The object of the Railway Act. 1903, (ss. 177. 253. 271) is to ensure
that all reasonable and proper facilities for the handling, forwarding and
interchange of traffic shall be afforded to the shipping public. For this
purpose the Board may. without the sanction and against the will of a
railway company, permit a junction to be made with its line by another
railway where, in the opinion of the Board, such junction is reasonably
necessary in the public interest and in the interest of traffic in the dis-
trict through which the railway passes. The parties to a lease of a
railway cannot by stipulation between themselves restrict the powers or
discretion of the Board to authorize such a junction.
Niagara. St. Catharines i Toronto Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.
(Stamford Junction Case), 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 256.
CONNECTION OF RAILWAYS INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC.
A physical connection was made and used some years before 1st Feb-
ruary. 1903. between the lines of a provincial and Dominion railway, but
no order was obtained authorizing such connection under s. 173. Railway
Act, 1888, or s. 177. Railway Act. 1903, although a crossing had been duly
authorized by the Railway Committee in 1897. Upon an application being
made under ss. 253. 271 of the Railway Act, 1903, to compel an inter-
change of traffic between the two railways: Held, that Parliament has
the incidental power to determine the terms upon which a railway, not
otherwise subject to its legislative authority, may connect with or cross
one that is so subject, and the obligations between the companies concerned.
[B.X.A. Act. s. 91 (10) (a) and (e), and s. 92 (29); ss. 306, 307. Rail-
way Act 1888. and s. 7. Railway Act. 1903, referred to] : Held, that such
connection being illegal, no order should be made. An application to au-
thorize the connection, under s. 177, Railway Act, 1903. must first be
Patriarc-he v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. et al.. 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 200.
DOMINION RAILWAY PEOVINCIALLY INCORPORATED RAILWAY CONNECTION.
The Board has no jurisdiction to order a connection to be made or traffic
to be interchanged between a Dominion railway and a provincially in-
corporated railway which it crosses, such provincial railway not having
been declared a work for the general advantage of Canada. Under s. 8
of the Railway Act, 1906. the jurisdiction of the Board is confined to the
point of crossing, and does not extend to the whole line of the provincial
railway. Where a railway company incorporated by the Parliament of
Canada was authorized to acquire two provincially incorporated railways,
but no work had been done in connection with such railway, and the vali-
dating Act provided that the acquisition should not make such railways
subject to the Railway Act. 1903, or works for the general advantage of
Canada, but that they should remain subject to the legislative control of
the province: Held, (1) that under s. 3, the special provincial Act over-
490 INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC.
rides the Railway Act. (2) That there is no jurisdiction to authorize
making connections with or affording facilities to a Dominion railway
which does not exist, and an order requiring such connection to be made
would be in effect ordering a provincial railway to connect with a Domin-
ion railway, as to which the Board has no jurisdiction.
Boards of Trade of Gait, etc. v. Grand Trunk, Canadian Pacific, etc.,
Ry. Cos., 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 395.
COMPULSORY CONNECTION AND INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC.
Subs. 4 of s. 57 of the Ontario Railway Act, 1906, 6 Edw. VII. c. 30,
applies only to railways actually in existence and operation at the time
of the application to the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board thereby
provided for, and there is no difference in this respect when the railways
in question, or any of them, are street railways. Where, under subs. 6
of s. 57, the Railway and Municipal Board makes an order declaring that
s. 57 shall apply to two railways, as to one of which it has jurisdiction
to make such an order, but not as to the other, the intention being to
bring about an interchange of traffic between them, the Court of Appeal will
not strike out that part of the order which is beyond the Board's jurisdic-
tion and let the remainder stand, when the effect of so doing would be to
name a different order from that which the Board intended to make, and,
in fact, made. Upon the proper construction of the said subs. 6, the said
]>oard has power only to declare that that section shall apply to a particu-
lar railway, without any limitation as to the railways with which such rail-
way may thereby become liable to interchange traffic, but such a declara-
tion does not restrict the power of the said Board to refuse subsequently to
order an interchange of traffic between such railway and any other railway,
or to impose such terms of interchange as it may see fit. S. 57 does not
apply to a railway owned by a municipal corporation.
