Railroad in Street Constructed by Manufacturing Corporation-Assent of Municipal Council.-In Barker v. Hartman Steel Co., 120 Pa. St. 551, it appeared that a manufacturing corporation with the consent of the borough authorities, and under a lease from the railroad corporation organized under the laws of the state, constructed and operated a railroad on one of the public streets of such borough, plaintiff's property was thereby lessened in value, and rendered difficult of access. He brought a bill to enjoin defendant from running and operating its cars on such street. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief for which he asked. The court said: "It is hardly necessary to cite authorities to prove that a railroad corporation, vested with rights of eminent domain, cannot, without express authority of law, sell, lease, or transfer the rights, or any part of them, to private persons, nor even to another railroad company. In Wood v. Railroad Co., 8 Phila. 94, Judge SHARSWOOD states this well known principle very clearly and forcibly, and refers to a number of authorities which I will not reproduce. The defendant obtained no right of eminent domain under the alleged lease (which instrument, by the way, does not seem to have been produced before the master), and the council of the borough could not legally authorize that to be placed on the street which, according to the evidence, is both a public and private nuisance. Under the authority of Pennsylvania R. Co.'s Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 514, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief for which they ask. Had the invalidity of the lease been brought more specially to the attention of the master, doubtless he would have reached the conclusion here announced. No opinion respecting the right of the railroad company to occupy the street need be here expressed."

Mandamus to Compel Company to Reconstruct Public Road Which it Has Taken.--In Commonwealth ex rel. Keyes, et al. v. New York, P. & O. R. Co., 138 Pa. St. 58, it was held that the road commissioners of a township without the consent of the attorney general, may begin proceedings by mandamus to compel a railroad company to reconstruct a public road which it has taken.

Trespass Upon Highway by Railway Company-Offense Against Possession and Not Against Fee.-In Fitch v. Boston & P. R. Co. (Conn., Sept. 12, 1890), 20 Atl. Rep. 345, the action was in trespass by the owner of the fee in a highway against a railway company in possession of land, which it had condemned, adjacent to the highway. It appeared that defendant was constructing on the condemned land the approach to a bridge over a river, and the acts of trespass on the highway complained of were in connection with the building of the bridge, and would cease on its completion. The court held, that, as these acts did not offend against the fee, but merely the possession, plaintiff could not maintain the action.

Conveyance by City of Right of Way to Railroad Company in Consideration of Change of Route by Company-Construction of Deed.-In Long v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky., Feb. 18, 1890), 18 S. W. Rep. 3, it appeared that the city of Louisville condemned a strip of land for railroad and sewer purposes. It constructed the roadbed along this line, and conveyed to the defendant company, its title to the roadbed, bridges, and right of way" along the entire route, and "all the land belonging to the city," between certain streets, for depot purposes. This conveyance was made in consideration of the change of the railway from a street which it had formerly occupied for a right of way for a double track, to the street forming the line of the road in the conveyance. Held, that except as specified in the conveyance, nothing was conveyed to the company along the route outside of the bare roadbed.

Construction by City of Viaduct Over Railroad Tracks-Agreement by Company to Indemnify City.-In Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. City of Chicago

(Ill., Oct. 31, 1890), 25 N. E. Rep. 514, it was held that the Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. was liable for a judgment recovered against the city of Chicago for damages caused to property by the construction of a viaduct, the expense of which the company had agreed to bear in consideration of permission given it by the city to lay its tracks along a certain street, and had also agreed to indemnify the city "from any and all legal damages, judg ments, decrees, and costs and expenses of the same which it may suffer, or which may be recovered or obtained against said city, for or by reason of the granting of such privileges and authority, or resulting from the passage of this ordinance, or any matter or thing connected therewith."

STATE

V.

Cozzens.

(Louisiana Supreme Court, November 17, 1890.)

Amendment of Laws by Reference to Title-Municipal Ordinances.-Article 30, of the Constitution of Louisiana which prohibits the amendment of laws by reference to the title, applies only to the acts of the General Assembly, and not to ordinances of municipal corporations.

Street Railways-Municipal Regulation-Judicial Interference.-Under the power expressly granted to the city of New Orleans to regulate the use of its streets by railways, a discretion is vested as to method and means of regulation, which will not be judicially interfered with, unless manifestly unreasonable and oppressive.

APPEAL from Recorder's Court, Parish of Orleans.
Girault Farrar, for appellant.

T. McC. Hyman, for the state.

FENNER, J.-This appeal involves the legality and constitutionality of ordinances Nos. 555, 3632, Č. S. city of New Orleans. The first ordinance makes it the duty of railway companies" to station at each intersection of any street within the city of New Orleans on which street cars are running, at least two minutes before the approach of any of their trains, a watchman, who shall remain on the spot until after the passage of the train, with a red signal flag in the daytime and a red lantern at night time, to signalize the approach of the train." The second ordinance inflicts a penalty of fine or imprisonment on any engineer or person in charge of a train who shall violate said ordinance by crossing his train over such streets, without being flagged as therein provided. We are favored with no brief on the part of appellant. We glean from the record that he attacked the validity of the

amendatory ordinance No. 3632 on the ground of conflict with article 30 of the constitution, which prohibits the amendment of laws by reference to the title, and requires that the act as amended shall be recited in full. This provision applies only to acts of the general assembly, and not to ordinances of municipal corporations. Walters v. Duke, 31 La. Ann. 668.

In other respects the ordinances present an exercise of the power expressly granted to the city in its charter "to authorize the use of the streets for horse or steam railroads, and to regulate the same." We discover nothing in this regulation so unreasonable as to justify our interference with the large discretion vested in municipal corporations in such matters. Judgment affirmed.

