current authority or action either of the state or the local authorities. The license, however, exists subject to reasonable regulation by local public authorities. The interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution operates as a restriction upon the rights of the latter in the respect named. The subject has been fully considered and in detail in a recent text book.10 1067 Local consent for grant of authority. Local or subordinate governmental agencies are each vested by the state with desig nated powers in respect to the regulation, use or control of public property or public affairs within their respective limits and it follows that a grant or license for the use or occupation of the public highways for the construction and operation of water, light, power, telephone or telegraph plants to be valid must be secured from that public organization having jurisdiction. The consent of an official body proceeding without authority whether that of original power or as depending upon its territorial jurisdiction clearly can confer no rights upon individuals or corporations to carry on any of the occupations named.10 1067 Joyce, Elec. Law, c. 4. 1068 Bradley V. Southern New England Tel. Co., 66 Conn. 559, 32 L. R. A. 280; Trotier v. St. Louis, B. & S. R. Co., 180 Ill. 471, 54 N. E. 487; Huffman v. State, 21 Ind. App. 449, 52 N. E. 713; Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Huntsinger, 14 Ind. App. 156, 42 N. E. 640; Board of Com'rs of Hamilton County v. Indianapolis Nat. Gas Co., 134 Ind. 209, 33 N. E. 972; Chicago & C. T. R. Co. v. Whiting, H. & E. C. St. R. Co., 139 Ind. 297. County commissioners. Drew v. Town of Geneva, 150 Ind. 662, 42 L. R. A. 814. Village trustees. Suburban Light & Power Co. v. Aldermen of Boston, 153 Mass. 200, 10 L. R. A. 497. Town selectmen. Boston & M. R. Co. v. City of Portsmouth, 71 N. H. 21, 51 Atl. 664; Bergen Traction Co. v. Ridgefield Tp. Committee (N. J. Eq.) 32 Atl. 754; Suburban Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Inhabitants of 1068 East Orange (N. J. Err. & App.) 44 Atl. 628, affirming 41 Atl. 865; West Jersey Traction Co. V. Camden Horse R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 163, 35 Atl. 49; Stockton v. Atlantic Highlands, R. B. & L. B. Elec. R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 418, 32 Atl. 680; Borough of Madison v. Morristown Gaslight Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 356, 54 Atl. 439; Lewis v. Chosen Freeholders of Cumberland, 56 N. J. Law, 416. County board of freeholders. Johnson v. Thomson-Houston Elec. Co., 54 Hun, 469, 7 N. Y. Supp. 716. Village trustees. Consumers' Gas & Elec. Co. v. Congress Spring Co., 39 N. Y. State Rep. 703, 15 N. Y. Supp. 624; Town of Wheatfield v. Tonawanda St. R. Co., 92 Hun, 460, 36 N. Y. Supp. 744; Secor v. Village of Pelham Manor, 6 App. Div. 236, 39 N. Y. Supp. 993. Village of Hempstead V. Balt Elec. Light Co., 9 App. Div. 48, 41 N. Y. Supp. 124. Rights of village § 899. Mode of grant. The state may grant permission for the occupation and use of public highways by either general laws or special acts where the latter are not prohibited by constitutional provisions.1069 Where the consent of a municipality is necessary, it is usually secured by the passage of ordinances or resolutions or that which is the equivalent of local legislative action.1070 The validity of the trustees to maintain an equitable action to restrain unlawful interference with a village highway. City of New York v. Third Ave. R. Co., 117 N. Y. 646, 22 N. E. 755; Palmer v. Larchmont Elec. Co., 158 N. Y. 231, 52 N. E. 1092, 43 L. R. A. 672, reversing 6 App. Div. 12, 39 N. Y. Supp. 522; Ghee v. Northern Union Gas Co., 158 N. Y. 510, 53 N. E. 692; In re Rochester Elec. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 351, affirming 57 Hun, 56, 10 N. Y. Supp. 379; Union St. R. Co. v. Hazleton & N. S. Elec. R. Co., 154 Pa. 422; Delaware County & P. Elec. R. Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 164 Pa. 457, 30 Atl. 396; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Montgomery County Pass. R. Co., 167 Pa. 62, 31 Atl. 468, 27 L. R. A. 766. The consent of township supervisors must be also secured from them when acting together and in their official character. Rahn Tp. v. Tamaqua & L. St. R. Co., 167 Pa. 84, 31 Atl. 472; Galveston & W. R. Co. v. City of Galveston, 90 Tex. 398, 39 S. W. 96, 36 L. R. A. 33. An attempt by a city to enforce a condition outside its jurisdiction will be futile. Norfolk R. & Light Co. v. Consolidated Turnpike Co., 100 Va. 243, 40 S. E. 897; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bullard, 65 Vt. 634. Village officials. Schwede v. Hemrich Bros. Brewing Co., 29 Wash. 21, 69 Pac. 362. 1069 In re Portland R. Extension Co., 94 Me. 565, 48 Atl. 119. The law may provide for the determination of a public necessity for the construction of a street railway. 