11 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 17 Ill. 123; Hannibal etc. R. R. Co. v. Muder, 49 Mo. 165.

12 Eldridge v. Smith, 31 Vt. 484; and see N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. v. Metrop. Gas Light Co. 63 N. Y. 326.

13 Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Daniels, 16 Ohio St. 390; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 17 II. 123. Compare Childs v. Central R. R. Co. 33 N. J. L. 323; Kier v. Boyd, 60 Pa. St. 33; Peavey v. Calais R. R. Co. 30 Me. 498.

14 State v. Montclair R. R. Co. 35 N. J. L. 328. Compare Baltimore etc. Turnp. Co. v. Union R. R. Co. 35 Md. 224; Cake v. Phila. etc. R. R. Co. 87 Pa. St. 307.

15 Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Magruder, 34 Md. 79.

16 Brown v. Cofey, 43 Pa. St. 495.

17 Strohecker v. Alabama etc. R. R. Co. 42 Ga. 509.

18 State v. Montclair R. R. Co. 35 N. J. L. 328.

19 Matter of Boston etc. R. R. Co. 53 N. Y. 574.

20 N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. v. Gunnison, 1 Hun, 496; 3 Thomp. & C. 632. 21 See Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. United States, 10 Law R. N. S. 630; Att.-Gen. v. Detroit etc. Plank R. Co. 2 Mich. 138.

22 Brocket v. Ohio etc. R. R. Co. 14 Pa. St. 241; Wells v. Somerset etc. R. R. Co. 47 Me. 345.

23 Wells v. Somerset etc. R. R. Co. 47 Me. 345.

24 N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 36 Conn. 196; Brown v. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495. Compare Kip v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 67 N. Y. 227.

25 Rensselaer etc. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137.

26 Eldridge r. Smith, 31 Vt. 484; Dietrich v. Murdock, 42 Mo. 297; Ford v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 14 Wis. 609. See Flower v. London etc. Railw. Co. 2 Drew. & S. 332.

§ 248. Compensation to landowners.-A railroad company, authorized to take land for its road, must make compensation to the owners of the land before entering upon and permanently occupying such land.1 The value of the land must be ascertained by legal and proper process, and be paid; 2 or an adequate and safe fund must at least be provided for the future compensation of the landowner. The right of the landowner to the damages awarded is correlative to that of the company to the land. Nor can one railroad company appropriate for the construction of its road the franchises or property of another, without making compensation therefor.5 If the company take possession of the lands of the owner, without his consent, prior to the assessment of damages and tender of compensation, such owner may sue the com

pany to recover possession of the land. But a subsequent purchaser from the then owner of the land taken caunot, it seems, maintain the action. And the owner may waive his right to oust the trespasser, if he sees fit, and proceed for compensation.8 So, if a landowner consents to the making of a railroad across his land before the damages are to be ascertained and paid, under some arrangement with the company as to the subsequent payment of damages, he cannot afterward prevent the work in progress, or the use of the road; 9 nor, in the absence of a binding contract to that effect, can he assert a lien on the land thus taken and occupied for the road, in the nature of a vendor's lieu. 10 The use of a street for a railroad is held to be a new burden beyond the public easement, which cannot be imposed by legislative authority without compensation to the owner of the fee.11 And the owner of land bounded on a stream not navigable is entitled to compensation for land taken by a railway company to the center of the stream.12 But a public street may be used for a railroad, without compensation to the owners of lots abutting on such street, who have no title to the soil of the street itself.18 And it is held, that a portion of a turnpike road may be used for a railroad track, without compensation to the owners of land along the line of such turnpike, who have already been compensated for the condemnation of their property; if abundant room is left for travelers who do not use the railroad, the latter is not a new use, but merely a moditication of the old one. 15 And where a change of uses for which land was taken is made, as from a canal to a railroad, the landowner can recover compensation for such additional burdens and inconveniences only, not common to the general public, as accrued to him by reason of such change. 16 If a railroad company, by right of eminent domain, takes for a passenger station land occupied by another railroad company, and the latter is thereby deprived of part of its business, compensation must be

