Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/154

 § 164.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. It is competent for a state to compel a railroad company to ^ 7 allow another railroad company to connect with it, 1 or to cross <^£ its track. 2 And if a company is chartered to build a railroad ff£> between two termini in a line that will cross the tracks of prior railroads, the right to cross those tracks will arise by impli- cation. 3 But no more than the property of other owners can the property of a railroad company be taken or injured without just compensation ; nor without just compensation can a rail- road company be forced to allow its tracks to be used or even crossed by another railroad company. And it is not competent for the legislature to fix the compensation. 4 § 164. As to whether and in what respect a single exercise of the power of eminent domain by a railroad corporation ex- hausts its rights, there is a conflict of authorities. Undoubtedly a railroad company chartered with power to build its road on a certain route, has no authority to lay its road elsewhere ; nor has a company that has actually selected its route and built its road, authority to change its route subsequently. 5 It has also iSee Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. State, 9 Baxt. (Tenu.) 521. Compare North Branch Passenger R'y Co. v. City Passenger R'y Co., 38 Pa. St. 361; Branson v. City of Philadelphia, 47 Pa. St. 329. 2 Lake Shore & M. S. R'y Co. v. Cin- cinnati, S. & C. R'y Co., 30 O. St. 604; Pittsburgh & C. R. R. Co. v. Southwest Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 77 Pa. St. 173; Baltimore, etc., T. Co. v. Union R'y Co., 35 Md. 224; Western Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 155. 3 Morris & E. R. R. Co. v. Central R. R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 205; State v. Eastern & A. R. R. Co., 36 N. J. L. 181; Contra Costa Coal Mines v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323. 4 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Balti- more & O. R. R. Co., 60 Md. 263; Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Southern, etc., Tel. Co., 46 Ga. 43. Compare with last case New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Southern, etc., Tel. Co., 53 Ala. 211; Baltimore, etc., T. Co. v. 134 Union R'y Co., 35 Md. 224; Northern Central R'y Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 36 Md. 425; Metropolitan R. R. Co. v. Highland St. R'y Co., 118 Mass. 290. It is held in Massa- chusetts that a railroad company is entitled to compensation for a public highway laid out across its track. Old Colony, etc., R. R. Co. v. County of Plymouth, 14 Gray, 155. Contra Albany Northern R. R. Co. v. Brown- ell, 24 N. Y. 345; Boston & A. R. R. Co. ». Greenbush, 52 N. Y. 510. 6 Erie R. R. Co. v. Steward, 170 N. Y. 172; Mason v. Brooklyn City, etc., R. R. Co., 35 Barb. 373; Brook- lyn Central R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 32 Barb. 358; Hudson and Del. Canal Co. v. New York and Erie R. R. Co., 9 Paige, 323; Kenton County Court v. Bank Lick Turnpike Co., 10 Bush (Ky.), 529; Brigham v. Agricultural Branch R. R. Co., 1 Al- len, 316. See Moorhead v. Little Miami R. R. Co., 17 Ohio, 340. But see Mississippi and Tenn. R. R. Co.,