Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/169

 PART II.] ACTS WITHIN THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 176. After all, this question of the ownership of the fee of the street is barren. Even if the abutting owner owns the fee of the street, the use of the street by the public absorbs and con- stitutes the whole value of it, and the possibility of reverter in case of the cessation of such use is remote. 1 The substantial rights of the abutting owner are no greater when he owns the fee of the street than when he does not. In whomsoever may be vested the fee of the street, the abutting owner is damaged, if at all, with respect to his abutting premises. Accordingly, a number of recent cases ignore the question of ownership of the fee of the street, and award the abutting owner whatever special damages he has suffered by reason of the building of the rail- road in front of his premises. 2 § 176. The rights of abutting owners regarding the use of a public street in a city were carefully considered in Story v. New York Elevated R. R. Co., 3 where the New York Court of Ap- peals assumed that the plaintiff did not own the fee of the company is unlawfully or improperly constructed or operated. Stange v. Hill, etc., Street Ry. Co., 54 Iowa, 669; Burlington and M. R. R. R. Co. v. Reimpackle, 15 Neb. 279; Cain v. C. R. I. and P. R. Co., 54 Iowa, 255; Atchison and N. R. R. Co. v. Carside, 10 Kan. 552; Cadle v. Muscatine W. R. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 11. Compare Buchner v. Chicago M. and N. W. Ry. Co., 69 Wis. 264; aff'g S. C, '>C Wis. 403; Bradley v. New York and N. H. R. R. Co., 21 Conn. 294. 1 See People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, 211. 2 Hot Springs R. R. Co. v. Wil- liamson, 136 U. S. 121; Railway Co. v. Lawrence, 38 O. St. 41; Railroad Co. v. Hambleton, 40 O. St. 496; G. C. & S. P. R. R. Co. v. Eddins, 60 Tex. 656; Gottschalk v. Chicago B. & Q. R. R. Co., 14 Neb. 550; Jeffer- sonville M. & I. R. R. Co. v. Esterle, 13 Bush (Ky.), 667; Elizabethtown, etc., R. R. Co. v. Combs, 10 Bush (Ky.), 382 See, also, Roberts v. New York El. R. R. Co., 155 N. Y. 31; Central Branch W. P. R. R. Co. v. Twine, 23 Kan. 585; Indianapolis B. & W. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 52 Ind. 428; Cross v. St. Louis K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 77 Mo. 318; compare Porter v. Northern Missouri R. R. Co., 33 Mo. 128; Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R. Co. v. Bruce, 102 Pa. St. 23; Hussner v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 433. 3 90 N. Y. 122; S. C, 11 Abb. N. C. 236. This case was affirmed and authoritatively expounded in Lahr v. Metropolitan Elevated Ry. Co., 104 N. Y. 268. Abutting owners were held entitled to damages be- cause of the erection of the elevated road, whether owners of the fee or not, in Abendroth r. Manhattan Ry. Co., 122 N. Y. 1; Kane v. N. Y. El. Co., 125 N. Y. 164. See, also, Ker- nochan v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 161 X. Y. 339; Shepard v. Man. Ry. Co. 169 N. Y. 160; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Shepard, 169 N. Y. 170. 149