206; S. C. affirmed, 72 Ohio
Co., 1141a. 713, 87N.W. 714, 89 Am. St. 628, 76 N. E. 1128; Atlantic
St. Rep. 393, 55 L.R.A. 263. And see Coast Line R. E. Co. v. Soutli
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Guthrie, 192 Bound R. R. Co., 57 S. C. 317, 35 S.
111. 579, 61 N. E. 658. E. 553; Newburyport Water Co. v.
5 5New York etc. R. R. Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U. S. 561, 24 S. C.
Wheeler, 72 Conn. 481, 45 Atl. 14; 553.
Gano V. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co.,
§ 410 THE STATUTOEY ATJTHOPaTY. T41
holding that one who had availed of the statute to acquire the
right of flowage could not object to the validity of the condition
the court says : "When a legislative grant of authority to exer-
cise the power of eminent domain contains a condition that the
grantee shall pay more than the value of the property taken
under the power, the grantee accepting the grant and exercising
the power cannot question the constitutionality of the condition.
The defendants were authorized to flow the plaintiff's land upon
the condition, among others, that they pay the damages thereby
done to him and fifty per cent in addition. The statute is per-
missive. It confers a privilege which the defendants were at
liberty to exercise or not as they saw fit. But they cannot take
and enjoy the benefit without performing the condition on
which it is given. By their exercise of the power conferred,
flowing the plaintiff's land and applying for an assessment of
the damages, they are precluded from denying the validity of
the condition. The question of its constitutionality under either
the federal or State constitution is not open to them." ®^
B6D0W V. Electric Co., 68 N. H. tically affirmed in Electric Co. v.
59, 31 Atl. 22. This case was prac; Dow, 166 U. S. 489, 17 S. C. 645.
KP 5599 L67 1909
1 .
Author
Lewis, John
Vol.
"^"^ A treatise on the law of
eminent domain inthe U.S.
Got
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11