What is a Pubtic Use. There has not been and probably never will be a satis factory comprehensive definition of term "public use." There is a fundamen tal difficulty in framing one, arising from the double meaning 'of the word "use." It may be either employment or advantage, and courts have divided in resting their effortg at a definition upon either one or the other of these terms. The is discussed at length and the cases examined in Em. Dom. §§ 206-211, and the conclusion of this author is that neither view as based up on the words mentioned, is entirely tory or sufficiently broad to justify land for all the purposes for which it has been permitted.
Property taken for public use need not be taken by the public as a body into its Possession, but for public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or purposes productive of gen eral benefit or great advantage to the com munity; Olmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. 532, 89 Dec. 221. It is not necessary that the entire community, or any considerable portion of it, should participate • in an im provement to constitute a public use; Tal bot v. Hudson, 16 Gray (Mass.) 417; County Court of St. Louis County v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175 ; it may be limited to the inhabitants of a small locality; but the benefit must be in common, not to particular persons or es tates ; Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229. See Mills, Em. Dom. § 12. If a considerable number will be benefited the use is public; Riche v. Water Co., 75 Me. 91; Ross V. Da vis, 97 Ind. 79 ; as a school available for use by .a portion of the community taxed to .pay for the property taken ; Williams v. School Dist., 33 Vt. 271.
The legislature determines the number of people to be benefited to make the use pub lic ; Aldridge v. R. Co., 2 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 199, 23 Am. Dec. 307; but the incidental ben efit of additional facilities for business, etc., will not make use public; In re Eureka Basin Warehouse & Mfg. Co. of Long Island, 96 N. Y. 42.
It was formerly considered that a public use must be for material needs, and not mere esthetic gratification; Nichols, Em. Dom. § 232, citing Bynk. Jur. Pub. lib. ii. c. 15 ; Boston & R. Mill Dam Corp. v. Newman, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 467, 480, 23 Am. Dec. 662; Town of Woodstock y. Gallup, 28 Vt. 587; but this doctrine has been practically aban doned ; Nichols, Em. Dom. § 232 ; Attorney General v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476, 55 N. E.
77, 47 L. R. A. 314.
It has been judicially decided that the fol lowing are public uses : an almshouse; Hey ward v. City of New York, 7 N. Y. 314; a public bath ; Poillon v. City of Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 132, 4 N. E. 191; a schoolhouse; Reed -v. Inhabitants of Acton, 117 Mass. 384; Wil liams v. School Dist., 33 Vt. 271; Peckham .v. School Dist., 7 R. I. 545; Township Board of Education v. Hackmann, 48 Mo. 243; Long v. Fuller, 68 Pa. 170 ; a market; In re Coop er, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 515 ; Henkel v. City of -Detroit, 49 Mich. 249, 13 N. W. 611, 43 Am. Rep. 464 ; telegraph and telephone lines; .•Lockie v. Telegraph Co., 103 Ill. 401; State v. Telephone Co., 53 N. J. L. 341, 21 Atl. 460, 11 L. R. A. 664; Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75, 49 Am. Rep. 7 ; New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. v. Telegraph Co., 53 Ala. 211; Spring 'Valley Water Works v. Drinkhouse, 92 Cal. .528, 28 Pac. 681; water-works for a town ; Bailey v. Inhabitants of Woburn, 126 Mass. 416; Lake Pleasanton Water Co. v. Water Co., 67 Cal. 659, 8 Pac. 501; water supply for a town ; Burden v. Stein, 27 'Ala. 104, 62 Am. Dec. 758 ; Martin v. Gleason, 139 Mass. 183, 29 N. E. 604; Cheyney V. Water Works Co., 55 N. J. L. 235, 26 Atl. 95; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. 8. 685, 17 Sup. Ct. 718, 41 L. Ed. 1165; City of Chicago v, Smith, 204 Ill. 356, 68 N. E. 395 ; Denver Power & Irr. Co. v. R. Co., 30 Colo. 204, 69 Pac. 568, 60 L. R. A. 383 (but not where the creation of a water power and plant is for the purpose of supplying power 'for private enterprises ; Berrien Springs Wa ter-Power Co. v. Circuit Judge, 133 Mich. 48, 94 N. W. 379, 103 Am. St. Rep. 438; sota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 638, 7 Ann. Cas. 1182; Peifly v. Water Supply. Co., 214 Pa. 340, 63 Atl. 751); the im provement of the navigation of a river; Ha zen v. Essex County, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 475; and the creation of a wholly artifieial sys tem of navigation by canals; id.; Chesa peake & 0. Canal Co. v. Key, 3 Cra. C. C. 599, Fed. Cas. No. 2,649; Water Works Co. of Indianapolis v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364 ; In re Townsend, 39 N. Y. 171; drainage ; Willson v. Marsh Co., 2 Pet. (U. S.) 245, 7 L. Ed. 412; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Drainage Dist., 213 Ill. 83, 72 N. E. 684; Sisson v. Board of Sup'rs of Buena Vis ta County, 128 Ia. 442, 104 N. W. 454, 70 L.