Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/269

POLES AND WIRES FOR ELECTRIC RAILWAY, 253 It is equally well settled that the ordinary steam railroad, as now- conducted, is not within the purposes for which a street is dedi- cated, and does impose an additional burden upon the abutting owner.^ The same cases which allow the horse railroad to be within the proper uses of a street declare that the steam railroad is not.^ The reason for the distinction is not the motive-power, but the mode of using the streets, the purpose for which the cars are used, and the effect of using them upon the other and ordinary uses of the streets, and upon the use of the adjoining land. Chancellor Green, in Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R.R. Co.,^ said the use of land for a steam railway and the use of it for an ordinary high- way were almost wholly inconsistent with each other, but with respect to the street railroads used as a part of the highv:iy and in connection with it, he said the use of the land is almost identical with that of the ordinary highway, and went on to show that the use of the railroad could not interfere with the land-owner in the use of his property any more than an ordinary highway. Chancellor Zabriskie, in Jersey City & Bergen R. Co. v. Jersey City & Hoboken Horse R. Co.,* referred to this and many other cases distinguishing street railroads from the ordinary railroads operated by steam. He said that steam railroads did not afford an obstruction to the convenient access to the complainant's house, compensation must be paid. Street Railway v. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St. 524 ; Railway Co. v. Lawrence, 3S Ohio St. 41. In Mississippi it has recently been held that a horse railroad is a new burden and entitles the abutter to compensation. Theobold v. Louisville, etc., R'y Co., 66 Miss. 279, 14 Am. State Rep. 564, Apr., 1889. For cases on horse and steam rail- ways in streets, see notes 14 Am. St. Rep. 569, and 11 Am. St. Rep. 682; 36 Am. and Eng. R. Cas., n. 9 ; 38 ibid 452, n., 468, n. ; 4 Sawyer, Rep. Ann. 623, n. ; 32 Am. and Eng. R. Cas. 351, n. For an article on the right to construct and operate an elevated steam railroad on the other side of the street, see 27 Am. Law Reg. n. s. i ; and see also Penna. R.R. Co. v. Lippincott, 116 Pa. St. 472. 1 2 Dill. Mun. Corp., 4th ed., § 722, and cases cited ; Lewis on Em. Dom., sect. 636; The People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188 (1863); Craig z/. Rochester City & B. R.R. Co., 39 N. Y. 404 (1868) ; Kellinger v. Forty-Second St., etc., R.R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206; Story v. N. Y. El. Ry. Co., 90 N. Y. 122; Lahr z/. Met. El. Ry. Co., 104 N. Y. 268; Reichertz/. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., Arkansas, June, 1889, 5 Lawyer's Rep. Ann., 1883, referring to many cases. 2 Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R.R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. (2 C. E. G.) 75 ; Jersey City & Bergen R. Co. v. Jersey City & Hoboken Horse R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. G.) 61 ; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp., §§ 725 {576), 722 (573) ; Hobart v. Milwaukie City R.R. Co., 27 Wis. 194 (1870) ; s. c. 9 Am. Rep. 461 ; Ford v. Chicago & N. W. R.R. Co., 14 Wis. 616; Springfield v. Conn. River R R. Co., 4 Cash. 63. 8 17 N. J. Eq. 75. 4 20 N. J. Eq. 61.