bridge

A structure erected over a river, creek, stream, ditch, ravine, or other place, to facilitate the passage thereof; including, by the term, both arches and abutments. 3 Har. (N. J.) 108; 15 Vt. 438. The common-law definition, flumen vel cursus aquae, etc., has a more enlarged significance in modern usage, and the term "bridge" in statutes signifies also crossings over public ways on land. 37 Me. 451. Bridges are either public or private. Public bridges are such as form a part of the highway, common, according to their character, as foot, horse, or carriage bridges, to the public generally, with or without toll (2 East, 342); though their use may be limited to particular occasions, as to seasons of flood or frost (2 Maule & S. 262; 4 Campb. 189).

A structure erected over a river, creek, stream, ditch, ravine, or other place to facilitate the passage thereof; including by the term both arches and abutments; Board of Chosen Freebolders of Sussex County v. Strader, 18 N. J. L. 108, 35 Am. Dec. 530; Bardwell v. Town of Jamaica, 15 Vt. 438; Daniels v. Intendent & Wardens of Athens, 55 Ga. 609; and approaches of the length of 180 feet on either side of it; 71 L. T. 430; and the roadway over it; 57 L. J. Q. B. 2S0. The embankment contiguous to a viaduct, designed only for the passage of engines and cars, is not a "bridge," within the statutory meaning of that word; Bri Tu Proprietors v. Land & Improvement Co., 1 Wall. (U. S.) 116, 17 L. Ed. 571. See Lake v. R. Co., 7 New 294; Whitall v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Gloucester County, 40

A structure of wood, iron, brick, or stone, ordinarily erected over a river, brook, or lake, for the more convenient passage of persons and beasts and the transportation of baggage.^ A structure, usually of wood, stone, brick, or iron, erected over a river or other watercourse, or over a ravine, railroad, etc., to make a continuous roadway from one bank to another.* Formerly and strictly, the word, unqualified, imported a structure that had a pathway. In this sense MBl. Com, 139; 65111. 65. 2 Dishon v. Smith, 10 Iowa, 221 (1859). ' State 1). Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 103 (1868). See also 62Cal. 493; 135 Mass. 630. * People ex rel. Bush v. Thornton, 25 Hun, 466-66 (1881), cases. See also State v. Elting, 29 Kan. 399, 402-4 (1883), cases; Hall v. Marshall, 80 Ky. 553, 563-66 (1882), cases. " E. S. §§ 5449-51, 5499-6B02. " Leonard v. Commonwealth, 112 Pa. 607, 626 (1886). ' Clark V. United States, 102 U. S. 333 (1880). See generally People v. Shai-p, 10 N. Y. St. R. 522-77 (1887), cases, etc. • Enfleld Bridge Co. v. Hartford, &c. E. Co., 17 Conn. a railroad bridge, being in the nature of a viaduct, is not a violation of a francliise for an ordinary tol^bridge.^ See Railroad. The word includes the structure itself and such abutments as are necessary to make the structure accessible and useful; but exactly what constitutes abridge in a particular case is a question of fact.^ The approaches to a bridge, within reasonable limits, are a part of the bridge. ^ See Abutment. Free bridge. A bridge owned and maintained, usually by the public, free of charge to ti-avelers. Toll bridge. A chartered bridge, vrith the right in its owners to collect toll in reimbursement of the cost of construction, repaira, etc. Private bridge. A bridge for the use of individuals, generally its owners. Public bridge. A bridge which constitutes a part of the public highway, whether free or toil. See Toll, 2. A bridge is to be maintained (the repair being equal to the service expected) by its owner, whether a county, a township, it municipality, or a company. But the person or persons, as, a railway company, who makes the structure a necessity, is to make repairs; it he fails in this duty, the public authorities must make thezn at his expense.* If a bridge is not kept in repair, redress maybe had in court by indictment for maintaining a nuisance, by injunction, by guo warranto^ by mandamus, and by suit for special damage suffered by any individual person. A State may erect a bridge over a river, provided inter-State navigation is not thereby unreasonably obstructed." What the form and character of bridges over a navigable stream should be, that is, of what height and materials, and whether with or without draws, are matters for regulation by the particular State or States authorizing the construction, subject only to the paramount authority of Congress to prevent unnecessary obstruction to free navigation. Until Congress intervenes in such cases, and exercises its authority, the power of the State is plenary.. Bridges are 58 (1883). See 5 South. Law Eev. 733-35 (1880), cases; 37 Me. 481; 133 Mass. 313; 41 Ohio St. 52; 110 U. S. B66; 6 Iowa, 455; Ang. Highw. § 35. > Proprietors of Bridges v. Hoboken Land Co., 1 Wall. 149-51 (1863), cases; s. u., S Beasley, 603. See also Smith Bridge Co. v. Bowman, 41 Ohio St. 56-58 (1884). "To Uard v. Willington, 26 Conn. 582-83 (1857), cases; Bardwell v. Jamaica, 15 Vt. 442 (1E43). s Rush County v. Rushv Ule, &c. R. Co., 87 Ind. 505 (1883); Driftwood Valley Tm-npike Co. v. Bartholomew County, 72 id. 236-38 (1880), cases; Whitcher v. Somerv Ule, 133 Mass. 455 (1885). 4 Penn. R. Co. v. Borough of Irwin, &5 Pa. 336 (1877); Shelby County v. Deprez, 87 Ind. 510-13 (1882), cases. ■» Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 13 How. 662 merely connecting lines of turnpikes, streets, and railroads; and the commerce over them may be much greater than that on the streams which they cross. A break in the line of railroad communication from the want of a bridge may produce greater inconvenience to the public than the obstruction of navigation caused by a bridge with proper draws. In such cases the local authority can best determine which of the two modes of transportation should be favored. ^ Congress can empower a private corporation to occupy navigable waters within a State, and appropriate the soil under them, in order to construct a bridge for the purposes of inter-State commerce, against the protest of the State," The act of Congress of June 16, 1886, authorizmg the construction of a railroad bridge across Staten Island Sound, known as " Arthur Kill," and establishing the same as a. post-road, is within the power to regulate commerce, to open up commercial communication between the States. Such privilege may be exercised without the consent of the State in which the sti-ucture is to be placed. The grant is, in effect, of the use of the soil, not an assumption of exclusive jurisdiction. The right of the State is not property susceptible of pecuniary compensation as "private property " taken for public use.s Speaking generally, a chartered bridge will not be allowed near another bridge, nor near a ferry, having an older franchise.* See Commerce; Deawbridoe; Ferry; Navigation.