right to place its wire under the sidewalk. It was entitled to permanently occupy no more space for that purpose than was necessary for the wire and any devices used to protect the wire and to keep persons from coming in contact therewith. It had no right or permission to occupy the whole of the space under the sidewalk where the accident occurred." 71 § 437. Subways -Public grounds Massachusetts. The question as to the right of a company to enter upon the public squares, commons or grounds of a city for the purpose of constructing a subway arose in a Massachusetts case. In this case it appeared that there was an act in this State 72 restricting highways, street railways and corporations of a like nature. from entering upon public commons or parks. By an Act of 1894 73 the construction of a subway in the city of Boston was authorized. The company claimed under this act that it had the right to enter upon the public garden of the city, and it was held that under the provisions of the statute it had such right, and that the act restricting companies from such entry was modified to this extent. It was also held that the objection that by the act public grounds were authorized to be used for the construction of a subway for the transportation of passengers without compensation, was sufficiently answered by the fact that the legislature had passed such statute, and that it had been accepted by a majority of the voters of the city.74 § 437a. Subways - Rights of prior occupant.- Where an electrical company is granted a franchise, which expressly provides that it is not exclusive and reserves all rights and privileges not specifically given, to construct and maintain a subway in the streets for the purpose of placing its wires therein, no right is thereby conferred upon it to dictate what other structures may be placed beneath the surface of the street or where 71 Commonwealth Electric Co. v. Melville, 210 II. 70, 70 N. E. 10, affg. 110 Ill. App. 242, per Scott, J. 72 Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 54, § 13. 73 Mass. Stat. 1894, chap. 548. 74 Prince v. Crocker, 166 Mass. 347, 44 N. E. 446, 32 L. R. A. 610. Examine Browne v. Turner, 174 Mass. 150, 54 N. E. 510, as to authority of Rapid Transit Commission to construct tunnels for railway tracks for connection with subways under Mass. Laws of 1894, chap. 548. they shall be placed. It may demand that its structure shall not be unreasonably interfered with but it can not prevent the use of the street for a similar purpose by another company though such use may involve some expense and inconvenience. to it, provided access to its line is left open, and the operation thereof is not interfered with. So in a case where a company operating under such a franchise sought to restrain another company from using and maintaining another subway in the same street the court said: "The plaintiff took nothing by its grant but what was expressly given, or necessarily involved in what was expressly given. There is nothing in its franchise to prevent the city from laying a subway on any side of the plaintiff's subway and immediately adjoining it, or from authorizing some other corporation to do it. If the city, which has control of the streets both above and below the surface, sees fit to economize space with reference to the wants of the future, it has a right to do so and for this purpose to place, or authorize another corporation to place, conduit lines so near that of the plaintiff as to make access somewhat inconvenient and expensive. The city cannot destroy the plaintiff's line nor prevent reasonable access to it, but it is not obliged to consult the mere convenience of the plaintiff, nor study to save it from expense to the detriment of the public. In other words the plaintiff may make a reasonable, but not an unreasonable use, of the right granted. While the city could not grant to another the right to use the same space occupied by the plaintiff's line, it could authorize the use of any other space, provided access to the line was left open, even if it were less convenient and more expensive." 75 75 Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Syracuse Elec. L. & P. Co., 178 N. 718 Y. 325, 331, 70 N. E., 866, per TITLE V. MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. CHAPTER XXI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. § 438. Duty of companies main- § 445b. Duties and liabilities to Dy Electroliers § 438. Duty of companies maintaining electrical appliances in streets. Companies constructing and operating electrical lines in streets and highways are charged with certain duties and obligations in the maintenance of such lines. In many cases wires are charged with high and dangerous currents of electricity which, in the absence of reasonable care as to stringing, insulation and repair thereof, would prove dangerous to the lives both of employees and of others in the legitimate use of the streets. So, also, the large and cumbersome poles used in many cases, the crossarms, and the insulators suspended at considerable height from the ground may, if not properly maintained, be a great source of danger. And again, where two or more electrical companies have suspended their wires in the same street, and the wires of one company may so interfere with those of another company as to impede the proper operation of its line and conduct of business, the law imposes certain requirements or duties, as to the erection and maintenance of such wires. As a general rule electrical companies, aside from |