bargained away.958 The power possessed to be exercised for the protection of public rights is govermental in its nature and, therefore, cannot be lost in any way so long as there remains an object or right in respect to which it may be exercised.95 The determination of public authorities that an act or a use of a highway constitutes an obstruction is usually conclusive. The authority for the removal must be strictly followed and where the statutes provide for the commencement of proceedings by certain designated officials, those brought by others, 961 or not in the manner provided, must be dismissed.962 960 The right as vested in an individual. It is seldom that a private individual possesses the legal right to personally remove an obstruction or abate a nuisance though instances where this is permitted have occurred.963 V. 958 City of Grand Rapids Hughes, 15 Mich. 54. See, also, §§ 912, 913, post. 959 Sheen v. Stothart, 29 La. Ann. 630; Compton v. Waco Bridge Co., 62 Tex. 715. 960 Vanderhurst v. Tholcke, 113 Cal. 147, 45 Pac. 266, 35 L. R. A. 267; Morrison v. Howe, 120 Mass. 565; Lewis v. Ballston Terminal R. Co., 45 App. Div. 129, 60 N. Y. Supp. 1035. In an action for damages for placing an obstruction in a highway, the question of whether or not there was a reasonable necessity therefor is one of fact for the jury. Chase v. City of Oshkosh, 81 Wis. 313, 51 N. W. 560, 15 L. R. A. 553. 961 Hall v. Kauffman, 106 Cal. 451, 39 Pac. 756; San Benito County v. Whitesides, 51 Cal. 416; Bailey v. Dale, 71 Cal. 34, 11 Pac. 804; Bequette v. Patterson, 104 Cal. 282, 37 Pac. 917; Savage v. Cass County Com'rs, 10 Ill. App. 204; Town of Chatham v. Mason, 53 Ill. 411; Powell County v. Kentucky Lumber Co., 15 Ky. L. R. 577, 24 S. W. 114; Allen v. Hiles, 67 N. J. Law, 135, 50 Atl. 440; Lawrence R. Co. v. Mahoning County Com'rs, 35 Ohio St. 1; Appeal of North Manheim Tp. (Pa.) 14 Atl. 137; Woodward v. South Carolina & G. R. Co., 47 S. C. 233, 25 S. E. 146; State v. Wolfe, 61 S. C. 25, 39 S. E. 179. Concurrent jurisdiction may be by different bodies or officials. 962 Mather v. Simonton, 73 Ind. 595; Sloan v. Rebman, 66 Iowa, 81; Ackerman v. True, 31 Misc. 597, 66 N. Y. Supp. 140; Rozell v. Andrews, 103 N. Y. 150; State v. Smith, 54 Vt. 403. 963 Wellborn v. Davies, 40 Ark. 83; Bidinger v. Bishop, 76 Ind. 244; Inhabitants of Arundel v. McCulloch, 10 Mass. 70; White v. Leonidas Tp. Highway Com'rs, 95 Mich. 288, 54 N. W. 875; Currier v. Davis, 68 N. H. 596, 41 Atl. 239; Goldsmith v. Jones, 43 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 415; Higgins v. Grove, 40 Ohio St. 521; Williams v. Fink, 18 Wis. 265. But see Corthell v. Holmes, 88 Me. 376, 34 Atl. 173; State v. Galvin, 27 Minn. 16; Morris & E. R. Co. v. § 880. Mode of removal. Obstructions or nuisances are summarily removed or abated usually through arbitrary official action on the part of the public authorities with or without notice where this mode is authorized,964 Newark Pass. R. Co., 51 N. J. Eq. 379; People v. Keating, 62 App. Div. 348, 71 N. Y. Supp. 97, reversed in 168 N. Y. 390, 61 N. E. 637. See, also, § 885, post. 964 Winter v. City of Montgomery, 83 Ala. 589, 3 So. 235. Permission of a city council to construct a veranda which obstructs a sidewalk is a revocable license merely and an order for its removal without paying the owner is not the taking of property without compensation. Freshour v. Hihn, 99 Cal. 443, 34 Pac. 87; City of Hartford v. Hartford St. R. Co., 73 Conn. 327, 47 Atl. 330. Sufficiency of notice. Keating v. McDonald, 73 Conn. 125, 46 Atl. 871; Laing v. City of Americus, 86 Ga. 756, 13 S. E. 107; Hatton v. Village of Chatham, 24 Ill. App. 622; Caldwell v. Town of Pre-emption, 74 Ill. App. 32; Epler v. Niman, 5 Ind. 459; Cook v. Gaylord, 