Where the power in a charter to condemn lands is limited so as to exclude land or property of any other corporation existing under the law of the state, this restriction was not confined to lands of corporations ex isting at the passage of the act, but applies to those thereafter incorporated ; and anoth er corporation which acquired lands after the first corporation had filed a survey, there of according to the requirements of the laws, but before any petition for the appointment of commissioners had been presented, could claim exemption from condemnation under the limitations; In re American Transp. & Nay. Co., 58 N. J. L. 109, 32 Atl. 74.
See review of cases on this general sub ject, of the taking of a franchise ; 27 Cent. L. J. 207, 231; and as to corporate property ; 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 41, n.
Claims of citizens against a foreign power may be taken by the national government for the purpose of adjusting its relations with such power; Meade v. U. S., 2 Ct. of Cl. 224; and a claim for damages to land by rea son of an unlawful entry may be taken and adjusted in a proceeding to take the land itself ; Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. Town send, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 658.
It has been held that money cannot be taken; Field, J., Burnett v. City of Sacra mento, 12 Cal. 76, 73 Am. Dec. 518; contra, Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364, 25 N. E. 92, 7 L. R. A. 765 ; only as to money tak en by the state in time of war ; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. (U. S.) 115, 14 L. Ed. 75; Wellman v. Wickerman, 44 Mo. 484; and without any such limitation; Sharswood, J., in Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 152, 3 Am. Rep. 615, who says that "the public necessity which gives rise to it prevents its being restrained by any limitations as to ei ther subject or occasion." "Such," the opin ion continues, "would be the case of a press ing and immediate necessity, as in the event of invasion by a public enemy, or some great public calamity, as famine or pestilence, con tribution could be levied on banks, corpora tions, or individuals." Buildings on land condemned are parts of the realty and pass with the land, and the owner must be paid for them in full, and being so paid cannot recover from the com pany damages for the removal of them ; For ney v. R. Co., 23 Neb. 465, 36 N. W. 806 ; nor can the owner remove them; Finn v. Gas & Water Co., 99 Pa. 640. See, generally, as to structures, 3 Am. R. R. & Corp. Cas. 181, n.
An act for the extinguishment of irredeem able ground rents was held not to be an ex ercise of the right of eminent domain and therefore unconstitutional; Appeal of Palair et, 67 Pa. 479, 5 'Am. Rep. 450. Generally a city may not condemn property beyond its territorial limits ; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters (U. S.) 519, 10 L. Ed. 274; Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404; or a corporation in a different state from that of its incorpo ration; Saunders v. Imp. Ca., 58 Fed. 133;
but there are exceptions to the rule as in case of a city which may condemn property beyond its orders where the necessity exists, as for a park ; Thompson v. Moran, 44 Mich. 602, 7 N. W. 180; St. Louis County Court v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175 ; a sewer; City of Cold water v. Tucker, 36 Mich. 474, 24 Am. Rep. 601; Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood, 140 Ill. 216, 29 N. E. '704 ; or waterworks; Warner v. Town of Gunnison, 2 Colo. App. 430, 31 Pac. 238; State v. City of Newark, 54 N. J. L. 62, 23 Atl. 129; but in such case the property must be sufficiently near to the municipality to be serviceable for the pur pose for which it is condemned; In re City of New York, 99 N. Y. 569, 2 N. E. 642.
Reversion, on abandonment and change of public use. Where land is taken for one purpose, it reverts to the owner if that use is abandoned ; Miller v. R. Co., 43 Ind. App. 540, 88 N. E. 102; Harris v. Elliott, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 25, 9 L. Ed. 333; Kimball v. City of Kenosha, 4 Wis. 321; Newton v. M'f'g's Ry. Co., 115 Fed. 781, 53 C. C. A. 599; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Clapp, 201 Ill. 418, 66 N. E. 223 (under constitutional provision); Can ton Co. of Baltimore v. R. Co., 99 Md. 202, 57 Atl. 637; Neitzel v. Ry. Co., 65 Wash. 100, 117 Pac. 864, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 522; and he can restrain the unlawful use of it; Ap peal of Lance, 55 Pa. 16, 93 Am. Dec. 722; since the nature of the right exercised sub jects the statutes it to a strict construction ; Washington Cemetery v. R. Co., 68 N. Y. 591; and unless the statute clearly authorizes greater latitude the pow er to take is only for the public use indicat ed ; Attorney General v. Aqueduct Corp., 133 Mass. 36L When the public use is discontin ued, the land owner holds his title unincum bered as before condemnation; McCombs v. Stewart, 40 Ohio St. 647; Chambers v. Pow er Co., 100 Minn. 214, 110 N. W. 1128; Gross v. Jones, 85 Neb. 77, 122 N. W. 681, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 47; Lyford v. Laconia, 75 N. H. 220, 72 Atl. 1085, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, 139 Am. St. Rep. 680 ; but to constitute aban donment there must be intention to abandon as well as actual relinquishment; Canton Co. of Baltimore v. R. Co., 99 Md. 202, 57 Atl. 637; Corr v. Philadelphia, 212 Pa. 123, 61 Atl. 808; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Clapp, 201 Ill. 418, 66 N. E. 223; and the expression of an intention not to abandon is not conclusive, but is to be considered with other evidence of action and conduct; id. It has been held that the legislature may change the use to another of the same nature; Chase v. Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) Eldridge v. City of Binghamton, 120 N. Y. 309, 24 N. E. 462; Malone v. City of Toledo, 28 Ohio St. 643; but it is probably the better opinion that compensation must be given for another or additional burden; State v. Laverack, 34 N.