436 THE BELLONA GO'S CASE.—3 BLAND.

The property of a corporation, as well as that of an individual, is subject to

be taken for public uses, under the power of eminent domain. [b]
What is such a public use as authorizes the taking of private property to be

so applied.
Where there are several public uses, the exercise of the power of eminent

domain may be so limited as to preserve them all.
A corporation considered as a mere citizen owner, within the meaning of

the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.

THIS bill was filed in Baltimore County Court on the 25th of
August, 1831, by The Bellona Gunpowder Company of Maryland,
against The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company. The
bill states, that the plaintiffs are a body politic existing as such
under the Acts of 1814, ch. 78, and 1824, ch. 32; that the objects
of their incorporation were the manufacturing and vending of
gunpowder, and the carrying on of any other branches of manu-
facture in their discretion; for which purpose they were authorized
to purchase and hold lands, in fee simple or otherwise, not exceed-
ing one thousand acres, and to erect thereon all needful buildings;
under which authority they had purchased a tract of land in Balti-
more County, containing less than one thousand acres, on which
they had erected mills and buildings needful and convenient for
the manufacture of gunpowder; that the plaintiffs had invested in
this manufactory, in real and personal property, from seventy to
eighty thousand dollars; that the detendants were incorporated
by the Act of 1827, ch. 72, by which they were authorized to con-
struct a railroad from the City of Baltimore to some suitable point
on the Susquehanna River; under which authority they had lo-
cated their road nearly a mile over the land of the plaintiff's, so as
to require the removal of one of their buildings used for the pur-
poses of their gunpowder manufactory; that if the defendants
were permitted to construct their road as thus laid out, it would
stop the works of the plaintiff's for a length of time, and not only
prevent them from manufacturing the materials on hand, but
oblige their present customers to form connexions with other estab-
lishments; and that *such was the nature of the manufac-
443 tory, and the hazard of carrying it on, that workmen could
not be procured to carry it on, if subjected to the increased hazard,
consequent upon such a thoroughfare as a public railroad running
near or through the works; that the construction of the road as
located, would be destructive, and in violation of the plaintiffs'
chartered rights; that it might be located in a different way, so
as to avoid any collision with the works of the plaintiffs, and at
very little, if any, additional expense to the defendants; that the
Legislature of Maryland had 110 right or power, of themselves and

(6) Approved in West River Bridge Co. v. Dix;, 6 Howard, 542; R. R. Co. v.
Gaslight Go. 63 N. Y. 334. Cf. Greenwood v. Freight Co. 105 U. S. 13.