1070 Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank V. Arkansas City (C. C. A.) 76 Fed. 271, 34 L. R. A. 518; City of Morristown v. East Tennessee Tel. Co., 115 Fed. 304; Eisenhuth v. Ackerson, 105 Cal. 87, 38 Pac. 530. Right to franchise dependent upon twothirds vote of a town or city from which the right must emanate. Hall v. City of Cedar Rapids, 115 Iowa, 199, 88 N. W. 448. Under Iowa Code, § 955, which requires notice of an application for a franchise for the construction of water works, the terms of the franchise as proposed cannot be materially changed from the notice as originally drawn, nor after the question has been submitted to a vote. In re Milbridge & C. Elec. R. Co., 96 Me. 110, 51 Atl. 818; Suburban Light & Power Co. v. Aldermen of Boston, 153 Mass. 200, 10 L. R. A. 497; State v. Cowgill & Hill Mill. Co., 156 Mo. 620, 57 S. W. 1008. The privilege granted by ordinance cannot be modified by resolution. Taylor v. City of Lambertville, 43 N. J. Eq. 107, 10 Atl. 809. Camden Horse R. Co. v. West Jersey Traction Co., 58 N. J. Law, 102, 32 Atl. 72. Authority to locate tracks of a traction company can only be exercised by the city coun grant under these circumstances will be determined by the legality of the affirmative action and the questions which are involved have been considered under the sections relating to legislative bodies and their proceedings.1071 The affirmative action of voters may be required by law.1072 cil after the giving of notices as required by Act of March 14th, 1893 (Pamph. Laws, p. 302); Act May 16th, 1894 (Pamph. Laws, p. 374) and granting a hearing to persons interested. See, also, as holding the same, Avon by-the-Sea Land & Imp. Co. v. Borough of Neptune City, 57 N. J. Law, 701, 32 Atl. 220, and as construing Act of March 24th, 1890 (Pamph. Laws, p. 113) Suburban Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Inhabitants of East Orange (N. J. Eq.) 41 Atl. 865. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Inhabitants of Hamilton Tp., 67 N. J. Law, 477, 51 Atl. 926; West Jersey Traction Co. v. Board of Public Works of City of Camden, 58 N. J. Law, 536, 37 Atl. 578; Adamson v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 68 N. Y. State Rep. 851, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1073; Secor v. Village of Pelham Manor, 6 App. Div. 236, 39 N. Y. Supp. 993; Tuttle v. Brush Elec. Ill. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. (18 J. & S.) 464; Hough v. Smith, 37 Misc. 363, 75 N. Y. Supp. 451; Morrow County Ill. Co. v. Village of Mt. Gilead, 10 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 235; Watson v. Fairmont & S. R. Co., 49 W. Va. 528, 39 S. E. 193; Higgins v. Manhattan Elec. Light Co., Limited (N. Y.) 3 Am. Electrical Cas. 167; City of St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 63 Fed. 68, 5 Am. Electrical Cas. 50. 1071 See §§ 496 et seq., ante and § 567. Halsey v. Town of Lake View, 188 III. 540, 59 N. E. 234; State v. Omaha & C. B. R. & Bridge Co., 113 Iowa, 30, 84 N. W. 983, 52 L. R. A. 315; Sullivan v. Bailey, 125 Mich. 104, 83 N. W. 996; Van Reipen v. City of Jersey City (N. J.) 33 Atl. 740. Where the power exists to contract for a water supply, the court can in passing upon it only determine whether there has been a violation of legal principles or a failure to comply with prescribed formalities. Borough of Brigantine v. Holland Trust Co. (N. J. Eq.) 35 Atl. 344; People's Gaslight Co. v. Jersey City, 46 N. J. Law, 297; Moore v. West Jersey Traction Co., 62 N. J. Law, 386, 41 Atl. 946. 1072 Thomson Houston Elec. Co. v. City of Newton, 42 Fed. 723; Cartersville Improvement, Gas & Water Co. v. City of Cartersville, 89 Ga. 683, 16 S. E. 25; Cartersville Water-Works Co. v. City of Cartersville, 89 Ga. 689, 16 S. E. 70; City of Keokuk v. Ft. Wayne Elec. Co., 90 Iowa, 67, 57 N. W. 689; Hanson v. Hunter, 86 Iowa, 722, 48 N. W. 1005, 53 N. W. 84; Mitchell v. City of Negaunee, 113 Mich. 359, 38 L. R. A. 157; Lamar Water & Elec. Light Co. v. City of Lamar (Mo.) 26 S. W. 1025; Aurora Water Co. v. City of Aurora, 129 Mo. 540, 31 S. W. 946. An increase in the number of hydrants need not be submitted to the voters for their approval. Childs v. Hillsborough Elec. Light & Power Co., 70 N. H. 318, 47 Atl. 271; Squire v. Preston, 82 Hun, 88, 31 N. Y. Supp. 174; In re Village of Le Roy, 23 Misc. 53, 50 N. Y. Supp. 611; Mayo v. Town of Washington, $900. Grant subject to regulation. Whatever may be the mode by which one supplying water, light or a similar service to a community secures his legal right to do this, the grant is taken subject not only to a reserved right of regulation when expressly made, 1073 but also to the implied right of a public corporation to exercise the police power and tomaintain and protect public property in the condition and for the purpose for which originally acquired.1074 The rules and regulations in this respect must be, however, reasonable, and must be obeyed by the company or individual.1075 The law in this respect has been clearly stated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court 122 N. C. 5, 29 S. E. 343, 40 L. R. A. 163. 