Re Toronto and Toronto Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 422, 3 D.L.R. 561, 26
PASSENGERS THROUGH JOINT TICKETS.
The Board is not concerned with the disputes of rival railway companies
as such, or with the fact that one desires to do business with another to
the exclusion of a third, its only interest being that of the public in the
transportation of passengers and freight. Under the special circum-
stances of this case the respondent Michigan Central Ry. Co. are obliged
under ss. 217 and 334 of the Railway Act, 1906 to make reasonable traffic
arrangements to enable the applicant to do business with it, by issuing
through joint tickets for the transportation of passengers.
London & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Michigan Central and London & Port
Stanley Ry. Cos., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 194.
SntoivisioN DIVERSION SENIOR AND JUNIOR COST CONSTRCCTION AND
The general practice of the Board when an application is made for an
interchange track for the purpose of interchanging trallie. where it appears
that the effect of establishing such interchange is to subdivide the traffic
by diverting it from the older line, is to place the full cost of construc-
tion and maintenance on the junior line.
Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. v. Can. Pacific Ry. Co. (Calgary Inter-
switching Case), 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 187.
TRANSFER TRACK REMOVAL FACILITIES.
The Board may authorize the removal of a transfer track used for the
INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC. 491
interchange of traffic, when the interchange can he done at another point,
resulting in economy of rolling: stock movement in the public interest,
thus relieving the strain on the existing facilities by removing the track
and using the rails and ties at other points where there is urgent need.
Can. Pat. Ry. Go. v. Saskatoon and Moosejaw Boards of Trade. 22 Can.
Ry. Cas. 349. *
I.NTERCHAX6Z TRACKS I5TEBSWTTCHI5C FACHJTIES AFTORTIOXMEVr OF
The Board under ?. 228 of the Railway Aft. 1906. grants, to any per-
ion or persons interested, interchange tracks and interswitehing facilities,
not for the purpose of benefiting one railway company at the expense of
H^**. but solely in the public interest, the cost of providing such facili-
ties to be borne by the applicant industry, and the railway company to
whose tracks access is desired. [Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry.
Co. and London (London Intel-switching Case*. 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 327, at
p. 331. followed.]
Gillies Bros, and Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Cam.
Ry. Cas. 44.
INTERCHANGE TRACK COXXECTIOX WITH FROVEXCTAL RATX.WAT.
The Board will order, in the public interest, an interchange track for
transferring passengers and freight, to be built by the Dominion railway
company connecting its line with that of a Provincial railway company,
upon condition that the Provincial company contribute one third of the
Cumberland Board of Trade v. E-quimalt Nanaimo Ry. Co.. 13 Can.
Ry. Cas. 11$.
GENERAL IxTERswrrcHiNG ORDER AGREEMENT.
The provisions of the General Interswitehing Order do not apply to
the ease of an agreement unking special provision for the cost of inter-
switching in a particular locality. [Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk
Ry. Co. (London Interswitching Casei. 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 435. followed.]
"Fergus v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co^ 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 42.
[Distinguished in Can. Pac. Ry. Co. and Spanish River etc. v. Algoma
Eastern Ry. Co.. 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 381.]
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE FACTUTIES PtTKLIC 1ATIW5ST ECONOJTT COS-
PnMic interest, economy of movement to shippers and convenience must
h established before the Board will grant to one carrier interchange
traffic facilities with another. Xo carrier is entitled to such facilities as
of right. The property and advantages of one carrier should not be in-
terfered with for the mere benefit of another, but objections by a carrier
am the ground that the other carrier will thereby obtain a great advantage
at its expense will be overruled in the interest of the public.
Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.. 20 Can. Ry. Cas.
