the land to the center of the street cannot be | Rep. 146; Omaha & N. P. R. Co. v. Janecek, diverted, even by the state itself, without 30 Neb. 276, 27 Am. St. Rep. 399, 46 N. W. compensation to such owner. Indianapolis v. Croas, 7 Ind. 9; Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; Tate v. Ohio & M. R. Co. 7 Ind. 479; Protzman v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co. 9 Ind. 469, 68 Am. Dec. 650; Cox v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. 48 Ind. 178; Lostutter v. Aurora, 126 Ind. 436, 12 L. R. A. 259, 26 N. E. 184; Haslett v. New Albany Belt & Terminal R. Co. 7 Ind. App. 603, 34 N. E. 845. Individual owners of abutting property have a private interest in the street or highway distinct from the interest of the public, of which they cannot be deprived without just compensation. Lostutter v. Aurora, 126 Ind. 436, 12 L. R. A. 259, 26 N. E. 184; Elliott, Roads & Streets, pp. 302, 308, 310, 520; Cooley, Const. Lim. 4th ed. 676; State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185, 38 Am. Rep. 117; Cummins v. Seymour, 79 Ind. 491, 41 Am. Rep. 618. One of such private rights of the abutting owner is the free right of unimpeded ingress and egress. Burkum v. Ohio & M. R. Co. 122 Ind. 344, 23 N. E. 799; Rensselaer v. Leopold, 106 Ind. 29, 5 N. E. 761; Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90; Indianapolis v. Croas, 7 Ind. 9; Indianapolis v. Kingsbury, 101 Ind. 200, 51 Am. Rep. 749; St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 272, 19 L. ed. 74; Everett v. Marquette, 53 Mich. 450, 19 N. W. 140; Le Clercq v. Gallipolis, 7 Ohio, pt. 1, p. 217, 28 Am. Dec. 641; Grafton v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 21 Fed. 309; Cincinnati & S. G. Ave. Street R. Co. v. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St. 523; St. Vincent Female Orphan Asylum v. Troy, 76 N. Y. 108, 32 Am. Rep: 286; Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. 29 Minn. 41, 11 N. W. 124. Another of such rights of the abutting owner is the right of quiet enjoyment of his property, and any interference with such quiet enjoyment is an infringement of his right of property; and, in an action for damages for the violation of such right by the operation of a railroad, the elements of noise, dust and vibration of property are properly considered in estimating the amount of damages. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317, 27 L. ed. 739, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719; Reid v. Atlanta, 73 Ga. 523; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286, 1 L. R. A. 493, 12 Am. St. Rep. 644, 39 N. W. 629; Lahr v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co. 104 N. Y. 268, 10 N. E. 528; Story v. New York Elev. R. Co. 90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. 478; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 42 Neb. 90, 60 N. W. 326; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Loeb, 118 Ill. 203, 59 Am. Rep. 341, 8 N. E. 460; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Schmidgall, 91 Ill. App. 23; Bangor & P. R. Co. v. McComb, 60 Me. 290; Chicago v. Taylor, 125 U. S. 161, 31 L. ed. 638, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820; Garvey v. Long Island R. Co. 159 N. Y. 323, 70 Am. St. Rep. 550, 54 N. E. 57; Columbus, H. V. & T. R. Co. v. Gardner, 45 Ohio St. 309, 13 N. E. 69. Filling the atmosphere with smoke, cinders, gases, ashes, dust, or other foreign substances, thereby affecting or impairing the purity of the air, by the operation of a railroad, constitutes an injury affecting the property, for which the owner may recover compensation. 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 1122; Jeffersonville, M. & I. R. Co. v. Esterle, 13 Bush, 667; Bangor & P. R. Co. v. McComb, 60 Me. 290; Walker v. Old Colony & N. R. Co. 103 Mass. 10, 4 Am. Rep. 509; Drucker v. Manhattan R. Co. 106 N. Y. 157, 60 Am. Rep. 437, 12 N. E. 568; Lahr v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co. 104 N. Y. 295, 10 N. E. 528; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. 