Street railways come within Clause 42, Section 1, Article 5, City and Village Act, so as to authorize cities to require street railways to give transfers, and to fix the rate of fare.

Union Trac. Co. v. City of Chicago, 199 Ill. 484.

C. U. T. Co. v. City of Chicago, 199 Ill. 579.

Rate of fare fixed by City Council for street railways is presumed to be reasonable.

C. U. T. Co. v. City of Chicago, 199 Ill. 579.

The basis upon which the reasonableness of rate of fare fixed by city is to be determined, considered.

C. U. T. Co. v. City of Chicago, 199 Ill. 579.

A street railway company accepting an ordinance fixing rates of fare is estopped from setting up that the rate is unjust. People v. Suburban R. R. Co., 178 Ill. 594.

Street railway companies are public service corporations and must establish reasonable rates for all alike.

People v. Suburban R. R. Co., 178 Ill. 594.

Franchises and grants-Conditions and terms of.

The privilege of operating a street railway is a property right, which may be disposed of as a gift, or for a compen

sation.

Lobdell v. City of Chicago, 227 Ill. 218.

Failure to construct a street railway system within the time named in the ordinance because of delay due to an injunction preventing construction on certain streets, does not excuse failure to construct on streets not so interfered with; even though the ordinance allowed for delay caused by injunction. Blocki v. People, 220 Ill. 444.

Grants to street railway companies in city streets are void, unless ten days' notice of the time and place of presenting the petition for the grant has been published.

Harvey v. Aurora & Geneva Ry. Co., 186 Ill. 283 (292).

Street railway company accepting a franchise ordinance and enjoying benefits thereunder, is bound by its lawful terms and conditions-mileage tax.

Chicago Gen'l Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 253 (259).

Rights of abutting owners.

The laying of a street railway in a city street is not an additional servitude, but the construction of a railroad therein is such a servitude. In either case the city's consent is necessary by ordinance.

(See STREET RAILROADS-Hurd)

In the latter case the consent of abutting owners is required. (DeKalb Tel. Co. v. Dutton, 228 Ill. 178.)

City of Aurora v. Elgin Trac. Co., 228 Ill. 485.

Wilder v. Aurora, etc., Trac. Co., 216 Ill. 493 (520).

Bond v. Penna. Co., 171 Ill. 594.

(See also ABUTTING OWNERS.)

Street railway companies are liable to abutting owners for damage to their property caused by the construction of the railway.

Aldis v. Union Elev. Ry. Co., 203 Ill. 567.

Contract to pay abutting owner for his consent to laying street railway track in street held void.

Doane v. C. C. Ry. Co., 160 I11. 22 (29).

A street railway is not an additional servitude and requires neither consent of abutting owners nor condemnation. Ordinance sufficient.

Bond v. Pennsylvania Co., 171 Ill. 508 (513).

Condemnation by. (Act of 1899.)

May be restricted and conditioned by ordinance.

Peabody Coal Co. v. N. W. Elev. Co., 230 III. 214.

Land offered to the public for a highway but not duly accepted, is private land, over which a street railway may not be built without condemnation or the owner's consent.

Russell v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 205 Ill. 155 (168).

Street railway companies may diverge from the highway over which they have right of way-whenever necessary.

Harvey v. Aurora & Geneva Ry. Co., 186 III. 283.

Street railways are not authorized to condemn property under the act of 1899, Section 1, except upon a showing that such taking is necessary.

Dewey v. C. & M. Elec. Co., 185 Ill. 426.

In condemnation of highway by street railroad company, the fact that a turnpike company had conveyed a strip of land in the highway to the street railway company, has no effect on the rights of abutting owner.

Trotier v. St. L. B. & S. Ry. Co., 180 Ill. 471.

Street railway companies may condemn private property for a right of way when "necessary," "expedient," "reasonably convenient," or "useful to the public." Statute construed— avoiding grade crossing and steep grade. One justice dissents. Aurora & G. Ry. Co. v. Harvey, 178 Ill. 477.

Street railway companies may condemn private property for a right of way when "necessary," "expedient," "reasonably convenient," or "useful to the public." Statute construed— avoiding grade crossing and steep grade. One justice dissents. Aurora & G. Ry. Co. v. Harvey, 178 Ill. 477.

Street railway companies have not the power to condemn private property as have railroad companies. (See Statutes, Street Railroads.)

Harvey v. Aurora & G. Ry. Co., 174 Ill. 295 (307),

A street railway company is authorized to condemn private land necessary for sidetracks, stations, power houses, barns, etc.

Eddleman v. Union County T. & P. Co., 217 Ill. 409 (417).

A street railway company may be compelled to lower tunnels that obstruct the navigation of a river. Condemnation not necessary.

W. C. St. Ry. Co. v. People, 214 Ill. (9).

Damages from erection of a street railway power house allowed as for permanent injury to property.

Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 192 Ill. 239.

Street railway power house on its own premises held not a nuisance, but injury to the value of adjoining property must be compensated-rule of.

Chicago North Shore St. Ry. Co. v. Payne, 192 Ill. 239.

Miscellaneous rules as to.

A corporation cannot be at the same time a railroad and a street railway company. The two are distinct and organized under different laws.

Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Traction Co., 229 Ill. 170.

The Legislature never intended that a system of street railways should be built within a city by a commercial railroad. Gillette v. Aurora Railways Co., 228 Ill. 261.

Operation of a street railway is not a constitutional right of individuals, but is a franchise conferred by sovereign power. Goddard v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 202 Ill. 362.

When county boards and not highway commissioners have authority to grant street railway a permit to lay tracks in highways.

Trotier v. St. L. B. & S. Ry. Co., 180 Ill. 471.

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES.

REPORT TO STATE AUDITOR.

LAW IN GENERAL.

TELEPHONE COMPANIES.

TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

Report.

53. Schedule.) § 53. Any person, company or corporation, using or operating a telegraph line in this State, shall, annually, in the month of May, return to the Auditor of Public Accounts a schedule or statement, as follows:

First-The amount of capital stock authorized and the number of shares into which such capital stock is divided. Second-The amount of capital stock paid up.

Third-The market value, then the actual value of the shares of stock.

Fourth-The total amount of all indebtedness, except current expenses, for operating the line.

Fifth-The length of the line operated in each county, and the total in the State.

Sixth-The total assessed valuation of all its tangible property in this State.

Such schedule shall be made in conformity to such instructions and forms as may be prescribed by the Auditor of Public Accounts, and with reference to amounts and values on the first day of May of the year for which the return is made.

54. Board of Equalization to assess-How tax collected.) § 54. The Auditor shall annually, on the meeting of the State Board of Equalization, lay before said board the statement or schedule herein required to be returned to him; and said board shall assess the capital stock of such telegraph company, in the manner hereinafter provided. The tax charged on the capital stock of telegraph companies shall be placed in the hands of county collectors, in a book provided for that purpose, the same as is required of railroad property, and may be included in the same book with railroad property.

55. Office furniture, etc., how listed and assessed.) § 55. The office furniture and other personal property of telegraph