The property which may be taken includes: Estates successive in point of time, as re mainders and reversions ; Alexander v. U.
S., 39 Ct. CL 383 ; Charleston & W. C. By. Co. v. Reynolds, 69 S. C. 481, 48 S. E. 476; life-tenancy ; Austin v. R. Co., 45 Vt. 215 ; Chicago, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 52 Kan.
41, 33 Pac. 478; tenancy for years; Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Dresel, 110 Ill. 89; Kearney v. Ry. Co., 129 N. Y. 76, 29 N. E. 70 ; or at will; Sheehan v. City of Fall River, 187 Mass. 356, 73 N. E. 544 ; easements, impair ed by the new use ; State v. Superior Court of King County, 26 Wash. 278, 66 Pac. 385 ; even a prescriptive right to pollute a stream ; Sprague v. Dorr, 185 Mass. 10, 69 N. E. 344; profits A. prendre ; Carville v. Com., 192 Mass. 570, 78 N. E. 735 ; mortgages; Bank of Auburn v. Roberts, 44 N. Y. 192; Wooster v. R. Co., 57 Wis. 311, 15 N. W. 401 ; South Park Com'rs v. Todd, 112 Ill. 379; contra, v. City of New Haven, 45 Conn. 303 ; Goodrich v. Board, 47 Kan. 355, 27 Pae. 1006, 18 L. R. A. 113; Farnsworth v. City of Bos ton, 126 Mass. 1; (but not general liens; Watson v. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 157, or ground rents; Workman v. Mifflin, 30 Pa. 3620 dow er ; French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537 ; Venable v. Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 103, 20 S. W. 493, 1$ L. R. A. 68; buildings and fixtures; Williams v. Com., 168 Mass. 364, 47 N. E. 115 (but only such fixtures as cannot be removed without injury to the freehold or to the owner ; In re City of New York, 192 N. Y. 295, 84 N. E. 1105, 18 L. R. A. [N. S.] 423, 127 Am. St. Rep. 903). As to who are proper parties see infra; and as to what is property within the constitutional use of the word, see Nichols, Em. Dom. § 173 at seq. An inchoate right of dower is defeated by condemnation for a public use ; Moore v. Mayor, etc., 8 N. Y. 110, 59 Am. Dec. 473 ; Duncan v. City of Terre Haute, 85 Ind. 104; Wheeler v. Kirt land, 27 N. J. Eq. 534; Chouteau v. Ry. Co., 122 Mo. 375, 22 S. W. 458, 30 S. W. 299 ; French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537; it is said that the dower right in the land is cut off but transferred to the proceeds; Bonner v. Peter son, 44 Ill. 253 ; In re Central Park Exten sion, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 56 ; but the statu tory purchase of land by a railroad corpora tion for depots, etc., does not extinguish the inchoate right of dower therein; Nye v. R. Co., 113 Mass. 277.
The power has been held to exist : To build a railroad over basins maintained by a water power company for public purposes, and its franchise is not thereby destroyed; Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & W. R. Corp., 23 Pick. (Mass.) 360; to take for a public road the property, easement, and franchise of a bridge company ; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. (U. S.) 507, 12 L. Ed. 535; to build a railroad over the land of a gas company not then in use but likely to become necessary ; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Gas-Light Co., 63 N. Y. 326; over the lands and right of way of a canal company ; Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. R. Co., 11 Leigh (Va.)
42, 36 Am. Dec. 374; Board of Trustees of Illinois & M. Canal v. R. Co., 14 Ill. 314; over lands of a state asylum for deaf and dumb ; Indiana Cent. Ry. Co. v. State, 3 Ind. 421; over a turnpike which would not be ma terially injured; White River Turnpike Co. v. R. Co., 21 Vt. 590; but not over lands, not necessary for the railway, owned and used by the state for an institution for the blind; St. Louis, J. & C. R. Co. v. Trustees, 43 Ill. 303. In a proceeding by a railroad company to condemn for terminal warehouses the land of a steamboat company, the test wheth er the defendant held its land for such use as to exempt it from condemnation was said to be not what the defendant "does or may choose to do, but what under the law it must do, and whether a public trust is impressed upon it. It does not so hold its property im pressed with a trust for the public use un less its charter puts that character upon it and so that it cannot be shaken off ;" In re New York, L. & W. Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 12, 1 N. E. 27. Any property belonging to a rail way not in actual use or necessary to the proper exercise of the franchise thereof may be taken for the purpose of another railroad under a general power ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 812; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 112 Ill. 589; In re Poughkeepsie & E. R. Co., 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 151; Providence & W. R. R. Co. v. R. Co., 138 Mass. 277; Pittsburgh Junction R. Co. v. R. Co., 146 Pa. 297, Atl. 313 ; but not where the loss of the property to be taken is necessary to the exercise of the franchise of its owner;. Central City Horse Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 81 Ill. 523 ; Oregon Cascade R. Co. v. Bally, 3 Or. 164. The same general prin ciples are applied to cases where a municipal corporation attempts to condemn railroad property ; if the property is not necessary to the new use and the latter is destructive of the old one it is not permitted to be tak en; Baltimore & 0. C. R. Co. v. North, 103 Ind. 486, 3 N. E. 144, 23 A. & E. R. R. Cas. 36; s. c. Baltimore Sr 0. Sr C. R. Co. v. North, 103 Ind. 486, 3 N. E. 144; Winona & St. P. Ry. Co. v. City of Watertown, 4 S. D. 323, 56 N. W. 1077; otherwise, if it will leave the franchise unimpaired; New Jersey Southern R. Co. v. Com'rs, 39 N. J. L. 28. A market house has been condemned for a railway terminal station, reached by an elevated rail road, and its approaches ; Twelfth-St. Mar ket Co. v. R. Co., 142 Pa. 580, 21 Atl. 902, 989; but one corporation cannot take the franchise of another which is in use unless expressly authorized by the legislature, and then only by regular condemnation, and can not take it at all, if this will materially af fect its use ; Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. Ry. Co., 53 Fed. 687. So a street may be takeli; Ottawa, 0. C. & C. G. R. Co. v. Larson, 40 Kan. 301, 19 Pae. 661, 2 L. R. A 59; a bridge ; 39 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 36, n.; or land in custody of the law ; 14 Am. L. Rev. 131.