population or other causes, the crossing becomes inadequate to meet the new and altered conditions of the country, it is the duty of the railroad to make such alterations as will meet the present needs of the public.Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Smith, 61 Fed. 885.

As to crossings, signals, gates, etc., it is the general policy of the state to subject railroads to state rather than to municipal regulations.- Long Island City v. L. I. R. Co., 79 N. Y. 561, affg. s. c. 8 Hun (N. Y.), 58.

Under N. Y. R. R. L., § 62, the Board of Railroad Commissioners had power to order that a certain highway which crossed railroad tracks at grade be discontinued and that the traffic upon it be diverted to another highway which such Commission determined should be carried over the said tracks by means of a viaduct.- Matter of Terminal R. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 59, 106 N. Y. Supp. 655.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 60, provided: "All steam surface railroads hereafter built, except additional switches and sidings, must be so constructed as to avoid all public crossings at grade whenever practicable to do so." -Held, that this provision did not mean that the N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners could not determine how or in what manner "additional switches and sidings" might be taken over a highway when the railroad asked for such a determination. The exception was merely in favor of the railroad corporation and could be waived by it.- Matter of Terminal R. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 59, 106 N. Y. Supp. 655. The control of the N. Y. Public Service Commission over the manner in which railroads shall cross highways and over the methods and character of construction of such crossings is a continuing administrative duty.- Petition of Terminal Ry. of Buffalo. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission for the Second District, May 4, 1908.

The reasons stated, upon which the Public Service Commission of the Second District based its action in eliminating the grade crossing over the tracks of the N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. at Genesee St. in the city of Utica.- Petition of Mayor and Common Council of Utica. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, March 10, 1908.

In a case arising under N. Y. R. R. L., § 60, involving the crossing of a highway in the town of Cornwall by a railroad, the part of the highway in question was relocated by the State Engineer and an overcrossing by the railroad was required by the former Board of Railroad Commissioners, the Board in its final order providing for the abandonment of the old highway at this point. The railroad company, pursuant to the order, constructed a concrete arch at the point of undercrossing. Later the town board complained to the Public Service Commission alleging that the sharp curves in the highway at either end of the crossing would make it an exceedingly dangerous point for vehicles on account of the inability to note the approach of other vehicles, and

asked that the crossing be made at the point of intersection of the old highway. The town board had been represented on the original hearing and the matter now complained of had been fully discussed. The railroad thereafter filed with the Commission a letter, in which it stipulated that it would alter the highway so as to obviate the difficulty.-Held, that the petition of the board should be dismissed.— Petition of the Town Board of Cornwall. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, Feb. 18, 1908.

A railroad cannot be compelled to elevate or depress its tracks laid at grade over streets, unless by reason of some peculiarity such tracks have become especially dangerous.- Mayor v. Central R. Co. of N. J., – N. J. Eq. -, 67 Atl. 1009.

The test in determining what policy shall be pursued at crossings, whether they shall be left at grade or whether the railroad corporation shall be compelled to elevate or depress them, is not economy of operation but the safety and convenience of those of the travelling public who have occasion to cross.- Mayor v. Central R. Co. of N. J., - N. J. Eq. —, 67

Atl. 1009.

[2] Equipment and appliances.

Extent of power of state to regulate as to safety appliances,—- see ante, § 25, note [10].

New York statutes regulating the mode of heating steam passenger cars and directing the placing of guards and guard-posts on railway bridges, etc., do not, as applied to interstate roads, violate the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, and are valid exercise of the powers resting in the state in the absence of action by Congress.- New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 418, affg. 142 N. Y. 646, 37 N. E. 568.

All cars should be equipped with air brakes, and all such brakes should be used and operated.—In re Power or Train Brakes, 11 Inters. Com. R. 429.

A state statute compelling railroads to heat passenger cars by apparatus other than stoves is a valid exercise of police power and applies to railroads engaged in interstate commerce.- People v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 55 Hun (N. Y.), 409, 8 N. Y. Supp. 672; affd. without opinion, 123 N. Y. 635, 25 N. E. 953.

The provisions of the N. Y. Public Service Commissions Law, §§ 26, 49 and 50, demonstrate that a chief purpose of the statute is that common carriers by railroad in the State shall at all times render to the public safe, adequate and proper service and maintain their line or lines in a condition to afford such service. It is the duty of the Public Service Commissions to secure their enforcement. In re Port Jervis Elect. L. P. G. & R. R. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission for the Second District, May 12, 1908.

"Equipment" as applied to railroads, means those things necessary to the operation of a railway, as cars, locomotives, etc.- People v. St. L. A. & T. H. R. R. Co., 176 Ill. 512, 52 N. E. 292, 35 L. R. A. 656.

[3] Changes of motive power.

Permitting a change of motive power a judicial act,- see ante, § 4, note [19].

A corporation was empowered by its charter to operate a railroad in a city by "any mechanical or other power."- Held, that upon obtaining the consent of the municipal authorities it had the right to change its motive power and operate its road by electricity.-Hudson R. Tel. Co. v. Watervliet, T. & R. Co., 135 N. Y. 393, 32 N. E. 148, affg. s. c. 61 Hun (N. Y.), 140, 161, 15 N. Y. Supp. 752, 763.

The N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners, under N. Y. R. R. L., § 100, is not required to refuse consent to a change in motive power because the motor proposed to be used is still in its experimental stage, or because the corporation applying to use it is controlled by persons interested in the manufacture of such motors.- People ex rel. Babylon R. Co. v. Board of R. R. Comrs., 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) 179, 522 N. Y. Supp. 908; affd. 158 N. Y. 711, 53 N. E. 1129.