14

made for the loss.17 By a provision of the general railroad act of New York, it is made a prerequisite to proceedings in invitum to acquire title to lands, that the company shall be "unable to agree for the purchase "; 18 which is construed to mean, that the owner must be either unwilling to sell at all, or only willing to sell at a price which, in the judgment of the agents of the company, is excessive, 19 In proceedings to acquire lands under the Missouri statutes, no title will pass unless it appears affirmatively, from the record, that the owner refused to relinquish his right of way to the company.2 A statute, the provisions of which permit a railroad company to enter into the possession of and use the land sought to be condemned, during the pendency of proceedings for its condemnation, without providing compensation for the use and waste committed if the proceedings finally fail, is held to be unconstitutional.21

1 See Blodgett v. Utica etc. R. R. Co. 64 Barb. 580; Avery v. Fox, 1 Abb. U. S. 246; Atlantic etc. Tel. Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 6 Biss. 158; Shute v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 26 Ill. 436; Graham v. Columbus etc. R. R. Co. 27 Ind. 260; Murdock v. Prospect Park etc. R. R. Co. 73 N. Y. 579; and see Conn. River R. R. Co. v. County Commʼrs, 127 Mass. 50; 34 Am. R. 338.

2 Powers v. Bears, 12 Wis. 213.

3 St. Joseph etc. R. R. Co. v. Callender, 13 Kan. 496; Matter of New York etc. R. R. Co. 60 N. Y. 116; Mettler v. Easton etc. R. K. Co. 25 N. J. Eq. 214; Bohlman v. Green Bay etc. R. R. Co. 30 Wis. 105; White v. Nashville etc. R. R. Co. 7 Heisk. 518; Dimmic v. Brodhead, 75 Pa. St. 464; Chesapeake etc. R. R. Co. v. Patton, 6 W. Va. 147.

4 Stacey v. Vt. Cent. Railw. 27 Vt. 39. But no compensation is provided by law for injuries occasioned by the construction of a railroad, to any person from whom no land, estate, or materials are taken: Rogers v. Kennebec etc. R. R. Co. 35 Me. 319. And compensation is only necessary when private property is to be taken: Penn'a R. R. Co. v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 23 N. J. Eq. 157.

5 Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v. Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. 35 Mich. 265; and compare Noll v. Dubuque etc. R. R. Co. 32 Iowa, 66; Little Miami etc. R. R. Co. v. Dayton, 23 Ohio St. 510; Peoria etc. R. R. Co. v. Peoria etc. R. R. Co. 66 Ill. 174; Cin. etc. R. R. Co. v. Danville etc. Railw. Co. 75 id. 113.

6 Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. v. Ferris. 26 Tex. 588; Loop v. Chamberlain, 20 Wis. 135; Lyon v. Green Bay etc. Railw. Co. 42 id. 538; Memphis etc. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 37 Miss. 700; Mo. etc. Railw. Co. v. Ward, 10 Kan. 352; and see Field v. Carnarvon etc. Railw. Co. Law R. 5 Eq. 190.

7 Central R. R. Co. v. Hetfield, 29 N. J. L. 206; and see Hentz v. Long Island R. R. Co. 13 Barb. 646; Rooney v. Sacramento etc. R. R. Co. 6 Cal. 638; McLendon v. Atlanta etc. R. R. Co. 54 Ga. 293.

8 McClinton. Pittsburg etc. R. R. Co. 66 Pa. St. 404; and see Hosher v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 329. Compare Evansville etc. R. R. Co. v. Grady, 6 Bush, 144.

9 Knapp v. McAuley, 39 Vt. 275; and see Goodin v. Cin. etc. Canal Co. 18 Ohio St. 169.

10 Knapp v. McAuley, 39 Vt. 275. Compare Dayton etc. R. R. Co. v. Lewton, 20 Ohio St. 401; Ferrers v. Stafford etc. Railw. Co. Law R. 13 Eq. 524; Walker r. Ware etc. Railw. Co. Law R. 1 id. 195; Wing o. Tattenham etc. Railw. Co. Law R,3 Ch. 740.

