ELECTRIC COMPANIES. Such compa nies, although not public corporations in the sense that the term is applied to municipal' corporations; Croswell Elec. § 20 ; and be ing unable without statutory authority to claim an exemption of property from the or dinary mechanic's lien; Badger Lumber Ca v. Power Co., 48 Kan. 182, 29 Pac. 476, 15 L. R. A. 652, 30 Am. St. Rep. 301; are held to exercise a public use and are of a public character similar to telegraph and telephone companies; Opinion of Justices, 150 Mass. 592, 24 N. E. 1084, 8 L. R. A. 487; Linn v. Chambersburg Borough, 160 Pa. 511, 28 Atl. 842, 25 L. R. A. 217; Thompson-Houston Electric Co. v. City of Newton, 42 Fed. 723; of Crawfordsville v. Braden, 130 Ind. 149, 28 N. E. 849, 14 L. R. A. 268, 30 Am. St. Rep. 214. Poles and wires erected for lighting city streets are a public use and constitute no additional burden; Tuttle v. Illuminating Co., 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 464; People 65 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 407, affirmed in 32 Hun (N. Y.) 93 ; Tiffany & Co. v. Illuminating Co., 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 286; Johnson v. Electric Co., 54 Hun 469, 7 N. Y. Supp. 716; Gulf Coast Ice & Mfg. Co. v. Bowers, 80 Miss. 570, 32 South. 113; Halsey v. Ry. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859; Loeber v. Electric Co., 16 Mont. 1, 39 Pac. 912, 50 Am. St. Rep. 468; but not where a pole shut off free access to a store; Tiffany & Co. v. Illuminating Co., 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 280. The same general rule may be applied to rural highways; Palmer v. Electric Co., 158 N. Y. 231, 52 N. E. 1092, 43 L. R. A. 672; contra, Haverford Electric Light Co. v. Hart, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 369. In the case of private lighting, such use en titles the owner to compensation; Callen v. Electric Light Co., 66 Ohio 166, 64 N. E. 141, 58 L. R. A. 782. See, generally, Joyce on Electric Law.
They are held to be manufacturing com panies with reference to taxation ; People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 543, 29 N. E. 808, 14 L. R. A. 708 (reversing People v. Wemple, 15 N. Y. Supp. 718); Beggs v. Illuminating Co., 96 Ala. 295, 11 South. 381, 38 Am. St. Rep. 94; People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 664, 29 N. E. 812; contra, Evanston Electric Il luminating Co. v. Kochersperger, 175 Ill. 26, 51 N. E. 719; Frederick Electric Light & Power Co. v. Frederick City, 84 Md. 599, 36 Atl. 362, 36 L. R. A..130; Com. v. Light & Power' Co., 145 Pa. 105, 22 Atl. 839, 14 L. R. A. 107; Com. v. Electric Light Co., 145 Pa. 131, 22 Atl. 841, 845, 27 Am. St. Rep. 683; Com. v. Electric Light Co., 145 Pa. 147, 22 Atl. 844. See Globe Mut. Life Ins. Ass'n v. Ahern, 191 Ill. 170, 60 N. E. 806.
Charter authority to such a company to enter upon any public street of a city for the purpose of its business is held to in clude the right to lay conduits beneath the sidewalks; Allegheny County Light Co. v. Booth, 216 Pal. 564, 66 Atl. 72, 9 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 404.
Impbed Powers of the Municipality. The right ov a municipality to light the streets is gene•ally conceded as a part of the police power and while usually enumerated in the cb trters, its omission , would not de prive I he city of such right, whether by electric ty or other means; City of Craw fordsvi le v. Braden, 130 Ind. 149, 28 N. E. 849, 14 L. R. A. 268, 30 Am. St. Rep. 214 ; Mauldi, i v. City Council of Greenville, 33 S. C. 1 11 S. E. 434, 8 L. R. A. 291; State v. City of Hiawatha, 53 Kan. 477, 36 Pac. 1119 ; Hamilton Gaslight & Coke Co. v. City ol Hamilton, 37 Fed. 832 ; Hamilton Gas Li,:ht & Coke Co. v. Hamilton City, 146 U. S. 2J8, 13 Sup. Ct. 90, 36 L. Ed. 963; and the rig ht of the municipality, not only to own, operate, and control an electric light plant, but to raise money for such purpose by taxation has been upheld; City of Craw fordsville v. Braden, 130 Ind. 149, 28 N. E. 849, 14 L. R. A. 268, 30 Am. St. Rep. 214; Mauldin v. City Council of Greenville, 33 S. C. 1, 11 S. E. 434, 8 L. R. A. 291; State v. City of Hiawatha, 53 Kan. 477, 36 Pac. 1119; and to issue bonds for that purpose; Rushville Gas Co. v. City of Rushville, 121 Ind. 212, 23 N. E. 72, 6 L. R. A. 315, 16 Am. St. Rep. 388 ; Hequembourg v. City of Dun kirk, 49 Hun 550, 2 N. Y. Supp. 447. The contrary view of such implied powers was taken in Spaulding v. Inhabitants of Pea body, 153 Mass. 129, 26 N. E. 421, 10 L. R.
A. 397, where the court decided that the ex isting statute giving towns the right to main . tain street lamps and to raise money by taxation for such purpose did not carry with it the right to maintain the more cost ly electric light plant, and that to authorize such a purchase an express statute must be passed, thus settling a question raised but not decided in Opinion of Justices, 150 Mass. 592, 24 N. E. 1084, 8 L. R. A. 487. The Massachusetts case was followed in Posey v. Town of North Birmingham, 154 Ala. 511, 45 South. 663, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 711.
Commercial Lighting by the Municipality. Where the right of maintaining an electric light plant ha's been conferred upon towns by statute, it has been usually held to apply as well to private property as to public highways; Thompson-Houston Electric Co.
v. City of Newton, 42 Fed. 723; City of Crawfordsville v. Braden, 130 Ind. 149, 28 N. E. 849, 14 L. R. A. 268, 30 Am. St. Rep. 214 ; but where it has been only implied from existing statutes the implication will not extend to a commercial use; Mauldin v. City Council of Greenville, 33 S. C. 1, 11 S. E. 434, 8 L. R. A. 291; Rushville Gas Co. v. City of Rushville, 121 Ind. 212, 23 N. E. 72, 6 L. R. A. 315, 16 Am. St. Rep. 388. Stat utes conferring such rights are constitution al; Opinion of the Justices, 150 Mass. 592,