Granting a street railroad permission to change its motive power confers rights in the nature of a franchise, and the N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners cannot subsequently reverse or modify its decision.- People ex rel. Luckings v. Board of R. R. Comrs., 30 App. Div. (N. Y.) 69, 51 N. Y. Supp, 781; affd. 156 N. Y. 693, 51 N. E. 1093.

In the absence of statutory authorization, the N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners cannot subsequently reconsider or review its action in granting permission to a street railroad to change its motive power. Such permission is in the nature of a franchise.- People ex rel. Luckings v. Board of R. R. Comrs., 30 App. Div. (N. Y.) 69, 51 N. Y. Supp. 781; affd. 156 N. Y. 693, 51 N. E. 1093.

In authorizing the Board of Railroad Commissioners to permit railroads to substitute electrical for steam power, the Legislature intended that such power should be exercised not in conflict with the established law and policy of the state as to overhead electrical wires.— Potter v. Collis, 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 392, 46 N. Y. Supp. 471; affd. 156 N. Y. 16, 50 N. E. 413.

A street railroad corporation cannot use electric power to operate its cars without the consent of N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners. - Trelford v. Coney I. R. Co., 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 204, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1150.

[4] Stations and waiting-rooms.

"Depot" and "station" defined,- see ante § 2, note [10].

Power of state to vest a commission with power to require building of stations see ante, § 4, note [14]. Consenting to discontinuance of a station a judicial act,—see ante, § 4, note [19].

Duty of carriers as to depots and grounds,—see ante, § 26, note [16].

A Minnesota statute empowered the state Railroad and Warehouse Commission to compel railroads to erect and maintain depots, etc., and prescribe the kind and condition of such erections.- Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 396.

Mandamus will not lie to compel a railroad to erect a station at a particular place, unless there is a specific duty, imposed by statute, to do so, and clear proof of a breach of that duty.- Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Washington Territory, 142 U. S. 492, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 283.

The Legislature may require failroads to erect and maintain suitable waiting-rooms, etc., to accommodate passengers.- State ex rel. Barton Co. v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. R. Co., 32 Fed. 722.

It is doubtful whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to compel a carrier to locate or relocate a station at a specific point, but certainly that Commission should not exercise such power unless all the facts and conditions clearly indicate that the interests of the public in the community concerned are materially impaired by the lack of such facilities.-Jones v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 167.

At common law, a carrier of passengers and freight is under no obligation to provide depots for passengers or warehouses for freight awaiting transportation. People v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 58, 9 N. E. 856, revg. 40 Hun (N. Y.), 570.

If the statute provides that a carrier may abandon a station only upon the consent of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, and such abandonment is done without such consent, mandamus will lie to compel the restoration of such station.-State v. N. H. & N. Co., 37 Conn. 153.

A court has no authority to dictate the exact spot of the location of a depot building or to confine its location to any particular block or lot.Florida, C. & P. R. Co. v. State ex rel. Travares, 31 Fla. 482, 13 So. 103, 20 L. R. A. 419.

An act requiring railroads to join in establishing a union passenger station at a point named, is valid.— Mayor v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 109 Mass. 103.

The legislature may empower railroad commissioners to direct railroad corporations to build and maintain depots at specified places on their lines, determined by the commissioners to be in accordance with the demands of public convenience and necessity.- Railroad Comrs. v. P. & O. C. R. Co., 63 Me. 269.

Requiring the erection of passenger waiting-room at the intersections of railways is within the police power of the state.- Missouri v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 83 Mo. 144.

[5] Operation generally.

A municipality may compel a railroad company to lower its tunnel under a river so as to permit an increased depth of water for navigation. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 506, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 518.

A public service corporation occupying a street is bound to adopt such reasonable methods and safeguards as will most effectually permit of the use of the same street, etc., by the public and by other corporations whose user is of public advantage.-Hudson R. Tel. Co. v. Watervliet, T. & R. Co., 56 Hun (N. Y.), 67, 9 N. Y. Supp. 177.

A railroad cannot leave its cars standing on a street crossing, or use or leave its cars thereon longer than is reasonably necessary to traverse such crossing with its cars.- Town of Mason v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 183, 41 S. E. 418.

[6] Improvements.

The interests of the public and the stockholders will be subserved by encouraging a liberal application of the earnings to the improvement of the road.- Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 99 U. S. 402.

[7] Terminal facilities.

A railway company owned the right of way and grounds around its station. It permitted the erection of two grain elevators thereon, by private corporations. Under a statute requiring adequate facilities and forbidding unjust discrimination therein, the Nebraska Board of Transportation, upon findings of fact that the two elevators were insufficient and were also in a combination as to prices, etc., ordered the railroad to permit certain complainants to erect an additional elevator. The Supreme Court of Nebraska granted mandamus to enforce the order, upholding the interpretation put upon the statute by the Board.— State ex rel. Board of Transportation v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 29 Neb. 550, 45 N. W. 785. The Supreme Court of the United States held, however, that the order was beyond the power of the Board. To compel a carrier to permit the erection of a grain elevator on its private property, is taking of private property for a private use, for the elevator was simply for and by a voluntary association of individuals, acting for their personal profit, not for the public benefit.- Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 130, revg. s. c. 29 Neb. 550, 45 N. W. 785.