325, 94 Am. Dec. 84; Weyer v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 68 Wis. 180, 31 N. W. 479. Unusual and extraordinary noises also constitute an injury affecting property, for which the owner may recover damages. 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 1122; Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Nix, 137 Ill. 141, 27 N. E. 81; Wilson v. Des Moines, O. & S. R. Co. 67 Iowa, 509, 25 N. W. 754; Bangor & P. R. Co. v. McComb, 60 Me. 290; Blue Earth County v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. 28 Minn. 503, 11 N. W. 73; White v. Charlotte & S. C. R. Co. 6 Rich. L. 47; Ft. Worth & N. O. R. Co. v. Pearce, 75 Tex. 281, 12 S. W. 864. Vibration and jarring of one's premises also constitute such an injury. Cohen v. Cleveland, 43 Ohio St. 190, 1 N. E. 589; Henderson v. New York C. R. Co. 17 Hun, 344; Croft v. London & N. W. R. Co. 3 Best & S. 436, 32 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 113, 9 Jur. N. S. 962, 7 L. T. N. S. 741, 11 Week. Rep 360. The owner may also recover damages for obstruction of view and loss of privacy in the use of his premises. Moore v. New York Elev. R. Co. 130 N. Y. 523, 14 L. R. A. 731, 29 N. E. 997; Ham v. Wisconsin, I. & N. R. Co. 61 Iowa, 716, 17 N. W. 157. A man's property may be taken, within v. Atlanta R. & Power Co. 51 L. R. A. 125; and La Crosse City R. Co. v. Higbee, 51 L. R. A. 923. R. & K. Electric R. Co. 37 L. R. A. 856; Jaynes | Electric Co. 43 L. R. A. 233; Southern R. Co. v. Omaha Street R. Co. 39 L. R. A. 751; Snyder v. Ft. Madison Street R. Co. 41 L. R. A. 345; Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birmingham R. & the meaning of the constitutional provision, though his title and possession are not disturbed. To deprive him of the ordinary beneficial use and enjoyment or his property is, at law, a taking, as much as if the property itself were actually taken. Lewis, Em. Dom. § 56; Cooley, Const. Lim. 6th ed. 670; Seifert v. Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 136, 54 Am. Rep. 664, 4 N. E. 321; Hooker v. New Haven & N. Co. 14 Conn. 146, 36 Am. Dec. 477; Grand Rapids Boom Co. v. Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308; Pumpelly v. Green Bay & M. Canal Co. 13 Wall. 166, 20 L. ed. 557; Crocker v. New York, 15 Fed. 405. Interference with an easement is a taking of property within the constitutional provision, and necessitates compensation to the party having the right of enjoyment of the easement. which is a taking of the property of the abutting owner. Tate v. Ohio & M. R. Co. 7 Ind. 479; Cox v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. 48 Ind. 178; Sharpe v. St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. 49 Ind. 296; Terre Haute & S. E. R. Co. v. Rodel, 89 Ind. 128, 46 Am. Rep. 164; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Scott, 74 Ind. 29; Kincaid v. Indianapolis Natural Gas Co. 124 Ind. 577, 8 L. R. A. 602, 19 Am. St. Rep. 113, 24 N. E. 1066; Porter v. Midland R. Co. 125 Ind. 477, 25 N. E. 556; Chicago & C. Terminal R. Co. v. Whiting, H. & E. C. Street R. Co. 139 Ind. 301, 26 L. R. A. 337, 47 Am. St. Rep. 264, 38 N. E. 604; Hot Springs R. Co. v. Williamson, 136 U. S. 121, 34 L. ed. 355, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 955; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317, 27 L. ed. 739, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 39 Minn. 286, 1 L. R. A. 493, 12 Am. St. Rep. 644, 39 N. W. 629; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Heisel, 47 Mich. 393, 11 N. W. 212; Theobold v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. 66 Miss. 279, 4 L. R. A. 735, 14 Am. St. Rep. 564, 6 So. 230; Shepherd v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 130 U. S. 426, 32 L. ed. 970, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598; Gray v. