This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

"ECHOS FROM THE PAST"
GULF COAST ICE AND MANUFACTURING r s COMPANY V. EATON J. BOWERS.	1	^ c
Cite as 80 Mississippi Reports, 1902, pp 570-584.
Bowers, appellee (here), was complainant in the court below; the Gulf Coast Ice and Manufacturing Company, a co-partnership, appellants (here) were defendants in the court below.
Justice Terral delivered the opinion of the Court and said:
"The municipal authorities of the city of Bay St. Louis was empowered by its charter to light the streets of the city for the public benefit, and on the 21st day of December, 1899, made a contract with the appellant (Gulf Coast Ice and Manufacturing Company) for that purpose. In pursuance of this authority and contract, the appellant erected poles on and along the streets of said city, and attached to them wires and other necessary appliances for lighting the streets with electricity, and inaugurated and put in operation an electric light plant, which lighted the streets of the city in conformity with their authorization and contract.
The appellee (Eaton J. Bowers) is the owner of four or more properties abutting on Front street, which is the principal street of the city, and its crowning glory, and along said street and adjacent to the lots of appellee, and without his consent, the appellants erected their poles and strung their wires, to the great disfigurement, as is said, of the view from said several properties of appellee (Eaton J. Bowers). The properties or lots of appellee upon Front street extend to both sides of the street, and a considerable element of their value, it is alleged, consists of an open and unobstructed view of the Mississippi Sound.
Appellee, alleging in his bill of complaint the inaugration by appellants of said electric plant and the erection of their poles along the streets abutting his several porperties, without his consent, and to his great injury and annoyance, sought and obtained a preliminary mandatory injunction requiring appellants within twenty-four (24) hours to remove from his lots, as a nuisance, their poles, wires, and other appliances for lighting the streets. The injunction was subsequently modified so as to restore the poles, wires, and appliances removed thereunder; but from a refusal of the court (below) to dissolve the injunction entirely the appellants bring their appeal (to the Supreme Court).
The authorities are quite uniform that a city or town may light its streets as a means of making them more safe and convenient for public travel. The right to light the town is presumed to have been acquired and paid for, as incident to the right of public passage, when the property was condemned or dedicated for public use. In other words, the taking of the land for use as a street includes not only the right of passage, but