BALTIMORE v. McKIM.—3 BLAND. 461

may be granted, and will pass if distinctly comprehended by the
terms of an ordinary patent, issuing from the land office; subject
only to the then existing public uses of navigation, fishery, &c.;
which cannot be hindered or impaired by the patentee, or those
claiming under him. Browne v. Kennedy, 5 H. & J. 195; 13 Niles'
Reg. 225; 1833, ch. 254, s. 7. *And, by a late Act of the
Legislature, it is declared, that individuals may locate and 469
obtain an exclusive title to oyster-beds, in any navigable waters,
in the manner therein prescribed, without applying to the land
office. 1829, ch. 87; Scratton v. Brown, 10 Com. Lav Rep. 385;
Attorney-General v. Bwridge, 6 Exch. Rep. 354. And, as it would
seem, the General Assembly may, for the benefit of the public,
grant to an individual any navigable water together with the land
which it covers. 1826, ch. 212; 1827, ch. 33; 1828, ch. 54.

At an early period an obscure and unsettled notion seems to
have prevailed; that the owners of the uplands had a sort of in
choate or pre-emptive right to the contiguous marshes, lying be
tween their uplands and the shores of the tide. Land Ho. Assis.
147,157. And such marsh was, by the land law of 1699, declared
to belong absolutely to the land to which it was adjacent; Land
Ho. Assis. Append. 9; but, that law has been long since repealed,
and I find nothing which shews, that the owner of a tract adjoin-
ing navigable water could claim any sort of title to any part of
the land covered by the tide beyond low water mark; because of
its being immediately adjacent to the land held by him. (f)

ing the propriety of a grant, and the interest of the public. But the defend-
ant may, on application, have an order to caveat his certificate.

FOWLER v. GOODWIN.—KILTY, C., 19th May, 1809.—The Chancellor in his
decision and order in this case, (1 Bland, 327.) noticed the grounds on which
they had been supported and opposed in the argument before him.

The surveys which were afterwards made at the instance of the caveator.
were laid before him on the submission, without any explanation or further
argument. And he perceived nothing in them to alter the main principle on
which he decided.

It has since been suggested by the caveator, that a large part of the sur-
vey, number one, lies in the water of Bell's Cove, as appears by the plot and
explanations, and the deposition of Charles Stewart. Whereupon, patents
were directed to be issued in the other cases only—meaning number one.

The defendant, if he is desirous of obtaining a patent on that survey, will
have to apply in writing for an order of correction for the purpose of ex-
cluding the part so lying in the water, or for such other order as he may
think necessary. And any order for correction, or any other purpose that
may be wanted by the caveator, must likewise be applied for in writing.

(f) But a fee simple owner may extend a wharf into a river so as he does
not thereby injure the navigation or fishery; 1835, ch 168.

HYDE'S CASE.—To His Excellency Robert Eden, Esquire, and the Honora-
ble Daniel Dulany and John Morton Jordan, Esquires, commissioners for the
sale of his lordship's lands.