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co. 13 Minn. 315, Gil. 289; Stanley v. Davenport, 54 Iowa, 463, 37 Am. Rep. 216, 2 N. W. 1064, 6 N. W. 706; Williams v. New York C. R. Mills, Em. Dom. § 32; Elliott, Roads & Co. 16 N. Y. 97, 69 Am. Dec. 651; Imlay v. Streets, p. 306. Mills, Em. Dom. § 31; Indianapolis & C. Gravel Road Co. v. Belt R. Co. 110 Ind. 5, 10 N. E. 923; Arnold v. Hudson River R. Co. 55 N. Y. 661; Story v. New York Elev. R. Co. 90 N. Y. 149, 43 Am. Rep. 146; Eagle v. Charing Cross R. Co. L. R. 2 C. P. 638, 36 L. J. C. P. N. S. 297, 16 L. T. N. S. 593, 15 Week. Rep. 1016. An additional burden upon a street or highway constitutes a taking of the abutting owner's property. The legislature may authorize the occupation of the public easement, originally acquired by grant or appropriation, in any manner calculated to further the general objects of the acquisition; but it may not divert such easement to purposes which exclude or destroy the original uses, or lay additional burdens upon the land, or destroy or impair the incidental easements of the adjoining lot owners in the street, without just compensation assessed and tendered, according to law. Burkam v. Ohio & M. R. Co. 122 Ind. 344, 23 N. E. 799; Cincinnati & S. G. Ave. Street R. Co. v. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St. 523; Egbert v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 6 Ind. App. 350, 33 N. E. 659; Indiana, B. & W. R. Co. v. Eberle, 110 Ind. 542, 59 Am. Rep. 225, 11 N. E. 467; Indianapolis & C. Gravel Road Co. v. Belt R. Co. 110 Ind. 5, 10 N. E. 923; Buchner v. Chicago, M. & N. W. R. Co. 56 Wis. 403, 14 N. W. 273, 60 Wis. 264, 19 N. W. 56; Lamm v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 45 Minn. 71, 10 L. R. A. 268, 47 N. W. 455; Linden Land Co. v. Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co. 107 Wis. 493, 83 N. W. 851. Where the fee of the street remains in the abutting owner, the use of the street by steam or ordinary commercial railroads constitutes an additional servitude or burden Union Branch R. Co. 26 Conn. 249, 68 Am. Dec. 392; Starr v. Camden & A. R. Co. 24 N. J. L. 592; Columbus, H. V. & T. R. Co. v. Gardner, 45 Ohio St. 309, 13 N. E. 69; Weyl v. Sonoma Valley R. Co. 69 Cal. 202, 10 Pac. 510; Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Boerner, 34. Neb. 240, 33 Am. St. Rep. 637, 51 N. W. 842; Denver Circle R. Co. v. Nestor, 10 Colo. 403, 15 Pac. 714; White v. Northwestern N. C. R. Co. 113 N. C. 610, 22 L. R. A. 627, 37 Am. St. Rep. 639, 18 S. E. 330; South Carolina R. Co. v. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546; Ford v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 14 Wis. 610, 80 Am. Dec. 791; Cooley, Const. Lim. 6th ed. 676; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 725; Elliott, Roads & Streets, p. 529; Mills, Em. Dom. § 1011. While damages for mere personal annoyance or inconvenience, such as are suffered by the public at large, are not recoverable, yet, whenever any part of the property of a citizen is taken for public use, such inconvenience and annoyance are construed as affecting the citizen's right of the enjoyment of his property as a home, and as depreciating its general market value. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 331, 27 L. ed. 744, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719; Chicago v. Taylor, 125 U. S. 161, 31 L. ed. 638, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. McAuley, 121 Ill. 160, 11 N. E. 67; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Loeb, 118 II. 203, 59 Am. Rep. 341, 8 N. E. 460; Campbell v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 82 Ga. 320, 9 S. E. 1078. An electric interurban railroad company authorized to carry freight is a railroad corporation, as recognized by the statutes of the state, for all purposes relating to the power of eminent domain. Steam and interburban electric railroads are common carriers, possessing the same identical powers, and, being quasi public Malott v. Collinsville, C. & E. St. L. Eleccorporations, therefore owe the same recip-tric R. Co. 47 C. C. A. 345, 108 Fed. 313. rocal duties to the public. Each may be It is an additional burden or servitude compelled to carry freight. upon the street, and may be enjoined, at the suit of an abutting owner, from constructing or operating such road until damages are assessed and tendered. 