ART. 23] RAILROAD COMPANIES. 659

and it shall be necessary, in the judgment of the directors of such rail-
road company, to use or occupy such road, street, alley or other public
way or ground, such company may appropriate so much of the same
as may be necessary for the purposes of such road, in the same manner
and upon the same terms as provided for the appropriation of the
property of individuals by sections 269 and 270; provided, that every
railroad company laying down any such track or tracks upon any such
public street, road, alley or other public ground, shall be responsible for
injuries done to private property by such location, lying upon or near to
such public ground, which may be recovered by civil action brought
by the owner or owners at any time within two years from the comple-
tion of such track or tracks, before the proper court; and provided
further, that no railroad company shall be allowed to pass through the
city of Baltimore without the consent of the municipal authorities.

Since this section affords an adequate remedy for the depreciation of the
property of an abutting owner in consequence of the construction of a rail-
road, equity will not enjoin the construction of the railroad at the instance
of such owner. This section provides the remedy for injuries to property
not amounting to a "taking" thereof within the meaning of article 3, section
40 of the state constitution. O'Brien v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 74 Md. 376.
And see Poole v. Falls Road Ry. Co., 88 Md. 533.

This section compared with section 269. Under this section, the corpora-
tion is responsible for injuries to private property lying -upon or near the
street occupied; hence the right to redress depends upon whether damage
was done, and not upon the proximity or distance of the operative cause of
the injury. Lake Roland Co. v. Webster, 81 Md. 535.

This section held to provide the remedy for injuries to private property
incident to the construction and operation of a street railway. Poole v. Falls
Road Ry. Co., 88 Md. 541. Cf. Hodges v. Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co., 58 Md. 622.
Where a city ordinance assenting to the construction of a tunnel by a rail-
road company, provided that if any final Judgment recovered under this sec-
tion was not paid within sixty days, the holder thereof should have the right
to enjoin the operation of the railroad, such provision was held to have no
application to a Judgment growing out of an Injury to the plaintiff's private
rights for which the railroad company was liable at common law and not
under the ordinance, and hence the injunction was refused McColgan v.
Baltimore Belt R. R. Co., 86 Md. 326.

City ordinances when duly passed and duly accepted by the railway com-
pany, held to constitute the best evidence obtainable of the agreement pro-
vided for by the first portion of this section, and of the terms and conditions
upon which the city streets were to be used by the railway. The city of
Annapolis held to be authorized by this and the following section, to pass
ordinances granting the use of its streets to an electric street railway com-
pany. Jeffers v. Annapolis, 107 Md. 271.

A suit under this section held to have been Improperly withdrawn from the
Jury, there being sufficient proof of the plaintiff's damages. Webb v. B. & O.
R. R. Co., 114 Md. 216.

This section referred to in deciding that an abutment and elevated struc-
ture built under legislative authority, did not constitute a nuisance. Garrett
v. Lake Roland R. R. Co., 79 Md. 287.

1904, art. 23, sec. 256. 1896, ch 151, sec. 169 A.

274. Sections 209, 272 and 273 shall apply to all roads operated
by electricity, cable or other improved motive power, and whether
incorporated under the provisions of this article or by a special act.
and whether the property proposed to be condemned is situated in one
of the counties of this State, or in the belt or annexed portions of Balti-