Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/155

 <y tS 2^ PART I.] CONSTRUCTION OF CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 165. been said that a railroad corporation by laying out to its satis- faction its road with the appendages, entirely exhausts all the powers conferred on it to take land. 1 But, it is submitted, it is the right of the railroad company to re-locate its road that is wanting, 2 and not its right of eminent domain that is exhausted. 3 And there is ample authority sustaining the rule that, notwith- standing a railroad corporation has already exercised its right of eminent domain, it may make whatever further appropria- tions are necessary for its road or stations, provided the mak- ing of any given appropriation is not in itself an act unauthor- ized by the constitution of the corporation. 4 § 165. In the exercise of its right of eminent domain a cor- poration may take the fee or whatever interest in the land ma} 7 be necessary to accomplish its purpose. 5 If it takes the fee, it acquires an exclusive right to the property. 6 And whatever interest it may take, it may have r ights, privileg es^ or immu nities in regard thereto not ordinarily possessed by indivi duals. * For instance, real estate thus acquired by a railroad company, which Rights of the corpo- ration as to land acquired by eminent domain. v. Devaney, 42 Miss. 555; Ex parte South Carolina R. R. Co., 2 Rich. L. (S. C.) 434. 1 Morris and Essex R. R. Co. v. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 205, 210. Compare Erie R. R. Co. v. Steward, 170 N. Y. 172. 2 See § 162a. 3 " Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an extinction of the right of eminent domain." New York, Housatonic, etc., R. R. Co. v. Boston, Hartford and Erie R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 196, 198. 4 Dietrichs v. Lincoln, etc., R. Co., 13 Neb. 361; Central Branch IT. P. R. R. Co. v. Atchison T. and S. F. R. R. Co., 26 Kans. 669; Chicago, B. and Q. R. R. Co. r. Wilson, 17 111. 123; Fisher v. Chicago and Spring- field R. R. Co., 104 111. 323; Miss, and Tenn. R. R. Co. o. Devaney, 42 Miss. 555; Virginia and Truckee R. R. Co. v. Lovejoy, 8 Nevada, 100; Prather v. Jeffersonville, etc., R. R. Co., 52 Ind. 16; Toledo and Wabash R'y Co. v. Daniels, 16 Ohio St. 390; Hamilton v. Annapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 1 Md. 553; Ex parte South Caro- lina R. R. Co., 2 Rich. L. (S. C.) 433. See Western Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 155. 5 Sixth Ave. R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330. Long Isl. R. R. Co. v. Garyey, 159 N. Y. 334, see also, Gar- vey v. L. I. R. R. Co., 159 N. Y. 323. See Cballiss v. Atchison, etc., R. R. Co., 16 Kan. 117. 6 See Isabel v. Hannibal and St. Jo. R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 475; Cauley v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co., 95 Pa. St. 398; Jersey City and Bergen R. R. Co. v. Jersey City and Hoboken R. R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 61; reversed in part, 21 N. J. Eq. 550; Camden Horse R. R. Co. v. Citizens' Coach Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 525; Rutland R. R. Co. v. Chaffee, 71 Vt. 84. 135