county in this state in which such train runs, and file an affidavit before such magistrate charging him with such offense; but in no case shall the liability of a railroad company, for damages caused by the conduct of its conductor, be affected by the provisions of this and the next preceding section. 73 v. 166, § 3.

§ 3436.

Penalties against conductors for violations of certain sections

A conductor having charge of a passenger train within this state, who willfully neglects his duty as required by the two preceding sections, or fails to use all the means in his power to carry out the requirements of such sections, shall be deemed guilty of negligence of official duty, and on conviction thereof, before any court having competent jurisdiction, shall be fined not less than five nor more than twenty-five dollars. 73 v. 166, § 4.

An act to provide suitable waiting-rooms at railroad stations. SEC. 1. That every person, firm or corporation operating a steam railroad wholly, or in part, within the State of Ohio, be required to provide a suitable waiting room at each station where passenger trains or any of them, of such road, are regularly scheduled to stop, for the use of the traveling public. Said waiting rooms to be maintained and kept as to be conducive to the health and comfort of the patrons of such railroad. 94 O. L. 231.

SEC. 2. Upon the written complaint of ten or more citizens of the State of Ohio being filed with the said commissioner that any of the provisions of this act are being violated, at such station, the said commissioner shall forthwith make investigation of the same; and if upon such investigation it be found that such violation exists, he shall issue an order to the person, firm or corporation guilty of such violation, setting forth the nature of the improvement required and directing that the same be completed within a time to be specified therein. 94 O. L. 231.

SEC. 3. Any person, firm or corporation failing to comply with an order of said commissioner, or any of the provisions of this act, shall, upon conviction therefor before a court of common pleas of the county in which such violation shall occur, forfeit and pay any sum not less than one hundred dollars. Such forfeiture or penalty to be recovered in a civil action in the name of the State of Ohio, for the benefit of the county in

which such failure or violation shall occur; such action to be brought by the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the violation of this act occurs, at the instance of the commissioner of railroads and telegraphs, as provided in other cases for the recovery of penalties and forfeitures against railroad companies. Said prosecuting attorney shall receive for his services ten per cent of all fines and costs recovered under the provisions of this act. 94 O. L. 23I.

§ 2501. Application and grant prior to construction; renewal of grant

No corporation, individual or individuals shall perform any work in the construction of a street railroad, until application for leave is made to the council in writing, and the council by ordinance shall have granted permission, and prescribed the terms and conditions upon, and the manner in which the road shall be constructed and operated, and the streets and alleys which shall be used and occupied therefor, but the council may renew any such grant at its expiration upon such conditions as may be considered conducive to the public interest. 92 O. L. 206.

Acceptance of ordinance fixing terms and conditions of grant constitutes a contract. State v. Cleve. Electric Ry. Co., 15 C. C. 200.

The right to carry freight is included in corporate powers, and cannot be taken away by the city council. State v, Dayton Traction Co., 18 C. C. 490. This section does not authorize a city council to enact an ordinance making it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment to run a street car without both a driver and conductor, although a contract by the street car company to obey all the ordinances is valid, and may be enforced by the methods and remedies known to the law. Thornhill v. City of Cincinnati, 4 C. C. 354.

Where two electric street railway companies have by ordinance been granted the right to lay tracks in the same street, a court cannot require them to use tracks in common. Hamilton, etc., Co. v. Hamilton, etc., Transit Co., C. C, 319.

Where the operation of an electric street railway disturbs the working of a telephone system, the rights of the former are superior, and the telephone company must readjust its methods. Railway Co. v. Telegraph Asso., 48 Ohio St. 390.

Rights of street railroad company and pedestrians at crossings discussed. Cin. St. Ry. Co. v. Snell, 54 Ohio St. 197; R. R. Co. v. Cavagna, 6 C. C. 606.

A line may "fork" without becoming two routes. Aydelott v. City of Cincinnati, II C. C. II.

Street car companies have only equal rights with citizens on foot or in vehicles. Both must use due care. A traveler crossing a track must use his senses, look and listen for approaching trains. Weiser v. Broadway & Newburg St. Ry. Co., 10 C. C. 14, affirmed in 37 B. 212.

But company has right to the time for passage of cars.

exclusive use of that part of track necessary at Siek v. Consol. St. Ry. Co., 16 C. C. 393.