1073 See, also, §§ 912 et seq., post. 1074 Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307. "This power of regulation is a power of government, continuing in its nature; and if it can be bargained away at all, it can only be by words of positive grant, or something which is in law equivalent. If there is reasonable doubt, it must be resolved in favor of the existence of the power." City of St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 U. S. 465; Wabash R. Co. v. City of Defiance, 167 U. S. 88; Pikes Peak Power Co. v. City of Colorado Springs, 105 Fed. 1; Stein V. Bienville Water Supply Co., 34 Fed. 145; City Council of Montgomery v. Capital City Water Co., 92 Ala. 361, 9 So. 339; Appeal of Central R. & Elec. Co., 67 Conn. 197, 35 Atl. 32; City of Quincy v. Bull, 106 III. 337; City of Rushville v. Rushville Natural Gas Co., 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853, 15 L. R. A. 321; Natick Gas Light Co. v. Inhabitants of Natick, 175 Mass. 246, 56 N. E. 292. A gas company is not entitled to compensation for the expense which it has incurred in tak ing up and relaying its gas mains occasioned by a change in the grade of the street. City of Westport v. Mulholland, 84 Mo. App. 319; State v. Inhabitants of Trenton, 53 N. J. Law, 132, 20 Atl. 1076, 11 L. R. A. 410; Lewis v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Cumberland, 56 N. J. Law, 416, 28 Atl. 553; American Rapid Tel. Co. v. Hess, 125 N. Y. 641, 26 N. E. 919, 13 L. R. A. 454; Frankford & P. Pass. R. Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 58 Pa. 119; City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 107 Tenn. 647, 64 S. W. 1075, 61 L. R. A. 888. Water rates may be regulated under an exercise of the police power of the city. 1075 Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 159 Ill. 369, 42 N. E. 781; Michigan Tel. Co. v. City of Benton Harbor, 121 Mich. 512, 80 N. W. 386, 47 L. R. A. 104; City of Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo Heat, Light & Power Co., 124 Mich. 74, 82 N. W. 811; Benton v. City of Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 693, 40 Atl. 1132; Com. v. Warwick, 185 Pa. 623, 40 Atl. 93; Appeal of City of Pittsburgh, 115 Pa. 4, 7 Atl. 778. of the United States,1076 where it was said in the opinion by Chief Justice Fuller: "If the company, as it asserted, possessed the right to place electric wires beneath the surface of the streets, that right was subject to such reasonable regulations as the city deemed best to make for the public safety and convenience, and the duty rested on the company to comply with them. If requirements were exacted or duties imposed by the ordinances, which, if enforced, would have impaired the obligations of the company's contract, this did not relieve the company from offering to do those things which it was lawfully bound to do. The exemption of the company from requirements inconsistent with its charter could not operate to relieve it from submitting itself to such police regulations as the city might lawfully impose." They may be adopted after the passage of the original grant to occupy and use the highways if within the exercise of existing lawful powers.1077 The subject of regulation will be further considered in other sections. Power of public corporation to change grade of highway or otherwise improve it. Any individual or corporation accepting a grant or license from a public corporation for the use of the public highways takes it subject to the continuing power of the corporation conferred upon it for the public benefit to grade and improve its highways. This power, as already stated, is not exhausted by its first exercise nor can it, in the absence of statutory authority, be bargained or ceded away. A licensee or grantee of the right under consideration is not entitled, therefore, to compensation for any expense or damage which it may incur or suffer in taking up and relaying its pipes, mains, subways, tracks, poles, wires or other portions of its plant and which may be occasioned by a change in the grade of the highway in which they have theretofore been placed or by any public im 1076 Missouri v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 78. 1077 Hot Springs Elec. Light Co. v. City of Hot Springs, 70 Ark. 300, 67 S. W. 761. A regulation cannot be required which will in effect change or abrogate the existing contract. In re Johnston, 137 Cal. 115, 69 Pac. 973; People v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 Ill. 268, 22 N. E. 798, 8 L. R. A. 497; City of Rushville v. Rushville Natural Gas Co., 131 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853; City of Noblesville v. Noblesville Gas & Imp. Co., 157 Ind. 162, 60 N. E. 1032; Traverse City Gas Co. v. Traverse City, 130 Mich. 17, 89 N. W. 574; City of Westport v. Mulholland, 84 Mo. App. 319. See, also, cases cited in preceding note. |