The erection of trolley poles in the middle of the street does not entitle the abutting owners to compensation ; Halsey v. Ry. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859. Where electric railways are authorized the authority ex tends to the necessary and proper apparatus for operating them ; Lockhart v. Ry. Co., 139 Pa. 419, 21 AU. 26; including poles and wires ; Halsey v. Ry. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859. But where this right encroaches on property rights of an abutting owner it should be so exercised by the company as to minimize the inconveniences and danger to such rights; Paterson Ry. Co. v. Grundy, 51 N. J. Eq. 213, 26 Atl. 788.
Poles must be so placed as not to interfere with the rights of ingress and egress to abut ting property ; Detroit City Ry. v. Mills, 85 Mich. 634, 48 N. W. 1007 ; stringing a wire along the street twenty feet above the Buf f:9:m is no interference with the right to light and air ; Paterson Ry. Co. v. Grundy, 51 N. J. Eq. 213, 26 Atl. 788. See Puma; WIRES.
If a street railway is constructed and op erated without lawful authority, it is a nui sance ; Larimer & L. St. Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 137 Pa. 533, 20 Atl. 570; Denver & S. Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 2 Colo. 673 ; Nichols v. Ry. Co., 87 Mich. 361, 49 N. W. 538, 16 L. R. A. 3711 and a railroad company cannot grant to an individual a right to operate a rail road for his private purposes over a part of its line which it does not use ; Fanning v. Osborne, 102 N. Y. 441, 7 N. E. 307.
Where the use of a street is unlawful, an injunction will lie at the suit of an abutting owner ; Roberts v. Easton, 19 Ohio St. 73 ; contra, State v. Ry. Co., 16 R. I. 533, 18 Atl. 161; Glaessner v. Brew. Ass'n, 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W. 707 ; McCartney v. R. Co., 112 611; or at the suit of a duly authorized pub lic officer ; Coast Line R. Co. v. Cohen, 50 Ga. 451; Fanning v. Osborne, 102 N. Y. 441, 7 N. E. 307; a company so operating a steam road may be indicted for a nuisance ; Com. v. R. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.) 93; and, by anal ogy, a street railway ; Booth, Rys. § 4.
A municipality can maintain proceedings in the nature of quo warranto to oust a street railway company of its franchises for non-user ; State v. R. Co., 140 Mo. 539, 41 S. W. 955, 38 L. R. A. 218, 62 Am. St. Rep. 742.
A right or permit from a municipality to construct a street railway on a given street, is not a part of the company's franchise, but is property, and is an incorporeal right ; Met ropolitan City Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 87 Ill. 317.
Street railway companies are subject to regulation by statutes and by ordinances un der the police power ; Booth, Rys., § 221; such as ordinances regulating the speed of cars ; Robertson v. R. Co., 84 Mo. 119; Han lon v. R. Co., 129 Mass. 310 ; requiring cars to stop at designated places ; Citizens' St. Ry. v. Steen, 42 Ark. 321; requiring the wa tering of tracks; City & S. R. Co. v. Savan nah, 77 Ga. 731, 4 Am. St. Rep. 106; forbid ding the use of sand upon tracks ; Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co. v. New York, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 221.
The legislature can compel an interchange of transfers between two street railways that are independently owned and operated; Dis trict of Columbia v. Traction Co., 41 Wash. L. Rep. 766.
Where a railway company has not built all the line specified in its charter and has abandoned a part of what it had built its charter is subject to forfeiture ; People v. R.
Co., 126 N. Y. 29, 26 N. E. 961; G. C. R. Co. v. R. Co., 63 Tex. 529.
A street railway company owns the struc ture laid by it in the highway, and has a superior right to the space covered by its track ; POrce, Rallr. 252. See Com. v. Tem ple, 14 Gray (Mass.) 69 ; Adolph v. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530. The public, on foot or in cloi riages, may cross its tracks, and travel oil the spaces covered by it, and even inci dentally drive ordinary carriages on the rails. But a person driving a carriage on the track should leave it without retarding the cars; Adolph v. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530; Chicago W. D. R. Co. v. Bert, 69 III. 388. It is also held that an electric street railway company has a common right in the highway with other travellers, not a superior right, and they must be so managed as not unnec essarily to interfere with the like rights of others ; Laufer v. Traction Co., 68 Conn. 475, 37 Atl. 379, 37 L. R. A. 533. But its rails cannot be used by other competing com mon carriers driving •railway or other car riages, withotit special legislative authority ; Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330 ; Cam den H. R. Co. v. Coach Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 525; Central City H. R. Co. v. R. Co., 81 Ill. 523.
A street railway company has the use of tracks which it maintains under a claim of right, though not actually used by it ; Penn sylvania Steel Co. v. Ry. Co., 191 Fed. 216.
A company may remove snow from its track to another part of the street, but in so doing, it must avoid unnecessary injury to the owners of property ; Short v. R. Co., 50 Md. 73, 33 Am. Rep. 298.
When an electric street railway car is stop ping at a crossing, it should not run its car in an opposite direction on the other track without warning pedestrians; Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott, 58 N. J. L. 682, 341 Atl. 1094, 33 L. R. A. 122, 55 Am. St. Rep. 620 ; Driscoll v. Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 553, 32 Pac. 591, 33 Am. St. Rep. 203 ; contra, Scott v. R. Co., 61 Hun 627, 16 N. Y. Supp. 350; but one who crosses a street behind a moving car at a place which is not a regular crossing, is bound to look for cars on the other track ; Thompson v. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 196, 39 N, E. 709; though It is held that a 'passenger alighting from a car has a right to presume that the other track will be kept clear ; Chi cago City Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 127 Ill. 9, 18 N. E. 772, 4 L. R. A. 126, 11 Am. St. Rep. 87; Dobert v. Ry. Co., 91 Hun 28, 36 N. Y. Supp. 105; but it is also held that it is a question of ordinary care; Buzby v. Trac tion Co., 126 Pa. 559, 17 Atl. 895, 12 Am. St. Rep. 919. Where a passenger alights from a car on a double track trolley line, it is the duty of the company to regulate the speed of its cars and to give such warning of their approach as will reasonably protect the.pas senger from injury ; Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Snell, 54 Ohio St. 197, 43 N. E. 207, 32 L. R. A. 276.
That an injury was caused by a street car running at a greater rate of speed than that prescribed by a municipal ordinance is held in some cases to establish negligence per ae; Weber v. Ry. Co., 100 Mo. 194, 12 S. W. 804,