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. 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. 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;. 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 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 '. 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 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 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 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- 3Jeb. 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 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 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 . 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, malOMAIN. § 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 wa s determine d 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- ^^ 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 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'. 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. 9The 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, 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 469 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 8rovision 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. 93See 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 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. 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 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.