BALTIMORE v. McKIM.—3 BLAND. 445

spoken of; except where it is said that if the owners, or any of
them, be a feme covert, &c. But this rather tends to enlarge than
restrain the comprehensive meaning of the term owners, by which
all must be embraced, whether natural or artificial persons; bodies
politic as well as individuals. So far it seems to be admitted, that
this Act is clear of all ambiguity.

But the sixteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth sections do not,
in any manner, modify or restrain the general terms of the fif-
teenth section. It appeared, that the proposed railroad, in its
route, must cross many highways; and that it might be conveni-
ent to allow it to pass along the same route then occupied by an ex-
isting turnpike, or over a public bridge; and it also appeared, that
iu all this there was nothing so incompatible as that the one road
should be allowed to obstruct or destroy the other. And there-
fore it was declared, that the defendants should be authorized to
construct their railroad across an established road, so that it did
not impede its passage; and also, that they might contract for the
use of any turnpike or bridge with which it might be necessary or
advantageous to connect their railroad. The manifest intention
of these enactments was to provide for the preservation of the
then existing and established public uses to which any land might
have been subjected; so that, in creating one public convenience
another public convenience might not be destroyed. It was the
preservation and making compatible with each other two or more
public uses which might be brought into collision with each other,
so that the people might be deprived of none of their public bene-
fits, which was the sole and only object of these latter sections;
and considered in this light they accord, in every respect, and
perfectly, with all that is declared in the fifteenth section; and
can, by no means, be considered as altering or restraining any
right or power * there given to the defendants. Hence I
am perfectly satisfied, that there is no foundation for this 453
last objection of the plaintiffs.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the injunction heretofore granted
in this case, be and the same is hereby dissolved.

BALTIMORE v. McKIM.
THE LAND OFFICE.—TITLE TO LAND COVERED BY WATER.

The land office is considered as the general market in which all public lands

are sold, (a)
In some cases individuals are allowed to acquire a legal title to land without

going into the land office.

(a) Cited in Smith v. Devecmon, 30 Md. 479.