JOINT RATES. 2082. By township, city, or town; limit. 2083. Petition; notice; submission; certificate; levy; collection. 2084. Notice; conditions; limit of tax. 2085. Money paid out; certificate. 5202. Shooting or throwing at train. 5203. Jumping upon or off cars in motion. 5204. Uncoupling locomotive or cars. 5205. Seizing and running locomotive. STATUTES RELATING TO RAILWAYS. POWERS OF CITIES AND TOWNS. 615. Regulation of Speed. 456. They shall have power to prevent injury or annoyance from anything dangerous, offensive or unhealthy, and to cause any nuisance to be abated; to regulate the transportation and keeping of gunpowder or other combustibles, and to provide or license magazines for the same; to prevent and punish fast or immoderate riding or driving of horses through the streets; to regulate the speed of trains and locomotives on railways running over the streets or through the limits of the city or incorporated town by ordinance, and enforce the same by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars; to establish and regulate markets; to provide for the measuring or weighing of hay, coal, or any other article of sale; to prevent any riots, noise, disturbance, or disorderly assemblages; to suppress and restrain disorderly houses, houses of ill-fame, billiard tables, nine or ten pin alleys, or tables and ball alleys, and to authorize the destruction of all instruments or devices used for purposes of gaming, and to protect the property of the corporation and its inhabitants and to preserve peace and order therein. [R., § 1057.] 623. Laying of tracks on streets. Compensation. 464. 15 G. A., ch. 6. They shall have power to lay off, open, widen, straighten, narrow, vacate, extend, establish and light streets, alleys, public grounds, wharves, landing, and market places, and to provide for the condemnation of such real estate as may be necessary for such purposes. They shall also have the power to authorize or forbid the location and laying down of tracks for railways and street railways on all streets, alleys and public places; but no railway track can thus be located and laid down until after the injury to property abuting upon the street, alley or public places upon which such railway track is proposed to be located and laid down has been ascertained and compensated in the manner provided for taking private property for works of internal improvement in chapter four of title ten of the code of 1873. [R., 1064.7 The provisions as to taking private property for works of internal improvement are §§ 1904-1936, infra. The provisions are by 923 made applicable to cities under special charter. Right to locate railways upon streets. Since the change made in Code, 1262, by 15 G. A., ch. 47, (see § 1930), the power to authorize the laying down of tracks for street and other railways, and the use of steam motors thereon does not exist except as here given, the earlier case of Milburn v. Cedar Rapids, 12-246, and many cases following it, being no longer applicable. Stanley v. Davenport, 54-463; Stange v. Hill & West Dubuque St. R Co., 54-669. The provisions of this section are not applicable to cities acting under special charter. Ibid.; Simplot v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 5 McCrary, 158. [But now see & 923.] An ordinance authorizing the construction of railway tracks upon city streets, without making the right to occupy such streets conditional upon payment of damages as required by the statute, does not confer any rights upon the railway company. Stange v. Dubuque, 62-303. Where the fee of the street is in the city for the use and benefit of the public, the general assembly has the control thereof, and may prescribe the terms and conditions under which the public may use such streets. Sears v. Marshalltown R. Co., 65–742. Consent by City Council. The statute does not prescribe the manner by which authority may be granted to a railroad company to construct its track upon the streets of the city, and such authority may be be given by resolution duly passed, or by vote duly taken, appearing in the proper record of the city Merchants' Union Barb Wire Co. v. Chicago, R. 1. & P. R. Co., 70-105. The city council may authorize the laying of a railway track over an alley, although the effect may be to prevent the use of the alley for other purposes. Whether the same rule would apply in case of a street, quære. Heath v. Des Moines, St. L. R. Co., 61-11. But the city council is not authorized to devote an alley to a railway track for the private benefit of some individual; and the fact leave has been granted to lay the track over an alley for purely private benefit will not prevent a subsequent grant of a right to a railway company to lay a track through such alley for public use. Ibid. The city having been given by this section the power to grant the right to lay down a railway track over its streets, all else in connection therewith is a matter of detail and within the discretion of the city, subject only to equitable control and proper police regulation. O'Niel v. Lamb, 53–725. Consent of owner. If the owner of lots joins with the owners of other lots abutting on the street in an agreement that a track may be laid and operated, and in pursuance of such agreement the company lays down such track and is commencing to operate it, the land owner is estopped from recovering damages, and a subsequent grantee of the lots being chargeable with notice of the rights of the company from the fact that it is in possession is equally bound by such estoppel. Merchants' Union Barb Wire Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 79-613. Compensation to property owners. A railway which has been located over the streets of a city, at a time when compensation to adjacent property owners for such use of the street was not required, cannot lay new switches and side tracks in connection with such railway, without making compensation. Drady v. Des Moines & Ft. D. R. Co., 57-393; Merchants' Union Barb Wire Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 70-105. The statutory provisions requiring compensation apply to a railroad authorized by ordinance and partly constructed prior to the time that the change in the statute went into effect. Mullholland v. Des Moines, A. &. W. R. Co., 60–740; Hanson v. Chicago, M. & St, P. R. Co., 61–588. Where a railway company had commenced the use of its tracks constructed under permission granted by the city council before the statutory change requiring compensation, held, that it could not afterward be made liable for damages to abutting lot owners. Merchants' Union Barb Wire Co. v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co., 70-105. The right of the owner of an abutting lot is not within the constitutional provision requiring just compensation to be made to the owner of land appropriated to public use. Aside of the provision of this section, the owner of abutting property is not entitled to damages, and under this provision his claim is one for damages only; and, held, that where one track was rightfully laid on the street in front of plaintiff's property in 1870 and the other in 1874, |