CORPORATIONS 929

upon due hearing as now prescribed by law for opening or altering public
roads.

Cited but not construed in Susquehanna Co. v. St. Clair, 113 Md. 672.

See notes to secs. 329, 332 and 335.

See the Constitution of Maryland, art. 3, sec. 40.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 337. 1912, sec. 405. 1904, sec. 366. 1888, sec. 254. 1886, ch. 161.
1908, ch. 240, sec. 366. 1910, ch. 55, sec. 366 (p. 74).

335. Any of the corporations formed under class thirteen, section 28
of this article, as codified by the Code of 1904, shall have the power
which is conferred upon telegraph companies incorporated under this.
article by section 296, and may construct and lay any part of its line
or lines underground or any route for which it is authorized to construct
such lines in whole or in part, above ground, and such corporation may
acquire by condemnation any property or right whatsoever necessary for
its purposes in its discretion, either in fee simple or the use thereof in fee
simple, or for a less estate, either in the manner set forth in sections 206 and
160,¹ or sections 329 and 334 of this article; provided, however, that all
corporations incorporated, or to be incorporated by virtue of said section
28, class thirteen, and all corporations heretofore or hereafter incorporated
under the provisions of the corporation law of 1908, shall obtain the assent
and approval of the mayor and city council of Baltimore City, before using
the streets or highways of Baltimore City, either the surface or the ground
beneath the same. The provisions of this proviso, however, not to apply
to such corporations as are now in practical operation and have laid or
constructed their lines, pipes, mains or other structures, or any part thereof
in the city of Baltimore, except as to the use and occupancy by them of
new and additional streets and highways in the city of Baltimore by their
lines, pipes, mains or other structures.

The supplying of electric power or energy to the public generally on equal terms is
a public use, and a corporation which supplies such power may be vested with right
of condemnation. A corporation held under its charter to be a public service one,
and authorized under this section to acquire property by condemnation. Fact that
some of purposes for which a corporation is chartered are public and some are private,
does not prevent it from exercising right of condemnation unless the two purposes
are so combined that they cannot be separated. A corporation may condemn prop-
erty in fee simple and also an easement upon other land facilitating the use of the
fee simple. A public service corporation which has condemned land for a public
use, cannot by an amendment of its charter, divest itself of such public use, and hold
the land for private purposes—see sec. 93. The question of whether a corporation has
power of condemnation, may be raised by bill for injunction. Webster v. Susque-
hanna Pole Line Co., 112 Md. 419 (decided prior to act, 1910, ch. 55).

A turnpike road partly in Baltimore City owned by a private corporation, and streets
owned by individuals but used by public as highways, are "streets or highways of
Baltimore City" within the meaning of this section. The city of Baltimore has the
right to enjoin a corporation from using its streets for the transmission of electric
light and power where the corporation has not received authority so to do. Patapsco
Co. v. Baltimore City, 110 Md. 309 (decided prior to the act of 1910, ch. 55). And
see Edison, etc., Co. v. Hooper, 85 Md. 112; Chesapeake, etc., Telephone Co. v. Balti-
more City, 89 Md. 702.

Where a special act of the legislature authorizes a corporation to transact any busi-
ness in which electricity is used, and confers upon it in Baltimore City all the rights
and privileges mentioned in this section, the successor of such corporation is empowered
to conduct an electric light business in Baltimore City, the city having given its
assent to the use of its streets. Brown v. Md. Telephone Co., 101 Md. 577.

For a case involving the validity of a municipal ordinance, ultra vires when made
but subsequently ratified by the legislature; the effect of a compliance by a tele-
phone company with the conditions of such ordinance; and the proper remedy to enforce
the rights of the telephone company thereunder; see Chesapeake, etc., Telephone Co
v. Baltimore City, 89 Md. 689.

See art. 33A and sec. 294, et seq., and notes to secs. 296 and 332 (this article).

¹ The reference to sec. 160 is evidently clerical error, sec. 270 of the An. Code of 1912
being no doubt intended. Sec. 270 of the 1912 Code is sec. 207 in this edition.
31