Municipal Regulation of Street Railway Companies.-See State v. Trenton (N. J.), 32 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas, 445, note, 452; State v. Heidenhain (La.), 43 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 287; City of Toronto v. Toronto St. R. Co. (Ont.), 36 Id. 44

SIOUX CITY STREET R. Co.

υ.

SIOUX CITY.

(138 United States, 98.)

Street Railway-Franchise-Paving Street-Obligation of Contract.-Section 1090, of the Code of Iowa, provides that the franchises of corporations thereafter created shall be subject to such conditions as the legislature may impose, as necessary for the public good. Under this provision, a city may, by ordinance, require a street railway company to pave the street outside of its rails, although such company had constructed its track under an ordinance giving it the right to operate its road upon the condition that it pave the street between the rails only. The construction of the road under the first ordinance, did not constitute a contract between the company and the state or the city, the obligation of which was impaired by the laying of a special tax against the company for the cost of paving outside the rails.

Affirming 78 Iowa. 367, 40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 275.

IN error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iown.
J. H. Swan, for plaintiff in error.

D. B. Henderson, for defendants in error.

BLATCHFORD, J.-The Sioux City Street Railway Company became a corporation on December 6, 1883, under the general incorporation laws of the state of Iowa. On Case stated. the 12th of December, 1883, the city of Sioux

City, by an ordinance of the city council, conferred upon

the company the right to locate, operate, construct, and maintain street railways upon and along certain streets in the city, on the terms and conditions specified in such ordinance. Section II of the ordinance was as follows: "II. Whenever, by resolution of common council, any street or part of street on which said track shall be laid and operated shall be ordered paved or macadamized, either at the expense of the city or owners of abutting property, then the said proprietors of said street railway shall pave or macadamize, in the time and manner directed, the space between the rails, and shall thereafter keep the same between the rails in good repair, and shall keep in good condition and repair the space between the tracks on all bridges that they cross.". On the 18th of December, 1883, the company accepted the ordinance. Prior to March 18, 1884. the company had expended over $10,000 in constructing tracks on certain streets, and for other purposes, and had contracted for material and supplies for constructing other tracks, and had its street railway in operation on certain streets, in accordance with the terms of the ordinance. On March 15, 1884, the legislature of Iowa passed an act entitled "An act granting additional powers to certain cities of the first class, with reference to the improvement of streets, highways, avenues, or alleys and to provide a system of payment therefor." The sixth section of that act provided as follows: "All railway companies, and street railway companies, in cities of the first class, as provided in section one of this act, shall be required to pave, or repave, between rails, and one foot outside of their rails, at their own expense and cost. Whenever any street, highway, avenue, or alley shall be ordered paved or repaved by the council of any such city, such paving or repaving between and outside of the rails shall be done at the same time, and shall be of the same material and character, as the paving or repaving of the street, highway, avenue, or alley upon which said railway track is located, or of such other material as said council may order, and, when said paving or repaving is done, said companies shall lay, in the best. approved manner, the strap or flat rail. Such railway companies shall keep that portion of the streets, highways, avenues, or alleys between, and one foot outside of, their rails up to grade, and in good repair, using for such purpose the same material with which the street, highway, avenue, or alley is paved upon which the track is laid, or such other material as said council may order." Laws 1884, p. 22. Laws 1884, p. 22. On January 15, 1886, the city of Sioux City became a city of the first class, under the statutes of Iowa, and has continued to be such. On the 11th of May, 1886, the city council passed an ordi

nance entitled "An ordinance providing for the paving of the streets between the rails of railways and street railways located thereon, and defining the manner of making special assessments to defray the cost and expenses thereof, and the manner of enforcing and collecting the same," the first section of which provided as follows: "Section 1. That, whenever the city council," etc., "shall cause to be paved any street, avenue, or alley whereon any railway has or shall be located and laid down, they shall also order and provide, by resolution, that the company or persons owning said railway or street railway pave said street, avenue, or alley between the rails of said railway or street.railway, and one foot each side the rails thereof, at their own expense and cost; provided, that the provisions of this section shall not in any manner be construed to affect any rights accrued or existing in favor of said railway companies or street railway company, under any franchise or license heretofore granted, under any ordinance heretofore adopted by said city council." Under this ordinance, and a subsequent one passed May 25, 1886, and a resolution passed August 31, 1886, the city council ordered certain streets to be paved, including those parts as to which the assessments involved in this suit were imposed, and provided for assessing to the street railway company the cost of paving the space between the rails, and one foot outside thereof.

The assessment of a special tax against the company for the cost of paving the space outside of the tracks was made December 27, 1886. Prior to that time, the company had paid for so much of the paving as lay between the rails of its tracks. In proper time, after the resolution of August 31, 1886, was served upon the company, it filed its written objections thereto, as follows: "The Sioux City Street Railway Company objects to the resolution ordering the assessment of a special tax against said company for the cost of paving one foot outside of its railway tracks in improvement districts 2 and 3. It objects to having the cost of paving one foot outside of the railway track charged to it, or to have same in any manner assessed against it or against its property, and to having any resolution or ordinance passed charging the cost of said paving to it, or making any assessment against it, or against its property, or seeking in any manner to collect said. cost from it, or making same a lien upon the title to any of the property, by any ordinance, resolution, or confirmation purporting to charge such cost against the said company or its property; that by the terms of the charter granting the company the right to locate, construct, and maintain its said railway, it was expressly provided that the company should only