2 Elliott, Railroads, § 640; State ex rel. Atwater v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 48 N. J. L. 55, 57 Am. Rep. 543, 2 Atl. 803; Scofield v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 43 Ohio St. 571, 54 Am. Rep. 846, 3 N. E. 907; Central U. Teleph. Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 194, 10 Am. St. Rep. 114, 19 N. E. 604; Central U. Teleph. Co. v. State, 123 Ind. 113, 24 N. E. 215; Richmond Natural Gas Co. v. Clawson, 155 Ind. 659, 51 L. R. A. 744, 58 N. E. 1049; Railroad Comrs. v. Portland & O. C. R. Co. 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 208; Union P. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343, 23 L. ed. 428; United States Exp. Co. v. Rush, 24 Ind. 403; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Condon, 10 Ind. App. 538, 38 N. E. 71; Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Wolcott, 141 Ind. 267, 50 Am. St. Rep. 320, 39 N. E. 451; Louisville, E. & St. L. Consol. R. Co. v. Wilson, 132 Ind. 517, 18 L. R. A. 105, 32 N. E. 311. Steam railroads and interurban electric railroads may be compelled to make connections and interchange their business with one another. Stillwater & M. Street R. Co. v. Boston & M. R. Cc. 171 N. Y. 589, 59 L. R. A. 489, 64 N. E. 511. It is the business done, and not the power used, which determines the character of the railroad, and distinguishes the ordinary commercial railroad from the street railroad. Booth, Street Railways, § 1; Elliott, Roads & Streets, pp. 557, 558; Williams v. City Electric Street R. Co. 41 Fed. 556; Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City Cable R. Co. 68 Fed. 82; 2 Booth, Priv. Corp. § 403; Carli v. Stillwater Street R. & Transfer Co. 28 Minn. 373, 41 Am. Rep. 290, 10 N. W. 205; Schaaf v. Cleveland, M. & S. R. Co. 66 Ohio St. 215, 64 N. E. 145; Louisville & P. R. Co. v. Louisville City R. Co. 2 Duv. 178; Malott v. Collinsville, C. & E. St. L. Electric R. Co. 47 C. C. A. 345, 108 Fed. 313. The distinctive and essential difference between a street railroad and an ordinary commercial railroad is that the former carries passengers only, while the latter carries both passengers and property. Booth, Street Railways, § 1; Elliott, Roads & Streets, pp. 557, 558; Joyce, Electric Law, § 2690; Funk v. St. Paul City R. Co. 61 Minn. 435, 29 L. R. A. 208, 52 Am. St. Rep. 608, 63 N. W. 1099. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, R. & K. Electric R. Co. 95 Wis. 561, 37 L. R. A. 856, 60 Am. St. Rep. 136, 70 N. W. 678; Schaaf v. Cleveland, M. & S. R. Co. 66 Ohio St. 215, 64 N. E. 145; Rische v. Texas Transp. Co. 27 Tex. Civ. App. 33, 66 S. W. 324. An injunction is always the proper remedy to prevent the unlawful appropriation of, or damages to, private property for public purposes. Sidener v. Norristown, H. & St. L. Turnp. Co. 23 Ind. 623; Hardinsburg v. Cravens, 148 Ind. 1, 47 N. E. 153; Ft. Wayne v. Ft. Wayne & J. R. Co. 149 Ind. 25, 48 N. E. 342; Terre Haute v. Evansville & T. H. R. Co. 149 Ind. 174, 37 L. R. A. 189, 46 N. E. 77; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Young, 135 Ind. 426, 41 Am. St. Rep. 430, 35 N. E. 177; New Albany v. White, 100 Ind. 206; Elliott, Roads & Streets, p. 536; 2 Elliott, Railroads, § 630; Cox v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. 