Special benefits must be considered. In considering the damages sustained, any special benefits which his property may have received through the change of grade must be considered and deducted from the special damages that he may have suffered. An increase in common to the entire neighborhood cannot be consid 181 Pa. 592, 37 Atl. 910. A street railway company can claim no damages for impediment to travel caused by a change of grade made in the street upon which tracks are located. Cherry v. City of Rock Hill, 48 S. C. 553, 26 S. E. 798. The fact that an owner may be obliged to take a more circuituous route between his residence and place of business can not be included as an element of damage. French v. City of Milwaukee, 49 Wis. 584; Tyson v. City of Milwaukee, 50 Wis. 78. The cost of grading adjoining premises to conform to a change of street grade is a legitimate item of damages. Meinzer v. City of Racine, 74 Wis. 166. The cost of filling in premises to correspond with the changed grade is properly considered. 606 Flicken v. City of Atlanta, 114 Ga. 970, 41 S. E. 58; City of Elgin v. McCallum, 23 Ill. App. 186; Springer v. City of Chicago, 135 Ill. 552, 26 N. E. 514, 12 L. R. A. 609; City of Savanna v. Loop, 47 Ill. App. 214; Hopkins v. City of Ottawa, 59 Ill. App. 288; City of Elgin V. Eaton, 83 Ill. 535; Springer v. City of Chicago, 135 Ill. 552, 12 L. R. A. 609; McCash v. City of Burlington, 72 Iowa, 26, 33 N. W. 346; Morton v. City of Burlington, 106 Iowa, 50; Parker v. City of Atchison, 46 Kan. 14; Chase v. City of Portland, 86 Me. 367, 29 Atl. 1104; Donovan v. City of Springfield, 125 Mass. 371; Cross v. Plymouth County, 125 Mass. 557; 606 Woodbury v. Inhabitants of Beverly, 153 Mass. 245; Wolters v. City of St. Louis, 132 Mo. 1, 33 S. W. 441; Kent v. City of St. Joseph, 72 Mo. App. 42; Rives v. City of Columbia, 80 Mo. App. 173; Clay v. Board, 85 Mo. App. 237; Hammond v. City of Harvard, 31 Neb. 635; Barr v. City of Omaha, 42 Neb. 341, 60 N. W. 591. Smith v. City of Omaha, 49 Neb. 883, 69 N. W. 402. An award of damages under Omaha city charter, § 116, upon a change of grade must show affirmatively that possible benefits to the public were considered and that the award represents the damages sustained, less such benefits, if any. City of Omaha v. Hansen, 36 Neb. 135, 54 N. W. 83. Increase of travel is not a special benefit. Svanson v. City of Omaha, 38 Neb. 550, 57 N. W. 289; Kirkendall V. City of Omaha, 39 Neb. 1, 57 N. W. 752; Stewart v. City of Hoboken, 57 N. J. Law, 330, 31 Atl. 278. Lotze v. City of Cincinnati, 61 Ohio St. 272, 55 N. E. 828. Improved light and ventilation afforded buildings and increased facilities for carrying on business for which used are incidental and special local benefits to be considered in estimating the damages to abutting property caused by the change of grade of a street. Chambers v. Borough of South Chester, 140 Pa. 510; Philadelphia Ball Club v. City of Philadelphia, 182 Pa. 362, 38 Atl. 357; City of Dallas ered.607 The only just and practicable rule which can be adopted for a measure of damages to adjoining lot owners is the difference in the market value of the property before the improvement is made and unaffected by it and its value afterwards as affected by it.608 § 814. Unlawful change of grade The rules stated above only apply, however, to a lawful change of grade and if public officials without authority take action in regrading a street that results in an injury to property owners, v. Kahn, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 19, 29 S. W. 98; City of Dallas v. Cooper, (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 321; Blair v. City of Charleston, 43 W. Va. 62, 26 S. E. 341, 35 L. R. A. 852; Smith v. City of Eau Claire, 78 Wis. 457. 