each.1 Property which is already held for a public use cannot be condemned to another public use without legislative authority, and the subsequent grant will not be construed as authorizing the subversion or destruction of the former, unless such intent appears by express words or necessary implication. Thus, the board of public works of the State of Ohio has been held to have no authority to grant to a railroad corporation the right to lay its track along the berme-bank of a navigable canal belonging to the State. A railroad company, which is authorized by statute to select a route for its road, cannot take land which is already occupied, under authority from the legislature, by a canal, or by a reservoir erected by a city, if a public trust is already impressed upon the land." A water company cannot condemn land which is in use as a public street, when there are other means of carrying its powers into effect, and a public ditch cannot be constructed along land already appropriated for a railroad. The authority given by mill acts to flow land, does not justify the flooding of a public road or bridge," and land occupied by the United States for an armory cannot be flowed under these statutes."1 A private corporation, which is authorized by its charter to construct a canal, sluice, or raceway, and which cuts or digs it across an existing highway, is bound to provide a bridge for the public passage along the highway, without an express provision in its charter to that effect; but if, after the construc

Lycoming Gas Co. v. Moyer, 99 Penn. St. 615.

2 Little Miami R. Co. v. Dayton, 23 Ohio St. 510; Hickock v. Hine, id. 522; Bridgeport v. New York Railroad, 36 Conn. 255; Re Buffalo, 68 N. Y. 167; Locks and Canals v. Lowell, 7 Gray, 223; Sharon Railway's Appeal, 122 Penn. St. 533; Oregon Ry. Co. v. Portland, 9 Oregon, 231.

3 State v. Cincinnati Central R. Co., 87 Ohio St. 157. See State v. Newark, 28 N. J. L. 529.

Hudson Canal Co. v. New York R. Co., 9 Paige, 323; Tuckahoe Canal v. Tuckahoe Railroad, 11 Leigh, 42; Housatonic Railroad v. Lee Railroad, 118 Mass. 391.

5 State v. Montclair Ry. Co., 35 N. J. L. 328.

6 In re N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 99 N. Y. 12; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago & E. R. Co., 112 Ill. 589.

Ex parte Manhattan Co.,22 Wend. 653; Bradshaw v. Rogers, 20 Johns. 103, 735; Springfield v. Connecticut R. Co., 4 Cush. 63.

8 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. North, 103 Ind. 486.

Com. v. Stevens, 10 Pick. 247;
Venard v. Cross, 8 Kansas, 248.
10 Hooksett v. Amoskeag Manuf.
Co., 44 N. H. 105.

11 United States v. Ames, 1 Wood. & M. 76.

12 Re Trenton Water Power Co., Spencer (N. J.), 659.

tion of the canal, a highway is laid out across it, its owner is not bound to erect or maintain a bridge. While a corporation, under a general power of eminent domain, cannot, without special authority, deprive another corporation with a like power of lands held by it for a public use, yet an easement may be acquired, in invitum, by legislative authority, in lands so held and occupied for a public use when such easement may be enjoyed without detriment to the public or interfering with the use to which the lands are devoted. When a ferry franchise is held by a municipal corporation, it does not lose its character of private property, and cannot be resumed by the public without making just compensation. But if the legislature authorizes a bridge to be built at a point where there was an ancient ferry, and provides for compensation to the owner of the ferry, which is accepted, the ferry is abolished, and such taking for public use does not transfer the ferry franchise to the proprietors of the bridge. The fact that property is held under a covenant of quiet enjoyment from a city does not prevent its board of aldermen, if authorized by statute, from taking such property in laying out a street over tide-waters; but private property condemned for public use cannot be appropriated or leased for private use." Land which is merely dedicated to the public use as a levee or public landing may be devoted by the legislature to the use of a railroad company, subject to the restriction that no wharfage is to be exacted, and if the charter of a navigation company does not make it a common carrier, or impose a public trust upon its land, its wharf or dock may be condemned by a railroad corporation.8

1 Morris Canal Co. v. State, 24 N. J. though acquired by donation from L. 62.

2 New York Central R. Co. v. Met. Gaslight Co., 63 N. Y. 326; Matter of Rochester Water Com'rs, 66 id. 413; Re New York Central R. Co., 77 id. 248: Boston Water Co. v. Boston & Worcester Railroad, 23 Pick. 360, 397; St. Anthony Falls W. P. Co. v. St. Paul W. Com'rs, 168 U. S. 349; Matter of Main and Hamburg Street Canal, 50 How. Pr. 70; James River Co. v. Anderson, 12 Leigh, 278.

