Repairs to. At common law, all public bridges are primd facie to be repaired by the inhabitants of the county, without distinc tion of foot, horse, or carriage bridges; un less they can show that others are bound to repair particular bridges; 13 East 95 ; Bacon, Abr. Bridges, p. 533; 5 Burr. 2594. In this country, the common law not pre vailing, the duty of repair is imposed by statute, generally, upon towns or counties; State v. Town of Franklin, 9 Conn. 32 ; State v. Campton, 2 N. H. 513; Hill v. Livingston County, 12 N. Y. 52 ; House v. Board of Com'rs, 60 Ind. 580, 28 Am. Rep. 657; Town ship of Newlin v. Davis, 77 Pa. 317; Hedges v. Madison County, 1 Gilman (III.) 567 ; well v. Town of Jamaica, 15 Vt. 438; ders v. Hathaway, 25 N. C. 402; Wate4ille v. Kennebec County, 59 Me. 80 ; MeCalla v. Multnomah County, 3 Or. 424; Agawam v. Hampden, 130 Mass. 528; or chartered cities; Shartle v. Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 308 (Gil. 284); Holmes v. Hamburg, 47 Ia. 348 ; except that bridges owned by corporations or in dividuals are reparable by their proprietors; Williams v. Bridge & Turnpike Corp., 4 Pick. (Mass.) 341; Ward v. Turnpike Co., 20 N. J. L. 323; Townsend v. Turnpike Road, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 90; Beecher v. Ferry Co., 24 Conn. 491; and that where the necessity for a bridge is created by the act of an in dividual or corporation in cutting a canal, ditch, or railway through a highway, it is the duty of the author of such necessity to make and repair the bridge; Perley v. Chand ler, 6 Mass. 458, 4 Am. 'Dec. 159; Dygert v. Schenck, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 446, 35 Am. Dec. 575; Nobles v. Langly, 66 N. C. 287; Penn sylvania R. Co. v. Borough of Irwin, 85 Pa. 336; Roberts v. Ry. Co., 35 Wis. 679. Where a bridge is rebuilt at county expense, but over which it has no control or care and on which it expends no money thereafter, it does not become liable to maintain or repair it ; Delta Lumber Co. v. Board of Auditors of Wayne County, 71 Mich. 572, 40 N. W. 1. The parties chargeable must constantly keep the bridge in such repair as will make it safe and convenient for the service for which it is required; Hawk. Pl. Cr. c. 77, s. 1; Frankfort Bridge Co. v. Williams, 9 Dana (Ky.) 403, 35 Am. Dec. 151; Holley. v. Turn pike Co., 1 Aik. (Vt.) 74 ; People v. Turnpike Road, 23 Wend. (N. Y.)1 254. See Town of Grayville v. Whitaker, 85 Ill. 439; Holmes v. City of Hamburg, 47 Ia. 348 ; Rapho Tp. v. Moore, 68 Pa. 408, 8 Am. Rep. 202 ;• Hicks v. Chaffee, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 293; Abbot v. Wol cott, 38 Vt. 666.
Remedies for failure to repair. If the parties chargeable with the duty of repair ing neglect so to do, they are liable to in dictment; Hawk. Pl. Cr. c. 77, s. 1; People v. Dutchess County, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 50; State v. Canterbury, 28 N. H. 195; Com. v. New buryport Bridge, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 142 ; State v. King, 25 N. C. 411. It has also been held that they may be compelled by mandamus to repair; Brander v. Chesterfield Justices, 5 Call (Va.) 548, 2 Am. Dec. 606; Dinwiddie Justices v. Chesterfield Justices, 5 Call (Va.) 556 ; People v. Dutchess County, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 50 ; Nelson County Court v. Washington
County Court, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 92; State v. Freeholders of Essex, 23 N. J. L. 214. But see 12 A. & E. 427 ; 3 Campb. 222 ; State. v. Cloud County Com'rs, 39 Kan. 700, 18 Pac. 952. If a corporation be charged with the duty by charter, they may be proceeded against by quo Warranto for the forfeiture of their franchise; People v. R. Co., 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 254; or by action on the case for dam ages in favor of any person specially injured by reason of their neglect; Sherwood v. West on, 18 Conn. 32; Townsend v. Turnpike Road, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 90; Richardson v. Turnpike Co., 6 Vt. 496; Randall v. Turnpike, 6 N. H. 147, 25 Am. Dec. 453; Williams v. Turnpike, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 341; Board of Com'rs of Sullivan County v. Sisson, 2 Ind. App. 311, 28 N. E. 374. And a similar' action is given by statute, in many states, against public bodies chargeable with repair ; Whipple v. Walpole, 10 N. H. 130 ; Board of Com'rs of Allen County v. Creviston, 133 Ind. 39, 32 N. E. 735. A city is liable to an action for damages caused by a failure to maintain a bridge as required by law; City of Boston • v. Crowley, 38 Fed. 202. In Georgia coun ties are not liable for injuries from defects in free bridges or ferries ; Arline v. Laurens County, 77 Ga. 249, 2 S. E. 833.
Tolls. The law of travel upon bridges is the same as upon highways, except when burdened by tolls. The payment of tolls can be lawfully enforced only at the gate or toll house ; State v. Dearborn, 15 Me. 402. Where by the charter of a bridge company, certain persons are exempted from payment, such exemption is to be liberally construed ; Cay uga Bridge Co. v. Stout, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 33; Salmon v. Mallett, 6 N. C. 372 ; South Caro lina R. Co. v. Jones, 4 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 459.
Bridges, when owned by individuals, are real estate ; In re Meason's Estate, 4 Watts {Pa.) 341; Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165 , Hudson River Bridge Co. v. Patterson, 74 N. Y. 365 ; and also when owned by the pub lic ; yet the freehold of the soil is in its original owner ; Co. 2d Inst. 705. The ma terials ? of which thely are formed belong to the parties who furnished them, subject to the public right of passage ; and when the bridge is taken down; or abandoned become the property of those who furnished them; 6 East 154 ; President, etc., of Turnpike Road Co. v. Com'rs of Franklin County, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 229.
A private bridge is one erected for the use of one or more private persons. Such a bridge will not be considered a public bridge although it may be occasionally used by the public ; 12 East 203 ; Thompson v. R. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 625 ; 1 Rolle, Abr. 368, Bridges, pl. 2; 2 Inst. 701; 1 Salk. 359. The builder of a private bridge over a private way is not in dictable for neglect to repair, though it be generally used by the public. See Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 344 ; id., 11 Pet. (U. S.) 539, 9 L. Ed. 773 ; People v. Coop er, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 516.
As to bridges over navigable waters, see that title.
See COMMERCE; FERRY.