91 Iowa, 219, 59 N. W. 30; Carver v. Com., 75 Ky. (12 Bush) 264; Witt v. Hughes, 23 Ky. L. R. 1836, 66 S. W. 281; Colburn v. Kittridge, 131 Mass. 470. Whittier v. McIntyre, 59 Me. 143. A statutory provision for the removal of fences from a highway "under indictment of a conviction" does not provide an exclusive remedy. People v. Smith, 42 Mich. 138; Willson v. Gifford, 42 Mich. 454; White v. Leonidas Tp. Highway Com'rs, 95 Mich. 288, 54 N. W. 875; Krueger v. Le Blanc, 62 Mich. 70, 28 N. W. 757; Id., 75 Mich. 424; Osborn v. Longsduff, 70 Mich. 127; Kurz v. Turley, 54 Mo. App. 237; Bierwith v. Pieronnet, 65 Mo. App. 431; City of Concord v. Burleigh, 67 N. H. 106, 36 Atl. 606; New York & L. B. R. Co. v. Borough of South Amboy, 57 N. J. Law, 252, 30 Atl. 628. Obstructions in a street cannot be summarily and forcibly removed where its legal existence is in dispute. City of Cape May v. Cape May, D. B. & S. R. Co., 60 N. J. Law, 224, 37 Atl. 892, 39 L. R. A. 609, modifying 34 Atl. 397; Delaware & A. Tel. Co. v. Committee of Pensauken Tp., 67 N. J. Law, 91, 50 Atl. 452. An attempt to remove poles placed in a street under color of right is illegal. Traphagen v. Jersey City, 52 N. J. Law, 65; Kane v. City of Troy, 48 Hun, 619, 1 N. Y. Supp. 536; Olendorf v. Sullivan, 59 Hun, 620, 13 N. Y. Supp. 6; Hathaway v. Jenks, 67 Hun, 289, 22 N. Y. Supp. 421; Moore v. Village of Fairport, 11 Misc. 146, 32 N. Y. Supp. 633; Electric Power Co. v. City of New York, 29 Misc. 48, 60 N. Y. Supp. 590. After failure to comply with notice to place wires underground they may be summarily cut by the public officials. Cook v. Harris, 61 N. Y. 448; Kellogg v. Thompson, 66 N. Y. 88; James v. Sammis, 132 N. Y. 239, 30 N. E. 502; Town of Sardinia v. Butler, 149 N. Y. 505, 44 N. E. 179, reversing 78 Hun, 527, 29 N. Y. Supp. 481; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. or by civil proceedings which have for their purpose not only the removal or abatement of the nuisance as it exists but their recurrence through writs of injunction.965 The plan of procedure to be followed is prescribed by ordinances or statutes and vary not only in the different states but from time to time in each of them. They may be pursued by either the public authorities 960 City of Buffalo, 158 N. Y. 266, 53 N. E. 44; Whittaker v. Ferguson, 16 Utah, 240, 51 Pac. 980; Neff v. Paddock, 26 Wis. 546; Pauer v. Albrecht, 72 Wis. 416, 39 N. W. 771; Nicolai v. Davis, 91 Wis. 370, 64 N. W. 1001. But see Childs v. Nelson, 69 Wis. 125, 33 N. W. 587. 965 City of Detroit v. Detroit City R. Co., 56 Fed. 867; Draper v. Mackey, 35 Ark. 497; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. City of Quincy, 136 Ill. 489; Strunk v. Pritchett, 27 Ind. App. 582, 61 N. E. 973; Lebanon Tp. v. Burch, 78 Mich. 641; Fox v. City of Winona, 23 Minn. 10. Erection of awning post. Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44 Minn. 536, 47 N. W. 255; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Thomas, 75 Miss. 54; Inhabitants of Trenton v. McQuade, 52 N. J. Eq. 669, 29 Atl. 354; Adler v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 46 N. Y. State Rep. 253, 18 N. Y. Supp. 858; Com. V. Pittston Ferry Bridge Co., 176 Pa. 394, 35 Atl. 240. It is error to decree the removal of a bridge pier from the limits of a highway where it is not found to what extent if any it encroaches upon it. Schwede V. Hemrich Bros. Brew. Co., 29 Wash. 21, 69 Pac. 362; Town of Neshkoro v. Nest, 85 Wis. 126, 55 N. W. 176; City of Eau Claire v. Matzke, 86 Wis. 291, 56 N. W. 874; City of Madison v. Mayers, 97 Wis. 399, 40 L. R. A. 635. But see Attorney General v. Bay State Brick Co., 115 Mass. 431. 