|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALTIMORE v.. McKIM. 467
a mode of acquisition of which none can take advantage but
natural persons who hold lots bounded by the tide-water of the
basin; in whom and their heirs the acquisition is to vest as an inhe-
ritance. It is obvious, therefore, that the city itself could acquire
no right of property in this way; and besides, a wharf, one of the
kinds of improvements mentioned as an example, being an exten-
sion of fast land into the water, the city never had any such land
upon or from which any improvements of the sort could be made
or extended, (s) But even natural persons can avail themselves
of this privilege only in so far as the acquisition may be made by
improving their own lots in such a manner as not to extend them
in front of, or between the navigation of the basin and any public
street or other lot belonging to an individual, (t) As, for exam-
ple, John Smith, under this law, could not have acquired a right
to any land, covered by the waters of the basin, by improving
upon, or filling it up in any other than a south direction; because,
in doing so, he would have crossed, or cut off the navigation from
the next adjoining street or lot. (u) In this instance, however, he
improved upon and filled up land which was, confessedly, not an
extension of his own lot, but a part of Gay street. It is, there-
fore, perfectly clear, that no right could have been acquired to this
strip of land by John Smith, or any one else, under this act of
Assembly.
This act of the Provincial Legislature had prescribed a mode
whereby the owners of lots in Baltimore might acquire a title to
portions of the land covered by the navigable waters of the basin
without applying to the Land Office. But, according to the Eng-
lish law, the king can at present make no grant in derogation of
the rights of navigation and fishery; (w) in which respect also the
Lord Proprietary had been expressly restrained by his charter; (z)
and, as it would seem, under a sense of that restriction, by one of
his instructions, he had directed his surveyors, that, in surveying
old tracts, whereof part might be found to lie in the water, to be
careful in certifying whether it had been washed away, or had
been an error in the original survey, (y) From which, and the
proceedings in the Land Office, an opinion seems to have been
entertained by those who might be presumed to have been suffi-
(t) 1836, ch. 63.—(t) Hale de Portibus, 81; Smith v. Hollingsworth, ante 381.—
(u) Harrison v. Sterett, 4 H. & McH. 540.—(w) Blundell v. Catterall, 7 Com. Law
Rep. 108.-~(x} Chart, of Maryland, s, 4 and 16; 13 Niles' Reg, 13—(y)Land Ho.
Assis. 289.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
