|
|
|
|
|
|
|
376 THE WHARF CASE.
In regard to the subject of this controversy, it appears from the
Airbus legislative enactments in relation to it, that in the year
1766, the inhabitants of Baltimore, by their petition to the General
Assembly, set forth that a large miry marsh, adjoining the town,
was very prejudicial to the health of its inhabitants; and that the
proprietors thereof, by their perverseness, or dilatoriness, had re-
fused or neglected to remove the nuisance, which could only be
done by changing the surface of the marsh into firm dry ground.
Whereupon it was enacted, that Thomas Harrison, &c., the own-
ers of the said marsh, should, within one month after the end of
that session of Assembly, give bond in a certain penalty, with
surety to be approved by the commissioners therein named, within
two years from the date, to remove the nuisance, lby wharfing in
all such marshy ground next the water,' &c.; and should also 'cover
all such marshy ground with stones, gravel, sand, or dirt, so as to
raise the same not less than two feet above the level of common
flood tides.' And it was further declared, that the said marshy
ground should be laid out by the said commissioners into streets,
lanes, and alleys, and thenceforth be deemed a part of Baltimore
town. And in case the said Thomas Harrison should neglect to
give bond as required, then the said commissioners were to have
the ground divided into lots, and sold upon condition, to 'wharf in
and secure all such marshy ground next the water,' and also to
have the same raised above tide as aforesaid, (e) After which
Thomas Harrison gave bond as required, but not having been able
to comply with its conditions within the time specified, he was
allowed a further time; (f) which time was again extended by
the Legislature, (g)
(e) 1766, ch. 22. A common nuisance is a species of offence against the public,
being either the doing of a thing to the annoyance of the people, or the neglecting
to do a thing which the common good requires, and which certain persons are bound
to do; as by neglecting to repair a highway, bridge, or public river which the party
was bound to repair; Jacob Law Dict. v. Nuisance. But this act of Assembly de-
clares the natural condition of a certain tract of land to be a nuisance, and obliges
its owner to remove such nuisance by altering and improving its natural condition.
But although it may be regarded as a principle of justice necessarily arising out of
the very nature of a legal title to property, that no individual or set of individuals
should be permitted to determine how the property of another should be managed,
altered, or improved for their own especial benefit, or to promote the general salu-
brity of the country. Yet, as an exception to this rule, a law may be passed pro-
viding for cases in which swamps, bogs, or wet land should be drained by ditches
and embankments on the land of each owner, for the general benefit; upon the same
ground, that the owner of a lot in a city may be compelled to pave the street in
front of his lot; Arator by John Taylor of Caroline, page 172.
(f) May, 1768, ch. 22.—(g) September, 1770, ch. 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
