"Every person desiring to open and conduct an abstract business, shall, before entering upon such business make application for a license to the board of county commissioners of the county in which he proposes to conduct said business. Said commissioners shall, if they deem said applicant a proper and competent person, issue a license authorizing said applicant during all reasonable business hours and under the authority of the county recorder to have free access to said records; provided, such license shall not issue until said applicant shall file a bond with approved sureties in the penal sum of not less than ten thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful abstracting of said records and the issuing of correct abstracts of title. Said bond shall also provide that the said person, his agent, or employee shall be held liable for any mutilation of the records in his possession. Every person conducting an abstract business shall be liable to the person aggrieved for mistakes and errors in abstracts for the amount of actual damages sustained; provided, that such liability shall not accrue in favor of any person who had actual notice of the error or mistake complained of." Rev. Stat. (1898), § 629.

"Any abstract of title to any piece, parcel or parcels of real estate or mining claim or claims, certified to by any licensed abstracter or county recorder of the state of Utah, shall be admissible in evidence in any action or proceeding in any court existing by virtue of the laws of the state of Utah, and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated without further proof, and the certificate to the same of such licensed abstracter or county recorder shall be prima facie evidence of the authority of such licensed abstracter or county recorder." Laws 1899, ch. 36, p. 54. "The abstracts mentioned in the preceding section, in order to be admissible in evidence as therein provided, shall be certified to under the hand and seal of such licensed abstracter or county recorder, which certificate shall set forth what such abstract purports to contain and shall also contain a statement of the authority of the maker thereof." Laws 1899, p. 54, ch. 36, § 2. (Approved March 9, 1899.)

Sec. 45. Wyoming. In each county in the territory there shall be abstract books kept, in which all transfers and mortgages of real property, and all liens upon real estate shall be briefly entered." Rev. Stat. (1887), § 1849.

"It shall be the duty of the county clerk of each county, to enter in dark colored ink in such abstract book in the order of time, all transfers of real estate heretofore recorded in their respective offices; and all mortgages, mechanics' liens and judgment liens, shall also be entered in said books in the order of time, in red ink." Rev. Stat. (1887), § 1850.

"All instruments affecting real estate in this territory, left for record in the county clerk's office, shall be abstracted as soon as it is practicable to enter the same, in the order of time." Rev. Stat. (1887), § 1851.

"All abstract entries of lands shall be made in a book, well bound and properly ruled, and at the head lines shall describe the legal division of land, or sub-division, naming section, township and range, according to the United States surveys, when the same is so described in the instru

ment filed for record; and the books shall contain ruled paralleled columns, in which respectively shall be entered the name of the grantor or mortgagor, grantee or mortgagee, character of instrument, consideration expressed in instrument, date of instrument, date of filing in clerk's office, description of the premises, and such other pertinent marginal remarks as will show whether such instrument was properly witnessed and acknowledged or not." Rev. Stat. (1887), § 1852.

"All abstract entries of town lots shall be made in a similar manner to those of lands, but shall be in a separate book, provided for that purpose by the board of county commissioners. The number of the lot and block shall appear in the head lines." Rev. Stat. (1887), § 1853.

"All abstract books shall be open to the inspection of every person desiring to examine the same, during all reasonable office hours, and no fee shall be charged for their inspection by any officer." Rev. Stat. (1887), § 1854

Hereafter no person, company, or corporation shall engage in or carry on the business of making or furnishing abstracts of title to any real estate within this state, without first having a full and complete set of abstract records of title of all the real estate situated in the county in which such business is carried on; or, in case such abstract business is limited to furnishing abstracts of real estate situated in an incorporated city or town, in such case a complete set of all abstracts of all real estate in such city or town shall be kept, and such person, company, or corporation shall also first enter into bond to the people of the State of Wyoming for the use of any person who shall sustain loss or damage by reason of the failure of any such person, company, or corporation in the performance of his or their duty as such abstracter. Said bond shall be in the penal sum of ten thousand dollars, with sufficient sureties, to be approved by and filed with the county clerk of such county, and conditioned for the faithful performance of his or their duty as such abstracter." Laws 1890, p. 173, ch. 41, § 1.

Any person, company or corporation, who shall carry on, or attempt to carry on, any business mentioned in section one of this act, and who shall fail, neglect or refuse to fully comply with the provision of this act," shall be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars for each offense. Laws 1890, ch. 41, § 2.

ABUTTING OWNERS.

Sec. 46.

EPITOME OF CASES.

