Steam railroads on highways impose an ad ditional burden thereby and cannot be built without compensation to abutting land-own ers; Cox v. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178; Attorney General v.. R. Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 386 ; Penn sylvania S. V. R. Co. v. Walsh, 124 Pa. 544, 17 Atl. 186, 10 Am. St. Rep. 611; contra, Taggart v. R. Co., 16 R. I. 668, 19 Ad. 326, 7 L. R. A. 205 ; Newell v. R. Co., 35 Minn. 112, 27 N. W. 839, 59 Am. Rep. 303 ; Fulton v. Ry. T. Co., 85 Ky. 640, 4 S. W. 332, 7 Am. St. Rep. 619. In the absence of constitution al provisions, the legislature may authorize the use of streets by a steam or street rail road without municipal consent ; Atlantic & R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228 ; Savan nah & T. R. Co. v. Savannah, 45 Ga. 602.
The legislature may authorize a railroad to be constructed under, as well as upon, high ways ; and when so constructed, the rights of the land-owners are determined upon the same principles as if they were built upon the surface ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Rean ey, 42 Md. 117. It may also authorize elevat ed railroads, or railroads built upon struc tures raised above the highway ; Peirce, Railr. 248. See In re New York Elev. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 327 ; Gilbert Elev. R. Co. v. Kobbe, 70 N. Y. 361; Currier v. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 487, Fed. Cas. No. 3,493; In re Kings Co. Elev. R. Co., 82 N. Y. 95. But a company incorporated as a street passenger railroad cannot build an elevated railroad over and along the streets of Philadelphia ; Corn. v. El. Ry. Co., 161 Pa. 409, 29 Ad. 112.
The construction of the road must be with in the prescribed limits of the charter. The right of deviation secured by the charter or general laws is lost when the road is once located ; Little Miami R. Co. v. Naylor, 2 Ohio St. 235, 59 Am. Dec. 667 ; Morris & E.
R. Co. v. ft. Co., 31 N. J. L. 205. The.loca tion can then be changed only by act of legis lature ; Mason v. R. Co., 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 373 ; Mississippi & T. R. Co. v. Devaney, 42 Miss. 555, 2 Am. Rep. 608 ; Morris & E. R. Co. v. R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 205. Distance, hav ing 'reference either to the length of the line or to deviation, is to be measured in a straight line through a horizontal plane ; 9 Q. B. 76 ; Barker v. R. Co., 27 Vt. 766. But charters must be taken to allow such dis cretion in the location of the route as is in cident to an ordinary practical survey there of, with reference to the nature of the coun try; Southern Min. R. Co. v. Stoddard, 6
Minn. 150 (Gil. 92). A right to build to a city named imports a right to extend within the city limits ; Rio Grande R. Co. v. Browns ville, 45 Tex. 88. Where a location of a ter minus was fixed at or near P. it was that a point a mile and a half from P. was a compliance with the charter ; Appeal of Parke, 64 Pa. 137. A deviation from the line specified in the charter will not be permit ted ; Corn. v. R. Co., 27 Pa. 339, 67 Am. Dec. 471; but slight deviations may be allowed ; Wood, Ry. 1104. A charter power to change the location of the line in case of any obsta cle to the one first selected, will authorize a relocation before, but not after, the line has been constructed ; Atkinson v. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21. Ordinarily the courts will not interfere with the selection of a route; Hentz v. R. Co., 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 646.
A railroad company constructing its line is bound to do so in a careful manner ; and if it is so constructed it is not liable to ad jacent property owners ; but if it appears that it exceeded its authority, or exercised, it negligently, it will become liable ; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Woosley, 85 Ill. 370; Wood ' man v. R. Co., 149 Mass. 335, 21 N. E. 482, 4 L. R. A. 213, 14 Am. St. Rep. 427; Slatten v. R. Co., 29 Ia. 153, 4 Am. Rep. 205. So if the injury amounts to taking property, as by the destruction of an easement.
A company cannot build only part of its charter line ; People v. R. Co., 126 N. Y. 29, 26 N. E. 961. It cannot abandon a part; G. C. R. Co. v. R. Co., 63 Tex. 529.
Liability for the acts of contractors, sub contractors, and agents. The company are not liable for the act of a contractor or sub contractor, or their agents, if it be not in doing precisely what is contemplated in the contract; 6 M. & W. 499 ; Hilliard v. Rich ardson, 3 Gray (Mass.) 349, 63 Am. Dec. 743.
See INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Railroad companies are liable for the acts of their agents within the range of their em ployment ; and for all acts of their agents within the most extensive range of their charter-powers ; Philadelphia &.R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 483, 14 L. Ed. 502; Noyes v. R. Co., 27 Vt. 110 ; but not for the wilful acts of their agents, out of the range of their employment, unless directed by the company or subsequently adopted by them ; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Divinney, 66 Kan. 776, 71 Pac. 855.