48 Ind. 178; Chicago & G. S. R. Co. v. Jones, 103 Ind. 386, 6 N. E. 8; Midland R. Co. v. Smith, 113 Ind. 233, 15 N. E. 256; Porter v. Midland R. Co. 125 Ind. 476, 25 N. E. 556; Peck v. Schenectady R. Co. 67 App. Div. 359, 73 N. Y. Supp. 794; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, R. & K. Electric R. Co. 95 Wis. 561, 37 L. R. A. 856, 60 Am. St. Rep. 136, 70 N. W. 678; Schaaf v. Cleveland, M. & S. R. Co. 66 Ohio St. 215, 64 N. E. 145; Highland Ave. & Belt R. Co. v. Matthews, 99 Ala. 24, 14 L. R. A. 462, 10 So. 267; Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birmingham R. & Electric Co. 119 Ala. 129, 24 So. 368; O'Connor v. Southern P. R. Co. 122 Cal. 681, 55 Pac. 688. Messrs. Olds & Doughman, for appel lee: A street railway, whether urban, suburban, or interurban, is not an additional servitude on the street of a city in Indiana. Chicago & C. Terminal R. Co. v. Whiting, H. & E. C. Street R. Co. 139 Ind. 297, 26 L. R. A. 337, 47 Am. St. Rep. 264, 38 N. E. 604; Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358, 49 N. E. 951; Coburn v. New Teleph. Co. 156 Ind. 90, 52 L. R. A. 671, 59 N. E. 324; Eichels v. Evansville Street R. Co. 78 Ind. 261, 41 Am. Rep. 561; Newell v. Minneapolis, L. & M. R. Co. 35 Minn. 112, 59 Am. Rep. 303, 27 N. W. 839; McQuaid v. Portland & V. R. Co. 18 Or. 237, 22 Pac. 899; Paquet v. Mt. Tabor Street R. Co. 18 Or. 233, 22 Pac. 906; Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster R. Co. 104 Cal. 186, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 37 Pac. 786; San Antonio Rapid Transit Street R. Co. v. Limburger, 88 Tex. 79, 53 Am. St. Rep. 730, 30 S. W. 533; Ehret v. Camden & T. R. Co. 61 N. J. Eq. 171, 47 Atl. 562; Ranken v. St. Louis & B. Suburban R. Co. 98 Fed. 479; Green v. City & Suburban R. Co. 78 Md. 294, 44 Am. St. Rep. 288, 28 Atl. 626. 64 Am. St. Rep. 708, 26 S. E. 428; Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster R. Co. 104 Cal. 186, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 37 Pac. 786; Paquet v. Mt. Tabor Street R. Co. 18 Or. 233, 22 Pac. 906; McQuaid v. Portland & V. R. Co. 18 Or. 237, 22 Pac. 899; Newell v. Minneapolis, L. & M. R. Co. 35 Minn. 112, 59 Am. Rep.. 303, 27 N. W. 839. A street railroad company, when granted authority by contract by a city to construct a street railway along and upon its public streets, has the right to construct and operate a street railway along and upon the A street railway is no additional burden streets covered by its franchise and license upon a street. | granted by the city; and courts cannot interfere or set aside the contract on the ground that it is against public policy or an unreasonable exercise of power. A Coal-Float v. Jeffersonville, 112 Ind. 15, 13 N. E. 115; Skaggs v. Martinsville, 140 Ind. 476, 33 L. R. A. 781, 49 Am. St. Rep. 209, 39 N. E. 241; Shea v. Muncie, 148 Ind. 14, 46 N. E. 138; Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 139, 41 L. R. A. 337, 47 N. E. 525, 51 N. E. 80; 3 Elliott, Railroads, § 1081; Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co. 17 N. J. Eq. 75, 86 Am. Dec. 252. The use of a public street in a city for street-railway purposes is one of the uses contemplated at the time the street was dedicated, and is but a new method of enjoying an old and ever existing use. Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358, 49 N. E. 951; Coburn v. New Teleph. Co. 156 Ind. 90, 52 L. R. A. 671, 59 N. E. 324; Chicago & C. Terminal R. Co. v. Whiting, H. & E. C. Street R. Co. 139 Ind. 297, 26 L. R. A. 337, 47 Am. St. Rep. 264, 38 N. E. 604; Eichels v. Evansville Street R. Co. 78 Ind. 261, 41 Am. Rep. 561; Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co. 17 N. J. Eq. 75, 86 Am. Dec. 252. Eichels v. Evansville Street R. Co. 78 Ind. 261, 41 Am. Rep. 561; Chicago & C. Terminal R. Co. v. Whiting, H. & E. C. Street R. Co. 139 Ind. 297, 26 L. R. A. 337, 47 Am. St. Rep. 264, 38 N. E. 604; Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358, 49 N. E. 951; Coburn v. New Teleph. Co. 156 Ind. 90, 52 L. R. A. 671, 59 N. E. 324; Elliott v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co. 32 Conn. 579; Hiss v. Baltimore & H. Pass. R. Co. 52 Md. 242, 36 Am. Rep. 371; Atty. Gen. v. Metropolitan R. Co. 125 Mass. 515, 28 Am. Rep. 264; Hobart v. Milwaukee City R. Co. 27 Wis. 194, 9 Am. Rep. 461; Cincinnati & S. G. Ave. Street R. Co. v. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St. 523; Jersey City | & B. R. Co. v. Jersey City & H. Horse R. Co. 20 N. J. Eq. 61; Savannah & T. R. Co. v. Savannah, 45 Ga. 602; Brown v. Duplessis, 14 La. Ann. 854; Carson v. Central R. Co. 35 Cal. 325; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Rosedale Street R. Co. 64 Tex. 80, 53 Am. Rep. 739; Taggart v. Newport Street R. Co. 16 R. I. 668, 7 L. R. A. 205, 19 Atl. 326; Williams v. City Electric Street R. Co. 41 Fed. 556; Nichols v. Ann Arbor & Y. Street R. Co. 87 Mich. 361, 16 L. R. A. 371, 49 N. W. 538; Lockhart v. Craig Street R. Co. 139 Pa. 419, 21 Atl. 26; Birmingham Traction Co. v. Birmingham R. & Electric Co. 119 Ala. 137, 43 L. R. A. 233, 24 So. 502; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. West Chicago Street R. Co. 156 Ill. 255, 29 L. R. A. 485, 40 N. E. 1008; Taylor v. Portsmouth, K. & Y. Street R. Co. 91 Me. 193, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216, 39 Atl. 560; Snyder v. Ft. Madison Street R. Co. 105 Iowa, 284, 41 L. R. A. 345, 75 N. W. 179; Placke v. Union Depot R. Co. 140 Mo. 634, 41 S. W. 915; San Antonio Rapid Transit Street R. Co. v. Limburger, 88 Tex. 79, 53 Am. St. Rep. 731, 30 S. W. 533; Finch v. Riverside & A. R. Co. 87 Cal. 597, 25 Pac. 765; Doane v. Lake Street Elev. R. Co. 165 Ill. 510, 36 L. R. A. 97, 56 Am. St. Rep. 265, 46 N. E. 520; General Electric R. Co. v. Chicago & W. I. R. Co. 184 Ill. 588, 56 N. E. 963; Reid v. Nor- Newell v. Minneapolis, L. & M. R. Co. 35 folk City R. Co. 94 Va. 117, 36 L. R. A. 274, | Minn. 112, 59 Am. Rep. 303, 27 N. W. 839; Streets and highways are dedicated for the accommodation of public travel, traffic, and communication. Coburn v. New Teleph. Co. 156 Ind. 90, 52 L. R. A. 671, 59 N. E. 324; Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358, 49 N. E. 951; Julia Bldg. Asso. v. Bell Teleph. Co. 88 Mo. 258, 57 Am. Rep. 395; Cincinnati Inclined Plane R. Co. v. City & Suburban Teleg. Asso. 48 Ohio St. 390, 12 L. R. A. 534, 29 Am. St. Rep. 559, 27 N. E. 890; Elliott, Roads & Streets, pp. 12, 529. One of the primary uses of streets is the transportation of property, as well as of persons; and the fact that property is carried in a street car or vehicle lawfully upon the street does not constitute an additional burden. San Antonio Rapid Transit Street R. Co. v. Limburger, 88 Tex. 79, 53 Am. St. Rep. 731, 30 S. W. 533; Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster R. Co. 104 Cal. 186, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 37 Pac. 786; McQuaid v. Portland & V. R. Co. 18 Or. 237, 22 Pac. 899; Paquet v. Mt. Tabor Street R. Co. 18 Or. 233, 22 Pac. 906; Chicago & C. Terminal R. Co. v. Whiting, H. & E. C. Street R. Co. 139 Ind. 297, 26 L. R. A. 337, 47 Am. St. Rep. 264, 38 N. E. 604. The city of Fort Wayne has the power to permit the use of its streets for street-railway purposes, and such contract between the city and street railway, designating the terms, conditions, and extent of the use of a street by a street railway company, limits the use of the street to the purposes designated in the contract. Burns's Stat. (Ind.) 1901, §§ 4117, 18, 5468a; Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 139, 41 L. R. A. 337, 47 N. E. 525, 51 N. E. 80; St. Louis & M. River R. Co. v. Kirkwood, 159 Mo. 239, 53 L. R. A. 300, 60 S. W. 110; Western Paving & Supply Co. v. Citizens' Street R. Co. 128 Ind. 525, 10 L. R. A. 770, 25 Am. St. Rep. 462, 26 N. E. 188, 28 N. E. 88; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 706; Allegheny v. Millville, E. & S. Street R. Co. 159 Pa. 411, 28 Atl. 202; 3 Elliott, Railroads, §| 1081; Elliott, Roads & Streets, p. 565. Damages are not recoverable by an individual for such annoyance and inconvenience as are suffered by the general public. McCowan v. Whitesides, 31 Ind. 235; Cummins v. Seymour, 79 Ind. 491, 41 Am. Rep. 618; Terre Haute & L. R. Co. v. Bissell, 108 Ind. 113, 9 N. E. 144; Dwenger v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. 