Cosgriff v. Tri-State Telephone And Telegraph Company, a Corporation

• Decision Date: 28 February 1906
• Citation: 107 N.W. 525,15 N.D. 210
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

107 N.W. 525

15 N.D. 210

M. A. COSGRIFF, WILLIAM WHITEMORE, SARAH BUSSEE, JAMES MCSHERRY AND FRANK COUFAL v. THE TRI-STATE TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A CORPORATION

Supreme Court of North Dakota

February 28, 1906

Rehearing denied May 11, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Grand Forks county; Fisk, J.

Action by M. A. Cosgriff and others against the Tri-State Telephone and Telegraph Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.

Order reversed and temporary relief granted.

Skulason & Skulason, for appellant.

A telephone line in a street is an additional burden on the fee of the abutting owner. Donovan v. Allert, 11 N.D 289, 91 N.W. 441, 58 L. R. A. 775, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720.

The rights of an urban are more restricted than those of a suburban owner. Penn. R. R. Co. v. Montgomery County Pass. R. Co., 27 L. R. A. 766; Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 158 N.Y. 231, 52 N.E. 1092; 2 Dillon Mun Corp. 688; Van Brunt et al. v. Town of Flatbush et al., 27 N.E. 974; McDevittt v. Company, 28 A. 948.

Telegraph and telephone lines are an additional serviture upon county highways. Elliott, Roads and Streets (2d Ed.) section 706; Board of Trade Telegraph Co. v. Barnett, 107 Ill 453; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Williams, 8 L. R. A. 429; Eels v. Am. Telephone and Telegraph Co., 143 N.Y. 133, 38 N.E. 202; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Eaton, 170 Ill. 513; Dailey v. State, 24 L. R. A. 724; Cook on Corp. (5th Ed.) section 933.

Sections 5263 and 5268, U. S. Rev. Statutes 1866, conferring on telegraph companies the right to construct and operate their lines over post routes, have no application to telephone lines. City of Richmond v. Company, 19 S.Ct. 778.

The federal statutes give no foreign corporation the right to enter upon private property without the owner's consent, but provides that where the owner's consent has been obtained no legislation shall prevent the occupation of post roads by telegraph companies. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 96 U.S. 1, 24 L.Ed. 708; St. Louis v. Telephone Co., 148 U.S. 92, 13 L.Ed. 485; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Commonwealth of Mass., 125 U.S. 530, 8 S.Ct. 961; Kester v. W. U. Tel. Co., 108 F. 926; Phillips v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 41 S.E. 1022; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Ry. Co., 20 S.Ct. 867; Cook on Corp. (5th Ed.) sections 933, 934, 935; Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Smith, 18 A. 910; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Ry., 120 F. 362; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 89 F. 190.

J. B. Wineman, Geo. A. Bangs and Tracy R. Bangs, for respondent.

Congress has the right to dispose of public lands as it deems will best serve public interests. Iowa Homestead Co. v. DesMoines Navigation & R. R. Co. et al., 17 Wal. 153, 21 L.Ed. 622.

The interest of the United States in public lands is that of owner and sovereign. Iowa Homestead Co. v. DesMoines Navigation & R. R. Co., supra; People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645; Lux et al. v. Haggin et al., 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674 at 719; Woodruff v. Mining Co., 9 Saw. 441, 18 F. 753.

Section 2477, Rev. Statutes U.S. granting right of way for roads over public lands is a present grant. Walcott Twp. v. Skauge, 6 N.D. 382, 71 N.W. 544; Wells v. Pennington Co., 2 S.D. 1, 48 N.W. 305; Tholl et al. v. Koles, 65 Kan. 802, 70 P. 881; St. J. & D. City R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U.S. 426, 26 L.Ed. 578; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. K. P. Ry. Co., 97 U.S. 491, 24 L.Ed. 1095; Leavenworth L. & G. R. R. Co. v. U.S. 92 U.S. 733, 23 L.Ed. 634.

All public land entries are subject to the right of way for highway purposes. Wells v. Pennington Co., supra; Keen v. Board of Supervisors, 8 S.D. 588, 67 N.W. 623; Walcott Twp. v. Skauge, supra; Riverside Twp. v. Newton, 11 S.D. 120, 75 N.W. 899.

The right of way being so reserved, congress had the right to establish and declare post roads over it. Searight v. Stokes, 3 How. 151, 11 L.Ed. 537; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525, 38 L.Ed. 88; Cal. v. C. P. R. R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 32 L.Ed. 150, 8 S.Ct. 1073; Kohl et al. v. U.S., 91 U.S. 367, 23 L.Ed. 449.

The grant of a right of way for highway by a private owner, carries with it the right to use same for telephone purposes and such purposes impose no additional servitude upon the fee. Keasbey on Electric Wires, 102-3; Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75, 49 Am. Rep. 7; McCormack v. District of Columbia, 54 Am. Rep. 284; Ass'n v. Bell Co., 57 Am. Rep. 398; Lockhart v. Co., 21 A. 26; Hershfield v. Rocky Mountain Bell Tel. Co., 29 P. 883; People v. Eaton, 100 Mich. 208, 59 N.W. 145, 24 L. R. A. 721; McGee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 49 N.E. 951, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 A. S. R. 358; Coburn v. New Tel. Co., 156 Ind. 90, 59 N.E. 324; Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 158 N.Y. 231, 52 N.E. 1092, 43 L. R. A. 672; McCann v. Johnson Co. Tel. Co., 69 Kan. 210, 76 P. 870.

