Slike strani
PDF
ePub

from the source of one to the source of the other may cross one or both of them, such a case may form an exception to the rule. Reynolds v. M'Arthur, 2 Pet., 417.

$ 370. The lower court refused to grant the instruction that, according to the intent and meaning of the deed of cession from Virginia to the United States of the land lying between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, such land is bounded by a line extending from the source or point of land farthest removed from the mouths of these rivers, from which the rain descending on the earth runs down into their respective channels, along the tops of the ridges, dividing the waters of the Scioto from the waters of the Great Miami. Held, that the instruction was properly refused. Ibid.

$ 371. Held, also, that an instruction to the effect that the sources of the two rivers must be at that point in their respective channels at which, from the union of several streams, sufficicnt water flows at an ordinary stage on which to navigate small vessels laden, was properly refused. Ibid.

$ 372. Held, also, that the instruction was properly refused, that the sources of the two rivers must be considered as commencing at that point in their respective channels from which the water flows at all easons of the year. Ibid.

$ 373. An instruction to the effect that the sources of the two rivers must be fixed at that point in their respective channels farthest removed from their respective mouths at which water is found at all seasons of the year, held properly refused. Ibid.

§ 374. The court also properly refused to instruct the jury that the source of each river was at that point farthest removed from its mouth from which the rain rups into its channel. Ibid.

$ 375. The soil below low-water mark in the Chesapeake bay, within the boundaries of Maryland, belongs to the state, subject to the lawful grants of that soil by the state or the sovereign power which governed its territory before the declaration of independence. Smith v. State of Maryland, 18 How., 71.

$ 376. But this soil is held by the state not only subject to, but in some sense in trust for, the enjoyment of certain public rights, among which is the common liberty of taking fish, as well shell fish as floating fish. Ibid.

$ 377. Wherever a river is the boundary between states, it is the main, the permanent, river which constitutes that boundary. Hence, when the state of Virginia made the Ohio river the boundary between itself and Kentucky, held, that she must have intended the great river Ohio, and not a narrow bayou separated from the Kentucky side of the river by a goodly strip of land, and through the whole of which the waters of the river do not pass until they rise ten feet above the low-water mark. Handly v. Anthony, 5 Wheat., 374.

$ 378. Where a river is the boundary between two nations or states, if the original property is in neither, and there be no convention respecting it, each holds to the middle of the strcam; but when, as in the case of Virginia and Kentucky, one state, the former, is the original proprietor, and grants the territory on one side only, it retains the river within its own domain, and the newly erected state extends to the river only, and the low-water mark is its boundary. Ibid.

$379. Where a river forms the boundary between two states, any gradual accretion of land, or land formed by the receding of the water, belongs to the state next which it forms. Ibid.

$ 380. The boundary between Alabama and Georgia depends upon the construction to be given to the line mentioned in the cession by Georgia to the United States, wbich was line beginning on the western bank of the Chattahoochee river where the same crosses the boundary line between the United States and Spain, running up the said Chattahoochee river and along the western boundry thereof.” In determining the boundary, held, that there is ownership of the soil and jurisdiction in Georgia in the bed of the river Chattahoochee, and that the bed of the river is that portion of its soil which is alternately covered and left bare, as there may be an increase or diminution in the supply of water, and which is adequate to contain it at its average and mean stage during the entire year, without reference to the extraordinary freshets of the winter or spring, or the extreme droughts of the summer or autumn. State of Alabama v. State of Georgia, 23 How., 505.

$ 381. Grant of exclusive right of navigation.- A grant by the legislature of Maine to a private individual of the exclusive privilege of navigating the upper part of the Penobscot river, situated wholly within the state, separated from tide-water by impassable falls and other obstacles, and not forming any part of a continuous track over which commerce is carried on between two or more states or with a foreigu nation, is not in derogation of the power vested in congress to regulate commerce,” etc. Veazie v. Moore, 14 How., 568.

$ 882. Right of city on high seas. · A city cannot lay out a “town way” or “public highway" for boats and vessels on the high seas, although one of the streets of the city reaches the sea. Richardson v. The City of Boston, 24 How., 188.

a

$ 383. Power of congress over Potomac.- The compact between Maryland and Virginia of 1785, securing the free navigation of the Potomac river, could be changed or abrogated at the pleasure of those states. And when those states ceded to the United States territory embracing a portion of such river, congress acquired the power and right to do whatever those states could formerly have done by their joint will with respect to that portion of the river in the granted territory. Mayor of Georgetown v. The Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet., 91.

