|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALTIMORE v. McKIM. 471
vessels, (k) Whence it appears, that no wharf can be extended
beyond the margin of the channel, even with the consent of the
port wardens. And these port wardens having, as directed by
this law, made a survey designating the lines of the channel, that
is the line, now commonly called the port warden's line, beyond
which no improvements can be made into the basin.
These provisions do certainly restrict the mode of acquisition
given by the act for making improvements; (f) and assist in
giving perpetuity to the public right of navigation with which the
soil was originally encumbered, by requiring, that care should be
taken to keep it always free from obstruction. This last act, it is
therefore evident, cannot be so construed as to give any additional
facilities to acquiring title to, and making fast land of any portion
of the bed of the basin; but, on the contrary, as directly curtailing
those means by which a title to, and the use of it, might previously
have been obtained. The port wardens could give to no one a
right to encroach upon the basin in any direction, or to make a
wharf where, prior to the passage of this law, he had no such
right; they might limit and control the then existing powers of
individuals, but could give them no new powers or rights what-
ever. This is the view which has long since been taken of this
law by the courts of justice, (m)
Hence it is manifest, that the permission given by the port war-
dens to John Smith, to fill up and build a wharf on eleven feet of
Gay street, was wholly illegal and a mere nullity; and as to the
farther encroachment upon Gay street, it has not been intimated,
that Smith and others had even a pretext or shadow of legal
authority to do what has been done by them.
It is perfectly clear, from the proofs, that the strip of land in
question cannot, in any way, be regarded as an alluvion, the right
to which would accrue to the owner of the adjacent land to which
it had fastened; (n) but having been made, and built up, as a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(k) April, 1783, ch. 24, s. 8 and 9; 1753, ch. 27.— (1) 1745, ch. 9.—(m) Harri-
son v. Sterett, 4 H. & McH, 540; Smith v. Hollingsworth, ante 381.—(n) Browne
v. Kennedy, 5 H. & J. 195; Ridgely v. Johnson, 1 Bland, 316, note; The King v.
Lord Yarborough, 10 Com. Law Rep. 19; Gifford v. Lord Yarborough, 15 Com.
Law Rep. 403.
HAMMOND v. FORREST.—16th November, 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The hear-
ing of the caveat in this case came on in the Land Office on the 15th, when the
exhibits and depositions were read, and the case was argued by counsel on each side.
On consideration, the Chancellor is of opinion, that the caveat ought to prevail,
and that the defendant is not entitled to a patent It does not appear, however, that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