966 Reede v. City of Birmingham, 92 Ala. 339, 9 So. 961; City of Mobile v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 124 Ala. 132, 26 So. 902; Peck v. Los Angeles County Sup'rs, 90 Cal. 384, 27 Pac. 301; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. City of Quincy, 136 Ill. 489, 27 N. E. 232; McCormick v. South Park Com'rs, 150 Ill. 516; Com. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 20 Ky. L. R. 606, 47 S. W. 258. The fiscal court of each county as well as the circuit court have jurisdiction of proceedings relative to the obstruction of public roads. City of Big Rapids v. Comstock, 65 Mich. 78. Where a building encroached on the street only four and one-half inches, an order for a decree directing the walls to be torn down should be reversed. Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44 Minn. 536, 47 N. W. 255; Lockwood v. Wabash R. Co., 122 Mo. 86, 24 L. R. A. 516; Nixon v. Town of Biloxi (Miss.) 5 So. 621; Town of Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co., 68 N. H. 89, 39 Atl. 1019; City of Newark v. Delaware L. & W. R. Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 196, 7 Atl. 123; Borough of Brigantine v. Holland Trust Co. (N. J. Eq.) 35 Atl. 344. The power to remove nuisances and obstructions must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. Lathrop v. City of Morristown, 65 N. J. Law, 467, 47 Atl. 450; Darby v. Nash, 52 N. J. Law, 127; Trustees of Presbyterian Church V. or in some cases by private individuals who have sustained injuries distinct and peculiar and different from those sustained by the public at large. 967 In proceedings for an injunction, the usual rules in respect to necessary and sufficient evidence 968 and necessity for the writ 969 obtain and it must also clearly appear that there is no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the desired relief.970 Electrical Subway Com'rs, 55 N. J. Law, 436; Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Newton, 51 Hun, 639, 4 N. Y. Supp. 593. The power to remove obstructions from a street may be delegated. Village of Hempstead v. Ball Elec. R. Co., 9 App. Div. 48, 41 N. Y. Supp. 124. 967 Cabbell v. Williams, 127 Ala. 320, 28 So. 405; Goggans v. Myrick, 131 Ala. 286, 31 So. 22; First National Bank of Montgomery v. Tyson, 133 Ala. 459, 32 So. 144, 59 L. R. A. 399; San Jose Ranch Co. v. Brooks, 74 Cal. 463, 16 Pac. 250; Marini v. Graham, 67 Cal. 130; Atwood v. Partree, 56 Conn. 80, 14 Atl. 85; Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. Hardey, 112 Ga. 604, 37 S. E. 888, 52 L. R. A. 396; Earll v. City of Chicago, 136 Ill. 277, 26 N. E. 370; Sunderland v. Martin, 113 Ind. 411, 15 N. E. 689; Pittsburgh C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Noftsger, 148 Ind. 101, 47 N. E. 332; Powell v. Bunger, 91 Ind. 64; Matlock v. Hawkins, 92 Ind. 225; Miller v. Schenck, 78 Iowa, 372, 43 N. W. 225; Billard v. Erhart, 35 Kan. 611; Shields .v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 16 Ky. L. R. 849, 29 S. W. 978; Holmes v. Corthell, 80 Me. 31, 12 Atl. 730; Roberts v. Fitzgerald, 33 Mich. 4; Thelen v. Farmer, 36 Minn. 225, 30 N. W. 670; Shero v. Carey, 35 Minn. 423; Bailey v. Culver, 84 Mo. 531; Parsons v. Travis, 8 N. Y. Super. Ct. (1 Duer) 439; Callanan v. Gilman, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. (20 J. & S.) 112; Halleran v. Bell Tel. Co., 64 App. Div. 41, 71 N. Y. Supp. 685; Wakeman v. Wilbur, 147 N. Y. 657, 42 N. E. 341, reversing 51 Hun, 638, 4 N. Y. Supp. 938; Coatsworth v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 156 N. Y. 451, 51 N. E. 301; Philadelphia & T. R. Co. v. Philadelphia & B. Pass. R. Co., 6 Pa. Dist. R. 269; Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. v. Jones, 111 Pa. 204; Hill v. Hoffman (Tenn. Ch. App.) 58 S. W. 929; Johnson v. Maxwell, 2 Wash. St. 482, 27 Pac. 1071; Wilson v. West & Slade Mill Co., 28 Wash. 312, 68 Pac. 716. See, also, § 885. 