607 Fairchild v. City of St. Paul, 46 Minn. 540; Cole v. City of St. Louis, 132 Mo. 633, 34 S. W. 469; City of Omaha v. Cochran, 30 Neb. 637; Lowe v. City of Omaha, 33 Neb. 587, 50 N. W. 760; Kirkendall v. City of Omaha, 39 Neb. 1, 57 N. W. 752; Vacation of Howard St., 142 Pa. 601; Rudderow v. City of Philadelphia, 166 Pa. 241; Drummond v. City of Eau Claire, 85 Wis. 566, 55 N. W. 1028. But see Aswell v. City of Scranton, 175 Pa. 173, 34 Atl. 656. 608 City of Montgomery v. Townsend, 80 Ala. 489, 4 So. 780; Platt v. Town of Milford, 66 Conn. 320, :34 Atl. 82; Roughton v. City of Atlanta, 113 Ga. 948, 39 S. E. 316; City of Jacksonville v. Loar, 65 Ill. App. 218; Butler v. City of East St. Louis, 74 Ill. App. 649; Ross v City of Chicago, 91 Ill. App. 416; City of Joliet v. Schroeder, 92 Ill. App. 68; Stewart v. City of Council Bluffs, 84 Iowa, 61, 50 N. W. 219; Hempstead v. City of Des Moines, 52 Iowa, 303; Preston v. City of Cedar Rapids, 95 Iowa, 71, 63 N. W. 577; Parker v. City of Atchison, 46 Kan. 14, 26 Pac. 435; City of Covington v. Taffee 24 Ky. L. R. 373, 68 S. W. 629; Chase v City of Portland, 86 Me. 367, 29 Atl. 1104; Garrity V. City of Boston, 161 Mass. 530; Davis v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 119 Mo. 180, 24 S. W. 777. Damages cannot be recovered for injuries to improvements put on abutting property after the new grade to which the change is made has been established and made a matter of record. Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23, 30 S. W. 314; Dale v. City of St. Joseph, 59 Mo. App. 566; Keith v. Bingham, 100 Mo. 300, 13 S. W. 683. A claim for damages by reason of a change of grade is personal with the owner of the property at the time of the injury and does not run with the land. Clinkingbeard v. City of St. Joseph, 122 Mo. 641; Markowitz v. Kansas City, 125 Mo. 485; Smith v. Kansas City, 128 Mo. 23; City of Vicksburg v. Herman, 72 Miss. 211; City of Omaha v. Flood, 57 Neb. 124; City of Harvard v. Crouch, 47 Neb. 133, 66 N. W. 276; In re Grade Crossing of Com'rs of Buffalo, 169 N. Y. 605, 62 N. E. 1096; Chambers v. Borough of South Chester, 140 Pa. 510, irrespective of statutory provisions, they can recover the damages sustained by them. The element of lawful authority necessarily excludes either action without authority or that not taken in the manner and at the time provided by law.609 Actual damages caused by a change of grade. Neither does the principle stated in the preceding sections apply to any but consequential damages. If, through the grading or regrading of a highway, the property of adjoining owners is actually encroached upon, taken or damages, they must be compensated 610 21 Atl. 409; Dawson v. City of Pittsburgh, 159 Pa. 317, 28 Atl. 171; Mead v. City of Pittsburgh, 194 Pa. 392, 45 Atl. 59; City of Ft. Worth v. Howard, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 537, 22 S. W. 1059; City of Dallas v. Leake (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 338. 609 Roberts v. City of Chicago, 26 III. 249; City of Burlington v. Gilbert, 31 Iowa, 356; Stuebner v. City of St. Joseph, 81 Mo. App. 273; Dore v. City of Milwaukee, 42 Wis. 108. 