INTERCHANGE TRACKS COSTS SHIFTING FOOTS IXTEBSWrrCHTXC FACIIJ-
TVK LENK HAd. DELIVERY.
The carrier who obtains access to industries on the lines of other car-
riers should consii net at its own expense tracks to be used for the inter-
change of traffic. Where trafEe moves between a certain point and a
**"* point or destination common to the carriers concerned, or any
492 INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC.
two of them, where interswitching facilities are provided, the carrier
upon whose line, including private sidings tributary thereto, the traffic
is loaded, is entitled to the line haul and the privilege of effecting the
required delivery on the line of the other carrier by means of interswitching
at destination, provided that the said carrier can afford facilities and
privileges equal to those of the competing carrier at no greater charge.
Ke Belleville Interchange Tracks, 23 Can. Ey. Cas. 22.
INTERCHANGE TRACK EXPENSE.
An interchange track between the lines of the C. P. R. Co. and a branch
line of the G. T. P. Co. was ordered by the Board to be constructed at
Forrest, ten miles from Brandon, at the expense of the G. T. P. Co. in
order to give Brandon a connection with the latter railway.
Brandon Shippers v. Can. Pac. and Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Cos., 23 Can.
Ry. Cas. 28.
FACILITY "INTERESTED OB AFFECTED" APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS.
Where, upon the application of a municipality, the Board directs the
construction of an interchange track, as a necessary facility for the
handling of traffic, the applicant municipality will not be ordered to con-
tribute any portion of the costs of the work as being "interested or af-
fected" within the meaning of s. 59 of the Railway Act. [Re Can. Pac.
Ry. Co. and York, 27 O.R. 559, 25 A.R.(Ont.) 65, 1 Can. Ry. Cas. 36, 47;
(trand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Kingston et al., 8 Can. Ex. 349, 4 Can. Ry. Cas.
102; Ottawa Elec. Ry. Co. v. Ottawa and Canada Atlantic Ry. Co. (Bank
Street Crossing case), 37 Can. S.C.R. 354, 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 131; Toronto v.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 37 Can. S.C.R. 232, 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 138; Grand
Trunk Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. and London (London Interswitching
case), 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 327; Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Cedar Dale, 7 Can.
Ry. Cas. 73, at pp. 77, 78; Toronto v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.  A.C. 54,
7 Ry. Cas. 282; Carleton v. Ottawa, 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 154; British
Columbia Klec. Ry. Co. v. Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Ry. & Nav. Co.
and Vancouver  A.C. 1067, 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 287; Toronto Ry. Co.
v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. and Toronto (Avenue Road Subway case), 53 Can.
S.C.R. 222, 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 280, 30 D.L.R. 86, followed*]
Thorold v. Grand Trunk and Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto Ry. Cos.,
24 Can. Ry. Cas. 21.
INTEBSWITCHING CARRIERS COMPELLED TO FURNISH SERVICE TRACKS
INTERCHANGE EQUALITY OF SERVICE.
Interswitching, having regard to the public interest, should be treated
as a right, and carriers should be compelled at all times, according to their
powers, to furnish an interswitching service, as to all their tracks, in-
cluding team tracks, equal to the service accorded to their own traffic at all
points, where interchange tracks are now installed, or may hereafter be
Re Interswitching Service, 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 324.
INTERSWITCHING TERMS TEAM TRACKS SPURS PRIVATE OR INDUSTRIAL
DISTINCTION TOLLS ABSORPTION.
Distinction should be made between team tracks and private or indus-
trial spurs as to terms of interswitrhing, the service to team tracks being
subject to the consideration (a) that the first duty to the carrier owning
the terminal facilities is to provide for its own traffic, and (b) that the
carrier owning the terminal is entitled to fair remuneration for the use
of its property. Interswitoliing tolls in the case of team tracks should
be higher than for private or industrial spurs, and should be ah&orbed
by the line carrier, as in the case of private spur.