98 Ind. 153; High, Inj. 3d ed. § 762. The location of a railroad adjacent to one's property, but not upon the same, does not constitute a taking of private property for which he is entitled to have damages assessed and paid. Indiana, B. & W. R. Co. v. Eberle, 110 Ind. 542, 59 Am. Rep. 225, 11 N. E. 467; Duenger v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. 98 Ind. 153; Haslett v. New Albany Belt & Terminal R. Co. 7 Ind. App. 603, 34 N. E. 845; Evansville & R. R. Co. v. Charlton, 6 Ind. App. 56, 33 N. E. 129; Kennett's Petition, 24 N. H. 139; Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. ed. 336; Shaubut v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. 21 Minn. 502; High, Inj. § 827, p. 631. Street railroad companies are not common carriers of property, and only become common carriers of such property as they engage in carrying, or hold themselves out as engaged in carrying. 1 Elliott, Railroads, § 6; Hutchinson, Carr. § 47; Levi v. Lynn & B. R. Co. 11 Allen, 300, 87 Am. Dec. 713. Messrs. F. Winter, J. A. Van Osdol, F. E. Matson, and Arthur W. Brady, also, for appellee: The primary and dominant purpose for which highways are established is to facilitate travel and transportation. Lostutter v. Aurora, 126 Ind. 436, 12 L. R. A. 259, 26 N. E. 184; Cincinnati Inclined Plane R. Co. v. City & Suburban Teleg. Asso. 48 Ohio St. 390, 12 L. R. A. 534, 29 Am. St. Rep. 559, 27 N. E. 890; Callen v. Columbus Edison Electric Light Co. 66 Ohio St. 166, 58 L. R. A. 782, 64 N. E. 141; Howe v. West End Street R. Co. 167 Mass. 46, 44 N. E. 386; Callanan v. Gilman, 107 N. Y. 360, 1 Am. St. Rep. 831, 14 N. E. 264; Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co. 158 N. Y. 231, 43 L. R. A. 672, 52 N. E. 1092; Booth, Street Railways, §§ 75, 76. The methods of using a highway presumed to have been contemplated when such highway was dedicated to, or otherwise acquired by, the public, are not merely those prevailing or known at the time of such dedication or other acquisition, but include also such as may afterward become known with the advance of science or the arts. Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358, 49 N. E. 951; Coburn v. New Teleph. Co. 156 Ind. 90, 52 L. R. A. 671, 59 N. E. 324; People v. Eaton, 100 Mich. 208, 24 L. R. A. 721, 59 N. W. 145; Halsey v. Rapid Transit Street R. Co. 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859; Cater v. Northwestern Teleph. Exch. Co. 60 Minn. 539, 28 L. R. A. 310, 51 Am. St. Rep. 543, 63 N. W. 111; Cincinnati Inclined Plane R. Co. v. City & Suburban Teleg. Asso. 48 Ohio St. 390, 12 L. R. A. 534, 29 Am. St. Rep. 559, 27 N. E. 890; Eustis v. Milton Street R. Co. 183 Mass. 586, 67 N. E. 663; Moses v. Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. 21 Ill. 516; Cooley, Const. Lim. 6th ed. 682; Elliott, Roads & Streets, 2d ed. § 698. The public easement is much broader in the case of an urban, than of a suburban, highway. Kincaid v. Indianapolis Natural Gas Co. 124 Ind. 577, 8 L. R. A. 602, 19 Am. St. Rep. 113, 24 N. E. 1066; Lostutter v. Aurora, 126 Ind. 436, 12 L. R. A. 259, 26 N. E. 184; Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358, 49 N. E. 951; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 4th ed. § 688; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. pp. 237-241; Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster R. Co. 104 Cal. 186, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89, 37 Pac. 786. The ownership of lands occupied by a street is, for all substantial purposes, in the public. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. v. Hoboken, 36 N. J. L. 540; Halsey v. Rapid Transit Street R. Co. 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859; |