The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1909-06-10

person has the right to take and hold
possession of any part of the streets
for any private purpose. "
without statutory authority even
buildings intended for public use or
convenience may not be lawfully cree
ted or established upon public street.
as for example, town hail.
Petit VS.. Grand Junction. 119 Iowa
1852, or market.
Columbus VS.. Jacques, 80 Ga. SOC.
Schopp VS.. ST. Louis, IL Mo. l31.
One contracting with city for the
right to maintain well in a public
street is bound to take notice that
the municipality cannot bind itself by
such contract and may revoke it at
any time.
Snyder VS.. Mt. Pulaski, 176 ILL.,, 397.
A private drain placed under street
with the consent of the city may be
removed whenever in the Judgment
of the council it is proper so to do.
A grant or passive permission, however,
long continued, confers no right upon
the beneficiary which may not be with,
drawn.
Eddy VS.. Granger, 10 R. -
A permission by the city to place
awnings extending over sidewalk
and supported by posts gives no per-
manent right to maintain them.
Hubbard VS.. Chicago, 1.3 Ill. 81.
In the cited case the court says
The public streets OF a city are dedi'
Gated to public use and are subJect
to the control and management OF the
city council, but that body has nc
power to a lien or otherwise eneum'
Der such streets so long as they are
public streets, but must hold them In
trust for public uses only. The munl'
cipal corporation can grant no case
ment or right therein not of public
nature and the entire street must be
maintained for public use. A perman'
ent encroachment upon a public street
for a private purpose is purpresture
and is in law a nuisance Where a
city has authorized a temporary use
which causes temporary obstruction,
one having been authorized to exercise
such temporary use would be liable
for a penalty under the ordinances
for obstructing the street, as 1t was
permitted as a matter off grace oil
favor. That such permission may be
given may be implied from circum'
stances, but when the city demands
the removal of such structure, it, ii
permitted as a matter of grace OF
comes a nuisance.
In Hobart VS.. r. R. Co, q Wis. 1874,
| the plaintiff was a wholesale mer'
chant who received and sent out large
quantities of goods from his store
and for many years mis- teamsters had
been accustomed to back their drays
up to the sidewalk in front of the
premises for the purpose of loading
and unloading their freight. A street
railway company was about to lay its
| track along the street, leaving the
space between the same and the side
| walk so narrow as to interfere with
/ this convenience to the plaintin
store and business and plaintiff sought
| to enjoin the company from such in
reference Denying the alleged right
of action the court says, The pubic
authorities may permit such use Oh
| the street so long as they please or
until public convenience demands that
it should cease, but the plaintiff can
not insist upon it as a right in him
| self When the space thus occupied
| by his teams is required for public
| travel or the passage of vehicles OF
any kind authorized by the public his
| occupation becomes an obstruction
and a nuisance and he must turn his
| teams the other way, which may be
done without any very great additional
| trouble or inconvenience to him. All
all events ne has no right TO insist
upon such use and occupancy of the
| street when the public authorities
have signifed their unwillingness as
| they have done by the laying down
of the railway track The Massachu'
| sets court holds that the obstruction
| of any portion of the public road Is
| a nuisance at common law and says
| the general easement in the pubn'
| acquired by the located highway Is
co-extensive with the exterior limits
OF the located highway ana the ques
ton of nuisance or no nuisance does
not depend upon the fact whether
that part of the highway which is al
legged to have been unlawfully entered
upon INSTRUCTED by the defendant was
a portion of the highway capable OF
being used by the traveller"
Com. VS.. King, 81 Mass. lis.
The privilege of displaying show
boards, placards and signs upon the
sidewalks of populous city may be
OF great value to the merchants and
dealers, but the city has the power
to prohibit it.
Com VS.. McCafferty, l4o Mass. 3S4
The citation of these cases illus
trating the completeness of the city's
control over it's streets could be mul.
tiplied indefinitely, but those to
which we have referred sufficiently
indicate the unvarying trend of judi
cial decisions. Ii is too clear to jus.
tify further argument that the resolu.
ton passed in 1885 by the city coun.
s..s Al IF sNak