$ 384. Law of Massachusetts as to flowage. It seems that the laws of Massachusetts som specting flowage do not apply to the case of machinery used by the United States for publie purposes, in a place over which jurisdiction has been ceded to the United States, so as to authorize a mill owner to flow back in a way to impair in any degree the use of the machinery. United States v. Ames, 1 Woodb. & M., 76.

$385. The taking of sea-weed and sea-manure from a beach is a commonable right in Rhode Island. Knowles v. Nichols, 2 Curt., 571.

$ 386. Fish rights.- Where a charter granting the right to construct a dam provides for compensation to owners of fish rights below the dam, but not to those above it, the latter being injured as well as the former, it does not deprive the state of its right to require the construction of such fish ways. Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall., 500.

$ 387. It is settled law in Massachusetts that the right of fishing in such rivers as the Con. necticut and Merrimac, even above the point where they are navigable for boats and rafts, and the right to erect and maintain dams to create water-power for mill purposes, are public rights, and the owners of the same are bound by the reasonable regulations of the state made for their protection, among which is the requirement of the owners of dams that they construct proper and suitable fish ways unless expressly provided to the contrary in the grant of the privilege to construct the dam. Ibid.

$ 389. Shores of and soil under navigable waters. The shores of navigable waters and the soils under then were not granted by the constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the states respectively; and the new states have the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction over this subject as the original states. Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How., 212; Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How., 471; Doe v. Beebe, 13 How., 25.

$ 389. By the admission of the state of Alabama into the Union that state became invested with the sovereignty and dominion over the shores of navigable rivers between high and low water mark. Consequently after such admission congress could make no grant of land thus situated. Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How., 471.

$ 390. The stipulation contained in the sixth section of the act of congress of March 2, 1819, for the admission of the state of Alabama into the Union, viz., “that all navigable waters within the said state shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said state and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost or toll therefor imposed by said state,” conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other states under the provisions of the constitution, and it leaves as much right in the state of Alabama orer them as the original states possess over navigable waters within their respective limits. Pollard t. Hagan, 3 How., 212; Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How., 471; Doe v. Beebe, 13 How., 25.

$ 391. The defendant reclaimed from the water, under authority of the legislature, certain land along the New Jersey shore. Plaintiff claimed the premises uuder sundry mesne conveyances from the proprietors of East New Jersey, maintaining that, by virtue of the various grants by which they became proprietors of East New Jersey, the fee of the soil under the navigable waters of that part of the state was conveyed to them as private property subject to the public use, and, as that use had ceased in the premises in question, he was entitled to their exclusive possession. The court held, however, that the soil under the public navigable. waters of East New Jersey belonged to the state, and not to the proprietors; and upon that ground gave judgment for the defendant. Den v. Jersey Co., 15 How., 426.

$ 392. When the Revolution took place the people of each state became themselves sorereign, and, in that character, held the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them for their common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government. Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet., 367.

[ocr errors]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

$ 1. The regulation of weights and measures having been given by the constitution to congress it is doubtful whether the enactments of any state on that subject are of any validity

whatever, even though congress has wholly neglected to attend to this regulation. The Miantinomi, 3 Wall. Jr., 46.

$ 2. When parties contract for any material by weight, using terms that have come to us from times past with a definite meaning, such as “ tons," which has been commonly regarded as meaning twenty-two hundred and forty pounds, the mere fact that a state has undertaken to regulate weights and measures, and in discharge of such an office has fixed the ton at two thousand pounds, will not dispense with an obligation to furnish the old measure. Ibid.

847

TABLE OF CASES.

.

The full-face figures refer to cases in full, the others to digest matter.

The names of Banks and Boats and Vessels will be found under the sub-titles Banks and BOATS AND VESSELS in alphabetical order under B. The names of Insurance Companies are under the sub-title INSURANCE COMPANIES under I. The names of Railroad Companies are under the sub-title RAILROAD COMPANIES under R.

Abbreviations: Tel. Co., Telegraph Companies. U. & T., Uses and Trusts.

*

[ocr errors]

A. & P. Tel. Co. v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co.,* 6 | Baird v. Shore Line R's Co., 6 Blatch., 461. Biss., 158. Tel. Co., $ 37, 38.

Water, SS 318, 343. Abbott v. McCartney, 1 Holmes, 82. Torts, Baker v. Biddle, 1 Bald., 394. U. & T., SS 29, $ 985.

