Woodfall's Law of landlord and tenant Volume 2 - Tapa blanda

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1890 Excerpt: ...proprietor to own the soil under the water to the centre of the stream, applies to rivers, though in fact navigable, if either wholly destitute of tides or above the flow of the tide. Comm'rs of Canal Fund v. Kempshall, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 401 (Genesee River); Gavitt v. Chambers, 3 Ohio, 496 (Sandusky River); Walker v. Board of Public Works, 16 Ohio, 510 (the Great Miami declared navigable by statute); Middleton v. I'ritchard, 3 Scam. (III.) 510 (the Mississippi River); People v. St. Louis, 5 Gilm. (III.) 351 (Mississippi River); Knsminger r. The People, 47 III. 381 (Ohio River); City of Chicago v. Laflin, 49 Id. 172 (Chicago River); Braxon v. Bressler, 64 111. 488 ( Rock River); Cox v. The State, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 193, 198, 199 (per Stevens, J.); Steamboat "Magnolia" v. Marshall, 39 Miss. 109 (the Mississippi). It should be said, however, that though the preponderance of authority is to the effect that a stream navigable in fact is not navigable in law unless the tide flows, yet the public have an casement over some streams destitute of tides, either by custom or statute, to navigate them with boats, logs, ships, &c., and that the riparian owners cannot obstruct them; and they may be called in a sense navigable, as they are public highways. Berry v. Carle, 3 Me. 269; Spring v. Russell, 7 Me. 273 (per Mellen, C. J.); Wadsworth v. Smith, 11 Me. 278 (per Parris, J.); Adams r. Pease, 2 Conn. 481 (per Swift, Ch. J.); The People v. Piatt, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 195, 211 (per Spencer, Ch. J.); Moore v. San borne, 2 Mich. 519; Cox v. The State, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 193, 198, 199 (per Stevens, J.). And, on the other hand, in Rowe v. Granite Bridge Corporation, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 344, it was held that a salt creek in which the tide did ebb and flow was not navigable....