MENT.
Highways are created either by legisla tive authority or by dedication.
First, by legislative authority. In Eng land, the laying out of highways is regulated by act of parliament; in this country, by general statutes, differing in different states. In England, the uniform practice is to pro vide a compensation to the owner of the land taken for highways. In the act au thorizing the taking, in the United States, such a provision must be made, or the act will be void under the clause in the federal and in the several state constitutions that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The amount of such compensation may be determined either by a jury or by commissioners, as shall be prescribed by law; 1 Bla. Com. 139; Highw. 233 ; 8 Price 535; MeMasters v. Com., 3 Watts (Pa.) 292; Williams v. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 97, 69 Am. Dec. 651; Ford v. R. Co., 14 Wis. 609, 80 Am. Dec. 791. In case the statute makes no provision for indemnity for land to be taken, an injunction may be obtained to prevent the taking ; Beekman v. R. Co., 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 45, 22 Am. Dec. 679; Gardner v. Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. (N.
Y.) 162, 7 Am. Dec. 526; Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247 ; see Kern v. Isgrigg, 132 Ind. 4, 31 N. E. 455 ; or an action at law may be maintained after the damage has been com mitted; Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 165, 15 Am. Dec. 462 ; Denslow v. New Haven & N. Co., 16 Conn. 98, and cases cited above. See EMINENT DOMAIN.
Second. by dedication, which title see.
The owner of the land over which it passes retains the fee and all rights of property not incompatible with the public enjoyment, such as the right to the herbage, the trees and fruit growing thereon, or minerals below, and may work a mine, sink a drain or cellar, or carry water in pipes beneath it, or sell the soil If it be done without injury to the highway ; 4 Viner, Abr. 502; Com. Dig.
Chemin (A 2) ; Makepeace v. Worden, 1 N. H. 16'; U. S. v. Harris, 1 Sumn. 21, Fed. Cas. No. 15,315; McDonald v. Lindall, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 495; Harris v. Elliott, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 25, 9 L. Ed. 333; Higgins v. Reynolds, 31 N. Y. 151; Holden v. Shattuck, 34 Vt. 336, 80 Am. Dec. 684; Woodruff v. Neal, 28 Conn. 165 ; Farnsworth v. Rockland, 83 Me. 508, 22 Atl. 394; Page v. Belvin, 88 Va. 985, 14 S. E. 843; Bradley v. Pharr, 45 La. Ann. 426, 12 South. 618, 19 L. R. A. 647; Daily v. 51 Ohio St. 348, 37 N. E. 710, 24 L. R. A. 724, 46 Am. St. Rep. 578; [1893] 1 Q. B. 142; Ellsworth v. Lord, 40 Minn. 337, 42 N. W. 389; Chelsea Dye House Co. v. Com., 164 Mass. 350, 41 N. E. 649; but see Kane v. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278, 11 L. R. A. 640; Challiss v. R. Co., 45 Kan. 398, 25 Pac. 894. The title to a spring within the right of way of a turnpike company is in the owner, who may use the water as he pleases, and the turnpike company has no right in such spring; Upper Ten Mile Plank Road Co. v. Braden, 172 Pa. 460, 33 Atl. 562, 51 Am. St. Rep. 759. The owner may maintain eject ment for encroachments on the highway or an assize If disseized of it ; 3 Kent 432; Adams, Eject. 19; Cooper v. Smith, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 26, 11 Am. Dec. 658; Peck v. Smith, 1 Conn. 135, 6 Am. Dec. 216 ; 2 Sm. Lead. Cas. 141; Thomas v. Hunt, 134 Ai°. 392, 35