The Consent of the local authorities once given and accepted and acted upon, cannot be revoked; Asheville St. Ry. Co. v. Ashe ville, 109 N. C. 688, 14 S. E. 316; Rio Grande R. Co. v. Brownsville, 45 Tex. 88 ; unless re served ; Medford & C. R. Co. v. Somerville, 111 Mass. 232.
The use of its tracks by a railway com pany may be temporarily interrupted by municipal authorities, when necessary for the purpose of repairs on the streets ; Kirby v. R. Co., 48 Md. 168, 30 Am. Rep. 455; Phil adelphia & G. F. P. R. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 358 ; Middlesex R. Co. v. Wakefield, 103 Mass. 262.
Where a route has been established under the direction of the local authorities, the com pany cannot change the location so fixed without a new consent for that purpose ; In re South Beach Ry. Co., 53 Hun 131, 6 N. Y. Supp. 172. The local authorities may permit the tracks to be relaid on another part of the street; Hoyle v. R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 535 ; and may compel a change where it has re served the right so to do ; West Philadelphia Passenger Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 70. A railway company may adopt any gauge for its track which it sees fit and afterwards change the same, in the absence of anything to the contrary ; Millvale v. Ry. Co., 131 Pa. 1, 18 Atl. 993, 7 L. R. A. 369 ; and it may ordinarily adopt any kind of rails and change the same from time to time ; Trenton v. R. Co. (N. J.) 19 Atl. 263; but the rails used must be such as not to inter fere with the use of the street by the pub lic; Easton S. E. & W. E. P. Ry. Co. v. Eas ton, 133 Pa. 505, 19 Atl. 486, 19 Am. St. Rep. 658.
A city cannot grant the use of its streets to so many companies as to impair its public use ; Grand Rapids St. R. Co. v. Ry. Co., 48 Mich. 433, 12 N. W. 643. It cannot, ordina rily, grant the right to build in a city park ; New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 26 La. Ann. 478 ; Jacksonville v. Ry. Co., 67 Ill. 540. But see People v. R. Co., 76 Cal. 156, 18 Pac. 141; Philadelphia v. McManes, 175 Pa. 33, 34 Atl. 331; PARK.
The legislature, unless forbidden by the constitution, may grant a right to lay a street railway in a street ; People's Pas senger R. Co. of Memphis v. R. Co., 10 Wall.
(U. S.) 38, 19 L. Ed. 844 ; Paterson & P. H. R. Co. v. Paterson, 24 N. J. Eq. 158.
Many cases hold that a street railway is not a new servitude on the street, for which the owners of abutting lands are entitled to compensation ; Phillips v. R. Co„ 89 Kan.
835, 133 Pac. 429 ; Baker v. R. Co., 130 Ala. 474, 30 South. 464 ; Barsaloux v. Chicago, 245 Ill. 598, 92 N. E. 525 ; Stein v. Ry. Co., 132 Ky. 322, 116 S. W. 733 ; Paterson & P. H. R. Co. v. Paterson, 24 N. J. Eq. 158 ; Hodges v. R. Co., 58 Md. 603 ; Grand Rapids & I. R. R. Co. v. Heisel, 38 Mich. 66, 31 Am. Rep. 306; Hobart v. R. Co., 27 Wis. 194, 9 Am. Rep. 461; Elliott v. R. Co., 32 Conn. 579 ; Attorney General v. R. Co., 125 Mass. 515, 28 Am. Rep. 264; contra, Jaynes v. R. Co., 53 Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67, 39 L. R. A. 751; and their consent to the construction of such railways is not necessary; but see an able dissenting opinion, Detroit City Ry. v. Mills, 85 Mich. 634, 48 N. W. 1007. It has been held that the abutting owner may recover where the tracks were laid next the curb ; Cincinnati & S. G. A. St. R. Co. v. Cummins ville, 14 Ohio St. 523.
It is held that this is so even if steam motors are used in propelling the cars ; Briggs v. R. Co., 79 Me. 363, 10 Atl. 47, 1 Am. St. Rep. 316 ; Newell v. R. Co., 35 Minn. 112, 27 N. W. 839, 59 Am. Rep. 303 ; or electric ity; Detroit City Ry. v. Mills, 85 Mich. 634, 48 N. W. 1007; Koch v. R. Co., 75 Md. 222, 23 Atl. 463, 15 L. R. A. 377 ; Taggart v. St. Ry. Co., 16 R. I. 668, 19 Atl. 326, 7 L. R. A. 205. But as to whether the use of steam on street railways imposes an additional servi tude, the weight of judicial opinion is said to be very nearly evenly balanced ; Booth, Rys. § 86.
The substitution of cable propulsion for horse power was held to impose no new ser vitude on the street ; People v. Newton, 112 N. Y. 396, 19 N. E. 831, 3 L. R. A. 174 ; In re Third Ave, Ry. Co., 121 N. Y. 536, 24 N. E. 951, 9 L. R. A. 124; Lone v. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. 270.
In New York it is held that street rail ways impose an additional burden on the streets ; Craig v. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 404 ; Fobes v. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 505, 24 N. E. 919, 8 L. R. A. 453 ; unless the fee of the soil of the street is vested in the city ; Chenango B. Co. v. Bridge Co., 27 N. Y. 108; but even then the abutting owner has a right of action if access to his property is cut off ; Rasch v. R. Co., 198 N. Y. 385, 91 N. E. 785, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 645 ; Reining v. Ry. Co., 128 N. Y. 157, 28'N. E. 640, 14 L. R. A. 133.