17. Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birmingham Ry. & Electric Co., 119 Ala. 137, 43 L. R. A. 233, 24 So. 502; Finch v. Riverside & A. Ry. Co., 87 Cal. 597, 25 Pac. 765; Elliott v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 32 Conn. 579; Randall v. Jacksonville St. R. Co., 19 Fla. 409; Floyd County v. Rome St. R, Co., 77 Ga. 614, 3 S. E. 3; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. West Chicago Street R. Co., 156 111. 255, 29 L. R. A. 485, 40 N. E. 1008; Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Gough, 54 Ind. App. 438, 102 N. E. 453; Hodges v. Baltimore Union Passenger Ry. Co., 58 Md. 603; Attorney General v. Metropolitan R. Co., 125 Mass. 515; Newell v. Minneapolis, L. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 112, 59 Am. Rep. 303, 27 N. W. 839; Williams v. Meridian Light & Ry.

States a telegraph or telephone line is regarded as an additional burden on the fee,18 and in others a contrary view is taken.19 The use of a street or highway for sewers,20 gas pipes,21 or water pipes,22 is a legitimate

Co., 110 Miss. 174, 69 So. 596; Hincbman v. Paterson Horse R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. 75; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Rosedale St. R. Co., 64 Tex. 80.

A like view has been taken even when the street railway was used in part for transporting freight. Percy v. Lewiston, A. & W. St. Ry., 113 Me. 106, 93 Atl. 43.

A subway utilized for travel has likewise been regarded as not constituting an additional servitude. Sears v. Crocker, 184 Mas?. 586, 100 Am. St. Rep. 577, 69 N. E. 327; Peabody v. Boston, 220 Mass. 376, 107 N. E. 952.

18. Pacific Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Irvine, 49 Fed. 113; De Kalb County Telephone Co. v. Dutton, 228 111. 178, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1057, 81 N. E. 838; Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co., of Baltimore v. Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, 28 Am. St. Rep. 219, 21 Atl. 690; Stowers v. Postal Telegraph-cable Co., 68 Miss. 559, 12 L. R. A. 864, 24 Am. St. Rep. 290, 9 So. 356; Bronson v. Albion Telephone Co., 67 Neb. 1111, 60 L. R. A. 426, 93 N. W. 201; Eels v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 143 N. Y. 133, 25 L. R. A. 640, 38 N. E. 202; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Williams, 86 Va. 696, 8 L. R. A. 429, 19 Am. St. Rep. 908, 11 S. E. 106; Kruegcr v. Wisconsin Tel. Co. 106 Wis. 96, 50 L. R. A. 298, 81 N. W. 1041.

19. Hobbs v. Long Distance Tel. & Tel. Co., 147 Ala. 393, 7 L.

R. A. (N. S.) 87, 41 So. 1003; Ma-gee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358, 49 N. E. 951; Pierce v. Drew. 136 Mass. 75, 49 Am. Rep. 7; People v. Eaton, 100 Mich. 208, 24 L. R. A. 721, 59 N. W. 145; Julia Building Ass'n. v. Bell Telephone Co., 88 Mo. 258, 57 Am. Rep. 398; Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co., 60 Minn. 539, 28 L. R. A. 310, 51 Am. St. Rep. 543, 63 N. W. Ill; Hershfield v. Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co., 12 Mont. 102, 29 Pac. 883; Carpenter v. Lancaster, 250 Pa. 541, 95 Atl. 702.

20. Cone v. City of Hartford, 28 Conn. 363; City of Boston v. Richardson, 13 Allen (Mass.) 146: Stondinger v. City of Newark, 28 N. J. Eq. 187, affirmed, 28 N. J. Eq. 446; In re City of Yonkers, 117 N. Y. 564, 23 N. E. 661; El-ster v. Springfield, 49 Ohio St. 82, 30 N. E. 274; Carpenter v. Lancaster, 250 Pa. 541, 95 Atl. 702; 1 Lewis Eminent Domain, Sec. 183.

21. Dillon, Mun. Corp., 8 1213; Mcdevitt v. Peoples Nat. Gas Co.. 160 Pa. 367, 28 Atl. 948; Cheney v. Barker, 198 Mass. 356, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 436, 84 N. E. 492.

22. Provost v. New Chester Water Co., 162 Pa. St. 275, 29 Atl. 914; Wood v. National Water Works Co., 33 Kan. 590, 7 Pac. 233; City of Quincy v. Bull, 106 111. 337; Bishop v. North Adams Fire District, 167 Mass. 364, 45 N. E. 925.

Use, for which the owner of the fee cannot recover compensation, unless it is not for the benefit of the community itself, or the members thereof, but is for the benefit of another municipality, or of individuals alone.23 The maintenance of a market on a highway constitutes an additional servitude,24 as does the erection of a stand pipe to supply water to the community;25 but a well or underground cistern has been regarded as maintainable in a street for the purpose of furnishing water for street sprinkling purposes, this being a street use.26

Some of the later cases are to the effect that the ownership of the "fee" does not involve rights of such practical value as to authorize compensation in case of an additional use of the surface of the land,27 and

23. Kincaid v. Indianapolis Natural Gas Co., 124 Ind. 577, 8 L. R. A. 602, 19 Am. St. Rep. 113, 24 N. E. 1066; Ward v. Triple State Nat. Gas Oil Co., 115 Ky. 723, 74 S. W. 709; Baltimore County Water & Elec. Co. v. Du-breuil, 105 Md. 424, 66 Atl. 439; Bloomfield & R. Natural Gas Light Co. v. Calkins, 62 N. Y. 386; Van Brunt v. Town of Flatbush, 128 N. Y. 50, 27 N. E. 973; Sterling's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 35, 56 Am. Rep. 246, 2 Atl. 105; Contra, Cheney v. Barker, 198 Mass. 356, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 436, 84 N. E. 492.

24. Lutterloh v. Town of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla, 306; Schopp v. City of St. Louis. 117 Mo. 131, 20 L. R. A. 783, 22 S. W. 898; State v. Laverack, 34 N. J. L. 201.

25. Barrows v. City of Sycamore, 150 111. 588, 25 L. R. A. 535, 41 Am. St. Rep. 400, 37 N. E. 1096. And so as to a water tank above the surface, Morrison v.

Hinkson, 87 111. 587, Davis v. Ap-lepton, 109 Wis. 580, 85 N. W. 515.

26. West v. Bancroft, 32 Vt. 367. Contra, Dubuque v. Mahon-ey, 9 Iowa 450, criticized Dillon, Mun. Corp. Sec. 1156.

27. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 24 L. Ed. 224; Theobald v. Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co., 66 Miss. 279, 4 L. R. A. 735, 14 Am. St Rep. 564, 6 So. 230; Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 181 N. Y. 313, 70 L. R. A. 761, 106 Am. St. Rep. 549, 73 N. E. 1108; White v. Northwestern North Carolina R. Co., 113 N. C. 610, 22 L. R. A. 627, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 18 S. E. 630;Blackwell, E. & S. W. R. Co. v. Gist, 18 Okla. 516, 90 Pac. 889; Mcquaid v. Portland & V. Ry. Co. 18 Ore. 237, 22 Pac. 899; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Eddins, 60 Tex. 656; Dooley Block v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co., 9 Utah 31, 33 Pac. 229.