LAND OFFICE 2287

An. Code, 1924, sec. 45. 1912, sec. 46. 1904, sec. 46. 1888, sec. 43. 1785, ch. 66, sec. 7.

45. Any person holding lands and being in actual possession thereof
in this State, under a warrant and survey or under a patent granted by
the government of Pennsylvania before the divisional line between the
two States was fixed, shall be entitled to receive a patent for such land

from the proper authorities of this State.

For a case dealing with an equitable interest held under a statute analogous to this
section, see Rowland v. Crawford, 7 H. & J. 52.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 46. 1912, sec. 47. 1904, sec. 47. 1888, sec. 44. 1862, ch. 129, sec. 37.

46. The proprietor of land bounding on any of the navigable waters
of this State shall be entitled to all accretions to said land by the reces-
sion of said water, whether heretofore or hereafter formed or made by
natural causes or otherwise, in like manner and to like extent as such
right may or can be claimed by the proprietor of land bounding on water
not navigable.

Secs. 46, 47 and 48 referred to in holding valid ordinances of Baltimore City estab-
lishing lines beyond which wharf may not extend. Riparian owners not deprived of
rights thereby. Cahill v. Baltimore, 173 Md. 454.

While it was not the intention of act of 1862, ch. 129, to give riparian owners title
to bed of stream, accretions to which such owners are entitled are not confined to
those which start at shore and extend to channel. A patent granted subsequent to
act of 1862 and in conflict with rights thereby conferred, should not have been granted;
specific performance refused. Melvin v. Schlessinger, 138 Md. 339.

A conveyance to water of a tidewater pond and "then running and bounding on
the water," etc., held to carry to middle of stream; rights of grantee are very similar
to those given by this and two following sections. Bowie v. W. Md. R. R. Terminal
Co., 133 Md. 10.

Hauling away of sand and gravel held to retard the formation of accretions; injunc-
tion granted. King v. Land & Improvement Co., 143 Md. 698.

The leaseholder under a lease made in 1850, acquired by virtue of act of 1745, ch. 9,
the right to accretions, to exclusion of assignee of the reversion. Williams v. Baker,
41 Md. 527.

This section held to have no application where a patent to land covered by water
was issued prior to its adoption. Dispute between such patentee and riparian owner
as to ownership of accretion. Linthicum v. Coan, 64 Md. 452. Cf. Day v. Day, 22
Md. 539; Patterson v. Gelston, 23 Md. 445.

As long as the water covers the adjacent soil, there is no accretion, and hence this
section has no application. Hess v. Muir, 65 Md. 596; Hodson v. Nelson, 122 Md. 335.

For cases dealing with the subject of this section prior to its adoption, see Chap-
man v. Hoskins, 2 Md. Ch. 485. Ridgely v. Johnson, 1 Bl. 316, note (f); Giraud v.
Hughes, 1 G. & J. 264; B. & O. R. R. v. Chase, 43 Md. 23.

Cited but not construed in Spencer v. Patten, 84 Md. 426; Hill v. United States,
149 U. S. 593.

See notes to secs. 47 and 48.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 47. 1912, sec. 48. 1904, sec. 48. 1888, sec. 45. 1862, ch. 129, sec. 38.

47. The proprietor of land bounding on any of the navigable waters
of this State shall be entitled to the exclusive right of making improve-
ments into the waters in front of his said land; such improvements and
other accretions as above provided for shall pass to the successive owners
of the land to which they are attached, as incident to their respective
estates. But no such improvement shall be so made as to interfere with the
navigation of the stream of water into which the said improvement is made.

Riparian owner held not entitled to injunction against erection of crab houses and
crab pounds or floats not attached to mainland, in front of his property, such struc-
tures not interfering with ingress and egress, nor with his right to make improve-
ments provided for by this and preceding section. When such owner desires to make
such improvements, crab houses, etc., must yield to his paramount right. Until owner
makes such improvements, the title to land under water is in state. Nature and extent
of riparian owner's rights under this section. Hodson v. Nelson, 122 Md. 334.

No patent ought to be issued which would destroy rights of riparian owner under
this section. The only restriction upon latter's rights is that set out in last clause