Finch

This was an action of ejectment brought by the owner of the fee of one half of a street in the city of Riverside, called Cypress Avenue, against a street-car company, which was alleged to be using such half of the street in an unauthorized and unlawful manner. The trial court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

There is no dispute about the plaintiff’s ownership of the fee of half of the street, nor about the existence of the street, and the consequent right of the public to use it as a highway. The question litigated is, whether the defendant’s use of it was unauthorized and unlawful. In this regard several points are made.

1. It is contended that the defendant could not use the street for the purposes of its track without first making compensation to the plaintiff, and the case of Weyl v. Sonoma Valley R. R. Co., 69 Cal. 203 , is cited. But this case was not in relation to a street-railway, but to an ordinary railroad whose route took it through a street. And we think that there is a difference between such a case and the present. The dedication of a street to public use authorizes any ordinary use for street purposes; and the use of a street in a city…