ART. 98] RIPARIAN EIGHTS. 2197

1904, art 98, sec. 20. 1888, art. 98, sec. 20. 1860, art. 97, sec. 20.
1828, ch. 88, sec. 3.

20. It shall be the duty of every justice of the peace for said city
to make an annual return to the treasurer of all fines imposed under
the provisions of the aforegoing section and to receive and pay over
the same at the time of making said return.

Ibid. sec. 21. 1S88, art. 98, sec. 21. 1860, art. 97, sec. 21. 1835, ch. 168.

21. Any person owning real estate in fee simple, or having therein
an estate for years renewable forever on any of the navigable waters
of this State may construct wharves thereon and extend the same such
a distance into the stream as may be required to admit the safe
approach thereto of any vessel navigating said waters; provided said
wharves be not extended so as to interfere with the fishing or naviga-
tion of said waters.

This section conferred upon riparian owners new rights of property, and
extensions out into the water are held by the same title as the original lots.
The conflicting rights of a claimant under this section and of the grantee
of made land, determined. Tome Institute v. Crothers, 87 Md. 584. And see
Tome Institute v. Davis, 87 Md. 601.

A leasehold owner by making improvements out into the water, acquires
a fee-simple title to them. Tome Institute v. Davis, 87 Md. 605. And see
Williams v. Baker, 41 Md. 528.

Where A. leases water front property thus giving to the lessee the right
to erect improvements in the water, and then sells the reversion to B. who
ejects the lessee for non-payment of rent, the right to make Improvements,
and the improvements when made, belong to B. and not to A. The rever-
sioner may enter or distrain upon the improvements as well as upon the
original lot. Improvements out into the water under ordinance, are not
within our registration system—how title is shown. Baltimore v. White, 2
Gill, 444.

Unless a person owns adjoining land, he has no right to build a wharf.
Harrison v. Sterett, 4 H. & McH. 540.

This section referred to in deciding that where a vested docking at a cer-
tain wharf extended over a portion of an adjoining wharf, the owner of the
latter was entitled to compensation. Ranstead v. The William H. Brinsfield,
39 Fed. 215.

For a case holding that the city, and not certain individuals, owned
Improvements made by the latter out Into the water and hence, that the
wharves were public, see Dugan v. Baltimore, 5 G. & J. 357.

See art. 54. sec. 47, et seq.

Ibid. sec. 22. 1888, art. 98, sec. 22. 1860. art. 97, sec. 22. 1840, ch. 124.

22. Any person authorized to build a wharf on the west side of
the Susquehanna river shall build the same in front of the shore to
which such wharf may be attached and shall not, without the consent
of the owner of the lands adjoining that to which such wharf may be
attached, build any part of such wharf outside of a line drawn from
the land of the owner of such wharf to the channel of said river at
right angles to said channel.
See sec. 21 and notes.