Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/152

 § lG3a.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. In accordance with these principles it is held that a railroad company may condemn land for proper places to keep cars and locomotives when not in use, and for places to store merchan- dise between the time of its receipt and dispatch, and after its arrival till called for ; ' and generally for proper terminal facili- ties, 2 for necessary depots and workshops. 3 § 163a. An individual, by devoting property to a public use, acquires no higher rights in that property than he had before. On the contrary, his rights as private owner become more pal- pably subservient to the rights of the public and to the police power of the state. 4 Accordingly, as far as concerns the rights of the owners of property devoted to a public use, there is no reason why the legislature should not authorize it to be taken by compulsory process, and as for the rights of the people, the compulsory proceedings are authorized by themselves acting through their plenary political agent, the legislature. 5 Conse- quently, the legislature can authorize property already devoted to a public use to be taken for another public use by compul- sory proceedings ; 6 it can, for instance, authorize one railroad iary to it. That cannot be inquired into upon an application to condemn land, and the railroad company may be compelled to perform the duties imposed upon it. Kansas & Texas Coal R'y v. Northwestern Coal & Mining Co., 161 Mo. 288. 1 In re New York and H. R. R. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546. 2 New York Central and H. R. R. R. Co. v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co., 63 N. Y. 326; Matter of New York Central and H. R. R. R. Co., 77 N. Y. 248. 8 Nashville and C. R. R. Co. v. Corvardin, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 348; Gilsy v. Cincinnati U. & S. R. R. Co., 4 O. St. 308; Hamilton v. Annapolis and E. R. R. Co., 1 Md. 560; Han- nibal and St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Muder, 49 Mo. 165; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 17 111. 123; Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Raymond, 53 Cal. 223. 4 See § 475, post. 132 5 See Lake Shore and M. S. Ry. Co. v. Chicago and W. I. R. R. Co., 97 111. 506; Northwestern T. E. Co. b. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 76 Minn. 334. 6 Boston Water Power Co. v. Bos- ton and N. R. R. Co., 23 Pick. (Mass.) 360; Chicago, R. I. and P. R. R. Co. v. Town of Lake, 71 111. 333; Ala- bama and F. R. R. Co. v. Kenney, 39 Ala. 307; Lafayette Plank Road Co. v. New Albany, etc., R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 90; New York H. and N. R. R. Co. v. Boston H. and E. R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 196; Northern R. R. v. Concord and C. R. R., 27 N. H. 183; White River T. Co. v. Vermont Cen- tral R. R. Co., 21 Vt. 590; Thorpe v. Rutland and B. R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 140; Wood v. Macon, etc., R. R. Co., 68 Ga. 539; Matter of Prospect Park and C. I. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 371. See Iron R. R. Co. v. Irouton, 19 O. St. 299; Commonwealth v. Essex Co., 13 Gray (Mass.), 239, 247. Compare