An elevated railroad is an additional bur den on the highway ; Koch v. Ry. Co., 75 Md. 222, 23 Atl. 463, 15 L. R. A. 377 ; Story v. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 123, 43 Am. Rep. 146 ; American Bank Note Co. v. R. Co., 129 N. Y. 252, 29 N. E. 302 ; De Geofroy v. R. Co., 179 Mo. 698, 79 S. W. 386, 64 L. R. A. 959, 101 Am. St. Rep. 524; In re Opinion of the Justices, 208 Mass. 603, 94 N. E. 849. Their structures are incompatible with the free and unobstructed use of the street and abut ting property owners are entitled to an in junction unless their rights have been prop erly acquired by the company and they have received compensation therefor. See Story v. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146; Reining v. Ry. Co., 128 N. Y. 157, 28 N. E. 640, 14 L. R. A. 133; Kane v. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 278, 11 L. R. A. 640; Hughes v. Ry. Co., 130 N. Y. 14, 28 N. E. 765 ; Fobes v. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 505, 24 N. E. 919, 8 L. R. A. 453. Though not owning the soil of the street, they have easements of light, air, and access therein ; Hughes v. Ry. Co., 130 N. Y. 14, 28 N. E. 765 ; Story v. Ry. Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146.
Non-abutting property owners are not enti tled to damages by reason of the use of a street by an elevated railway ; Mooney v. R. Co., 16 Daly (N. Y.) 145; Ottinger v. R. Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 238.
An elevated railway in New York which has not acquired the right from abutting pro prietors is -a continuous trespass upon their property which gives rise to a separate cause of action at law for, damages. See Pappen helm v. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 436, 28 N. E. 518, 13 L. R. A. 401, 26 Am. St. Rep. 486. Equity will prevent the continuance of trespass by including as damages injuries permanently resulting from the interference of easement with light, air, and access. An abutting owner has a right of action for the pollution of air by smoke.
Constructing an elevated railroad on pil lars in a public street is held not to consti tute a new servitude or an unlawful use of the street ; Morris v. Traction Co., 143 Ala. 246, 38 South. 834 ; contra, Muhlker v. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 549, 66 N. E. 558; Calumet & C. C. & D. Co. v. Morawetz, 195 Ill. 398, 63 N. E. 165.
Constructing a subway under the surface of streets is an additional servitude, so that compensation must be made for the property actually taken and for injury done to the remainder ; In re Board of Rapid Transit R. Com'rs, 197 N. Y. 81, 90 N. E. 456. The owner of the soil may recover damages from the construction of a railroad on a street dedicated by him for ordinary street pur poses ; Jarrett Lbr. Corp. v. Christopher, 65 Fla. 379, 61 South. 831.
In Pennsylvania a street railway on a country road in a township is an additional burden on the highway and cannot be con structed without the consent of abutting property owners, though it is otherwise as to the streets of a city or borough ; Pennsyl vania R. R. v. P. Ry., 167 Pa. 62, 31 AU. 468, 27 L. R. A. 766, 46 Am. St. Rep. 659.
An electric street railway between cities and towns for the transportation of passen gers, merchandise, and baggage imposes an additional servitude on the highway ; CM- I cago & N. W. R. Co. v. R. Co., 95 Wis. 561, 701 N. W. 678, 37 L. R. A. 856, 60 Am. St. Rep. 136 r contra, Mordhurst v. Traction Co., 163 Ind. 268, 71 N. E. 642, 66 L. R. A. 105, 106 Am. St. Rep. 222, 2 Ann. Cas. 967.
It is said that equity will not relieve an abutting property owner but will leave him to his remedy at law ; D. M. Osborne v. R. Co., 147 U. S. 248, 13 Sup. Ct. 299, 37 L. Ed. 155. But the rule appears to be otherwise in Pennsylvania. See Pennsylvania R. R. v. P. Ry., 167 Pa. 62, 31 Atl. 468, 27 L. R. A. 766, 46 Am. St. Rep. 659.
gee HIGHWAYS.
Abutting owners have sufficient interest in the streets to entitle them to question the va lidity of a franchise to construct, and oper ate a street railway system thereon; Specht v. R. Co. (N. J.) 68 Atl. 785; such an owner may enjoin the laying of a railway track on the street in front of his premises, where it is about to be laid without authority of law ; Allen v. Clausen, 114 Wis. 244, 90 N. W. 181; but it has also been held that the validity of an ordinance granting the use of the streets for telegraph and telephone lines (attacked on the ground that it imposes an additional burden on the street and also grants an ex clusive franchise) will not be inquired into in behalf of private citizens who do not suf fer injuries not inflicted upon the general body of citizens; Patton v. Chattanooga, 108 Tenn. 197, 65 S. W. 414.
Ordinarily, a franchise to build a street railway is not exclusive; Grand Rapids St. R. Co. v. R. Co., 48 Mich. 433, 12 N. W. 643.
Ordinarily street railways have no right of eminent domain.
In Reeves v. Traction Co., 152 Pa. 163, 25 Atl. 516, the court seemed to consider that the right to build a passenger railway car ries with it, at least in the absence of specific denial, the right from time to time, to oper ate it by new methods, but the point was not decided. An ordinance permitting the build ing of a horsecar railway covers an electric railway; Hudson IL Tel. Co. v. Ry. Co., 135 N. Y. 393, 32 N. E. 148, 17 L. R. A. 674, 31 Am. St. Rep. 838.