$ 2502. Proceedings to establish street railroad routePeriod for which grant or renewal may be

made

Nothing mentioned in the next preceding section shall be done; no ordinance or resolution to establish or define a street railroad route shall be passed, and no action inviting proposals to construct and operate such railroad shall be taken by the council, except upon the recommendation of the board of public works in cities having such a board, and of the board of improvements in other municipalities having such a board; and no ordinance for the purpose specified in said preceding section shall be passed until public notice of the application therefor has been given by the clerk of the corporation in one or more of the daily papers, if there be such, and if not then in one or more weekly papers published in the corporation, for the period of at least three con

secutive weeks; and no such grant as mentioned in said preceding section shall be made, except to the corporation, individual, or individuals, that will agree to carry passengers upon such proposed railroad at the lowest rates of fare, and shall have previously obtained the written consent of a majority of the property holders upon each street or part thereof, on the line of the proposed street railroad, represented by the feet front of the property abutting on the several streets along which such road is proposed to be constructed; provided, that no grant or renewal of any grant for the construction or operation of any street railroad shall be valid for a greater period than twenty-five years from the date of such grant or renewal, except in cities of the second grade of the second class, in which no grant or renewal of any grant for the construction or operation of any street railroad shall be valid for a greater period than fifty years from the date of such grant or renewal; and after such grant or renewal of a grant is made, whether by special or general ordinance, the municipal corporation shall not, during the term of such grant or renewal, release the grantee from any obligation or liability imposed by the term of such grant or renewal of a grant. 88 0. L. 389.

See Knorr v. Miller et al., 25 B. 128.

The publication of notice, competition in rates and consent of property owners do not apply to a renewal of a franchise; the council may by agreement for the public welfare terminate a grant previous to its expiration and renew the franchise for any period not in excess of the limitations fixed by statute. State v. East Cleveland R. R. Co., 6 C. C. 318; see also City of Cincinnati v. Cin. Ry. Co., 31 B. 308 (Cin. Sup. Ct.).

Less than the whole number of joint tenants in abutting lands cannot give the consent. Ronnebaum v. Cable Ry. Co., 29 B. 338 (Sup. Ct. Cin.). Temporary interference with access cannot be complained of by abutting owner. Action to have grant declared void for want of consents can be brought only by abutting owner, and he is restricted to objections applying only to his own street and to want of consent. Glidden v. City of Cincinnati, 30 B. 213 (Sup. Ct. Cin.), and Barney v. Mt. Adams, etc., Co., 30 B. 286 (Sup. Ct. Cin.).

Circumstances excusing notice of application and consent of property owners; see State v. El. St. Ry. Co., 19 C. C. 79.

Consent must be obtained although it is intended to use track already laid; such consents need not be entered on records of the council. Where a portion of a route fails for want of consents, a new grant as to that portion may be made when the consents are obtained, without bids upon rates of fare, etc. What questions cannot be raised by abutting property owner. Sanfleet v. City of Toledo, 10 C. C. 460, affirmed in 35 B. 55.

A franchise can be awarded only to the lowest bidder, whose bid is accompanied by a sufficient and valid bond. Where a bid is for a person named "and associates" not named, but the bond is the sole obligation of the person named, without mentioning associates, such bond is valid and binds the bidder individually. Compton v. Johnson, 9 C. C. 532; see also Gallagher v. Johnson, 30 B. 139 (C. P.).

A bid in prescribed form is presumed to be in good faith. Gallagher v. Johnson, 31 B. 24 (C. P.).

Notice of preliminary ordinance is not necessary. City of Hamilton v. St. Ry. Co., 5 N. P. 457 (C. P.).

$2502a, Release from obligations or liabilities imposed by

terms of grant or renewal-Extension of rapid transit over horse power route-Validity of ordinances or resolutions improperly passed or adopted.

That the release prohibited by section twenty-five hundred and two of the Revised Statutes may be given or made, except as to paving or repairing streets, whenever it involves a change of motive power from animal power to cable or electric power or other means for rapid transit or an additional obligation to pave or repair and keep in repair the streets along the line of railway or portion thereof; and in every such case such release may be made on such reasonable terms, including such extension of time as now authorized by law, as may be prescribed by ordinance, and any release or change or extension of time of any grant heretofore made involving any such change of motive power or additional obligation to pave or repair and keep in repair as aforesaid, shall be as valid and binding as if such change or obligation had been made under this act, and this shall apply to actions and causes of action mentioned in section seventy-nine of the Revised Statutes; provided, however, there shall not be any change made in the percentage on gross earnings and car license fees that may be required to be paid on such street railway route or routes or any portions of the same or on any extension of such route or routes; and whenever any rapid transit street railway route operated by cable or electric power has been, or shall be extended over the tracks of another route belonging to the same company, corporation, individual or individuals, upon which the cars are operated by horse power, the company, corporation, individual or individuals owning and operating such horse power route shall be no longer required or allowed, except to make necessary con