Be Interswitehing Service. 24 Can. By. I"**. 324.
A. On Arbitration Awards.
On bonds, see Bonds and Securities.
A. On Arbitration Awards.
CoXWOCSATIoy FOCEEDIX JCKtslHCTIOX OF ABBITKATOBS-
Interest on the sum awarded as compensation as of the date of the
deposit of the plan and profile, should not be given by arbitrators as a
part of their award for land expropriated for railway purposes, and will
be struck out as beyond their jurisdiction: the right to interest from that
date is conferred under the Bailway Act, 1906, and not left to be deter-
mined by the arbitrators. [Be Clarke and Toronto Grey t Bruce By. Co.,
18 OXJL 28,. 9 Can. By. Cas. 290, referred to: Be Davies and James Bay
Ry. Cot, 20 OJJK. 554, 10 Can. By. Cas. 225, followed.]
Be Ketcheson and Can. Northern Ontario By. COL, 16 Can. By. Cas,
fit, 29 OXuB. 339, 13 D.LB- 854.
[Followed in Be National Trust Co. and Can. Pae. By. Co.. 16 Can. By.
Cas. 292. 15 Di-B. 320. 29 O-LJR. 462; Green v. Can. Northern By. Co.,
19 Can. By. Cas. 139, 22 DJ^B. 15.]
raocsraHSGS WHEX IXTEREST BEGINS TO wrx.
To the amount of an award for land expropriated for railway purposes
interest attaches not from the date of the award but from a previous tak-
ing possession by the railway company. [Gauthier v. Can. Northern By.
Co. <Aha, 16 Can. By. Can. 354. 14 D.LK. 490, followed.]
Dagenais v. Can. Northern By. Co.. 16 Can. By. Cas. 353. 14 D.L.R. 494.
x pmocEEDiXGS WHE.X INTEREST BEGTSS TO sex.
Where a railway company takes possession of land before proceeding to
expropriate it, on an award of damages being subsequently made, interest
attaches, not from the date of the award, but from the time of taking
possession. [Be Clarke and Toronto. Grey and Bruce By. COL, 18 O.L.B.
628, 9 Can. By. Cas. 290: Bhys v. Dare Valley By. Co^ 1LB. 19 Eq. 93,
and Be Shaw and Birmingham Corp.. LJL 27 Ch. D. 614, 54 KJ. Ch. 51,
Gauthier T. Can. Northern By. Co.. 16 Can. By. Cas. 354. 14 D.L.B. 490.
[Followed in Dagenais v. Can. Northern By. Co.. 16 Can. By. Cas. 353.]
STATCTOET BIGHT TO INTEREST POWEK OF AKBHKATOKS.
The right to interest upon the compensation awarded for the compulsory
taking of binds under the Bailway Act. 1906, ia a statutory right, and
the arbitrators have no power to include such interest in their award.
[Be Ketcheson and Can. Northern Ontario By. Co^ 16 Can. By. Cas. 2S6.
29 O.L.R. 339 at p. 347, 13 D.LJS. $54. followed.]
Green v. Can. Northern By. Co., 19 Can. By. Cms. 139, 171, 22 D.L.R.
15, 8 Saak. LJL 53.
FROM DATE OF AVARBANT OF POSSESSION.
Interest should be allowed to the owner of property, on the amount
awarded by the arbitrators, from the date of the warrant of possession.
[Clarke V. Toronto, Grey & Bruce Ry. Co., 18 O.L.R. 628, followed.]
Re Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. and Marsan, 3 Alta. L.R. 65.
ON PURCHASE MONEY FROM SERVICE OF NOTICE.
Arbitrators may award interest on purchase moneys from the date of
the service of the notice of expropriation.
Green v. C. X. Ry. Co., 8 S.L.R. 255, 9 W.W.R. 907.
INTEREST ON PAYMENTS IN ARREAR TRACK RENTALS.
Under the true construction of the Ontario Judicature Act (R.S.O.
