Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/153

 PART I.] CONSTRUCTION OF CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 163a. company to take the property of another, although the same be used by the latter for railroad purposes. 1 But the power to take property actually devoted to a public use is not implied by a simple grant to a railroad company of the power of em i- nent domain. 3 Power to take such property arises only by a grant in express terms or by such necessary implication as &f exists whe re t he powers expressly granted cannot otherwise be jy t exercised ; an implication which must have been unavoidable and necessary ah origine and not made so by any act of the ' ^ l corporation. 3 All grants of eminent domain are to be con- &J>, strued strictly against the grantee, especially when it is at- tempted to construe the grant so as to interfere with the exer- cise of a previous grant of the same kind. 4 Lake Shore and M. S. Ry. Co. v. Chi- cago and N. I. R. R. Co., 97 111. 506. 1 Eastern R. R. Co. v. Boston and M. R. R. Co., Ill Mass. 125; Lake Shore and M. S. Ry. Co. v. Chicago and W. I. R. R. Co., 97 111. 506; Ore- gon, Ry. Co. v. Portland, 9 Ore- gon, 231; Sixth Avenue R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330; Kinsman Street R. R. Co. v. Broadway R. R. Co., 36 O. St. 239; and cases in preceding note. So, too, a telegraph company can condemn a portion of the right of way of a railroad company not in actual use. Mobile & O. R. R. Co. v. Postal Tel. C. Co., 120 Ala. 21. 2 Rutland Can. R. R. Co. v. Cen- tral Vt. Ry. Co., 72 Vt. 128; Contra Costa Coal Mines R. R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323; State v. Montclaire Ry. Co., 35 N. J. L. 328. 8 Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 150; Groff's Appeal, 128 Pa. St. 621; Matter of Boston and Albany R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 574; Mat- ter of City of Buffalo, 68 N. Y. 167; Prospect Park and C. I. R. R. Co. v. Williamson, 91 N. Y. 552; Oregon Ry. Co. v. Portland, 9 Oregon, 231; Inhabitants of Springfield v. Con- necticut River R. R. Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 63; Housatonic R. R. Co. v. Lee, etc., R. R. Co., 118 Mass. 391; Boston and M. R. R. Co. v. Lowell, etc., R. R. Co., 124 Mass. 368. See Suburban Rapid Transit Co. v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 128 N. Y. 510; Rutland Can. R. R. Co. ?;. Central Vt. Ry. Co., 72 Vt. 128; Scranton G. & W. Co. v. Northern C. & I. Co., 192 Pa. St. 80. But these strict rules do not apply where the property sought to be taken, though owned by a rail- road company, is not used for rail- road purposes. Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston and N. R. R. Co., 23 Pick. (Mass.) 360; North Carolina, etc., R. R. Co. v. Carolina Central Ry. Co., 83 N. C. 489; Peoria P. and I. R. R. Co. v. Peoria and S. R. R. Co., 66 111. 174; Baltimore and O. R. R. Co. v. Pittsburg W. and K. R. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 812. Compare Mar- ket Co. v. Railroad Co., 142 Pa. St. 580. A state cannot compel a rail- road company to surrender part of its property to private persons to be used as grain elevators; this is to take private property for a private use, and therefore is not due process of law. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Ne- braska, 164 U. S. 403. 4 Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 150. See §§ 470-473. 133