Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/156

 § 166.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. is necessary for uses in which the public is interested, cannot be sold on execution apart from the franchises of the corpora- tion. 1 § 166. The right of eminent domain is not transferable. 2 After the time has expired within which a railroad corpora- tion is required to complete its road, it cannot exercise the right of eminent domain ; 3 nor can it do so after the expiration of the time to which the exercise of the right is ex- demiainnot pressly limited. 4 In condemning land the statute authorizing the proceedings must be strictly com- plied with, and this compliance must appear by the record of the proceedings. 5 transfer- able. 1 Gooch v. McGee, 83 N. C. 59; Rut- land R. R. Co. v. Chaffee, 72 Vt. 404. 2 Mahoney v. Spring Valley Water Co., 52 Cal. 159. A lease for one hundred years of a railroad does not vest in the lessee the right of eminent domain of the lessor. Mayor, etc., of Worcester v. Norwich, etc., R. R. Co., 109 Mass. 103. But the person whose property has been taken cannot ques- tion the right of the railroad com- pany to transfer that. Crolley v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 541. And the fact that a railroad company has leased its road for the full period of its corporate life does not affect its right to take land by eminent domain: and that the lessee is a foreign corporation is immate- rial. Matter of Petition of New York, Lackawanna, etc., R. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 12. 8 Peavy v. Calais R. R. Co., 30 Me. 136 498; New York, Housatonic, etc., R. R. Co. v. Boston, Hartford and Erie R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 196; Atlantic & P. R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228; see § 155. Central R. R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 205. See ante, § 155. 6 Nichols v. Bridgeport, 23 Conn. 189; Pueblo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rudd, 5 Col. 270 ; Mobly v. Breed, 48 Ga. 44; Ellis v. Pacific R. R. Co., 51 Mo. 200; Cunningham v. Pacific R. R. Co., 61 Mo. 33; Kansas City, St. Jo., etc., R. R. Co. v. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585; Hyslop v. Finch, 99 111. 171; Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 49 Cal. 396; Mitchell v. Illinois* St. L. R. R. Co., 68 111. 286; Oregonian Ry. Co. ». Hill, 9 Oregon, 377; Her- cules Iron Works v. Elgin, etc., Ry. Co., 141 111. 491 ; San Francisco, R. R. Co. v. Gould, 122 Cal. 601.
 * Morris and Essex R. R. Co. v.