using natural gas for the same identical purposes,1100 and one authorized to furnish gas from supplying electricity.1107 As a rule where a grant is made for the supply of a specific commodity, that grant is not impaired by the giving of a license to other parties to furnish a commodity resulting in the same benefit.1108 § 908. Grant of license upon condition. A public corporation, however advantageous the business of supplying certain commodities like water, light or power may be to the community, is not because of that fact under any obligation. to grant a license or enter into a contract for the purpose under consideration.1109 It is, therefore, free to attach to the granting of the right such conditions as it may deem of advantage to itself,111 an option to purchase, for example,1111 or which may be necessary in order to enable it to properly exercise its own public powers and perform its governmental duties.1112 The con 1106 Erie Min. & Natural Gas Co. V. Gas Fuel Co., 15 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 399. 1107 Scranton Elec. Light & Heat Co. v. Scranton Illuminating Heat & Power Co., 122 Pa. 154, 15 Atl. 446, 1 L. R. A. 285. 1108 Johnston's Appeal (Pa.) 7 Atl. 167; Warren Gaslight Co. v. Pennsylvania Gas Co., 161 Pa. 510. 1109 Eureka Light & Ice Co. v. City of Eureka, 5 Kan. App. 669, 48 Pac. 935. 1110 Southern Bell Teleg. & Tel. Co. v. City of Richmond (C. C. A.) 103 Fed. 31, affirming 98 Fed. 671. A telephone company accepting certain conditions is bound by them even though a municipal council is not authorized under the statute to exact them. Logansport R. Co. v. City of Logansport, 114 Fed. 688. Consent of common council necessary. City of New Britain v. New Britain Tel. Co., 74 Conn. 326, 50 Atl. 881, 1015. Construing condition to maintain inde pendent telephone line. Sioux City St. R. Co. v. City of Sioux City, 78 Iowa, 742, 39 N. W. 498; Brown v. Du Plessis, 14 La. Ann. 842; State v. City of New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 268; Township of Grosse Pointe v. Detroit & L. St. C. R. Co., 130 Mich. 363, 90 N. W. 42; Virginia City Gas Co. v. Virginia City, 3 Nev. 320; Trenton St. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 276, 49 Atl. 481; Davidge v. Com mon Council of Binghamton, 62 App. Div. 525, 71 N. Y. Supp. 282. 1111 Montgomery Gas-Light Co. v. City Council of Montgomery, 87 Ala. 245, 6 So. 113, 4 L. R. A. 616; Keokuk Gas-Light & Coke Co. v. City of Keokuk, 80 Iowa, 137, 45 N. W. 555. See § 932, post. 1112 Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. v. Collins Park & B. R. Co., 101 Fed. 347. Construing condition reserving in municipalities the power to secure an entrance to the heart of a city for other lines of road. Pikes Peak Power Co. v. City of ditions which are ordinarily found relate to a free supply of water or light to the municipality, to the construction and operation of the plant,111 and a consideration, monetary or Colorado Springs, 105 Fed. 1; Citizens' Horse R. Co. v. City of Belleville, 47 Ill. App. 388; State v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 548, 31 S. W. 784, 34 S. W. 51, 35 S. W. 1132, 34 L. R. A. 369. A grant of a subway which reserves to the city no control over the business or rules of the company is ultra vires. Conover V. Long Branch Commission, 65 N. J. Law, 167, 47 Atl. 222. 1113 National Water-works Co. v. School Dist. No. 7, 4 McCrary, 198, 48 Fed. 523; State Trust Co. v. City of Duluth, 104 Fed. 632; Boise City Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 123 Fed. 232; City and County of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water-works Co., 48 Cal. 493; Boise City v. Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co., 4 Idaho, 351, 39 Pac. 562; Commercial Bank v. City of New Orleans, 17 La. Ann. 190; City of New Orleans V. Great Southern Telep. & Tel. Co., 40 La. Ann. 41. National Water-works Co. v. Kan. sas City School Dist., 23 Mo. App. 227. School buildings are not public buildings of a city within the meaning of that phrase as used in a contract to furnish free water to "public buildings of the city." Water Supply Co. of Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 9 N. M. 441, 54 Pac. 969; Borough of Easton v. Lehigh Water Co., 97 Pa. 554; St. Clair School Dist. v. Monongahela Water Co., 166 Pa. 81, 31 Atl. 71; Kensington Elec. Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 187 Pa. 446, 41 Atl. 309; City of Memphis v. Memphis Water Co., 67 Tenn. (8 Baxt.) 587. Such a condition will be strictly construed in favor of the company. See the following cases: Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 1. Where a supply of free water is based upon a fixed exemption, the withdrawal of the exemption will release it from its obligation in this respect. Hawes V. Contra Costa Water Co., 5 Sawy. 287, Fed. Cas. No. 6,235; City and County of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Waterworks Co., 48 Cal. 493; Commercial Bank v. City of New Orleans, 17 La. Ann. 190; City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Water-works Co., 36 La. Ann. 432; Spring Brook Water Co. v. Pittston, 203 Pa. 233, 52 Atl. 249; Ashland Water Co. v. Ashland County, 87 Wis. 209, 58 N. W. 235. 1114 Lanning v. Osborne, 76 Fed. 319. A consumer whose right to demand a supply of water from the company as now vested is protected in this right. People v. Sutter St. R. Co., 117 Cal. 604, 49 Pac. 736. A provision in a street railway franchise which conflicts with § 502 Civil Code, is necessarily invalid. Leadville Water Co. v. City of Leadville, 22 Colo. 297, 45 Pac. 362; Grand Junction Water Co. v. City of Grand Junction, 14 Colo. App. 424, 60 Pac. 196; Coverdale v. Edwards, 155 Ind. 374, 58 N. E. 495. The condition may be the right of the council to revoke the license at pleasure. Village of Dearborn v. Detroit, Y., A. A. & J. R. Co., 131 Mich. 19, 90 N. W. 688; City of Stillwater v. Lowry, 83 Minn. 275, 86 N. W. 103; Board of otherwise, in favor of the public corporation after competitive bidding.1115 Limitations may be placed upon the location of the Finance of Jersey City v. Board of Street and Water Com'rs, 55 N. J. Law, 230, 26 Atl. 92; In re Loader, 35 N. Y. Supp. 996, 999; Jones v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Co., 168 N. Y. 65, 60 N. E. 1044. Laws 1890, c. 566, § 65, requires gas companies to supply any owner or occupant of a building in compliance with certain conditions with gas under certain penalties. Plymouth Tp. v. Chestnut Hill & N. R. Co., 168 Pa. 181, 32 Atl. 19; Wood v. City of Seattle, 23 Wash. 1, 62 Pac. 135, 52 L. R. A. 369. Condition for compulsory arbitration of all disputes arising between the street railway company and its employes held valid. 1115 People v. Craycroft, 111 Cal. 544, 44 Pac. 463. Act March 23d, 1893, statutes 1893, p. 288, which requires that "every franchise or privilege to erect or lay telegraph or telephone wires, to construct or operate railroads along or upon any public street or highway, or to exercise any other privilege whatever" proposed to be granted by the governing body of any town must be advertised and given to the highest bidder, does not apply to the grant of the right of way to a steam railroad company through a town. Pereria v. Wallace, 129 Cal. 397, 62 Pac. 61; Borough of Ridley Park V. Citizens' Elec. Light & Power Co., 7 Del. Co. R. 395. An ordinance requiring an electric light company to pay a fixed sum for each of its poles comes within the proper exercise of the police power. State v. Herod, 29 Iowa, 123. The grant of an exclusive right for the construction and maintenance of street railway lines does not exempt the company from paying the license fee provided by prior ordinance to be paid by all persons engaged in carrying passengers. Keith v. Johnson, 22 Ky. L. R. 947, 59 S. W. 487; East Louisiana R. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 526, 15 So. 157. La. Act 1888, No. 135, § 4, applies only to a sale of a railroad franchise to a street railway operated within the city and not to steam commercial railroads. New Orleans City & L. R. Co. v. Watkins, 48 La. Ann. 1550, 21 So. 199; Abraham v. Meyers, 29 Abb. N. C. 384, 23 N. Y. Supp. 225, 228; Adamson v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 68 N. Y. State Rep. 851, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1073; In re Empire City Traction Co., 4 App. Div. 103, 38 N. Y. Supp. 983; Southern Boulevard R. Co. v. Peoples Traction Co., 39 N. Y. Supp. 266; Johnson v. City of Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 445; City of Allegheny v. Millville, E. & S. St. R. Co., 159 Pa. 411, 28 Atl. 202; Cavanaugh v. Pawtucket, 23 R. I. 102, 49 Atl. 494. Linden Land Co. v. Milwaukee R. & Light Co., 107 Wis. 493, 83 N. W. 851. A grant of a franchise by a city without receiving any compensation but on the consideration that the company shall charge a reduced fare does not constitute a surrender of the property rights of the city such as would authorize a suit by a tax payer to restrain the acceptance of the franchise by the railway company. The special franchise tax im plant, both in respect to its buildings and also its mains, pipes, wires and other facilities for distributing its commodity.1116 The materials used in construction may also be designated in the grant and the manner in which the distributing part of the plant erected. It is well known that the manufacture and distribution of electricity for purposes of lighting and power is attended with great danger to the public. Currents are generated which are exceedingly destructive to both life and property if the apparatus conducting them is not properly constructed and insulated.1117 Corporations may be required to grant the use of poles or tracks to other companies under certain conditions,1118 and the rights of posed by N. Y. Laws, 1899, c. 712, was sustained in People v. New York State Board of Tax Com'rs, 199 U. S. 1, where the court held that the imposition and collection of a license fee did not exempt a street railroad company from the tax imposed by the law above cited under this franchise. See, also, People v. New York State Board of Tax Com'rs, 199 U. S. 48, and a number of other cases decided at the same time and following the leading case first given above. 1116 Ricketts v. Birmingham St. R. Co., 85 Ala. 600; Canastota Knife Co. v. Newington Tramway Co., 69 Conn. 146, 36 Atl. 1107; Norwalk & S. N. Elec. Light Co. v. Common Council, 71 Conn. 381, 42 Atl. 82; Marshall v. City of Bayonne, 59 N. J. Law, 101, 34 Atl. 1080; Meyers v. Hudson County Elect. Co., 60 N. J. Law, 350, 37 Atl. 618. 1117 Missouri v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 78; Id., 130 Mo. 10; City of Denver v. Sherret (C. C. A.) 88 Fed. 226; National Subway Co. v. City of St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551, 46 S. W. 981, 42 L. R. A. 113. Joyce, Elec. Law § 438. 1118 Chicago, St. P. & K. C. R. Co. v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 52 Fed. 178; Pacific R. Co. v. Wade, 91 Cal. 449, 27 Pac. 768, 13 L. R. A. 754; Hook v. Los Angeles R. Co., 129 Cal. 180, 61 Pac. 912; Bergin v. Southern New England Tel. Co., 70 Conn. 54, 38 Atl. 888, 39 L. R. A. 192; Chicago General R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 63 Ill. App. 464; Canal & C. R. Co. v. Orleans R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 54, 10 So. 389; New Orleans & C. R. Co. v. Canal & C. R. Co., 47 La. Ann. 1476, 17 So. 834; State v. King, 104 La. 735, 29 So. 359. The right may