One who goes to the premises of a rail road company to meet an incoming or to ac company a departing passenger goes there under an implied invitation ; Tobin v. R. Co., 59 Me. 183, 8 Am. Rep. 415; McKone v. R. Co., 51 Mich. 601, 17 N. W. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 596; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Cogswell, 23 Okl. 181, 99 Pac. 923, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 837; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, 61 Pac. 606, 51 L. R. A. 121; Izlar v. R. Co., 57 S. C. 332, 35 S. E. 583; Montgomery & E. R. Co. v. Thomp son, 77 Ala. 448, 54 Am. Rep. 72 ; Sullivan v. R. Co., 39 La. Ann. 800, 2 South. 586, 4 Am. St. Rep. 239 ; Atlantic & B. R. Co. v. Owens, 123 Ga. 393, 51 S. E. 404.
Mere personal discomfort to neighboring property owners because of the location and operation, without negligence, of railroad tracks, depots and side yards, under legis lative authority, will not give such owners ground of action against the company, but must be considered a damnum absque injumia; St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co. v. Shaw, 99 Tex. 559, 92 S. W. 30, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 245, 122 Am. St. Rep. 663; Aldrich v. R. Co., 195 Ill. 456, 63 N. E. 155, 57 L. R. A. 237. That occupants are disquieted and kept in a state of alarm and apprehension (if it does not result in sickness or physical in jury) will give no right of action ; Gossett v. R. Co., 115 Tenn. 376, 89 S. W. 737, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 97, 112 Am. St. Rep. 846. Dis comfort caused solely by the growth and in crease of travel gives no right of action; Louisville & N. T. Co. v. Lellyett, 114 Tenn. 368, 85 S. W. 881, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49. It is said the location and operation upon a public highway may occasion incidental in convenience to an abutting landowner, but until it cuts off or materially interrupts his means of access to his property, or imposes some additional burden upon the soil, his injury is the same in kind as the community in general. Injuries which result from a careful construction and operation of a rail road on the land of another' are common to all those whose lands are in close prox imity to such road; and for such injuries there can be nd recovery in the absence of a statute entitling the owner to maintain such action; Decker v. R. Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E. 349. An adjoining proprietor can never be entitled to recover from a railroad company organized under the general rail road law of the state for the depreciation of the rental or sale value of the premises, be cause of the location of the track in the street, except upon the assumption that the location itself is unlawful. If he owns the soil in the street, the location will be un lawful ; but if he does not, he must submit to the incidental losses without redress; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Helsel, 38 Mich. 62, 31 Am. Rep. 306. Legislative authority is no ground for the commission by a corporation of a private nuisance, for the legislature has no authority to grant such an exemption, but the annoyance, to constitute a nuisance, must be so great as to cause destruction to health or of property value; St. Louis, S. F. & T.
R. Co. v. Shaw, 99 Tex. 559, 92 S. W. 30, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 245, 122 Am. St. Rep. 663.
As to injuries to property caused by blast ing, see BLASTING.
In Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 318, 2 Sup. Ct. 719, 27 L. Ed. 739, it was held that legislative grants of privileges or powers to corporate bodies, like a railroad company, to bring its tracks and construct its works within a city, confer no license to use them in disregard of the private rights of others and with immuni ty for their invasion; here an engine house and repair .shop were erected by legislative authority on land adjoining a place of wor ship, and it was held that the church could recover damages in a court of law and that equity would interfere and restrain the nui sance. In this case it was not shown that there was negligence in the operation of the company's business, but it was said that no permission given to conduct such an oc cupation within the limits of a city would exempt the parties from liability for dam ages occasioned to others, however carefully they might conduct their business; Balti more & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. 8. 318, 2 Sup. Ct. 719, 27 L. Ed. 739, citing Fish v. Dodge, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 312, 47 Am. Dec. 254; and see Cogswell v. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 10, 8 N. E. 537, 57 Am. Rep. 701, which is said to be nearly, if not exactly, on all fours with Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 318, 2 Sup. Ct. 719, 27 L. Ed. 739; and also Cogswell v. R. I Co., 103 N. Y. 10.
A state acting through an administrative body may require a railroad company to make track connections; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. 8. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. 115, 45 L. Ed. 194 ; but such a body' cannot compel a company to build branch lines, con nect roads lying at a distance from each other, or make connections at every point, regardless of necessity ; and an order of a railroad commission, requiring a railroad company to expend money and use its prop erty in a specified manner, is not a mere ad ministrative order, but is a taking of prop erty. To be valid there must be more than mere notice and opportunity to be beard. The order itself must be justified by public necessity and not unreasonable or arbitrary; State v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510, 32 Sup. Ct. 535, 56 L. Ed. 863.
Neither a railroad, nor any part of its property, is subject to levy under execution, unless by statute. See East Alabama R. Co. v. Doe, 114 U. S. 340, 5 Sup. Ct. 869, 29 L. Ed. 136; Youngman v. R. Co., 65 Pa. 278; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Boney, 117 lnd. 501, 20 N. E. 432, 3 L. R. A. 435. See