Opinion of the Court. in payment for subscriptions to the stock of the Tebo & Neosho Railroad Company. The only controversy was whether the road as constructed was the road for whose stock the county was authorized to subscribe. Mr. John D. Stevenson for plaintiff in error. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. The Tebo and Neosho Railroad Company was authorized by its charter to construct and operate a railroad from some point on the Pacific Railroad, between the west bank of the Laramie River and Muddy Creek, in Pettis county, in a southerly or southwesterly direction through Henry county, to some point on the State line between the northwest corner of Jasper and the southeast corner of McDonald county. It was also expressly authorized “to extend branch railroads into and through any counties that the directors may deem advisable." For the purpose of aiding in the construction by that company of a road from the junction of the main line with the Pacific Railroad, extending in a northeasterly direction, to Booneville, through the county of Howard, the county court of that county, in its behalf and after a favorable vote by the people, made a subscription to the capital stock of the company, and issued county bonds therefor. One-half of the bonds were sold by the county and the proceeds paid to the company, while the remainder were delivered in full payment of the balance due on the subscription. The subscription was made and bonds issued, in pursuance of a provision in the company's charter which made it "lawful for the county court of any county in which any part of the railroad or branches may be, or any county adjacent thereto, to subscribe to the stock of said company, and for the stock subscribed in behalf of the county may issue the bonds of the county to raise the funds to pay the same, and to take proper steps to protect the interest and credit of the county court, may appoint an agent to represent the county, vote for it, and receive its dividends." Act of January 16th, 1860, §§ 6 and Opinion of the Court. 8; act of November 21st, 1857, charter of Osage Valley & Southern Kansas Railroad Company, Laws of Mo., 1857, adjourned session, p. 62. The railroad was constructed through Howard county as proposed, and has been in operation ever since. The county court levied and collected a tax to pay the interest on the bonds for seven years, regularly paid the semi-annual interest until March, 1878, redeemed a number of the bonds, voted the county's stock at several meetings of stockholders, and when, in 1874, the road so constructed northeasterly through Howard county was sold to the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad Company, the county received 4,000 shares of the stock of the latter company in exchange for its stock in the Tebo & Neosho Railroad Company. Counsel for the defendant in error states that the county sold its stock in the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad Company for $140,000. But no such fact appears in the findings. But it does appear that the county, when the case was tried below, still held that stock. And now it is contended in behalf of the county-and no other question is presented for determination--that there was no legal authority for this subscription or issue of bonds. The argument in its behalf is that the main road of the company was established on a line south of the Pacific Railroad; that Howard county could not, by subscription, aid in the construction of the main line; and could not, by subscription, aid in the construction of a road from the junction of the main line northeasterly through that county, because such a road would not be a branch road, but only an unauthorized extension of the main line. We are of opinion that the road constructed through Howard county was, within the meaning of the statute, a branch of the original or main line. The defence cannot be sustained. The judgment is affirmed. Statement of Facts. BALTIMORE & POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY v. FIFTH BAPTIST CHURCH. IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Decided April 23d, 1888. Corporation-Damages-Legislative Grant-Nuisance. 1. In an action at law damages may be recovered against a person who maintains a nuisance which renders the ordinary use and occupation of property physically uncomfortable to its owner; and if the cause of the annoyance and discomfort he continuous, equity will restrain it. 2. The measure of damages in an action at law against the maintenance of a nuisance affecting real estate is not simply the depreciation of the property. The jury are authorized also to take into consideration personal discomfort which may be caused by the nuisance, and any causes which produce a constant apprehension of danger in their estimate of damages, even if there be no arithmetical rule for the estimate. 3. Corporations are equally responsible with individuals to respond in damages for injuries caused by nuisances maintained by their servants by the authority of the corporation. 4. Corporations may recover as plaintiffs for injuries done to their property by a nuisance; and where the corporation plaintiff is a religious corporation, and its members suffer personal discomfort and apprehension of danger in the use of the corporate property, the corporation may recover for such injuries. A religious congregation has the same right to the comfortable enjoyment of its church for its own purposes, that a private individual has to the comfortable enjoyment of his house. 