BRIDGE. A structure erected over a riv er, creek, stream, ditch, ravine, or other place to facilitate the passage thereof ; including by the term both arches and abutments ; Board of Chosen Freeholders of Sussex County v. Strader, 18 N. J. L. 108, 35 Am. Dec. 530; Bardwell v. Town of Jamaica, 15 Vt. 438; Daniels v. Intendent & Wardens of Athens, 55 Ga. 609; and approaches of the length of 180 feet on either side of it; 71 L. T. 430; and the roadway over it ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 280. The embankment contiguous to a bridge is a part of it ; Morgan County v. Glass, 139 Ga. 415, 77 S. E. 583. A railway viaduct, designed only for the passage of en gines and cars, is not a "bridge," within the statutory meaning of that word ; Bridge Proprietors v. Land & Improvement Co., 1 Wall. (U. S.) 116, 17 L. Ed. 571. See Lake v. R. Co., 7 Nev. 294 ; Whitall v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Gloucester County, 40 N. J. L. 305.
A bridge may be a street ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 11. It is a public highway ; Murphy v. Vil lage of Ft. Edward, 79 Misc. 296, 140 N. Y. Supp. 885.
Bridges are either public or private. Public bridges are such as form a part of the highway, common, according to their character as foot, horse, or carriage bridges, to the public generally, with or without toll ; 2 East 342 ; though their use may be limited to particular occasions, as to seasons of flood or frost; 2 Mauie & S. 262; 4 Campb. 189. They are established either by legislative authority or by dedication.
By legislative authority. By the Great Charter (9 Hen. III. c. 15), in England, no. town or freeman can he compelled to make" new bridges where never any were before, but by act of parliament. Under such act, they may be erected and maintained by cor porations chartered for the purpose, or by counties, or in whatever other mode may be prescribed; Woolrych, Ways 196. In this country it is the practice to charter compa nies for the same purpose, with the right to take tolls for their reimbursement; Wil liams v. Turnpike Corporation, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 341; or to erect bridges at the state's ex pense; or by general statutes to impose the duty of erection and maintenance upon towns, counties, or districts ; Coro. v. Com'rs of Monroe County, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 495; Sampson v. Goochland Justices, 5 Graft.. (Va.) 241; Town of Granby v. Thurston, 23 Conn. 416 ; Nelson County Court v. Washing ton County Court, 14 E. Monr. (Ky.) 92 ; Lobdell v. Inhabitants of New Bedford, 1 Mass. 153; Hill v. Board of Sup'rs of Liv ingston County, 12 N. Y. 52 ; State v. of Campton, 2 N. H. 513; Town of Water ville v. Kennebec County Com'rs, 59 Me. 80. In re Saw-Mill Run Bridge, 85 Pa. 163 ; State v. Titus, 47 N. J. L. 89. For their erection' the state may take private property, nponr making compensation, as in case of other' highways; Ang. Highw. § 81; the rule damages for land so taken being not its mere value for agricultural purposes, but its value for a bridge site, minus the benefits derived. to the owner from the erection; Young v.. Harrison, 17 Ga. 30. The right to erect a' bridge upon the laud of another may also be acquired by mere parol license, which, when acted upon, becomes irrevocable; Ameriscoi gin Bridge v. Bragg, 11 N. H. 102 ; Hall v.
Boyd, 14 Ga. 1. But see Foster v. Browning, 4 R. I. 47, 67 Am. Dec. 505. The franchise of a toll bridge or ferry may be taken, like other property, for a free bridge; West Riv er Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. (U. S.) 507, 12 L. Ed. 535; Central Bridge Corporation Lowell, 4 Gray (Mass.) 474; State v. Can terbury, 28 N. H. 195; and, when vested in a town or other public corporation, may be so taken without compensation ; Town of East Hartford v. Bridge Co., 10 How. (U. S.) 511, 13 L. Ed. 518.
A new bridge may be erected, under legis lative authority, so near an older bridge or ferry as to impair or destroy its value, without compensation, unless the older fran chise be protected by the terms of its grant; Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. War ren Bridge, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773; id., 7 Pick. (Mass.) 344; Thompson v. R. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 625; Piatt v. Bridge Co., 8 Bush (Ky.) 31 ; Parrot v. Lawrence, 2 Dill. 332, Fed. Cas. No. 10,772 ; 21 Can. S. C. R. 456; The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 51, 18 L. Ed. 137; but, unless au thorized by statute, a new bridge so erected is unlawful, and may be enjoined as a nuisance ; 3 Bla. Com. 218 ; 2 Cr. M. & R. 432; Norris v. Farmers' & Teamsters' Co., 6 Cal. 590, 65 Am. Dec. 535; Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of War ren Bridge, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 621, 9 L. Ed. 773. And if the older franchise, vested in an in dividual or .private corporation, be protected, or be exclusive within given limits, by the terms of its grant, the erection of .a new bridge or ferry, even under legislative au thority, is unconstitutional, as an act im pairing the obligations of contract; Propri etors of Piscataqua Bridge v. New Hamp shire Bridge, 7 N. H. 35; Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. R. Co., 17 Conn. 40; 42 Am. Dec. 716; Mayor, etc., of City of Columbus v. Rodgers, 10 Ala. 37. See 21 Can. S. C. R. 456. The entire expense of a bridge erected within a particular district may be assessed upon the inhabitants; Shaw v. Dennis, 5 Gilman (Ill.) 405; Town of Granby v. Thurston, 23 Conn. 416. The absolute control of navigable streams in the United States is vented in congress; Miller, Const. 457; but in the ab sence of legislation by congress a state has the right to erect, a bridge over a navigable river within its own limits; Gilman v. Phila-, delphia, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 713, 18 L. Ed. 96 ; Com., v. Breed, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 460 ; Works v. R. Co., 5 McLean 425, Fed. Cas. No. 18,046; Dugan v. Bridge Co., 27 Pa. 303, 67 Am. Dec. 464; People v. R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 113, 30 Am. 'Dec. 33; and so may a county; In re Waverly Borough's Bridge, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 669; in exercising this right, care must be taken to interrupt navi gation as little as possible ; State v. Inhabit ants of Freeport, 43 Me. 198 ; Renwick v. Morris, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 621;' Terre-Haute Drawbridge Co., v. Halliday, 4 Ind. 36 ; Corn. v. Proprietors of New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray (Mass.) 339; Columbus Ins. Co, v. Ass'n, 6 McLean 70, Fed. Cas. No. 3,046 ; Columbus v. Cuitenius, 6 McLean 209, Fed. Cas. No. 3,045.