This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 edition. Excerpt: ...had the privilege for but one track. The putting down of double tracks deprives him of ingress or egress to and from his premises, and practically destroys the street as a thoroughfare, so far as plaintiff's right to the use of said street is concerned. Dubach v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 483. (6) The city never had the power to permit the street to be devoted to uses that would subvert the purposes for which it was originally dedicated, or appropriated. The abutting owner cannot be deprived of his right to use the street in going to and from his property, and such deprivation is a trespass to private property which cannot be justified under the franchise in question, even if it permitted double tracks to be laid. (7) The petition shows that the use to which defendants were putting the street was an exclusive appropriation of it for street-car purposes. Is it not subversive of the appropriate use of a street for one to Ransom v. The Citizens' By. Co. put the street to such use permanently as will exclude for long intervals all others from any use of it whatever? It is appropriating the street to private use. Glaessner v. Brewing Co., 100 Mo. 508. (8) In any event the defendants in the use they are making of the franchise construed, as they claim, are specially damaging the plaintiff, and he has his action. Lackland v. Railroad, 31 Mo. 180. Amick & Brown for respondents. (1) The ordinance is the grant of a power with a privilege, the power to construct a line of railway with the privilege of making it a double or single track. (2) "Switches at turn-outs" are used in the operation of both double and single tracks, and could not have been constructed unless authorized by the ordinance. Elliott on Roads and Streets, 572; City v....