Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/150

 § 163.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. The following uses have been held public purposes for which the legislature may delegate to a private corporation the pow^r to take private property : to supply a village with wholesome water ; 1 build a bridge which by the same statute is declared a public highway; 2 develop the mineral resources of the state; 3 irrigate large tracts of arid land ; 4 build (public) telegraph lines ; 5 build and operate a railroad as a common carrier. 6 No matter how apparently necessary to a corporation the right of eminent domain may be to enable it to fulfill its corporate pur- poses, the possession of this right can never be implied or pre- sumed ; and express authority for its exercise must always be shown. 7 The right of eminent domain of a railroad company, & P. R. R. Co. v. Town of Lake, 71 111. 333 ; Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311 ; County Court v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175 ; Concord R. R. v. Greely, 17 N. H. 47 ; Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Pittsburg, W. & K. R. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 812. See Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & W. R. R Co., 23 Pick. (Mass.) 360 ; Riche v. Bar Harbor Water Co., 75 Me. 91 ; Tidewater Co. v. Coster, 18 N. J. Eq. 518 ; National Docks R. R. Co. v. Central R. R., Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755. Cf. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Long, 69 Conn. 424. But see Pratber v. Jeffersonville M. & I. R. R. Co., 52 Ind. 16 ; Mims v. Macon & W. R. R. Co., 3 Ga. 333, 338. 1 Ricbe v. Bar Harbor Water Co., 75 Me. 91. 2 Arnold v. Covington Bridge Co., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 372. 8 Hand Gold M'g Co. v. Parker, 59 Ga. 419 (perbaps extreme). 4 Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112. 6 New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Southern, etc., Tel. Co., 53 Ala. 211. 6 National Docks R. R. Co. v. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755; Bloodgood v. Mobawk & H. R. R. 130 Co., 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 9; Beckman v. Saratoga, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Paige (N. Y.), 45; Buffalo & N. Y. C. R. R. Co. v. Braiuard, 9 N. Y. 100; Ald- ridge v. Tuscumbia R. R. Co., 2 Stew & Port. (Ala.) 199; Davis v. Tuscum bia R. R. Co., 4 Stew. & Port. (Ala. 421; Sadler v. Langbam, 34 Ala. 311 O'Hara v. Lexington & O. R. R. Co. 1 Dana (Ky.) 232; Concord R. R. Co v. Greely, 17 N. H. 47; San Francisco etc., R. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal 367; Raleigh & G. R. R. Co. v. Da vis, 2 Dev. & Bat. L. (N. C.) 451 Walther v. Warner, 25 Mo. 277; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 427. Compare Niagara Falls, etc., R. R. Co., in re, 108 N. Y. 375. The power of emi- nent domain, together with large discretion as to route, may be given railroad corporations by a general enabling act. Buffalo & N. Y. C. R. R. Co. v. Brainard, 9 N. Y. 100; Weir v. St. Paul, etc., R. R. Co., 18 Minn. 155; National Docks R. R. Co. v. Central R. R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755. See Chicago B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 84 111. 333; Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & W. R. R. Co., 23 Pick. (Mass.) 360. 7 Thacher v. Dartmouth Bridge Co., 18 Pick. 501; Phillips v. Dun- kirk, etc., R. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177.