The telephone is the telegraph. Wis. Tel. Co. v. City of Oshkosh, 21 N.W. 828; Roberts v. Wis. Tel. Co., 46 N.W. 800; Iowa U. Tel. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 25 N.W. 155, Franklin v. N.W. Tel. Co., 28 N.W. 461; Bell Tel. Co., v. Com., 3 A. 825; P. T. & T. Co. v. Road, 49 A. 284; C. & P. T. Co. v. B. and O. Co., 66 Md. 399, 7 A. 809; St. L. v. B. T. Co., 97 Mo. 623, 10 S.W. 197, 9 A. S. R. 370; State v. C. N. J. Tel. Co., 53 N.J.L. 341, 21 A. 460, 11 L. R. A. 664; State v. Mayor, 11 N.J.L. 168, 48 A. 1022; Hudson River Tel. Co. v. W. T. R. Co., 135 N.Y. 393, 32 N.E. 148, 17 L. R. A. 674, 31 A. S. R. 838; S. A. & A. P. Ry. Co. v. S.W. Tel. and Tel. Co., 93 Tex. 313, 56 S.W. 201, 49 L. R. A. 459, 77 A. S. R. 884; Davis v. P. T. Co., 127 Cal. 312, 59 P. 698.

Telephone poles, when erected in a public highway, do not create an additional servitude. Taggert v. Newport Street Ry. Co., 19 A. 326; Rafferty v. Central Traction Co., 23 A. 884; Williams v. Electric Street Ry. Co., 41 F. 556; Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 158 N.Y. 231, 52 N.E. 1092.

There is no real distinction between city streets and rural highways. Abbott v. City of Duluth, 104 F. 833; N.W. Tel. Ex. Co. v. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140, 83 N.W. 527, 86 N.W. 69; Chamberlain v. Iowa Tel. Co., 93 N.W. 596; Cater v. N.W. Tel. Ex. Co., 60 Minn. 539, 63 N.W. 111; Julia Building Ass'n v. Bell Tel. Co., 88 Mo. 258; McCann v. Johnson Tel. Co., 76 P. 870, 66 L. R. A. 171; People v. Eaton, 100 Mich. 208, 59 N.W. 145.

OPINION

YOUNG, J.

The plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin the defendant from constructing and operating a long distance telephone and telegraph line on a certain rural highway in Chester township, Grand Forks county. The plaintiffs own seven quarter sections of land abutting upon the highway, which is located upon a section line. The defendant is a foreign corporation regularly authorized to do business in this state. It obtained the consent of the township supervisors to construct its line over the highway in question, but did not obtain the consent of the plaintiffs, who are abutting owners, and it has not compensated them for the taking of the property or instituted condemnation proceedings. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's acts are in violation of section 14 of the state constitution, which provides that "private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having been first made to or paid into court for the owner, and no right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation, other than municipal, until full compensation therefor be first made in money or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, * * *" and section 5955, Rev. Codes 1899, which contains the same provision. The plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction upon notice, and after a hearing it was denied, and plaintiffs have appealed from the order denying the same.

It is agreed that the sole and controlling question is whether the construction of a telephone and telegraph line upon a rural highway constitutes an additional servitude on the fee of the abutting owners. The trial court held that it does not, and, in support of this conclusion, counsel for defendant urges two grounds: (1) That the maintenance of a telephone and telegraph line upon a rural highway is a proper highway use, within the purpose of the grant of the easement, and does not therefore constitute an additional servitude; and (2) that, irrespective of the question as to whether it is a proper highway use, the defendant has the right to the use it is now attempting to assert under the authority of sections 5263, 5264, Rev. St. U.S. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3579, 3580].

Both contentions must be denied. The first ground has already been ruled upon by this court and adversely to the defendant's contention. In Donovan v. Allert, 11 N.D. 289, 91 N.W. 441, 58 L. R. A. 775, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720, this court held, after mature deliberation and an extended review of the authorities, that the construction of a telephone line upon the streets of a city imposed a new servitude upon the fee of the abutting owner, for which he was entitled to compensation. The rights of a landowner whose land abuts upon a rural highway are not inferior to those of one whose land abuts upon the streets of a city. This is conceded. Indeed it has often been held that the rights of the owner of land abutting upon the streets of a city are more restricted. This distinction, which is sometimes made, rests upon an alleged difference in the purpose of the original dedication. Eels v. A. T. & T. Co., 143 N.Y. 133, 38 N.E. 202, 25 L. R. A. 640; Croswell on Electricity, sections 117, 126. The underlying principle which must govern is the same, however, in either case. The proposed use must be within the purpose of the original dedication. If it is not it constitutes an additional servitude, whether it be of a street or rural highway. Cases like this primarily involve a determination of property rights,...