Citation network
Potomac Steamboat Co. Vs. Upper Potomac Steamboat Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 07, 1884
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Potomac Steamboat Co. v. UpperSearch
-
Potomac Steamboat Co. - 109 U.S. 672 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Potomac Steamboat Co. v. UpperSearch
-
Potomac Steamboat Co., 109 U.S. 672 (1884) Potomac Steamboat Company v. UpperSearch
-
in the United States the title in fee simple to the other tract and to the strip known as Water Street. Van Ness v. TheSearch
-
them when it would have been admissible if they had been formal conveyances. 5. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. UnionSearch
-
on the point involved in this case. Insofar as in conflict with it, the court in that case did not follow Van Ness v. MayorSearch
-
of Washington, 4 Pet. 232, or Kennedy v. WashingtonSearch
-
Page 109 U. S. 675 The nature and extent of this compact were considered by this Court in Georgetown v. AlexandriaSearch
-
the whole space south of the line of the lots was intended to be the property and for the use of the public. Barclay v. Howell'sSearch
-
Lessees, 6 Pet. 498. In Rowan's Ex'rs v. PortlandSearch
-
out and the Potomac River. The very point as to the nature of this title was decided in the case of Van Ness v. TheSearch
-
evidence to contradict, vary, or explain them is no more to be admitted than if they were formal conveyances. Williams v. IngellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
squares and lots lying north of the street, it may be said of the wharfage right claimed, as was said in Linthicum v. RaySearch
-
A riparian proprietor, in the language of MR. JUSTICE MILLER in Yates v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
Weber v. HarborSearch
-
hold the lands to low water mark, so that he does not hold more than one hundred rods below high water mark, Storer v. FreemanSearch
-
Commonwealth v. CharlestownSearch
-
way adjoined the sea shore, the ordinance did not pass the flats on the other side of the way to the grantee. Codman v. WinslowSearch
-
was decided that a grantee, bounded by high water mark, is not a riparian proprietor, nor within the ordinance. Lapish v. BangorSearch
-
Stevenson v. PatersonSearch
-
Keyport Steamboat Co. v. Farmers'Search
-
Rowan's Ex'rs v. PortlandSearch
-
Lord Cairns in Lyon v. Fishmonger'sSearch
-
said Pollock, C.B., in Stockport Waterworks Co. v. PotterSearch
-
riparian right of the grantee because the land has been granted for a street. On the contrary, as was said in Barney v. KeokukSearch
-
a highway, in contradistinction to the exclusive right of one claiming riparian rights as owner of the soil. Godfrey v. CitySearch
-
said this Court in New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
own use, and not in trust for any person or for any purpose. In that respect, the case differs from Railroad Company v. SchurmeirSearch
-
to place it in that situation, or that, in fact it had not been used as such for a long period of time. Barclay v. Howell'sSearch
-
Boston v. LecrawSearch
-
McMurray v. BaltimoreSearch
-
held to authorize the improvements therein spoken of, to be made by improvers in front of their own lots only. Dugan v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Wilson v. InloesSearch
-
with water, but a right of occupation merely, properly termed a franchise, as said by Hosmer, C.J., in East Haven v. HemingwaySearch
-
for land cannot be appurtenant to land. Harris v. ElliottSearch
-
Storer v. FreemanSearch
-
Commonwealth v. AlgerSearch
-
to give statutory sanction to an exception from the general rule. The same comment applies to the case of Hazlehurst v. BaltimoreSearch
-
and to prevent private monopoly of the landing places for trade and commerce. For, as was said in Dutton v. StrongSearch
-
it to private use. It was for this reason held by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in the case of Rowan's Ex'rs v. PortlandSearch
-
of any private right of the same character. To the same effect is the judgment of the same court in Newport v. Taylor'sSearch
-
rely upon the decision of the former Circuit Court for this district in the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. UnionSearch
-
proprietor, but gave no reasons for its opinion. No allusion was made by counsel or court to the case of Van Ness v. MayorSearch
-
involved. The question of wharfage had been before the same court in another form in 1829, in the case of Kennedy v. CorporationSearch
-
the whole land, it will be presumed that they did it, and that this was their mode of doing it. The cases of Doane v. BroadSearch
-
Street Association, 6 Mass. 332, and Hathaway v. WilsonSearch
-
the United States. This view of the matter was taken by Judge Cranch in the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v. UnionSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial