Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Photograph to Preliminary Examination >> Poles


co, electric, st, rep, am, telephone, highway and city

POLES. The erection of poles in a street or on the sidewalk is an obstruction of the highway, hnd, like all other obstructions, is only justified when done under authority of law ; People v. Tel. Co., 31 Hun (N. Y.) 596 ; Keasbey, Electric Wires. Where authorized, they must be erected in such manner as to cause the least interference with public trav el and this condition is implied even if it were not expressed in the authority given ; id.; in a proper case it is left to the jury to determine the question of damage; 15 N. J. L. J. 50; Wolfe v. Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 320; see Roberts v.' Tel. Co., 77 Wis. 589, 46 N. W.

800, 20 Am. St. Rep. 143 ; but the rule of rea sonable care does not require the company to provide against all contingencies of accident or inconvenience ; Sheffield v. Tel. Co., 36 Fed. 164. It has been justly said that the question of damage arising from the obstruc tion of a highway by poles, depends largely on the extent of the right of the public which is under the control of the legislature, and subject to the exercise of its discretion in legalizing new uses of the highway ; Kees bey, Electric Wires 157.

The question most discussed with respect to poles, has been whether their erection iS a legitimate use of the street, and whether it imposes a new servitude on the land of the abutting owner. The substitution of electricity for horse power is said not to be a change of use; Keasbey, Electric Wires 106; but a different view was taken by the New Jersey supreme court; 15 N. 3. L. J. 39, 45.

That they are an additional burden : Pos tal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 Ill. 513, 49 N. E. 365, 39 L. R. A. 722, 62 Am. St.. Rep. 390 (telegraph on highway) ; Goddard v. R. Co., 202 Ill. 362, 66 N. E. 1066 (electric on highway); Bronson v. Tel. Co., 67 Neb. 111, 93 N. W. 201, 60 L. R. A. 426, 2 Ann, Cas. 639 (poles on street or highway); An dreas v. Electric Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 69, 47 Atl. 555 (electric on highway); Brown v. Electric Co., 138 N. C. 533, 51 S. E. 62, L. R. A. 631, 107 Am. St. Rep. 554 (electric on railway); Donovan v. Allert, 11 N. a 289, 91 N. W. 441, 58 L. R. A. 775, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720 (telephone in city); Cosgriff v. Tel. Co., 15 N. D. 210, 107 N. W. 525, 5 L. R. A. ,(N. S.) 1142 (rural telegraph and tele phone); Callen v. Electric L. Co., 66 Ohio St. 166, 64 N. E. 141, 58 L. R. A. 782 (electric in city) ; Krueger v. Tel. Co., 106 Wis. 96, 81 N. W. 1041, 50 L. R. A. 298 (telephone in city) ; Gray v. Tel. Co., 92 App. Div. 89, N. Y. Supp. 771 (rural telephone); Western Union Tel. CO. v. Williams, 86 Va. 696, 11

S. E. 106, 8 L. R. A. 429, 19 Am. St. Rep. 908 (county roads).

That they are not an additional burden: Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 49 N. E. 951, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358 (telephone in city); McCann v. Tel. Co., 69' Kan. 210, 76 Pac. 870, 66 L. R. A. 171, 2 Ann. Cas. 156 (rural telephone); Cumberland Tel: & Tel. Co. v. Avritt, 126 Ky. 34, 85 S. W. 204, 8 Ann. Cas. 955 (same); People v. Eaton, 100 268, 59 N. W. 145, 24 L. R. A. 721 (rural telegraph); Gulf Coast I. & M. Co. v: Bowers, 80 Miss. 570, 32 South. 113 lefty's electric plant); Frazier v. Tel. Co., 115 Tenn. 416, 90 S. W. 620, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 323, 112 Am. St. Rep. 856, 5 Ann. Cas. 838 (telephone in city) ; Lowther v. Bridgeman, 57 W. Va: 306, 50 S. E. 410 (rural telephone); Kirby v. Tel. Co., 17 S. D. 362, 96 N. W. 3, 2 Ann. Cas. 152 (telephone in city).

Where the right' to erect poles is recoe- nized, the courts will regulate strictly the manner in which the privilege is used. An injunction has been granted against the erection of broken or unsightly poles ; For sythe v. Tel. Co., 12 Mo. App. 494; so the poles must be set with as little damage as possible and the cutting off trees to clear the way for them will be a ground for re covering damages'; Dailey v. State, 51 Ohio St. 348, 37 N. E. 710, 24 L. R. A. 724, 46 Am. St. Rep. 578; Memphis Bell Tel: Co. v. Hunt. 16 Lea (Tenn.) 4o6, 1 S. W. 159, 57 Am. Rep. 237; Tissot v. Tel. Co., 39 La. Ann. 996, 3 South. 261, 4 Am. St. Rep. 248.

The poles and fixtures of a telephone com pany erected along the highway by permis sion of the locality are chattels and may be seized and sold on execution, as they do not become part of the realty ; Readfield Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cyr, 95 Me. 287, 49 Atl. 1047; but the poles and wires of an electric light plant have been held appurtenances to the realty on which the operating plants were built ; Capital City Gas Light Co. v. Ins. Co., 51 Ia. 31, 50 N. W. 579; Fechet v. Drake, 2 Ariz. 239, 12 Pac. 694; Badger Lumber Co. v. Power Co., 48 Kan. 182, 29 Pac. 476, 15 L. IL A. 652, 30 Am. St. Rep. 301. In another case they were held not fixtures to the land on which the electric light is generated or appurtenant thereto for the purpose of taxa tion as real estate, though they could not be assessed as personal property because not within the enumeration of the statute; New port Illuminating Co. v. Tax Assessors, 19 R. I. 632, 36 Atl. 426, 36 L. R. A. 266.