3 Benson v. New York, 10 Barb. 223. So the property rights of a county,

the State, are protected by the constitutional guaranties which protect the property of individual citizens. Milam County v. Bateman, 54 Texas, 153.

4 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. 344, 352.

5 Brimmer v. Boston, 102 Mass. 19. 6 Belcher Sugar Refining Co. v. St. Louis Grain Elevator Co., 82 Mo. 121. 7 Portland & W. Valley R. Co. v. Portland, 14 Oregon, 188.

8 Re New York Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 12.

§ 256. Roads - Bridges Passages for water. When individuals or corporations construct and maintain roads or bridges across streams under authority conferred by the legis lature, they are bound to provide suitable passage ways for the water or ice of the stream, and to keep them unobstructed by drift or mud,3 and are liable to the owners of private lands adjoining, which are injured in consequence of their insufficiency. Thus, a railroad company which neglects to construct sluices or culverts over streams crossed by its road, or which constructs them so imperfectly, or so makes or permits alterations in its banks or culverts, as to flood the adjoining lands, is liable to an action for the injury whether any portion of such land, is taken for the purposes of the road or not. Such injury is not one that is taken into account in

1 New Castle R. Co. v. McChesney, 85 Penn. St. 522; Oregon R. Co. v. Barlow, 3 Oregon, 311; Whitehouse v. Birmingham Canal Co., 5 H. & N. 928; Perley v. Chandler, 6 Mass. 454; Rowe v. Granite Bridge, 21 Pick. 344; Blood v. Nashua Railroad, 2 Gray, 137; Mellen v. Western Rail road, 4 Gray, 301; Jones v. West Vermont R. Co., 27 Vt. 399; Addison v. Rowe, 34 N. H. 396; Krug v. St. Mary's Borough, 152 Penn. St. 30, 37; Covert v. Cranford, 141 N. Y. 521; Kerr v. Joslin, 20 N. Y. S. 929; Kansas City v. Brady, 52, Kansas, 297; Beatrice v. Leary, 45 Neb. 149; Beatrice v. Knight, id. 546; Manser v. Northern Counties Ry. Co., 2 Rail. Cas. 380; Taylor v. Baltimore R. Co., 33 W. Va. 39; Wallace v. Columbia, etc. R. Co., 34 S. C. 62; Austin v. Emanuel, 74 Tex. 621; Archibald v. Mississippi R. Co., 66 Miss. 424; 67 Miss. 38; Brink v. Kansas City R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 177; George v. Wabash W. Ry. Co., 40 id. 433.

4

N. J. L. 401; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v.
Claunch, 41 Ill. App. 592.

5 Bagnall v. London Ry. Co., 1 H. & C. 544; 7 H. & N. 723; Lawrence v. Great Northern R. Co., 16 Q. B. 643; Com'rs v. Peirce, 90 Fed. Rep. 764; Kenney v. Kansas City, P. & G. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 301; Penley v. Maine Central R. Co., 92 Maine, 59; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. O'Neill (Neb.), 78 N. W. Rep. 521; Hatch v. Vermont Central R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 68; Norris v. Same, 28 Vt. 102; King v. Iowa Midland R. Co., 34 Iowa, 458; Mississippi Central Railroad v. Caruth, 51 Miss. 77; Same v. Mason, id. 234; Baughton v. Carter, 18 Johns. 405; Cott v. Lewiston Railroad, 36 N. Y. 214; Brown v. Cayuga R. Co., 12 N. Y. 486; Robinson v. N. Y. R. Co., 27 Barb. 512; Beaty v. Baltimore R. Co., 6 W. Va. 388; Houston R. Co. v. Knapp, 51 Texas, 592; Young v. Chicago Ry. Co., 28 Wis. 171; Chicago R. Co. v. Carey, 90 Ill. 514; Locks & Canals v. Nashua R. Co., 10 Cush. 385; Esta

2 Omaha R. Co. v. Brown, 14 Neb. brooks v. Peterborough Railroad, 12

170.