exist without its being made an express condition on the part of the city to authorize other street railroads to use certain tracks. Koch v. North Ave. R. Co., 75 Md. 222, 23 Atl. 463, 15 L. R. A. 377; North Baltimore Pass. R. Co. v. North Ave. R. Co., 75 Md. 233, 23 Atl. 466. The condition exists, the fact that another street railway company may use a different power is immaterial. Citizens' Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Sands, 95 Mich. 551, 55 N. W. 452, 20 L. R. A. 411; Union Depot R. Co. v. Southern R. Co., 105 Mo. 562, 16 S. W. 920; Grand Ave. R. Co. v. Peoples' R. Co., 132 Mo. 34, 33 S. W. 472; Grand Ave. R. Co. v. Citizens' electric light, telephone and telegraph companies restricted in respect to the trimming of shade trees.1119 Consent of abutters. The consent of abutting property ownersmay be imposed as a condition precedent to the lawful construction of street railways or laying of water or gas pipes or electric wires, even in those communities where the fee of the highway is vested in the public corporation and irrespective of the question of the imposition of an additional burden.1120 The advantages R. Co., 148 Mo. 665, 50 S. W. 305; Suburban Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Inhabitants of East Orange (N. J. Eq.) 41 Atl. 865; People v. Barnard, 110 N. Y. 548, 18 N. E. 354; Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Kerr, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 138; Staten Island Midland R. Co. v. Staten Island Elec. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 181, 54 N. Y. Supp. 598; Gallagher v. Keating, 27 Misc. 131, 58 N. Y. Supp. 366. Construing N. Y. Laws 1890, c. 565, § 78, which makes it lawful for any railroad corporation to contract with any other railroad for the use of their respective roads or any part thereof. Toledo Elec. St. R. Co. v. Toledo & M. V. R. Co., 7 Ohio N. P. 211; Kinsman St. R. Co. v. Broadway & N. St. R. Co., 36 Ohio St. 239; Com. v. Sycamore St. R. Co., 30 Pittsb. Leg. J. (N. S.) 333; Johnson v. City of Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 445. 1119 Consolidated Traction Co. v. East Orange Tp., 63 N. J. Law, 669, 44 Atl. 1099, affirming 61 N. J. Law, 202, 38 Atl. 803; Brown v. Asheville Elec. Co., 138 N. C. 533, 69 L. R. A. 631. An abutting owner has the right to recover damages for the cutting of trees upon a sidewalk for the accommodation of electric light wires in entire disregard of his rights. See, also, § 911, post. 1120 Beeson v. City of Chicago, 75 Fed. 880; City of Knoxville v. Africa (C. C. A.) 77 Fed. 501, reversing 70 Fed. 729; Tibbitts v. West & South Town St. R. Co., 54 Ill. App. 180, 153 Ill. 147, 38 N. E. 664; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cheetham, 58 Ill. App. 318; Stewart v. Chicago General St. R. Co., 58 Ill. App. 446, affirmed in 166 Ill. 61, 46 N. E. 765. An abutting owner has no such interest in a street as will entitle him to enjoin its use for a street railway. City of Chester v. Wabash, C. & W. R. Co., 182 Ill. 382, 55 N. E. 524; McGann v. People, 194 Ill. 526, 62 N. E. 941; Kennedy v. Detroit R. Co., 108 Mich. 390, 66 N. W. 495; West Jersey Traction Co. v. Board of Public Works of Camden, 56 N. J. Law, 431, 29 Atl. 163; Point Pleasant Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Borough of Bayhead, 62 N. J. Eq. 296, 49 Atl. 1108; Hutchinson v. Borough of Belmar, 61 N. J. Law, 443; In re Auburn City R. Co., 88 Hun, 603, 34 N. Y. Supp. 992; New York Cable R. Co. v. Chambers St. & G. St. Ferry R. Co., 40 Hun (N. Y.) 29; Merriman v. Utica Belt Line St. R. Co., 18 Misc. 269, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1049; Beekman v. Third Ave. R. Co., 13 App. Div. 279, 43 N. Y. Supp. 174. A property owner may enjoin the unauthorized construction of a street railroad in the street adjoining his property. An |