STREET RAILWAYS. As to the difference between street and steam railways, see su pra.
When a railway is laid in a street, to fa cilitate its use by the public, it is a street railway; Nichols v. R. Co., 87 Mich. 371, 49 N. W. 538, 16 L. R. A. 371, so, if confined within the limits of a city and to be used ex clusively under the streets; In re New York Dist. R. Co., 107 N. Y. 52, 14 N. E. 187. It makes no difference whether it be on, above, or below the surface; id.; see supra; or what kind of motor power it uses; Williams v. R. Co., 41 Fed. 556. The difference be tween street railroads and steam railroads lies in their use and not in their motive pow er; Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v. Hamilton, 88 Fed. 588, 32 C. C. A. 46.
Street railroads belong• to surface of an open. highway. They must conform to the grade of the highway. A street railway has been said to be one which is used ex pressly for the transportation of passengers, and which stops its cars at frequent inter vals to take on passengers. Halsey v. R. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859 ; Du Bois T. P. R. Co. v. R. Co., 149 Pa. 1, 24 Atl. 179. But the carriage of freight is now commonly al lowed.
The right to permit their construction or refuse consent, is often vested in the local authorities. A city cannot, without legisla tive authority, grant the right to build a street railway; Des Moines St. R. R. Co. v. R. Co., 73 Ia. 513, 33 N. W. 610, 35 N. W. 602; Chi cago v. Evans, 24 III. 52 ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228 ; Covington St. Ry. Co. v. Covington, 9 Bush (Ky.) 127. See People's Railroad v. R. R., 10 Wall. (U. S.) 38, 19 L. Ed. 844. But the power to open and improve streets has been held to con fer such authority; State v. Ry. Co., 85 Mo. 263, 55 Am. Rep. 361; so of a pow er to regulate and improve streets and reg ulate vehicles thereon ; Brown v. Duplessis, 14 La. Ann. 842. It is also held that it cannot grant an exclusive right without leg islative authority ; Jackson Co. Horse R. Co. v. Ry. Co., 24 Fed. 306; New Orleans City & L. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 748, 11 South. 77; which must be ex press: Booth, Rys. § 17. Where the author ity is express, it cannot be delegated; State v. Bell, 34 Ohio St. 194.
A city cannot grant to individuals the ex clusive right to lay tracks ; Heath v. Ry. Co., 61 Ia. 11, 15 N. W. 573; State v. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 79 ; Coleman v. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 201; contra, Henderson v. Ry. Co., 7 Utah 199, 26 Pac. 286.
Ordinarily, and apart from constitutional or statutory provisions, a second company May be authorized to lay additional tracks ; Oakland R. Co. v. R. Co., 45 Cal. 365, 13 Am. Rep. 181; Koch v. Ry. Co., 75 Md. 222, 23 Atl. 463, 15 L. R. A. 377.
It is held that the local authorities, when their consent to building a street railway is required by law, may impose any condi tions they choose; Detroit v. Ry. Co., 37 Mich. 558 ; Plymouth Tp. v. Ry., 168 Pa. 181, 32 Atl. 19 ; but it has been also held that if the conditions imposed by the local authorities relate to matters over which the legislature has entire control, the acts of the legislature cannot be affected by the local authorities; In re Kings Co. Elev. R. Co., 105 N. Y. 97, 13 N. E. 18. The legislature may impose conditions other than, and in ad dition to, those prescribed by the constitu tion, and the local authorities may prescribe conditions additional to both the constitu tional and statutory provisions on the sub ject ; In re Thirty-Fourth St. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 343, 7 N. E. 172. Where a municipality has the right to control the use of its streets, its action is not subject to judidial control; Hogencamp v. R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. 83; For man v. R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 446, 4 South. 246 ; Booth, Rys. § 40.
Where local authorities have granted a right to construct a street railway, they cannot, without the consent of the compa ny and in the absence of a reserved right so to do, impose additional obligations ; Elec tric Ry. Co. v. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich. 257, 47 N. W. 567 ; as, the use of iron poles in stead of wooden poles; id.; or requiring the railway company to pave and keep in re pair a portion of the street outside of the tracks; Western P. & S. Co. v. R. Co., 128 Ind. 525, 26 N. E. 188, 28 N. E. 88, 10 L. R. A. 770, 25 Am. St. Rep. 462.