LATERAL RAILROAD. A branch rail road. One running from some point on a main line intended as a connecting line or feeder.
A lateral road is said to be "one pro ceeding from some point on the main trunk between its termini." Newhall v. R. Co., 14 Ill. 273. "The general route of the lateral road must lie at an acute angle with the main trunk ;" id. "A lateral road is another name for a branch road;" id. The definition of such a structure does not depend on its length or direction, it may be a "direct exten sion" from the terminus as well as "merely an offshoot of the main road ; 'Appeal of Mc Aboy, 107 Pa. 548; and it may run In the same direction as the main line so as to be in effect an extension ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228; it may be an elevated road over a wharf ; Appeal of McAboy, 107 Pa. 548. When authorized, the necessity and the location are in the discre tion of the directors ; id.; but the lateral railroad cannot be constructed without au thority expressly granted or necessarily im plied from the charter ; Pittsburgh v. R. Co., 48 Pa. 355. When it is authorized, the right to acquire lands by the exercise of the pow er of eminent domain is implied as on the main line; Newhall v. R. Co., 14 III. 273; Toledo, S. & M. R. Co. v. R. Co., 72 Mich. 206, 40 N. W. 436 ; Lower v. R. Co., 59 Ia. 563, 13 N. W. 718. Where there is a limita tion of time for completing the main line, it does not apply to a branch road, certainly not to one for which the land has been ac quired within the time limited ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228.
The power is as large as the power granted for construction of the main line ; Pitts burgh v. R. Co., 48 Pa. 355 ; and a power to construct such roads in the discretion of the directors is a continuing one, not to be abridged by a subsequent act giving to the company a time limited for completing the main line with sidings, appurtenances, etc.; Pittsburgh, V. & C. Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 159 Pa. 331, 28 Atl. 155. The word appurtenances does not include branches ; icr.
The same reasonable rules as to furnish ing, and having proper switches, turnouts, etc., apply to lateral roads as to other rail roads; Com. v. Corey, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 444; so also the same statutory requirements ap ply as to crossing highways; 1 B. & Ad. 441.
Words permitting the construction of such lines are not obligatory; 2 Macq. H. L. Cas.
514; and impose no duty which will be en forced by mandamus ; 1 El. & Bl. 874. A charter power to construct branch or lateral roads includes the right to build one running in the same general direction and connecting the main line with another railroad ; Blan ton v. R. Co., 86 Va. 618, 10 S. E. 925. When a railroad company has power to construct lateral or branch roads and purchases an other road under an act authorizing its use under the charter of the purchaser, the lat ter may extend the purchased road ; Duncan v. R. Co., 94 Pa. 435. The mere fact that the building of a lateral railroad may add to the earnings of the main line will not au thorize its construction in the absence of power in the charter ; Chicago & E., I. R. Co. v. Wiltse, 116 Ill. 449, 6 N. E. 49; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 138 Ill. 453, 28 N. E. 740.
A power "to construct such roads from the main line to other points or places in the several counties through which said road may pass," is limited to such as begin and end in the same county ; Works v. Rail road, 5 McLean 425, Fed. Cas. No. 18,046. A lateral railroad may cross an ordinary railroad to reach a navigable river to which its construction is authorized and the contin uity of the lateral road is not thereby de stroyed; Hays v. Briggs, 74 Pa. 373. A stat ute authorizing a railroad company to subscribe to and acquire an interest not exceeding one-fifth, in any lateral or connect ing road, confers a distinct privilege or fran cliise which renders the gross receipts de rived from such interest liable to a state tax, notwithstanding an exemption of the prin cipal company from such tax on its own gross receipts ; State v. R. Co., 48 Md. 49. Branch railroads, under the Missouri act of March 21, 1868, are practically independent lines and not included in an exemption from taxation in the charter of the main line ; Chicago, B. & K. C. R. v. Gulley, 120 U. S. 569, 7 Sup. Ct. 693, 30 L. Ed. 732 ; State v. R. Co., 99 Mo. 30, 12 S. W. 290, 6 L. R. A. 222. Reduction of the number of trains on a branch road of which the business is lessened by charter of a competing line, will not operate as a forfeiture of the charter of the main line ; Com. v. Quinn, 12 Gray (Mass.) 180.