224. Act of 1848 and Treaty with the Ottoman Baker v. City of Portland, 5 Saw., 566.

Porte, * 5 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 67. Treaties, Treaties, $ 191.
SS 330-332.

Baker v. Kansas City Times, * 18 Am. L. Reg., Adams v. Adams, 7 Ch. Leg. N., 113; 21 N. S., 101. Torts, SS 532, 533, 541, 542, Wall., 185. U. & T., SS 71, 75–77.

889, 890, Adams v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 9 Biss., 397- | Baker v. Root, 4 McL., 572. U. & T., S 419. 404. Warehouses, SS 2:1-25.

Baker v. Whiting. 3 Sumn., 475–487. U. & T., Adams v. Norris, 23 How., 3:53. Usage, S 134. SS 292-301, 22, 334, 487. Adams v. Otterback, 15 How., 539. Usage, $ 7. Banks v. Ogden,* 2 Wall., 57. Water, S 134. Ah Fong, In re, 3 Saw., 144. Treaties, $ 193. Albany Bridge Case, The, 2 Wall., 403. Water, $ 302.

BANKS. Allen v. McKeen, 1 Sumn., 276. U. & T., $ 447.

Bank of Alexandria v. Deneale, 2 Cr. C. C., Americans in Turkey, * 7 Op. Att'y Gen'l, 565. 488. Usage, $ 78. Treaties, $$ 333, 334.

Bank of British Columbia v. Marshall,* 11 Fed. Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat., 204. Torts, R., 19. Warehouses, S 45. $ 1008.

Bank of British N. A. v. Miller, 6 Fed. R., Anderson, Ex parte, 2 Hughes, 378. U. & T., 545; 7 Saw., 163. Water, $ 192. $ 68.

Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 2 Cr. C. C., Arnold v. United States, 9 Cr., 104. Time, 510. Usage, SS 84, 87. & 36.

Bank of Columbia v. McKenny, 3 Cr. C. C., Armstrong v. Beadle,* 5 Saw., 484; 8 Rep., 361. Usage, S 85. 35. Torts, $ 147.

Bank of Georgia v. Higginbottom, 9 Pet., 59. Armstrong v. Morrill, 14 Wall., 120. U. & T., U. & T., § 49. $78.

Bank of Metropolis v. Guttschlick, 14 Pet., 19. Askew v. Odenheimer, 1 Bald., 380. U. & U. & T., $ 310. T., S 358.

Bank of United States v. Benning, 4 Cr. C. C., Atkinson v. Patten, 1 Cr. C. C., 46. Torts, 81. U. & T., S 319. $ 573.

Bank of United States v. Beverly, 1 How., 134. Atlantic, M. & O. R. Case, In re,* 4 Hughes, U. & T., § 266. 157. Torts, S 315.

Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Pet., 25. Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall., 389. Water, Usage, $ 81. $ 106.

First Nat. Bank v. Bates, * 1 Fed. R., 702. Atocha v. United States, * 8 Ct. Cl., 427. Warehouses, SS 39-41. Treaties. S 154, 283.

Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 1 Auld v. Hoyl, i Cr. C. C., 544. Treaties, $ 233. Pet., 299. U. & T., SS 42, 320, 469. Authority and Jurisdiction of Consuls, 2 Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall., 645. Op. Att'y Gen'l, 378. Treaties, $ 210.

Torts, S 935. Averill v. Smith, 17 Wall., 82. Torts, SS 959, Merchants Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 3 978.

Cliff., 205. Usage, $ 125. Avery v. Fox, 1 Abb., 246–200. Water, SS 32- National Bank v. Burkhardt, 10 Otto, 686. 40.

Time, S 16; Usage, SS 19, 49.
National Bank v. Insurance Co., 14 Otto, 54.

U. & T., $$ 25, 303, 306.

Savings Bank v. Ward, 10 Otto, 195. Usage, Backstack v. Banks, 7 Ben., 355. Torts,

$ 65. $ 1009.

Trinidad Nat. Bank v. Denver Nat. Bank, 4 Bacon v. Rives, 16 Otto, 99. U. & T., S 251.

Dill., 290. Usage, $$ 73, 74. Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall., 87. U. & T.,

Union Bank of Georgetown v. Forrest, 3 Cr. S3 258, 282.

C. C., 218. Time, $ 22; Usage, $ 76.
Baird v. Shore Line R’y Co., 6 Blatch., 276.
Water, $ 317.

END OF BANKS.
VOL. XXVIII — 54

849

.

B.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »