460, 31 L. Ed. 415; Sugar Creek, P. B. & P. C. R. Co. v. McKell, 75 Fed. 34; if they take the form of a proceeding before the courts: Mississippi &. R. R. Boom Co. v. Pat terson, 98 U. S. 403, 25 L. Ed. 206; the pre liminary proceedings are in the nature of an inquest and not a "suit," but when transfer red into the state court by appeal it becomes one; id.; Hastings Lumber Co. v. Garland, 115 Fed. 18, 52 C. C. A. 609. As to removal of such proceedings, see 25 Am. L. Reg. 183, The Power of the states. The right of eminent domain is also an attribute or part of the sovereignty of the states, and is by them exercised for a great and constantly increasing variety of purposes, some of which are for governmental uses either of the state at large or of local municipal bodies, or by private persons or corporations authorized to exercise some function of such public char acter, technically known as a public use.
It is also true that a state cannot con demn • property within its borders for the use of another state; Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449; and a state statute is constitutional which forbids a riparian own er from diverting the water of a river for the use of a city in another state; Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 28 Sup. Ct. 529, 52 L. Ed. 828, 14 Ann. Cas. 560 ; but a statute of one state author izing condemnation of a water supply for use in a canal in another state was sus tained on the ground that the work was also of great benefit to the former state; In re Townsend, 39 N. Y. 171.
When the right of eminent domain is con ferred upon private persons or corporations the right is termed by some writers the dele gated power of eminent domain ; 4 Thomp. Corp. 'ch. cxxii.; and such person or corpora tion is the agent of the state for its exercise.
Delegation of Power. The power may be delegated; Brayton v. City of Fall River, 124 Mass. 95; but it can only be exercised by a private individual or corporation by express legislative authority ; Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97' Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 638, 7 Ann. Cas. 1182; it may be conferred upon a municipality for laying out and establishing streets; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Fayette ville, 75 Ark. 534, 87 S. W. 1174 (but it is not implied from a mere grant of authority to establish new streets; Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Union Point, 119 Ga. 809, 47 S. E. 183) ; constructing drains; Hutchins v. Drainage Dist., 217 Ill. 561, 75 N. E. 354; establishing water works; In re Petition of Board of Water Com'rs of Vil lage of White Plains, 176 N. Y. 239, 68 N. E.
348; Dallas v. Hallock, 44 Or. 246, 75 Pac. 204; laying out parks and parkways; City of Memphis v. Hastings, 113 Tenn. 142, 86 S. W. 609, 69 L. R. A. 750 (hut a 'municipal corporation cannot exercise the right beyond -its corporate limit without express legisla tive authority ; City of Puyallup v. Lacey, 43 110, 86 Pac. 215) ; a railroad com pany for obtaining gravel and other ma terial ; Hopkins v. R. Co., 97 Ga. 107, 25 S. E. 452; for building bridges and approaches thereto ; _Southern I. & M. Bridge Co. v. Stone, 174 Mo. 1, 73 S. W. 453, 63 L. R. A. 301 ; and tunnels; McEwan v. R. Co., 72 N. J. L. 419, 60 Atl. 1130. Railroad companies may, acquire a title in fee simple if the leg islature authorizes it to do so; Challiss v. R. Co., 16 Kans. 117. A de facto railroad corporation may exercise the right inasmuch as its legal existence can only be questioned by the state in a direct proceeding for that purpose; Reisner v. Strong, 24 Fans. 410.
Strictly speaking it is not accurate to say that the state delegates a right of sovereign ty, of which it cannot .divest itself, hence it is more exact to speak of it as exercising the power through an agent. While corpora tions are usually, selected for such agency, it may be and sometimes is conferred upon individuals; Young v. Buckingham, 5 Ohio 485; Ash v. Cummings, 50 N. H. 591; Calk ing v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 667, 21 Am. Dec. 168; Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 159, 21 Pac. 833; and where incorporation and a franchise were granted to an individual "and associates" it was held that he need not associate any one with him; Day v. Stet son, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 365. It has also been held that an individual as purchaser of a railroad and franchises at the foreclosure sale acquired the right to condemn lands; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217, 23 L. Ed. 860. In one case it is said that a statute neither did nor could confer this right "upon private persons, but only corporations organ ized for public purposes can be clothed with such privileges ;" Finney v. Somerville, 80 Pa. 59; but this expression, so far as it con-' terns the power of the legislature, was obiter; and a case often cited with this only decides that under a general act, then un der construction, the power could be ex ercised by individuals, because there was no provision of law for its exercise by in dividuals; Coe v. R. Co., 10 Ohio St 372, 75 Am. Dec. 518.