1897, c. 51, s. 113), it is incumbent upon the court to allow interest for
such time and at such rate as it may think right in all cases where a
just payment has been properly withhold, and compensation therefor seems
fair and equitable. In the present case the company was ordered to pay
interest on arrears of track rentals.
Toronto Ry. Co. v. Toronto  A.C. 117, 5 O.W.R. 130, 132.
[Affirmed in 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 323, 26 D.L.R. 581.]
See Crossing Injuries; Railway Crossings; Employees; Negligence.
See Tolls and Tariffs; Interchange of Traffic; Branch Lines and Sidings.
See Tolls and Tariffs.
See Pleading .and Practice; Appeals.
Assignment of judgment. 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 479.
See Railway Crossings; Interchange of Traffic; Branch Lines and Sidings,
The "joining" of two different lines of railway for which the leave of the
Board is required under the Railway Act. 1906, a. 227, means joining on the
same level so as to enable cars to be transferred from one road to the other
The "crossing" of two different linos of railway for which the leave of the
Board is required under the Railway Act, means the passing of the track*
of one railway on, over, or under, the tracks of another by meeting at any
angle, continuing at the same angle to the opposite side of the track crossed
and immediately leaving the track crossed.
Canadian Northern Western Ry. Co. T. Can. Pac, Ry. Co. (Alta.), 16
Can. Ry. Cas. 105, 13 D J*R- 624.
" JOLXIXG** ~CROSSKf G
The -joining" of two different lines of railway for which the leave of the
Board is required under the Railway Act, 1906, s. 227, means joining on
the same level so as to enable cars to be transferred from one road to the
other. The "crossing" of two different lines of railway for which the leave
of the Board is required under s. 227, means the passing of the tracks of
one railway on. over, or under, the tracks of another by meeting at any
angle, continuing at the same angle to the opposite side of the track crossed
and immediately leaving the track crossed.
Can. Northern Western Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas.
105, 13 DJLR. 624.
Of Railway Board and Railway Committee, see Railway Board.
Of Recorder's Court to collect street railway lines, see Street Railways.
Jurisdiction in appeals from awards. 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 332, 381.
Dominion and Provincial Jurisdiction. 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 12S.
Jurisdiction of Commissioner under Public Utilities Act of Manitoba.
30 D.L.R. 159.
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Canada as to Jurisdiction of Commis-
sioner under Public Utilities Act of Manitoba. 30 D.L.R. 159.
EXCHEQUER Corirr RAILWAY COMHITTEE POWEB TO MAKE SAKE ORDERS.
By s. 17 of the Railway Act, 51 Viet. c. 29 (1888), the Exchequer Court
is empowered to make an order of the Railway Committee a rule of Court ;
but where there are proceedings pending in another Court in which the
rights of the parties under the order of the Railway Committee may come
in question, the Exchequer Court, in granting the rule, may suspend its
execution until further directions. (2) The Court refused to make the
order of the Railway Committee in this case a rule of Court upon a mere
ex. parte application, and required that all parties interested in the matter
should have notice of the same.
Re Metropolitan Ry. Co. and Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 1 Can. Ry. Caa. 96, 6
Can. Ex. 351.
COURT OF RETIEW JURISDICTION TO REVIEW MERITS or CASE.
The Court of Review has absolute and unrestricted power to decide the
merits of a cause reserved for its consideration, without regard to the ver-
dict of the jury. (Art. 496, C.C.P.).
Ferguson v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 2 Can. Ry. Cas. 420, 20 Qne, S.C. 54.
[Referred to in Miller T. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 21 Que. S.C. 350, 2
Can. Ry. Cas. 449, 34 Can. S.CJL 70.]
