Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/149

 PART I.] CONSTRUCTION OF CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 163. cretion. 1 Nevertheless, when it takes but an easement, sufficient interest remains in the owner of the fee to prevent the railroad company from extending its use beyond the reasonable terms of its easement, since that would be an encroachment on his re- siduary rights. 2 An unrestricted grant to a railroad company of power to con- struct a road between two points, carries with it the right to cross navigable waters, if they intervene in a course or route which is otherwise proper, and the road can be constructed over them without destroying the public easement or seriously impairing it. 3 § 163. The legislature cannot authorize the taking of private property for private use, even on just compensation. 4 More- over, the determination by the legislature that a purpose for which it directs private property to be taken is a public pur- pose is not conclusive, but open for determination by the courts ; although if the use be public, legislative decision is conclusive as to the public exigency requiring the property to be taken. 5 1 Brainard v. Clapp, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 6 ; Hagen v. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 2 Gray (Mass.), 577, 580 ; see Prather v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 89 Ind. 501. Compare Hudson River Tel. Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike, etc., Co., 135 N. Y. 393. Although a rail- road company takes but an ease- ment, it may maintain ejectment. Rutland R. R. Co. v. Chaffee, 71 Vt, 84. See § 165. 2 See Proprietors of Locks and Ca- nals v. Nashua & L. R. R. Co., 104 Mass. 1 ; Aldrich v. Drury, 8 R. I. 554 ; Blake v. Rich, 34 N. H. 282 ; Chapin v. Sullivan R. R. Co., 39 N. H. 564 ; Jessup v. Loucks, 55 Pa. St. 350. 8 Miller v. Prairie du Chien, etc., Ry. Co., 34 Wis. 533 ; Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony, etc., R. R. Co., 5 Allen (Mass. ) 221 ; Hamilton v. Vicksburg S. & P. R. R. Co., 34 La, Ann. 970. See § 163a for the taking by a railroad company of land al- 9 ready devoted to a public use, as a street or another railroad. 96 N. Y. 42 ; Lorenz v. Jacob, 63 Cal. 73 ; Scudder v. Trenton Delaware Falls Co., Saxton (N. J.), 695 ; Con- tra Costa Coal Mines R. R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323; Consolidated Channel Co. v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 269 ; Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311 ; County Court v. Gris- wold, 58 Mo. 175 ; Palairet's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 479. See Bass v. Roanoke Nav. Co., Ill N. C. 439 ; Contra Har- vey v. Thomas, 10 Watts., (Pa.), 63. The taking by a state of private property, without the owner's con- sent, for a private use is not due process of law, and is repugnant to Amendment XIV. of the Federal Constitution. Missouri, Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403. 6 Niagara Falls, etc., R. R. Co., in re, 108 N. Y. 375 ; Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray (Mass.), 417 ; Chicago, R. I. 129
 * Matter of Eureka Basin, etc., Co.,