cemetery the same as though either was within the limits of such corporation. 91 O. L. 379. § 2505d. Repealed, 93 v. 3. § 2505e. Street railway company may lease or purchase property and franchises of electric light and power company-Stockholders' meeting to perfect lease or purchase-Dissenting stockholder-Powers of purchasing companyLease or sale does not affect liability of light and power company Any corporation or company maintaining and operating a street railroad may lease or purchase all the property, real, personal and mixed, and all the franchises, rights and privileges of any company organized prior to the date of the enactment of this supplementary act, for the purpose of supplying electricity for power and light purposes, or which has been engaged in such business in whole or in part in any city within this state, the latter being hereby vested with corresponding power to let or sell, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the corporation and company. No such lease or purchase shall be perfected until a meeting of the stockholders of each of the companies has been called for that purpose by the directors thereof, on thirty (30) days' notice to each stockholder at such time and place and in such manner as is provided for the annual meetings of the companies and the holders of at least two-thirds of the stock of each company in person or by proxy, at such meeting, or at any properly adjourned meeting assent thereto. Provided, that any stockholder who refuses to assent to such lease or sale and so signifies by notice in writing to the lessee or purchaser within ninety (90) days thereafter, shall be entitled to demand and receive compensation in the manner provided for the compensation of stockholders in sections thirty-three hundred and two, thirty-three hundred and three, and thirty-three hundred and four of the Revised Statutes, and the said sections are adopted and made a part of this section. Any such company so leasing or purchasing the property, rights and franchises of an electric light and power company shall have all the rights, power and authority that electric light and power companies now have, or may hereafter have, by the statutes of this state, but the liability of any electric light and power company shall in no manner be affected by its lease or sale as herein provided. 93 v. 139. § 3437. Where street railways may be constructedStreet railways, with single or double tracks, side-tracks, and turn-outs, may be constructed or extended within or without, or partly within and partly without, any municipal corporation or unincorporated village; and offices, depots, and other necessary buildings for such railways may also be constructed. 67 v. 10, § I. The abutting owner can recover no compensation for such use of the street unless he suffers special injury to himself; this applies where a company is granted a franchise for twenty-five years, for a single or double track, and first lays a single track, but afterwards, during the twenty-five years, lays a double track. Oviatt v. Akron St. R. R. Co., 2 N. P. 84 (C. P.) A city cannot grant the right to build a track through a public park donated for park purposes, where the deed of donation provides for a reversion if the land is used for other purposes. Cleveland City Cable Ry. Co. v. Barriss, 33 B. 314. Street railroad imposes no additional burden on lot-owner, and he is entitled to no compensation though he own the fee to center of street, unless some substantial property right is taken. Schaaf v. Electric Ry. Co., 16 C. C. 252. Switch cannot be torn up by the city because company has made improper use of it. Cleveland City Ry. Co. v. Cleveland, 4 N. P. 21 (C. P.).} Nor can laying of switch authorized by ordinance be prevented by force on ground that company has not complied with terms of franchise or that switch is unnecessary. Akron Co. v. Bedford, 6 N. P. 276 (N. P.). Where no negligence of the passenger appears, and there is no explanation for the escape of the car from the track, and nothing is shown that it was unavoidable, notwithstanding a high degree of care and skill on the part of the railroad company, the jury is authorized to presume that there was some negligence on the part of the company. Cin. St. Ry. Co. v. Kelsey, 9 C. C. 170. For acts to cure defects in consolidation agreements, see secs. (3382–1, 2, and 3). Where the council has authorized a street railroad using horses to construct and operate an electric system, the company has the right to put up poles and wires which are not dangerous, but do no substantial injury to premises adjoining, nor impede access thereto, and injunction will lie against threatened removal thereof. Mt. Adams and Eden Park Inclined Ry. Co. v. Winslow, 3 C. C. 425. § 3438. Who may grant authority to construct sameProviso The right so to construct or extend such railway within or beyond the limits of a municipal corporation, can be granted only by the council thereof, by ordinance, and the right to construct such railway within or beyond the limits of an incorporated village can be granted only by the county commissioners, by order entered on their journal; and, after said grant of renewal of any grant shall have been made, whether by general or special ordinance, or by order of the county commissioners, neither the municipal corporation nor the county commissioners shall release the grantee from any obligations or liabilities imposed by the terms of said grant or renewal of a grant during the term for which said grant or renewal shall have been made: provided, that no authority shall be given by such municipal or county authorities to occupy the track, whether single or double, or other structure of any existing street railways, for more than one-eighth of the entire distance between the termini of the route, as actually constructed, operated, and run over, of the company or individual to whom such grant is made; except, however, in granting permission to extend existing routes in cities of the first, second, and third grade of the first class, and first grade, second class, such cities, and the companies owning such route, shall have the same rights and powers they have under the laws and contracts now existing; and that no extension of any street railroad, located wholly without any such city, or of