Lateral Railroad

A branch railroad. One running from some point on a main line Intended as a connecting line or feeder, A lateral road Is said to be “one proceeding from some point on the main trunk between its termini.” Newhall v. R. Co,, 14 111. 273. “The general route of the lateral road must lie at an acute angle with the main trunk;” id. “A lateral road is another name for a branch road;” id. The definition, of such a structure does not depend on its length or direction, it may be a “direct extension” from the terminus as well as “merely an offshoot of the main road; Appeal of Mc- Aboy, 107 Pa. 648; and it may run in the same direction as the main line so as to be in effect an extension; Atlantic & P. R. Co. V. City of St. Louis, 66 Mo, 228; it may be necessity and the location are in the discretion of the directors: id.; but the lateral railroad cannot be constructed without authority expressly granted or necessarily Implied from the charter; Pittsburgh v. R. Co., 48 Pa. 366. When it is authorized, the right to acquire lands by the exercise of the power of eminent domain is implied as on the main, line; Newhall r. R. Co., 14 111. 273; Toledo, S. & M. R. Co. v. R. Co., 72 Mich. 206, 40 N. W. 430; Lower v. R. Co., 59 la. 6C3, 13 N. W. 718. Where there is a limitation of time for completing the main line, it does not apply to a branch road, certainly not to one for which the land has been acquired within the time limited; Atlantic & P. R. Co. V. City of St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228. The power is as large as the power granted for construction of the main line; Pittsburgh V. R. Co., 48 Pa. 355; and a power to construct such roads in the discretion of the directors is a continuing one, not to be abridged by a subsequent act giving to the company a time limited for completing the main line with sidings, appurtenances, etc.; Pittsburgh, V. & C. Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 159 Pa. 331, 28 Atl. 155. The word appurtenances does not include branches; id. The same reasonable rules as to furnishing, and having proper switches, turnouts, etc., apply to lateral roads as to other railroads; Com. V. Corey, 2 Pittsb, (Pa.) 444; so also the same statutory requirements apply as to crossing highways: 1 B. & Ad. 441. Words permitting the construction of such lines are not obligatory; 2 Macq. H. L. Cas..514; and impose no duty which will be enforced by mandamus; 1 El. & Bl. 874. A charter power to construct branch or lateral roads includes the right to build one running in the same general direction and connecting the main line with another railroad; Blanton V. R. Co., 86 Va. 618, 10 S. E. 925. When a railroad company has power to construct lateral or branch roads and purchases another road under an act authorizing its use under the charter of the purchaser, the latter may extend the purchased road; Duncan V, R, Co., 94 Pa. 435. The mere fact that the building of a lateral railroad may add to the earnings of the main line will not authorize its construction in the absence of power in the charter; Chicago & E., I. R. Co. V. Wiltse, 116 111. 449, 6 N. E. 49; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 138 111. 453, 28 N. E. 740. A power “to construct such roads from the main line to other points or places in the several counties through which said road may pass,” is limited to such as begin and end in the same county; Works v. Railroad, 5 Mc Lean 426, Fed. Cas. No. 18,046. A lateral railroad may cross an ordinary railroad to reach a navigable river to which stroyed; Hays V. Briggs, 74 Pa. 873. A statute authorizing a railroad company to subscribe to and acquire an interest not exceeding one-fifth, in any lateral or connecting road, confers a distinct privilege or franchise which renders the gross receipts derived from such interest liable to a state tax, notwithstanding an exemption of the principal company from such tax on Its own gross receipts; State v. R. Co., 48 Md. 49. Branch railroads, under the Missouri act of March 21, 1868, are practically Independent lines and not Included in an exemption from taxation in the charter of the main line; a Ucago, B. & K. C. R. v. Guffey, 120 U. S. 569, 7 Sup. Ct. 693, 30 L. Ed. 732; State v. R. Co., 99 Mo. 30, 12 S., W. 290, 6 L. R. A. 222. Reduction of the number of trains on a branch road of which the business is lessened by charter of a competing line, will not operate as a forfeiture of the charter of the main line; Com. v. Quinn, 12 Gray (Mass.) 180.