610 City of New Westminster v. Brighouse, 20 Can. Sup. Ct. 520. Abutting property is entitled to a lateral support. City of Montgomery v. Townsend, 84 Ala. 478, 4 So. 180; Larrabee v. Town of Cloverdale, 131 Cal. 96, 63 Pac. 143; City of Macon v. Hill, 58 Ga. 595; City of Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 Ill. 337; City of Bloomington v. Pollock, 141 Ill. 346; City of North Vernon v. Voegler, 89 Ind. 77; Hendershott v. City of Ottumwa, 46 Iowa, 658; Given v. City of Des Moines, 70 Iowa, 637. Brown v. Webster City, 115 Iowa, 511, 88 N. W. 1070. Evidence of the damage caused by the grading to trees on plaintiff's premises is admissible. City of Louisville V. Louisville Rolling Mill Co., 66 Ky. (3 Bush) 416; City of Louisville v. Hegan, 20 Ky. L. R. 1532, 49 S. W. 532; Dyer v. City of St. Paul, 27 Minn. 457, 8 N. W. 272; State v. Ramsey County Dist. Court, 33 Minn. 295; Nichols v. City of Duluth, 40 Minn. 389; Munger v. City of St. Paul, 57 Minn. 9, 58 N. W. 601; Werth v. City of Springfield, 78 Mo. 107; Gibson v. Owens, 115 Mo. 258; Carl v. Village of Northport, 11 App. Div. 120, 42 N. Y. Supp. 576; Comesky v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 41 App. Div. 245, 58 N. Y. Supp. 467; Slingerland v. International Contracting Co., 43 App. Div. 215, 60 N. Y. Supp. 12; Mott v. Lewis, 52 App. Div. 558, 65 N. Y. Supp. 31; Uline v. New York Cent. & H. R. Co., 101 N. Y. 98; Ottenot v. New York, L. & W. R. Co., 119 N. Y. 603; Pappenheim v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 436, 13 L. R. A 401; Stowers v. Gilbert, 156 N. Y. 600; City of San Antonio v. Mullaly, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 596; Cooper v. City of Dallas, 83 Tex. 239; Stearns v. City of Richmond, 88 Va. 992, 14 S. E. 847; Page v. Belvin, 88 Va. 985; City of Seattle v. Buzby, 2 Wash. T. 25; Parke v. City of Seattle, 5 Wash. 1, 31 Pac. 310, 32 Pac. 82, 20 L. R. A. 68. An abutting lot is entitled to lateral support when the grade of the street is made so negligently as to for the injuries suffered since this constitutes a taking of property or may be made the basis of an action sounding in tort. § 815. Diversion from a public or specific use. The principle that the state acting for itself or through its delegated agencies maintains an unlimited control over public property is not without its limitations. The principal one is that based upon the purpose for which the property is acquired. All governmental organizations are public in their character and the property which they acquire in that capacity can be secured only because of this fact and because it is acquired for a public purpose and use. The public property of a public corporation cannot be dealt with in the same manner as private. It cannot be controlled or transferred in such a manner as to effect a diversion of its use as a public one.611 The use and control must remain public and this cannot be lost,612 bargained or legislated away.613 This is true whether the property is owned in fee or an easement only has been acquired; it is held in trust for the public and in respect to public highways for the purposes of general travel. Public cause the soil of such a lot to slide into the street, the injury is direct, not merely consequential. Smith v. City of Seattle, 20 Wash. 613, 56 Pac. 389. 611 Hardin v. Sangamon County, 71 Ill. App. 103. Any portion of a public building, cannot be used for the regular transaction of the private business of an individual even though the public officials did not object. Cook County v. City of Chicago, 167 Ill. 109; Ingram v. Chicago, D. & M. R. Co. 38 Iowa, 669; Louisiana Const. & Imp. Co. V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 49 La. Ann. 527, 21 So. 891, 37 L. R. A. 661; Village of Buffalo v. Harling, 50 Minn. 551, 52 N. W. 931; City of St. Paul v. Chicago & St. P. R. Co., 63 Minn. 330, 63 N. W. 267, 65 N. W. 649, 68 N. W. 458, 34 L. R. A. 184; State v. Schweickardt, 109 Mo. 496, 19 S. W. 47. The establish ment of rules regulating the use of a park and the granting of the right to serve refreshments will not be regarded as a diversion of the legitimate uses of the park. Simon v. Northup, 27 Or. 487, 40 Pac. 560, 30 L. R. A. 171; City of San Antonio v. Stumberg, 70 Tex. 366, 7 S. W. 754; Alleghany County v Parrish, 93 Va. 615, 25 S. E. 882. See also, § 733, ante. But see Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Kimball, 114 Cal. 414, 46 Pac. 275. 