any street railroad, wherever located, which has been or shall be built in pursuance of a right obtained from any source or authority other than a municipal corporation, shall be made within the limits of such city, except as a new route, and subject to the provisions of sections twenty-five hundred and one and twenty-five hundred and two. So O. L. 173. When an injunction will be allowed against crossing or using tracks of one street railroad by another, see Met. St. Ry. Co. v. Toledo Elec. St. Ry. Co., 9 C. C. 664. An ordinance of a municipal council, authorizing an extension of a street railroad beyond the limits of the corporation and along a state road, is no defense to an action by the county commissioners to recover damages to said road occasioned by the construction of said extended line, nor are the property rights of abutting land-owners extinguished. Citizens' Electric Ry., etc., Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 56 Ohio St. 1, affirming 9 C. C. 183. The board of county commissioners is the proper source from which to obtain consent of county property; its action consenting in writing is valid, though not entered on the journal of the board; such action may be shown by parol to have been taken. Nearing v. Tol. Elect. St. Ry. Co., 9 C. C. 596. See note to sec. 3440. St. Ry. Co. v. St. Ry. Co., 50 Ohio St. 603. For irregularities in council proceedings granting authority, held not to impair the rights conferred upon the company, see Sloane v. People's Electric Ry. Co., 7 C. C. 84. Ordinance granting rights must be strictly construed against the company. and cannot authorize the erection of a permanent structure in the middle of the street. Hamilton, etc., Transit Co. v. City of Hamilton, 1 N. P. 366 (C. P.). No such grant shall be made until there is produced to council, or the commissioners, as the case may be, the written consent of the owners of more than one-half of the feet front of the lots and lands abutting on the street or public way, along which it is proposed to construct such railway or extension thereof; and the provisions of sections twenty-five hundred and one and of twentyfive hundred and three to twenty-five hundred and five inclusive, so far as they are applicable, shall be observed in all respects, whether the railway proposed is an extension of an old or the granting of a new route: provided, that this act shall not apply to any county containing a city of the second grade of the second class. So O. L. 173. Switches cannot be extended, nor additional ones constructed, without written consent of majority of property holders, represented by feet front, and obtaining proper authority. Harner v. Columbus St. Ry. Co., 29 B. 387 (C. P.). When a city council grants permission to construct a street railroad, without the consent of the owners of property on the street in which it is about to be constructed, as required by statute, the construction of the railroad may be enjoined at the suit of such owners. Roberts v. Easton, 19 Ohio St. 78. The consent of the necessary number of property owners on the street is a prerequisite to the power of council to grant permission for the construction of a street railroad therein, and the act of the council in granting such permission is not conclusive against such property owners, of the fact that the requisite majority have given their assent to such construction of the proposed road. Ib.; Simmons v. City of Toledo, 8 C. C. 535, affirmed 31 B. 367. When a single track railroad has been carefully constructed, with the requisite consent of the property holders on the street, and it is afterward proposed to construct another track on the same street, the consent of any of the property owners to the construction of the first track cannot be counted as an assent to the construction of the second, as against those who remonstrate against the added track. Roberts v. Easton, supra. Street railroad company, with permission of city or village, may under certain restrictions, extend track beyond termini named in articles. Sims v. St. R. R. Co., 37 Ohio St. 556. The right to use a street for railway purposes includes right to erect poles for support of electric wires. The consents of abutting property owners must be in writing, and may be withdrawn before the ordinance has been passed by the council. Simmons v. City of Toledo, 8 C. C. 535, affirmed 31 B. 567. In the extension of a street railway over streets not occupied by any road, the consents of the owners of more than one-half of the feet front of the lots or lands abutting on each street to be occupied by such extension are requisite. The Mt. Auburn Cable Ry. Co. v. Neare, 54 Ohio St. 153. § 3440. Appropriation of property for such railways-Toledo-Cuyahoga county When the council or commissioners make such grant, the company or person to whom the grant is made may appropriate any property necessary therefor when the owner fails to expressly waive his claim to damages by reason of the construction and operation of the railway; and in any city of the third grade of the first class any person, persons or company which is authorized to construct and operate and has constructed and is operating a street railway, may appropriate any property necessary for the purpose of occupying and using under section 3438 any existing street railway track or tracks, subject to the limitations of said section, and for not more than one-eighth of the entire distance between the termini of the route as actually constructed, operated and run over, of the appropriating company or person at the time appropriation proceedings are begun, such appropriation to be made in the mode and manner provided for the appropriation of property in part third, title 2, chapter 8, of the Revised Statutes; and in counties containing a city of the second grade of the first class the power to appropriate may be exercised, as hereinbefore provided, for the purpose of constructing a street railway along a highway occupied by a turnpike or plank road company when the person, persons or company authorized to construct such street railway cannot agree with such turnpike or plank road company upon the terms and conditions upon which such highway may be occupied, and when such appropriation will not unnecessarily interfere with the reasonable use of such high |