5. Legislative authority to a railroad company to bring its tracks within municipal limits and to construct shops and engine houses there, does not confer authority to maintain a nuisance. 6. Legislative authorization exempts from liability to suits civil or criminal, at the instance of the State; but it does not affect claims of private citizens for damages for special inconvenience and discomfort, not experienced by the public at large. Action in the nature of an action on the case to recover damages for the discomfort occasioned by the establishment of a building for housing the locomotive engines of a railroad company, contiguous to a building used for Sunday schools and public worship by a religious society. The following is the statement of facts as prepared by the court: The Fifth Baptist Church, the plaintiff in the court below, Statement of Facts. was a religious corporation, created under the general incorporation act of Congress in force in the District of Columbia. It owned a building in the city of Washington situated on D street, between Four-and-a-half and Sixth streets, which was erected and has been used by it as a church for many years. The defendant in the court below, the Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company, was a corporation created under the laws of Maryland, and was authorized by act of Congress to lay its track within the limits of the city and construct other works necessary and expedient to the proper completion and main tenance of its road. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, in 1874, erected an engine house and machine shop on a parcel of land immediately adjoining its church edifice, and had since used them in such a way as to disturb, on Sundays and other days, the congregation assembled in the church, to interfere with religious exercises therein, break up its Sunday schools, and destroy the value of the building as a place of public worship. It therefore brought the present suit in the Supreme Court of the District for the damages it had sustained. The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial evidence was given to show that the Fifth Baptist Church had owned and used the premises described as a place of worship since 1857; that the present church building was begun in 1867, and since 1868 or 1869 had been continuously occupied by the church as its house of worship; that in 1872 the defendant erected upon a parcel of ground immediately adjoining the premises on the west, and from April, 1874, till the commencement of this suit, maintained, an engine house and machine shop, where a large number of locomotives and steam engines were housed and their fires made, and to and from which the engines were propelled, and in which they were coaled, watered, repaired, and otherwise used; that when the ground was first broken for the erection of these works the plaintiff advised the company that, if put there, they would prove to be a nuisance and ruinous to the plaintiff's interest, and protested against their erection; that the company, how, ever, paid no heed to this protest, but proceeded to erect the Statement of Facts. works upon the building line of its own premises within five and a half feet from the church edifice, and constructed upon the engine house sixteen smokestacks, lower in height than the windows of the main room of the church; that the nearest of the smokestacks was less than sixty feet from the windows, and the others were in a semicircular curve, at gradually increasing distances; that during this period-from April, 1874, to the commencement of the present suit-the plaintiff was accustomed to have on every Sabbath day Sunday school exercises in the morning, preaching in the forenoon, and preaching in the evening; and that religious services were also held in it on Wednesday evening of every week,, and on the first Tuesday and Friday evenings of every month, and at intervals protracted religious meetings were held in it every night in the week except Saturday night; that during this period these services were habitually interrupted and disturbed by the hammering noises made in the workshops of the company, the rumbling of its engines passing in and out of them, and the blowing off of steam; that these noises were at times so great as to prevent members of the congregation, sitting in parts of the church farthest from the shops, from hearing what was said; that the act of blowing off steam occupied from five to fifteen minutes, and frequently compelled the pastor of the church to suspend his remarks; that this was of habitual occurrence, during the day and at night, and on Sundays as well as other days; and that in the summer time, when the windows of the church were opened for air, smoke, cinders, and dust were blown from the smokestacks through the windows of the church, settling upon the pews and furniture, and soiling the clothes of the occupants, accompanied by an offensive odor, which greatly annoyed the congregation. Evidence was also given to show that the railroad company, which was authorized to lay its track only along Virginia avenue in this city, had constructed a side track from the avenue to its workshops, crossing a part of D street and its sidewalk at a distance of about 100 feet from the door of the church; that the locomotives were allowed to stand at the entrance of its premises with their cow-catchers protruding |