Right of abutting owner to use streetRemedies for special injuries. An abutting owner has the right to run electric wires above the street for the purpose of connecting buildings on his property with the wires already on poles in the public streets erected for the purpose of supplying lights, Borough of Brigantine v. Holland Trust Co.,

N. J. Eq. (37 Atl. Rep. 438); but he has no right to occupy any portion of land appropriated for a street by the erection of a retaining wall for his lot, Towne v. City of Newton, 167 Mass. 311 (45 N. E. Rep. 745); nor to build a driveway upon the land of an adjoining owner, although it is within the limits of the highway, for his private use and convenience, because of the difficulty of passing directly from his land to the highway, Burr v. Stevens, 90 Me. 500 (38 Atl. Rep. 547). A city may enjoin an abutting lot owner from removing stone, earth and other material from within the limits of a street, or from impairing its embankments, which make it more expensive and difficult to fit the whole width of the street for travel. City of Madison v. Mayers, 97 Wis. 399 (73 N. W. Rep. 43; 65 Am. St. Rep. 127; 40 L. R. A. 635). Where an abutter's right to an injunction against the operation of a telephone company in a street is dependent upon his ownership of the fee in the street, his complaint is insufficient where it fails to allege such ownership, or that the street was dedicated to the public use by one who at the time owned the fee. It is not sufficient to allege part ownership. Erwin v. Central Union Tel. Co., 148 Ind. 365 (46 N. E. Rep. 667; 47 N. E. Rep. 663). An abutting owner who does not own the fee simple of any part of a highway cannot maintain an action for its obstruction unless he has sustained

some special injury not common to all who use the highway. Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Noftsger, 148 Ind. 101 (47 N. E. Rep. 332); Perkins v. Ross, Tenn. (42 S. W. Rep. 58). The owner of land abutting upon a street or alley, one end of which is obstructed so that he cannot have egress from his property to other streets in that direction, suffers an injury peculiar to himself by reason of a public nuisance and may recover nominal damages upon that fact alone. Bannon v. Murphy, Ky. (38 S. W. Rep. 889). Citing, Brakken v. Railway Co., 29 Minn. 41 (11 N. W. Rep. 124). A statute (Ind. Rev. Stat. 1894, § 3541) empowering cities to establish and regulate public markets does not authorize the occupation of a street for such a market, and an abutting owner especially injured by such a use may maintain injunction. City of Richmond v. Smith, 148 Ind. 294 (47 N. E. Rep. 630).

Sec. 47. Railroads in streets. In Kentucky it is held that an abutting owner cannot complain of the construction of a railroad in the street unless he suffers an injury distinct from that suffered by the public. Dulaney Dulaney v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 100 Ky. 628 (38 S. W. Rep. 1050). In Mississippi it is held that the construction of a railroad in a street is the appropriation of it to an entirely new and independent servitude on account of which an abutting owner may recover damages; and where a railroad defends against such an action under a claim of right to use the street by virtue of its having occupied it for forty years, it must be confined to the nature and character of its use of such street during such prescriptive period. Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. Inge, Miss. (22 So. Rep. 294). In New Jersey, in the absence of express legisla tive authority, a city or borough has no power to authorize by ordinance a railroad to occupy its streets longitudinally. Inhabitants of Burlington v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 259 (38 Atl. Rep. 849); Tallon v. Mayor of Hoboken, 60 N. J. L. 212 (37 Atl. Rep. 895); Thompson v. Ocean City R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 74 (36 Atl. Rep. 1087). In the last case the court say: "A charter authorizing the construction of a railroad between designated points-the exact location of the road between the specified termini being left in the company's

discretion-is an implied authority to cross highways along the route, but confers no right to occupy longitudinally streets or highways lying in the general route of the road. The authority to make such use of streets or highways must be expressly given, or, if conferred by implication, it must be by a necessary implication." Under Pa. Pub. Laws 1871, p. 1360, an abutting owner upon a public highway who is specially damaged by the unlawful construction of a railroad therein, may maintain an injunction. Hopkins v. Catasauqua Mfg. Co., 180 Pa. St. 199 (36 Atl. Rep. 735). Upon a particular state of facts it is held that abutting owners on opposite sides of a street owning the fee therein may construct a railroad across the street connecting their premises, the municipal authorities having consented thereto, by a resolution declaring that the public would suffer no inconvenience from the construction of the proposed track. Hanbury v. Woodward Ļum. Co., 98 Ga. 54 (26 S. E. Rep. 477.) Where a railroad company has located its road on the east side of a street beyond the center thereof, no condemnation of the rights of one owning land abutting on the west side of the street is required. Alabama Code, § 3207, construed and applied. New & Old Decatur B. & T. R. Co. v. Karcher, 112 Ala. 676 (21 So. Rep. 825). In Missouri, a recent statute prohibits the municipal authorities of a city or town from granting the right to lay railroad tracks in any street except upon the petition of owners representing more than one-half of the frontage on such street. Laws 1899, p. 105.

Sec. 48. Railroads in streets-Recovery of damages by abutting owner. Damages resulting to abutting property from the construction of a railroad in the street, on account of the blowing of whistles, ringing of bells, noises from engines and trains, the blowing off of chaff or smoke, vibration, inability to converse during the time trains are passing, interference with the turning of teams in the street in front of the property, and the diversion of travel from the street, are special damages for which no recovery can be had and concerning which no evidence can be given unless they are specially pleaded. Root v. Butte A. & P. Ry. Co., 20 Mont. 354 (51 Pac. Rep. 155). It is held that where a rail