968 Smith v. Talbot, 77 Cal. 16; People v. Young, 72 Ill. 411; Barnard v. Nacomis Highway Com'rs, 172 Ill. 391, 50 N. E. 120; Carlin v. Wolf, 154 Mo. 539, 51 S. W. 679, 55 S. W. 441; Town of New Castle v. Haywood, 67 N. H. 178; City of Philadelphia's Appeal, 78 Pa. 33. 969 Inhabitants of Raritan Tp. v. Port Reading R. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 11, 23 Atl. 127, citing Att'y Gen. v. New Jersey & T. R. Co., 3 N. J. Eq. (2 H. W. Green) 136; Inhabitants of Woodbridge v. Inslee, 37 N. J. Eq. (10 Stew.) 397. People v. Equity Gas Light Co., 141 N. Y. 232, 36 N. E. 194. 970 Murphy v. Harbison, 29 Ark. 340; Columbia County Com'rs v. Bryson, 13 Fla. 281; Montana Tp. v. Ruark, 39 Kan. 109, 18 Pac. 61; Statutes may also impose penalties for obstructing public highways or interfering with public property.971 Removal of natural obstructions. Highways may be also obstructed by the fall of snow or the presence of natural objects. These may be arbitrarily removed when sanctioned by public officials as an exercise of a discretionary power vested in them to improve highways and streets and to preserve and maintain them in a proper condition for travel. 972 The removal of trees under Inhabitants of Needham v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 152 Mass. 61, 25 N. E. 20; Township of Lebanon V. Burch, 78 Mich. 641, 44 N. W. 148. 971 Sierra County v. Butler, 136 Cal. 547, 69 Pac. 418. A statute providing for the recovery of a penalty for obstructing a highway is an exclusive remedy. Bailey V. Dale, 71 Cal. 34, 11 Pac. 804; Freshour v. Hihn, 99 Cal. 443, 34 Pac. 87; Hall v. Kauffman, 106 Cal. 451; Blakeslee v. Tyler, 55 Conn. 397, 11 Atl. 855; Scott v. Town of New Boston, 26 Ill. App. 108; Wragg v. Penn Tp., 94 Ill. 11; Boyd v. Town of Farm Ridge, 103 Ill. 408; Township of Madison v. Gallagher, 159 III. 105, 42 N. E. 316; Town of Wheatfield v. Grundmann, 164 Ill. 250, 45 N. E. 164; White v. Town of Foxborough, 151 Mass. 28, 23 N. E. 652; Pettinger v. People, 20 Mich. 336; Parker v. People, 22 Mich. 93; Hines v. Darling, 99 Mich. 47, 57 N. W. 1081. Obstructing ditch. Overseer of Highways of Road Dist. No. 4 v. Pelton, 129 Mich. 31, 87 N. W. 1029; Hines v. Darling, 99 Mich. 47; Hariston v. Francher, 15 Miss. (7 Smedes & M.) 249; Town of Corning v. Head, 86 Hun, 12, 33 N. Y. Supp. 360; Lawrence R. Co. v. Mahoning County Com'rs, 35 Ohio St. 1. The measure of damages ordinarily under the Ohio Act 1873 is the cost of removing the obstructions and restoring the highway to its former condition. State v. Floyd, 39 S. C. 23, 17 S. E. 505; State v. Smith, 52 Wis. 134; State v. Pomeroy, 73 Wis. 664, 41 N. W. 726. There is a clear distinction between an encroachment and an obstruction in a highway and an action to cover penalty for obstructing a highway does not lie where the remedy is by proceeding according to the statute to determine whether an encroachment has been made. State v. Childs, 109 Wis. 233, 85 N. W. 374. 972 Vanderhurst v. Tholcke, 113. Cal. 147, 45 Pac. 266, 35 L. R. A. 267; Ely v. Parsons, 55 Conn. 83, 10 Atl. 499; City of Mt. Carmel v. Shaw, 155 Ill. 37, 39 N. E. 584, 27 L. R. A. 580, reversing 52 Ill. App. 429; Wilson v. Simmons, 89 Me. 242, 36 Atl. 380; Gaylord v. King, 142 Mass. 495. Trustees. Chase v. City of Lowell, 149 Mass. 85, 21 N. E. 233; Miller v. Detroit, Y. & A.. A. R. Co., 125 Mich. 171, 84 N. W. 49, 51 L. R. A. 955. The right to remove shade trees is dependent under the statute upon giving notice and an opportunity to the owner to remove them and this is true whether the removal is sought by the public authorities or one to whom the use of the streets for the construction of an electric railway |