COUXTY COURTS TITLE TO LAND PROPERTY ix SAXD AXD GRAVEL ox HIGH-
(1) A claim of a municipality for damages for the taking by a railway
company of quantities of sand and gravel from alleged highways and al-
lowances for roads in the municipality not in its actual possession or occn-
pation, if disputed, raises a question of the title to a corporeal hereditament
within the meaning of s. 59 of the County Courts Act, R.S.M., c. 33, and
the jurisdiction of the County Court to adjudicate on such claim is ousted
when such a question of title is bona fide raised, notwithstanding the pro-
visions of ss. 615, 644 of the Municipal Act, R.S.M., c. 100. giving the right
of possession of such roads to the municipality and power to pass by-laws
for preserving or selling timber, trees, stone or gravel on any of such roads.
(2) Under the enactment substituted for s. 315 of the County Courts Act
by 59 Viet. c. 3, s. 2, an appeal to this Court lies from the decision of a
County Court Judge on the question of jurisdiction as well as from all
other decisions in actions in which the amount in question is $20
or more. (3) Although the action in the County Court failed for
want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the costs of it
under s. 1 of c. 5 of 1 Edw. VII., and also the costs of the appeal. [Fair
v. McCrow (1871), 31 U.C.R. 599, and Portman v. Patterson (1861), 21
U.C.R. 237, followed.]
Louise v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 65, 14 Man. L.R. 1.
MAGISTRATE'S COUBT FARM CROSSINGS.
In an action for a farm crossing, it is sufficient if the plaintiff be shewn
to be the actual bona fide owner, and in possession as such, of the land
crossed by the railway, although his title is not registered; and the fact
that the land was purchased and cleared by him, long subsequent to the
building of the railway, is no bar to his right of action. The district magis-
trate's Court has no jurisdiction to order the construction of a farm cross-
ing even when the cost thereof is alleged to be less than $50 if the crossing
would create a servitude and would be interfering with future rights.
Bolduc v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 107, 23 Que. S.C. 238.
SUPERIOR COURT EXPROPRIATION INTERVE NTION.
A party claiming to be owner of land expropriated by a railway company
can intervene in the course of the proceedings for expropriation, but such
intervention will not affect the validity of proceedings taken up to that
time. The Superior Court has jurisdiction to decide the case on the inter-
Montreal & Southern Counties Ry. Co. v. Woodrow, 11 Que. P.R. 230, 10
Can. Ry. Cas. 496.
PUBLIC UTILITIES' COMMISSION QUEBEC SUBMISSION OF DOMINION COM-
PANYRIGHT TO ORDER TRAINS OF ONE COMPANY TO RUN OVER LINE OF
1. Although the Quebec Public Utilities' Commission, has not super-
vision over Federal utilities, and can not issue orders against them, such
want of jurisdiction is only ratione personae, and can only be invoked by
the party who claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Com-
mission. 2. The Commission has the right to order a company to allow
another company to run trains over its line, for a remuneration which the
Commission has the right to fix. Such power may be inferred from the
interpretation of Art. 742, R.S.Q. 1909, in which the enumeration of the
powers is not specific.
Canada & Gulf Terminal Ry. Co. v. Fleet, 28 Que. K.B. 112.
SUPREME COURT ONTARIO RAILWAY AND MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT CON-
S. 63 of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board Act, 1906, 6 Edw.
VII., c. 31 (transferred with some modification to the Ontario Railway
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 497
Act, R.S.O. 1914, e. 185, & 260), which was intended to get over the dif-
ficulty of forcing the railway company to obey an order of the Board does
not deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain an action for
damages for breach of contract.
Toronto T. Toronto Ry. Co., 46 DJJR. 435, 24 Can. Ry. Gas. 255, 44
EXCHEQUXB COUKT CCTTHfG OF TIMBER COXSTBCCTIOX OF CtOWX RAIL-
The Exchequer Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for the cut-
ting and removing of timber by officers and servants of the Crown while
engaged in the construction of a Crown railway.
Malone T. The King, 18 Can. Ex. 1.
Findings of Jury, see Pleading and Practice (F.) ; Street Railways (K.) .
See Expropriation; Title to Lands.