Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/166

 § 175.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. construction of a railroad bridge is damnum absque injuria y l and riparian owners on a navigable river cannot recover dam- ages for a diversion of its waters by a corporation acting under authority from the legislature. 2 On the other hand, riparian owners on navigable rivers or lakes have the right of unob- structed access to the navigable channel, and this right cannot be taken from them without compensation. 3 § 175. One of the most important classes of cases where per- sons have claimed compensation for the taking of property over which they have not unqualified owner- ship, or in which they have only an easement, are cases where railroad companies have been authorized to lay tracks in public streets or highways. The building of a horse railroad is held not to be an appropriation of the street to a new use, for which adjoining lot owners are entitled to com- pensation, even though they own the fee of the street. 4 The same rule is held to apply to tracks of an electric street railway Railroad tracks in streets. 1 Hamilton v. Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co., 119 U. S. 280. 2 Rundle v. Delaware and R. Canal Co., 14 How. 80 ; Black River Im- provement Co. v. La Crosse Booming, etc., Co., 54 Wis. 659 ; Rogers v. Kennebec & P. R. R. Co., 35 Me. 319. See Fitcbburg R. R. Co. v. Boston & M. Railroad, 3Cusb. (Mass.) 58 ; and compare Arnold v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 661 ; Kinealy v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 69 Mo. 658 ; semble contra, Tinsman v. Belvidere Delaware R. R. Co., 26 1ST. J. L. 148. 3 Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497 ; Delaplaine v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 214 ; Chapman v. Oshkosh & M. R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 629 ; Union Depot, etc., Co. ». Bruns- wick, 31 Minn. 297 ; see Drury v. Midland R. R. Co., 127 Mass. 571 ; Alexandria & F. Ry. Co. i Faunce, 31 Grat. (Va. ) 761; Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. E. R. R. Co., 23 Minn. 114; and compare Tliayeru. New Bedford R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 253 ; and Rail- 146 way Co. v Renwick, 102 U. S. 180. But, semble contra, Stevens v. Pater- son & N. R. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 532 ; Boston & W. R. R. Co. v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 12 Cush. (Mass.) 605. 4 Attorney-General v. Metropolitan R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 515; Hobart v. Milwaukee City R. R. Co., 27 Wis. 194; Hodges v. Baltimore Passenger Ry. Co., 58 Md. 603; Mabady v. Bushwick R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 148; Railway Co. v. Lawrence, 38 O. St. 41; Faust v. Passenger Ry. Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 164; Cincinnati and S. G. Ave. Ry. Co. v. Cumminsville, 14 O. St. 523; Hinchman v. Patterson Horse R. R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. 75; Finch v. Riverside Ry. Co., 87 Cal. 597; see People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188; Killinger v. Forty-Second St. R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206. Compare Carli v. Stillwater Street Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 373; Carson v. Central R. R. Co., 35 Cal. 325; Roberts v. Easton, 19 O. St. 78.