11 Wager v. Troy etc. R. R. Co. 25 N. Y. 526; Stetson v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 75 Ill. 74; Ford v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 14 Wis. 609; Cox v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co. 48 Ind. 178; Southern Pacif. R. R. Co. v. Reed, 41 Cal. 256; Hegar v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 26 Wis. 624; Harty v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 21 Minn. 358. See Railroad Co. v. Dayton, 23 Ohio St. 510; State v. Maine, 27 Conn. 641.

12 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Stein, 75 Ill. 41; and see Barclay R. R. Co. v. Inghain, 36 Pa. St. 194.

13 Carson v. Central R. R. Co. 35 Cal. 325; and see Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62; 31 Am. R. 306.

14 Peddicord v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 34 Md. 463.

15 Peddicord v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 34 Md. 463. For the purpose of constructing a telegraph line along its route for its own use, a railroad company may cut down trees standing on its way, without incurring additional liability to the original owner of the land for com pensation: Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rich, 19 Kan. 517; 27 Am. R. 159.

16 Hatch v. Cin. etc. R. R. Co. 18 Ohio St. 92.

17 Eastern R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 111 Mass. 125. Compare Mass. etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 121 id. 124.

18 Laws of 1850, ch. 140, § 13.

19 Matter of Prospect Park etc. R. R. Co. 67 N. Y. 371.

20 Ells v. Pacific R. R. 51 Mo. 200.

21 Cal. Pacif. R. R. Co. v. Cent. Pacif. R. R. Co. 47 Cal. 528; Davis v. San Lorenzo R. R. Co. id. 517. Compare Shute v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 26 Ill. 436; Peterson v. Ferreby, 30 Iowa, 827; Cooper v. Chester R, R. Co. 19 N. J. Eq. 199.

§ 249. Compensation, how estimated.-When the charter of a railroad company provides a mode for the landowner to obtain an appraisal of compensation, no other mode can be pursued. But the remedy provided by statute, for the assessment of damages sustained by the taking of land for a right of way, is not exclusive of an action of ejectment, where property has been taken by the company without compensation being made.2 And if a railroad company, instead of proceeding with the assessment of damages, promises to pay them, the landowner may recover on the special promise.8 The statutory proceedings for ascertaining damages must be strictly

66

pursued, and every essential prerequisite called for by the statute must affirmatively appear on the face of the proceedings. Notice of the proceedings to owners and "persons interested "6 is essential. All the tenants in common of the land sought to be condemned must be before the court.8 The mortgagee of real estate is an "owner" so as to be entitled to notice. But judgment creditors of the owners, having a mere statutory lien, need not be made parties to the proceedings. 10 Nor is a inere trustee of an equitable interest in the lands a necessary party. And if the legislature locates a railroad on an avenue or highway, this dispenses with all necessity of notice and agreement with the commissioners of highways.12 The inquiry as to the value of the land taken by a railroad company should relate to the time of the appropriation; 13 and if payment is delayed, interest from that time may be added.14 The damages to be appraised are those arising to the landowner from a proper construction of the road in a prudent manner; 15 and do not include damages for injuries that may result from any unauthorized or unlawful acts of the company, or from its neglect to perform a statutory duty.16 Redress may be had for such injuries by a resort to the proper action.17 Remote, indefinite, or merely possible damages should be excluded in awarding compensation. But in general,

all inconveniences caused by embankments, excavations, and obstructions to the free use of buildings, and inconveniences from the sounding of whistles, ringing of bells, rattling of trains, jarring of the ground, and from smoke, so far as they severally arose from the use of the strip of land taken, and upon it, excluding all common and indirect damages, may be considered. 19 The exposure of the remaining land and buildings to fire from the company's engines may be taken into consideration;20 and so of the expense of erecting additional fences to which the landowner may be subjected. 21 On the other hand, an allowance or deduction for special benefits accruing to other