The text books usually uphold this view,28 which has gained strength with the development of the modern doctrine, referred to in the next paragraph, that the abutting owner is, as such, entitled to compensation for interference with his rights of light, air, and access caused by the additional use of the highway, - a doctrine which renders it unnecessary to base his right to compensation on his possible ownership of the fee.

- Rights of abutting owners. The owner of land abutting on a highway has sometimes been regarded as having no right to compensation by reason of a new use of the highway, unless he can, as above indicated, recover compensation as owner of the."fee" in the highway, the result being to exclude any recovery by him if the fee is in the public.29 The view is, however, quite usually taken, at the present day, that an abutting owner, as such, has rights of access to his premises by-means of the highway, and also rights to enjoy light and air from the open space above the highway, which cannot be destroyed or impaired, to his detriment, except in the use and improvement of the highway for highway purposes, without making compensation to him.30

28. 1 Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec. 128; Randolph, Eminent Domain, Sec. 415; Dillon, Mun. Corp. Sec.Sec. 1136, 1279.

29. Florida Southern Ry. Co. v. Brown, 23 Fla. 104, 1 So. 512: Moses v. Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C R. Co., 21 111. 516; Davis v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 46 Iowa 389; Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Garside, 10 Kan. 552;Fobes v. Rome. W. & O. R. Co.. 121 N. Y. 505, 8 L. R. A. 453, 24 N. E. 919; East End St. R. Co. v. Doyle, 88 Tenn. 747. 9 L. R. A. 100, 13 S. W. 936. See Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec. 156, note 31.

30. Field v. Barling, 149 111.

556, 41 Am. St. Rep. 311, 37 N. E. 850, 24 L. R. A. 406; Barrows v. City of Sycamore, 150 111. 588. 25 L. R. A. 535, 41 Am. St. Rep. 400, 37 N. E. 1096; Decker v. Evans-ville, S. & N. Ry. Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E. 349; Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. of Baltimore v. Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, 28 Am. St. Rep. 219, 21 Atl. 690; Spencer v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 120 Mo. 154. 22 L. R. A. 668, 23 S. W. 120; Barnett v. Johnson, 15 N. J. Eq. 481; White v. Northwestern North Carolina R. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 22 L. R. A. 627, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 18 S. E. 330; Mcquaid v. Portland & V. Ry. Co., 18 Ore.

These rights are frequently spoken of as "easements" in the highway, or in the land used for the highway, and they are in some respects analogous to easements.31 It is on the theory that such rights are impaired that an abutting owner has been held to be entitled to compensation on account of the construction and maintenance of an elevated railway in the street;32 and since the maintenance of a steam railroad in the highway, for the purpose of transporting freight as well as passengers from town to town, is usually regarded as a use of the highway for other than highway purposes, the abutting owners are, it seems, entitled to compensation for the resulting interference with their rights of light, air, and access, irrespective of the ownership of the land within the highway limits.33 A passenger street railway, operated on the surface of the highways, whether it be a horse, electric, or cable railway, is regarded as a use of the highway for highway purposes, and as consequently not ground for the recovery of damages by the abutting owner.34

237, 22 Pac. 899; Johnston v. Old Colony R. Co., 18 R. I. 642, 49 Am. St. Rep. 800, 29 Atl. 594; Frater v. Hamilton County, 90 Tenn. 661, 19 S, W. 233; Davis v. Spragg, 72 W. Va. 672, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 173, 79 S. E. 652; l Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec.Sec. 120-123; Dillon, Mun. Corp. Sec. 1245.

31. See, as to the character of such rights, 15 Harv. Law Eev. at p. 305. And as to the theory on which they may be regarded as arising, see 1 Lewis, Eminent Domain (3rd Ed.), Sec. 121 et seq.

32. Story v. New York Elevated R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122; Lahr v. Metropolitan Elevated Ry. Co., 104 N. Y. 268, 10 N. E. 528; Bischoff v. New York El. R. Co., 138 N. Y. 257, 33 N. E. 1073. See Aldis v. Union Elevated E. Co., 203 I11. 567, 68 N. E. 95; Rourke v. Holmes St. Ry. Co., - (Mo. App.) - , 117 S. W. 1102.

33. Denver & S. F. R. Co. v. Hannegan, 43 Colo. 122, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874, 127 Am. St. Rep. 100, 95 Pac. 343; South Carolina R. Co. v. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546, 560; Hlinois Cent. R. Co. v. Elliott, 129 Ky. 121, 110 S. W. 817; Hoffman v. Flint & P. M. R. Co., 114 Mich. 316, 72 N. W. 167; Gustaf-son v. Hamm, 56 Minn. 334, 22 L. R, A. 565, 57 N. W. 1054; Theobold v. Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co., 66 Miss. 279, 4 L. R, A. 735, 14 Am. .St. Rep. 564, 6 So. 230; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturey, 55 Neb. 137, 75 N. W. 557; White v. Northwestern North Carolina R, Co.. 113 N. C. 610, 22 L. R. A. 627, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 18 S. E. 330; Caveness v. Charlotte, R. & S. R. Co., 172 N. C. 305, 90 S. E. 244; Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Eddins, 60 Tex. 656. See Decker v. Evansville, S. & N. Ry. Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E.

Ordinarily, it seems, the construction of a tunnel or subway involves no interference with any of these easements, and the abutting owner has, as such, no right to assert a claim for damages on account thereof,34a but the mode of construction may occasionally be such as to involve interference.34b

The authorities are generally to the effect that an owner of land abutting on a street is not entitled to compensation for impairment of the value of his land by a change of the grade of the street, provided there

349; Kansas, N. & D. Ey. Co. v. Cuykendall, 42 Kan. 234, 16 Am. St. Rep. 21 Pac. 1051; Dillon, Mun. Corp., Sec.Sec. 1250-1257. But see .Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster Ey. Co., 104 Cal. 1S6, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Eep. 89, 37 Pac. 786; Olney, City of v. Wharf, 115 111. 519, 56 Am. Rep. 178, 5 N. E. 366; O'connor v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 56 Iowa, 735, 10 N. W. 263; Henry G-ans & Sons Mfg. Co. v. St, Louis, K. & N. W. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. 308, 18 L. R. A. 339, 35 Am. St. Rep. 706, 20 S. W. 658; Sherlock v. Kansas City B. Ey. Co., 142 Mo. 172, 64 Am. St. Hop. 551, 43 S. W. 629; Reining v. New York, L. & W. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 157.