Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/171

 PART II.] ACTS WITHIN THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 178. proper or not, renders some of the decisions respecting the re- sponsibility of municipal corporations for damages caused, for instance, in paving and grading streets, inapplicable to private corporations. 1 § 178. In determining the value of property taken by a cor- poration, the same considerations are to be regarded „ r '. ° Measure of as in the sale of property between private persons, compensa- The inquiry should be what is the property worth in the market, not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at the time applied, but also with regard to those to which it is plainly adapted. 3 And the measure of compensation should be the difference between the market value of the property which is injured or taken, before and after the injury or tak- ing. 3 When a portion of a tract of land belonging to one owner is taken, the just compensation should equal the fair market value of the land taken and the damage done to the rest of the tract by taking the land which is taken and operating a railroad R. Co., 26 N. J. L. 148; Baltimore and Potomac R. R. Co. i Reaney, 42 Md. 117. A public corporation is one created for apolitical purpose. Tins- man v. Belvidere Delaware R. R. Co., 26 N. J. L. 148. The whole interest in it must belong to the government. Rundle v. Delaware, etc., Canal, 1 Wall. Jr. 275, 290. See § 335, note. 1 See Baltimore and Potomac R. R. Co. ». Reaney, supra ; Smith v. Cor- poration of Washington, 20 How. 135; Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635. 2 Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Hooper v. Savannah, etc., R. R. Co., 69 Ala. 529; Shenango & A. R. R. Co. v. Braham, 79 Pa. St. 447; Mississippi Bridge Co. v. Ring, 58 Mo. 491; Henry r. Dubuque & P. R. R. Co., 2 Iowa, 288. See Stinson v. Chicago St. P. & M. Ry. Co., 27 Minn. 284; Selma R. & D. R. R. Co. v. Keith, 53 Ga. 178; Gear v. C. C. & D. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 23. Compare Jacksonville & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 106 111. 253. 3 Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rob- inson, 95 Pa. St. 426; Pittsburgh, etc., R'y Co. v. Bentley, 88 Pa. St. 178; Hooper v. Savannah, etc., R. R. C, 69 Ala. 529. See Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pugh, 85 Ind. 279; compare Everett v. Union Pac. R. Co., 59 Iowa, 243; Dreher v. I. S. W. R. Co., ib.599; Leber v. Minneapolis, etc., R'y Co., 29 Minn. 256; Phillips v. Phila. & R. R. R. Co., 182 Pa. St. 537; Fiick Coke Co. v. Painter, 198 Pa. St. 468. Where property taken by a cor- poration, by its right of eminent domain, is already deteriorated in value through the exercise of the right of eminent domain by another corporation, the damages must be estimated with reference to the exist- ing deterioration. Lycoming Gas and Water Co. v. Moyer, 99 Pa. St. 615. See, generally, Mills on Eminent Do- main, Chap. XVI. 151