612 Neitzey v. Baltimore & P. R.. Co., 5 Mackey (D. C.) 34; Bailey v. Culver, 84 Mo. 531; Dummer v. Selectmen of Jersey City, 20 N. J. Law (Spencer) 86. 613 City of Shreveport v. Walpole, 22 La. Ann. 526; Le Clercq v. Town of Gallipolis, 7 Ohio (pt. 1). 217; Reighard v. Flinn, 189 Pa. 355, 42 Atl. 23, 43 L. R. A. 502; Franklin County v. Gills, 96 Va. authorities have no authority to devote property to other uses than the one for which it is secured or has been dedicated.14 Public highways cannot be sold,15 neither can the highways, streets or public squares be levied upon to satisfy the debts of a particu lar public corporation.616 Attempts, therefore, on the part of the public corporations to deprive the public of their rightful use of public property are illegal. This rule, however, does not prevent the sovereign from transferring the supervision and control of public property from one governmental agent to another, 617 if it does not thereby devote it to a use substantially different from that for which it was originally acquired and intended. 330, 31 S. E. 507; Gilman v. City of Milawukee, 55 Wis. 328. 614 State v. City of Mobile, 5 Port. (Ala.) 279; Lutterloh v. City of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306; Beveridge v. West Chicago Park Com'rs, 7 Ill. App. 460; Craig v. People, 47 Ill. 487; Carter v. City of Chicago, 57 Ill. 283; City of Chicago v. Wright, 69 Ill. 318; Stevens v. Walker, 15 La. Ann. 577; City of St. Paul v. Chicago, M., St. P. R. Co., 63 Minn. 330, 68 N. W. 458, 34 L. R. A. 184; Glasgow v. City of St. Louis, 87 Mo. 678; Winchester v. Capron, 63 N. H. 605. A town has no right to erect and maintain a watch house or tramp house on land taken for a public highway. Attorney General v. Heishon, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Green) 410; Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. Law, 13; Meyers v. Hudson County Elec. Co., 63 N. J. Law, 573, 44 Atl. 713, reversing 60 N. J. Law, 350, 37 Atl. 618, construing acts of 1884 (P. L. p. 331), 1893 (P. L. p. 412) and 1896 (P. L. p. 322), relative to the consent of landowners to the erection of poles on highways. Tompkins v. Hodgson, 4 T. & C. (N. Y.) 435. The trustees of a village may authorize the erection of a soldiers' monument in one of the public streets. Parsons V. Van Wyck, 56 App. Div. 329, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1054; State v. Cincinnati Gas Light & Coke Co., 18 Ohio St. 262; Gleason v. City of Cleveland, 49 Ohio St. 431, 31 N. E. 802. A square having been donated to the public generally may be used as the site of the soldiers' and sailors' monument authorized by act of the legislature. Bender v. Streabich, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 609. Public school buildings are held in trust for school purposes only and cannot be used for church, Sunday school, lyceum or other purposes foreign to public instruction. See, also, § 733, ante. 615 City of Macon v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239; Alves' Ex'rs. v. Henderson, 55 Ky. (16 B. Mon.) 131. 616 Peake v. City of New Orleans (C. C. A.) 60 Fed. 127, affirming City of New Orleans v. Gurley, 56 Fed. 376; Ransom V. Boal, 29 Iowa, 68. 617 Thomas v. City of Richmond, 79 U. S. (12 Wall.) 356; Coffin v. City of Indianapolis, 59 Fed. 221; White v. Sullivan County Com'rs, 129 Ind. 396; State v. Kolsem, 130 Ind. 434, 29 N. E. 595, 14 L. R. A. 566; Indianapolis, D. & W. R. |