2288 ARTICLE 54

of this section—quaere, as to whether the appellant could raise question of violation
of such restriction. Law applicable to owners along non-navigable streams has no
application to navigable streams. Title to improvements, when made, may be severed
from that of the mainland. How the improvements may be made. Goodsell v. Lawson,
42 Md. 370. See also Western Maryland T. R. Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 568; Hodson
v. Nelson, 122 Md. 335.

Improvements erected by an adjacent owner, or his tenant, under this section,
belong to such owner, although they extend further than law permits; while they
may be abated by proper proceedings to extent that they are unlawful, the ownership
cannot be wrested from proprietor. Ejectment against United States. The Edmondson
Island Case, 42 Fed. 15_;

Proprietor's right to improve out into a river, until actually availed of, is subject
to right of United States to use soil under water in aid of navigation without such
proprietor's consent and without compensation. The privilege conferred by this
section must be exercised subject to public right of. navigation and usual necessary
aids thereto. Hawkins Point Light-House Case, 39 Fed. 87.

When waters are ''navigable." No state can restrict jurisdiction which admiralty
would otherwise have. Maryland v. Miller, 180 Fed. 804.

What kind of improvements can be made? Until improvements are made, adjacent
owner has no interest in land under the water, except a right to make improvements.
Western Maryland T. R. Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 565; Hess v. Muir, 65 Md. 596
(involving the bedding of oysters); Maryland v. Miller, 180 Fed. 804; Hodson v.
Nelson, 122 Md. 335.

The rights secured by this section and sections 46 and 48, are valuable, and if in-
vaded or their enjoyment obstructed, the owner is entitled to the usual redress.
Garitee v. Baltimore, 53 Md. 432; Goodsell v. Lawson, 42 Md. 371. See also B. & O.
R. R. Co. v. Chase, 43 Md. 23.

Where improvements are extended beyond original city limits, the latter are also
extended and such improvements are taxable. Western Maryland T. R. Co. v. Balti-
more, 106 Md. 565.

The power of the legislature to pass this and the preceding section, referred to by
way of example. Phipps v. State, 22 Md. 389.

In a case where the ownership of a wharf was in question, this section was held to
have no application. Albert v. State, use of Ryan, 66 Md. 336.

The rights conferred by this section are in no sense analogous to the privilege
granted by article 72, section 50 (dealing with private oyster beds). Handy v. Maddox,
85 Md. 552.

For cases dealing with the subject of this section prior to its adoption see Baltimore
v. McKim, 3 Bl. 453; Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill, 432; Hammond v. Inloes, 4 Md. 173;
Wilson v. Inloes, 11 G. & J. 359; Giraud v. Hughes, 1 G. & J. 265; B. & O. R. R. Co.
v. Chase, 43 Md. 23...

Cited but not construed in Spencer v. Patten, 84 Md. 426; Hill v. United States,
149 U. S. 593; Ranstead v. The William H. Brinsfield, 39 Fed. 215.

See notes to secs. 46 and 48 (this art.).

Limitations upon right of defendants to improve out into bed of river, correctly
stated in instructions. Marchant y. Baltimore, 146 Md. 528.

As to riparian rights in connection with fish and fisheries, see art. 39, sec. 24.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 48. 1912, sec. 49. 1904, sec. 49. 1888, sec. 46. 1862, ch. 129, sec. 39.

48. No patent hereafter issued out of the land office shall impair or
affect the rights of riparian proprietors, as explained and declared in the
two preceding sections; and no patent shall hereafter issue for land
covered by navigable waters.

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.

Under the express language of this section, if water is navigable a patent may not
issue; when water is navigable. A cayeator need not prove that he has any interest
in alleged vacant land; it is enough if he shows that state has no title. Prima facie
riparian owner on non-navigable stream owns to middle thereof. Alleged distinction
between rights of riparian owners in non-navigable streams and in a natural pond
or lake. Linthicum v. Shipley, 140 Md. 98.

The right of state under act of 1745, ch. 9, to intercept riparian owner's right to
make improvements into water before he had made such improvements, by a grant
of land covered by water, was taken away by this section. Cases dealing with act
of 1745, ch. 9. Brady v. Baltimore, 130 Md. 510.

A violation of last clause of this section does not render a patent wholly void.
Tyler v. Cedar Island Club, 143 Md. 217.

A patent was refused on appeal by virtue of this section, although all proceedings
were had and the patent granted below, prior to its adoption. This section is of public
interest, and courts will act on it whether parties rely upon it or not. Last clause of