Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/168

 § 175a.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. the fee of the street has a right of action for the consequential injury to his abutting freehold, resulting, for instance, from the decrease of its selling or rental value; but that to entitle the adjoining owner who does not own the fee of the street to compensation, some misconduct on the part of the railroad company must be shown, such, for instance, as leaving cars for an unreasonable time in front of his premises, or run- ning locomotives at a dangerous rate of speed. 1 Many cases support the proposition that an abutting owner owning the fee of the street is entitled to compensation for a steam railroad built thereon, 2 though there are opposing decisions. 3 On the other hand, cases hold that when a railwa} 7 is built properly on a street, the abutting owner who does not own the fee of the street is not entitled to compensation for the injury resulting to his property. 4 1 Grand Rapids and I. R. R. Co. v. Heisel, 38 Mich. 02; S. C, 47 Mich. 393. 2 Williams v. New York Central R. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 97; Wager v. Troy Union R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 526; Presbyterian Society v. Auburn and R. R. R. Co., 3 Hill (N. Y.), 567; Schurneier v. St. Paul and P. R. R. Co., 10 Minn. 82; Harrington v. St. Paul and S. C. R. R. Co., 17 Minn. 215; Hastings and G. I. R. R. Co. v. Ingalls, 15 Neb. 123; Kucheman v. C. C. and D. Ry. Co., 46 Iowa, 366; Terre Haute and S. E. R. R. Co. v. Rodel, 89 Ind. 128; Iralay v. Union Branch R. R. Co., 26 Conn. 249; Southern Pacific R. K. Co. v. Reed, 41 Cal. 256; Mumma v. Harrisburg, etc., R. R. Co., 1 Pearson (Pa.), 24; Mining v. New York C. and St. L. R. It. Co., 11 Weekly Notes Cases (Pa.), 297; Phillips v. Dunkirk, W. & P. R. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177; Indianapolis B. and W. R. R. Co. v. Hartley, 67 111. 439; Chicago and W. I. I. R. R. Co. v. Ayres, 106 111. 511; Cox v. Louisville N. A. and C. R. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178; Sherman v. Milwaukee L. S. and W. R. R. Co., 40 Wis. 645; see 148 Starr v. Camden and A. R. R. Co., 24 N. J. L. 572. 3 See Brainard v. Missisquoi R. R. Co., 48 Vt. 107; Morris and E. R. R. Co. v. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352; and some of the older Penn. cases, e. g., Snyder v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 340. 4 Fobes o. Rome, etc., R. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 505; Drake v. H. R. R. R. Co., 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 508; Grand Rapids and I. R. R. Co. ». Heisel, 38 Midi. 62; S. C, 47 Mich. 393; Davis v. C. and N. W. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 389; Houston and T. C. R. R. Co. v. Odwin, 53 Tex. 343; Stetson v. Chi- cago and E. R. R. Co., 75 111. 74; Moses v. Pittsburg, Ft. W. and C. R, R. Co., 21 111. 516; Milburn v. City of Cedar Bapids, 12 Iowa, 246; Atchison and N. R. R. Co. v. Garside, 10 Kan. 552; Nottingham v. Balti- more and P. R. R. Co., 3 MacArthur (Dist. of Col.), 517; Koelmel v. New Orleans M. and C. R. R. Co., 27 La. Ann. 442. But see Central Branch W. P. R. R. Co. v. Andrews, 30 Kan. 590; but the abutting owner, though not owning the fee of the street, is entitled to damages if the railroad