Слике страница

Entered according to Act of Congress in he year 1881 by


In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.






Abbott'v. Holway, in full, S. C. Me.,


Adams v. Norris, ab. U. S. S. C., 236.

Alexandria Ferry Co. v. Wish, ab.

8. C. Mo., 118.

Allen v. Allen, in full, S. C. Mich.,391.
Allen v. Fremont Mining and Smelt-
ing Co., ab. S. C. Mo., 279.

American Ins. Co. v. Barnett, ab. S.

C. Mo., 58.

Ames v. Brinsden, ab. S. C. Kan.,

Armor v. Pye, ab. S. C. Kan. 337.

Atchison v. Combs, ab. S. C. Kan.,


Babbit v. Clark, in full, U. S. S. C.,


Baile v. St. Joseph Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., in full, 8. C. Mo., 233.

Bailey v. American Central Ins. Co.,

in full, U. S. C. C., D. Iowa, 115.

Baker v. New York Nat. Bank, cr.,

N. Y. S. C., 381.

Ball v. Foreman, S. C. Ohio, 18.

Bank of Genesee v. Whitney, ab.

U.S. S. C., 38.

Bank of Georgia v. Harrison, ab. S.

C. Ga., 17.

Barbour v. Priest, ab. U. S. S. C., 177.
Bartholow v. Trustees of Schools of
Randolph Co., ab. U. S. S. C., 419.
Bartlett Land Co. v. Saunders, ab.
U.S. S. C., 316.

Barton v. Barbour, cr., U. S. S. C.,



[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


Kniseley v. Samoson, ab. S. C. 111.,


Koenig v, Branson, ab. S. C. Mo.. 16.
Koon v. Phoenix Mut. Life. Ins. Co.,
ab. U. S. S. C., 419.

Krutz v. Miller, ab. S. C. Kan., 396.

Laing v. Burley, ab. S. C. III., 457.
Lee v. Lement, ab. S. C. Kan., 297.
Little Rock Water Works Co. v.
Barret, ab. U. S. S. C., 356.

Logansport v. Justice, ab.S. C. Ind.,


Long v. Taxing District of Shelby

Co., in full, S. C. Tenn., 92.

Louisiana v. United States, ab. U.
S. S. C., 337.

Love v. Geyer, ab. S. C. Ind., 178.

Lungien v. Pennell, in full, S. C.

Pa., 211.


McCaila v. State, ab. S. C. Ga., 17.
McClure v. City of Redwing, er., S.
C. Minn., 261.

McCollin v. Gilpin, in full, Eng. Ct,
App., 231.

McConnell v. Merrill, in full, S. C.

Vt.. 108.

McCormick v. Miller, ab. S. C. Ill.,

McFeat v. Rankin's Trustees, (ab.
Scotch, S. C., 460.

Mckee v. Eaton, ab. S. C. Kan., 397.
Mechanics' Bank v. Kansas City,ab.
S. C. Mo., 136.

Mechanics, etc. Ins. Co. v. Kiger, ab.
U. S. S. C, 357.

Merrick v. Merrick, ab. S. C. Ohio,


Mossmore v. Haggard, in full, S. C.

Mich., 347.

Meyer v. Dupont, in full, Ky. Ct.

App., 195.

Miles v. United States, ab. U. S. S.
C., 337.

Mississippi Valley Co. v. Chicago,

etc. R. Co., in full, S. C. Miss., 106.

Mississippi Valley Co. v. Chicago,

etc, R. Co., in full, S. C. Miss., 153.

Mitchell v. Buffington, in full, S. C.

Pa., 94.

Morgan County v. Allen, ab. U. s. S.
C., 116.

Morgan County v. Allen, ab. U. S. S.
C., 377.

Morgan v. Nolte, ab. S. C. Ohio, 18.
Morgan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., U.
S. O. C., S. D. of N. Y., cr.,61.

Moore v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., ab. S. C.

Mo.. 57.

Moore v. State, in full, N. J. Ct. of
Err. and App., 70.
Morey v. Ball, ab. S. C. III., 179.
Moses v. Eagle and Phoenix Mfg.
Co., ab. S, C. Ga., 458.

Mount Pleasant Township v. Ho-

bart, ab. S. C. Kan., 297.

Munger v. Jacobson, ab. S. C. Ill.,


Mutual Benefit Assn. v. Hoyt, in
full, S. C. Mich., 112.