3 West v. Louisville R. Co., 8 Bush, 404; Chicago R. Co. v. Moffitt, 75 Ill. 524.

Cush. 224; March v. Portsmouth R.
Co., 19 N. H. 372; Hooker v. New
Haven R. Co., 14 Conn. 146; 15 Conn.
313; Nicholson v. New York R. Co.,

4 Koch v. Delaware, etc. R. Co., 54 22 Conn. 74; Selma R. Co. v. Keith,

measuring the compensation to the owner of land through which the road is located, but the company is answerable in damages by a repetition of suits, or if the flooding is permanent and unnecessary, the obstruction may be abated by a court of equity. So, if a railroad company, in building its road, finds it necessary to divert a stream, and for that purpose to construct a new channel, it is bound to keep the new channel in a suitable condition so as to preserve the usefulness of the stream for those entitled to it. Except in cases of strict necessity, a railroad company has no right to divert a 53 Ga. 178; O'Connell v. East Tenn., etc. Ry. Co., 87 Ga. 246; Hodge v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 195; Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 57 id. 441; Willitts v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 88 Iowa, 281; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Henneberry, 42 Ill. App. 126; Payne v. Kansas City, etc. Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 6; Byrne v. Keokuk & W. R. Co., 47 Mo. App. 383; Moorman v. Seattle & M. Ry. Co., 8 Wash. 98; Gonzales Branch Ry. Co. v. Harvey (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. Rep. 1025; Orvis v. Elmira, etc. R. Co., 45 N. Y. S. 367; Treichel v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co. (Minn.), 82 N. W. Rep. 1110; New York, etc. R. Co. v. Hamlet Hay Co., 149 Ind. 344; New York, etc. R. Co. v. Speelman, 12 Ind. App. 372; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wilbourn, 74 Miss. 284; Fleming v. Wilmington, etc. R. Co., 115 N. C. 676; Ridley v. Seaboard & R. R. Co., 118 N. C. 996; Wabash R. Co. v. Sanders, 58 Ill. App. 213; Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Long, 52 id. 670; James v. Kansas City, etc. R. Co., 69 Mo. App. 431; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Webster, 3 Kans. App. 106; Int'l & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. Rep. 483; Toledo Ry. Co. v. Hunter, 50 Ill. 325; Alton R. Co. v. Deitz, 50 Ill. 240; Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Webb, 142 Ill. 404; Same v. Thillman, 143 Ill. 127; 43 Ill. App. 78; Same v. Nuetzel, 143 Ill. 46; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Brown, 34 Ill. App. 552; Peoria, etc. Ry. Co. v. Barton, 38 id. 469; St. Louis, etc.

Ry. Co. v. Yarborough, 56 Ark. 612; Kansas City, etc. R. Co. v. Cook, 57 Ark. 387; Gentry v. Richmond, etc. R. Co., 38 S. C. 284; Staton v. Norfolk & C. R. Co., 109 N. C. 337; Knight v. Albemarle & R. R. Co., 110 N. C. 58; 111 N. C. 80; Adams v. Durham & N. R. Co., 110 N. C. 325; Louisville R. Co. v. Hodge, 6 Cush. 141; Louisville R. Co. v. McAfee, 30 Ind. 291; Union Trust Co. v. Cuppy, 26 Kansas, 754; Van Orsdol v. B. R. Co., 56 Iowa, 470; San Antonio, etc. Ry. Co. v. Gwynn (Texas), 15 S. W. Rep. 509; Green v. Taylor, etc. Ry. Co., 79 Texas, 604; Broussard v. Sabine, etc. Ry. Co., 80 id. 329; Sellers v. Texas Cent. Ry. Co., 81 id. 458; Clark v. Dyer, id. 339; Dallas & W. Ry. Co. v. Kinnard (Texas), 18 S. W. Rep. 1062; Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dunlap (id.), 26 id. 655; Same v. Calhoun (id.), 24 id. 362; Same v. Haskell, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 550.

1 Raleigh Air Line R. Co. v. Wicker, 74 N. C. 220; Brown v. Carolina Central R. Co., 83 N. C. 128; Easterbrook v. Erie Ry. Co., 51 Barb. 94; Selma R. Co. v. Keith, 53 Ga. 178; Evansville R. Co. v. Dick, 9 Ind. 433; Noe v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 76 Iowa, 360.

2 Cott v. Lewiston R. Co., 36 N. Y. 214; Morrell v. Long Island R. Co., 3 N. Y. S. 928; Lefurgy v. New York R. Co., id. 302; Hannaher v. R. Co., 5 Dak. 1; Hatch v. Vermont Central R. Co., 25 Vt. 29. See Denslow v. New Haven Co., 16 Conn. 98; Oursler v. Baltimore R. Co., 60 Md. 358;

3

stream of water from its natural channel to the injury of the land-owner,' and if the diversion is merely convenient and not necessary, it may be restrained by injunction, or by a suit distinct from the assessment of damages. By voluntarily granting a right of way for a railroad, the grantor does not license the building of the road so as to overflow his other land not on the right of way, and his damages for the flowage of such other land will not be diminished because of the enhanced value given by the road to his land, in common with others in the vicinity. But by virtue of such a grant the corporation would be authorized to extend ditches from its culverts in the grantor's land, and beyond the limits of the location, or to deepen and widen the channel of a watercourse beyond such limits, when these acts are necessary to prevent the flooding and washing away of the land and to preserve the road from damage. A railroad being a public highway, the doctrine of dedication or of estoppel in pais applies to the right of way therefor. Where a land-owner verbally gave to a railroad company the right of way over his premises, free of charge, if it would construct ditches to carry off water, and the road was constructed and the ditches dug, it was held that, after the lapse of seventeen years, the land-owner was to be regarded as having dedicated the right of way to the public use, and

Hodge v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 39 Fed.
Rep. 449; Galveston, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Borsky, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 545. *

1 Stodghill v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 26; Young v. Chicago Ry. Co., 28 Wis. 171; Baltimore R. Co. v. Magruder, 34 Md. 79; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Harris, 47 Ark. 340.

Hurst, 25 Ill. App. 98. See Hutchinson v. Chicago Ry. Co., 37 Wis. 582; Peden v. Chicago Ry. Co., 78 Iowa, 131; Lawrence v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 20 L. J. N. s. (Q. B.) 293.

5 Ibid. A purchaser of a mill cannot sue on a covenant made by a railroad company with its former

2 Pugh v. Golden Valley Ry. Co., 12 owner to dig a new channel for the Ch. D. 274; 15 Ch. D. 330. mill stream, if the covenant was al

3 Jackman v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 15 ready broken at the time of the purNeb. 524. chase. Junction R. Co. v. Sayers, 28 Ind. 318.

4 Norris v. Vermont Central R. Co., 28 Vt. 99; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Morris, 35 Ark. 622; Chicago R. Co. v. Carey, 90 Ill. 514; Jacksonville R. Co. v. Cox, 91 Ill. 500; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Harris, 47 Ark. 340; Hoffeditz v. So. Penn. Ry. Co., 18 Atl. Rep. 125; 129 Penn. St. 264; St. Louis Ry. Co. v.

6 Babcock v. Western Railroad, 9 Met. 553; McCarty v. St. Paul Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 278; Beach v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 120 N. C. 498. Contra, under condemnation proceedings as to the right to dig ditches. State v. Armell, 8 Kansas, 288.