10. Goodtitle v. Alker, 1 Burrow, 133; Perry v. New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co., 55 Ala. 413, 28 Am. Rep. 740; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 111. 513, 39 L. R. A. 722, 62 Am. St. Rep. 390, 49 N. E. 365; Louisville, St. L. & T. Ry. Co. v. Liebfried. 92 Ky. 407. 17 S. W. 870; Proprietors of Locks & Canals on Merrimack River v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 1; Thomas v. Hunt, 134 Mo. 392, 32 L. R. A. 857, 35 S. W. 581; Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 447, 8 Am. Dec. 263; Becker v. Lebanon & M. St. Ry. Co., 195 Pa. 502, 46 Atl. 1096; Contra, Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 431, 8 L. Ed. 452; Becker v. Lebanon & M. St. Ry. Co., 195 Pa. 502, 46 Atl. 1096. See the suggestive discussion of the last cited case in an editorial note in 14 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 291.

10a. Lade v. Shepherd, 2

Strange 1004; Burr v. Stevens, 90 Me. 500, 38 Atl. 547; Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 346, 52 Am. Rep. 513; Lewis v. Jones, 1 Pa. St. 336, 44 Am. Dec. 138.

11. Barclay v. Howell's Lessee, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 498, 8 L. Ed. 477; Woodruff v. Neal, 28 Conn. 165; Blis v. Hall, 99 Mass. 597; Bolen-der v. Southern Michigan Tel. Co., 182 Mich. 646, 148 N. W. 697; Gambel v Pettijohn, 116 Mo. 375, 22 S. W. 783; Andrews v. You-mans, 78 Wis. 56, 47 N. W. 304.

12. See Western Railway of Alatama v. Alabama Grand Trunk R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 17 L. R. A. 474, 11 So. 483; Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster Ry. Co. 104 Cal. 186, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 37 Pac. 786; Kincaid v. Indianapolis, etc.. Gas Co., 124 Ind. 577, 8 L. R. A. 602. 19 Am. St. Rep. 113, 24 N. E. 1066; Chesapeake & Pot. Telephone cannot be made of a suburban highway;13 and the sounder view seems to be that a suburban highway, like a city street, is subject to all highway uses and improvements which may be necessary, among which are to be included its use for the supply of water, light, or drainage, when these are rendered necessary by the density of population, and that the fact that the highway is within the limits of a city is immaterial, except as this is usually coincident with the necessity for such use.14

- Additional servitude. When the ownership of the land is not acquired by the public, but merely a right of passage, if the land within the highway limits is afterwards used for a purpose, even though of a public nature, which is not within the scope of the highway use for which the land was dedicated or appropriated, it is considered that the land is subjected to an additional burden or "servitude," entitling the owner to compensation as for a new taking of property. So it has been held that the use of the highway for a steam railway, carrying freight as well as passengers, is not an ordinary highway use, and that the owner of the fee is consequently entitled to compensation therefor.15 In New York a like view is taken as to a street railway,16 but the great weight of authority is to the effect that a passenger street railway operated on the surface of the ground is not an additional servitude.17 In some

Co. v. Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, 28 Am. St. Rep. 219, 21 Atl. 690; Van Brunt v. Town of Flatbush, 128 N. Y. 50, 27 N. E. 973; Mcdevitt v. Peoples' Nat. Gas Co., 160 Pa. St. 367, 28 Atl. 948; Duquesne Light Co. v. Duff, 231 Pa. 607, 97 Atl. 82; Elliott, Roads & Streets, Sec. 482 et seq.

13. "The only court in which it has been unequivocally adjudicated that a certain use was legitimate in the case of city streets, and not legitimate in the case of country highways, is that of Pennsylvania, in which it has been held that an electric passenger railway is a legitimate use of a city or village street, but not of a country road." 1 Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec. 118.

14. See Floyd County v. Rome St. R. Co., 77 Ga. 614, 3 S. E. 3; De Kalb Co. Telephone Co. v. Dut-to-n, 228 111. 178, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1057, 81 N. E. 838; Lake Shore M. S. R. Co. v. Whiting, 161 Ind. 76, 67 N. E. 933; Cater v. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co., 60 Minn. 539, 28 L. R. A. 310, 51 Am. St. Rep. 543, 63 N. W. Ill; Eels v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 143 N. Y. 133, 25 L. R. A. 640, 38 N. E. 202; Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 158 N. Y. 231, 43 L. R, A. 672, 52 N. E. 1092; Callen v. Columbus Edison Elec. Light Co. 66 Ohio St. 166, 58 L. It. A. 782, 64 N. E. 141; Hud dleston v. Eugene, 34 Ore. 343, 43 L. R. A. 444, 55 Pac. 868; 1 Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec. 118.

15. Western Railway of Alabama v. Alabama Grand Trunk R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 17 L. R. A. 474, 11 So. 483; Denver & Rio Grande R. Co. v. Stinemeyer, 59 Colo. 396, 148 Pac. 860; Imlay v. Union Branch R. Co., 26 Conn. 249; Florida Southern Ry. Co. v. Brown, 23 Fla. 104, 1 So.. 512; Harrohl Bros, v. Americus, 142 Ga. 686, 83 S. E. 534; Indianapolis, B. & W. R, Co. v. Hartley, 67 I11. 439; Mitchell v. Chicago B. & Q. Ry. Co., 265 111. 300, 106 N. E. 833; Cox v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178; Kucheman v. Chicago C. & D. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 366; Phipps v. Western M. R, Co., 66 Md. 319, 7 Atl. 556; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62; Williams v. New York Cent. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 97; White v. Northwestern North Carolina R. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 22 L. R. A. 627, 37 Am. St. Rep. 638, 18 S. E. 330; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hudson, 136 Tenn. 1, 188 S. W. 589; 589 ("dummy" line). Contra, Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster Ry. Co., 104 Cal. 186, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 37 Pac. 786; Moore Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Southwestern Ry. Co.., 256 Mo. 167, 165 S. W. 305.

The erection of poles and trolley wires to furnish electricity for the running of cars on streets other than that on which the erections are made was held not to create a new servitude. Brandt v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co., 78 Wash. 214, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 760, 138 Pac. 871.

16. Craig v. Rochester City & B. R, Co., 39 N. Y. 404; Peck v. Schenectady Ry. Co., 170 N. Y. 298, 63 N. E. 357; Paige v. Schenectady, 178 N. Y. 102, 70 N. E. 213. See, for a discussion of this matter, 1 Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec.Sec. 158-164; editorial note, 8 Columbia Law Rev. 575.