National Bank of Delavan v. Cot.
ton, in full, S. C, Wis., 346.
National Bank of Genesee v. Whit-
ney, ab. U. S. S. C., 377.

New York, etc. Steamship Co. v.

Mount, ab. U. S. S. C., 316.

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bangs, in
full, U. S. S. C., 88.

New York Lite Ins. Co. v. Bangs, in
full, U. S. S. C., 91.,
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins Co. v.
Nelson, in full, U. S. S. C., 46.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The Central Law Journal, game-watcher was teasing a ferret on the

ST. LOUIS, JULY 8, 1881.


The attempt which was made upon last Saturday morning upon the life of the President, suggests a defect in the criminal law of this country. Although the life of an officer in the exalted position of the chief magistrate, is of inestimable value to the public, irrespective of his worth as a man, still there is no specific provision of law looking to the protection of such a life.

The crime committed by Guitteau in the Baltimore & Potomac Depot, on the 2d of July, is not a crime against the laws of the United States other than as being a crime against the peace and dignity of the District of Columbia, and is of no graver character in the eye of the law than if it had been committed upon the person of the seediest tramp that walks Pennsylvania Avenue.

We are

not in any sense monarchical in our tendencies, and we think the plain simplicity which has characterized the surroundings of our presidents is a wholesome thing, but unquestionably, the protection of extraordinary interests demands extraordinary safeguards, and we can see no impropriety in making an attempt upon the life of the chief executive of a great people an offense punishable with death.

In a recent issue of the Law Times it is said: "Au appeal from the decisions of the deputy-judge of the Skipton county court, which was determined a few days ago by Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Hawkins, raised a point of some importance with reference to the liability of a master for an accident resulting from the negligence of his servant.

Watkinson v. Slingsby. The action was brought to recover damages for the negligence of Robinson in the use of a gun, which went off and shot the plaintiff through the foot. Robinson, who was the gamewatcher of the other defendant, was entrusted with a gun by him for the purpose of destroying magpies and other vermin on his master's land. The accident happened whilst the Vol. 13-No. 1

high road, the loaded gun being under his arin. It was argued that, as the master placed the weapon in the hands of his servant, he was liable for the negligent use of it. The deputy-judge, however, took a different view, and entered This course, judgment for the master.

it need scarcely be remarked, received The the approval of the divisional court. point which was attempted to be made in favor of the plaintiff is, as we have already said, of some importance; but it is free from any reasonable doubt. There is a well-established principle, that where the authority of an agent or servant, as the case may be, is confined to a particular place, an act done in another place will not be within the scope of his authority. For instance, where a servant, employed to impound sheep found upon his master's land, improperly impounded sheep found upon a highway out of his land, the court held that the master was not liable for the servant's act. Lyons v. Martin, 8 Ad. & E. 512. So again in Lord Bolingbroke v. Swindon Local Board (30 L. T. R. N. S. 723), the court held that an agent intrusted with authority to be exercised over a particular piece of land, has no authority to commit a trespass on other land."



In the Northwestern States there are innumerable lakes and ponds, which are largely resorted to for pleasure, and for the opportunities they furnish for the taking of game and fish. The scenery about them is, in most cases, picturesque and inviting, and they become, favorite locations for residence. some the navigation is valuable for business purposes; others are navigated for pleasure only. In surveying the public domain for the purposes of sale, the Government caused all that were too large to be embraced within a single subdivision of a section, to be meandered at the water line, and the dry land only was measured for sale. The waters of many of these lakes and ponds are receding gradually, and some, after a time, disappear. Under these circumstances, the question who

owns the bed is one of considerable importance in the northwest, and is of interest in other parts of the country, though not so likely elsewhere to become the subject of litigation.

So far as concerns fresh water streams, the rule of the common law is clear and unquestionable. The owner of the bank owns to the thread of the stream, subject to the public rights of navigation, and perhaps of fishery; and he may make of it any use not inconsistent with the public easement.1

If there are islands in the river, they belong to the owner of the bank on whose side of the center they lie; or, if they divide the main channel, they will themselves be divided in ownership between the bank proprietors.2 And the above rules apply without regard to the magnitude or importance of the river whose bed or islands are in question.3 In North Carolina and Iowa, however, a different rule is applied; and it is held that, in the case of large rivers whose chief characteristic is their navigability, the line of private ownership is the bank, and not the thread of the stream; 4 and such seems to be the rule in Indiana and Pennsylvania also." The judiciary of the State of New York also, after

1 Bichett v. Morris, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. Ap., 47; Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Caines, 307; Jackson v. Halstead, 5 Cow. 216; Horne v. Richards, 4 Call. 441; Browne v. Kennedy, 5 H. & J. 195; Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N. J. 1; Gough v. Bell, 21 N. J. 160; Young v. Harrison, 6 Ga. 141; Adams v. Pease. 2 Cona, 281; Chapman v. Kimball, 9 Conn. 38; Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 126; Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18; Hayes v. Bowman, 1 Rand. 417; McCullough v. Wall. 4 Rich. (S. C.) 68; State v. Gilmanton, 9 N. H. 461; Norway Plains Co. v. Bradley, 52 N. H. 85; Boston v. Richardson, 105 Mass. 351; Houck v. Gates, 82 Ill. 179; Delaplaine v. Railroad Co., 42 Wis. 214; Morgan v. Redding, 5 Sm. & Mar. 195; Magnolia v. Marshall, 39 Miss. 109; Birney v. Snyder, 3 Bush, 266; Granger v. Avery, 64 Me. 292: O'Fallon v. Daggett. 4 Mo. 343; Ross v. Faust, 54 Ind. 471.

2 Ingraham v. Wilkinson, 4 Pick. 268; Trustees v. Dickinson, 9 Cush. 548.

3 Rundle v. Canal Co., 1 Wall. Jr., 275; Adams v. Pease. 2 Conn. 481; Schurmeier v. Railroad Co., 10 Min. 82; Houck v. Yates, 82 Ill. 179; Arnold v. Elmore, 16 Wis. 509; Gas Light Co. v. Industrial Works, 28 Mich. 182; Stewart v. Clark, 2 Swan, 9.

4 Wilson v. Forbes, 2 Dev. 30; Collins v. Benbury, 3 Ired. 277: Fagan v. Armistead, 11 Ired. 433; McManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 57; Fourten v. Railroad Co., 32 Iowa, 106; Houghton v. Railroad Co., 47 Iowa. 370.

5 Sherloch v. Bainbridge, 41 Ind. 35: Zug v. Commonwealth, 70 Pa. St. 138. And see Bullock v. Wilson, 2 Port. 447; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, and ases cited; Walker v. Board, 16 Ohio, 540; Elder v. Bucrus, 6 Humph. 366.

considerable vacillation, is, at last, unmistakably arrayed on the same side of this important question.6 Whether the line of low water mark, or that of high water mark, is to be considered the boundary when the thread of the stream is not, is a question on which there are differences of opinion. and we shall not enter upon it here.

If the bank owners do not own the bed of the stream, it will be conceded that it is owned by the State. Whenever the United States was original owner, the right passed to the State on its admission to the Union, with all other rights pertaining to the eminent domain. 7

But whether the State owns it as proprietary, or only as sovereign, is a point of no little interest. If it owns the soil as proprietary, it may perhaps sell it for private improvement and occupation, and the bank owner may thereby be cut off from any use of the stream in connection with his estate, and be deprived of benefits which he had reason to suppose he had acquired absolutely by his purchase. But if the State owns it as sovereign merely, under the eminent domain, it is to be preserved as the right of navigation is, for the common benefit and enjoyment of all the people. In New York it has been held that, on tide waters, the State may sell the bank between high and low water mark, and that the riparian owner has no remedy.8 Also, that the State may grant the bed of one of its fresh water navigable rivers, and turn away the river from the land of the bank owner without his being entitled to any redress.9 But this seems very harsh doctrine; and it is certainly one which has never been much acted upon, and is probably not generally accepted. 10

It is a little remarkable that in England the question, "whether the soil of lakes, like that of fresh water rivers, prima facie belongs to the owners of the land, or of the manors on either side, ad medium filum aquæ, or whether it belongs prima facie to the king in right of his prerogative," has never been authoritatively determined. It was referred to in a recent decision,11 but passed by, as

6 People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 461. 7 Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212.

8 Gould v. Railroad Co., 6 N. Y. 522.

9 People v. Canal Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 461.

10 See Bell v. Gough, 23 N. J. 624; Stevens v. Railroad Co., 34 N. J. 532; Walker v. Board, 16 Ohio. 540. u Marshall v. Navigation Co., 3 Best & Smith, 732,

« ПретходнаНастави »