Case ID: tenn_24/html/0363-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Reese, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stump et al. vs. McNairy.
    The eoulhiued and uninterrupted use, by the public for twenty years, of a stream for purposes of navigation, constitutes it a public thoroughfare, and the obstruction of it a nuisance, which any one may abate*
    ' This is an action of trespass, brought in the Circuit Court of Davidson county, by Stump and Ewing against N. A. Mc-Nairy. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and the case came on for trial before Judge Maney, and a jury of Davidson county.
    Stump and Ewing erected a fish trap across a small stream of water running into Cumberland river within the Corporation limits of the town of Nashville. This fish trap was erected by the permission of the owners of the soil on the banks of the stream, and by a license from the Corporation. The stream was in ordinary times only seven or eight feet wide, and not deep enough for any purpose of navigation but once or twice a year, or perhaps oftener. When the Cumberland river was high the water flowed up said stream, and during such times of flood the stream was used for the purpose of conveying from the river to high points of land, rafts of lumber and word, &c. This has been the use of the stream for upwards of twenty years.
    The defendant, at a time of flood, wishing to have a raft of timber floated up the stream, and finding its progress obstructed by the fish trap, removed it as a nuisance. For this alleged trespass this suit was instituted.
    The judge charged the jury, that they should not regard the Corporation license, and though there was no law declaring the stream navigable, yet if there had been a constant and uninterrupted use of this stream for twenty years, for the purposes of navigation, such as those for which McNairy used it, it was a dedication of it to the public, and the stream became a public thoroughfare, and any obstruction of it was a nuisance, which might be legally abated by any one.
    The jury found the defendant not guilty, and a judgment was entered accordingly.
    The plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Washington and Lea, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      A. Emng, for the defendant in error,
    cited Angelí on Water Courses, 201, 202: 10 John. 236: 5 Wend.: Angelí, 99, 213: 1st Hump. 524.
   Reese, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

‘There is in the lower part of the city of Nashville, a small creek or brook, with high banks, constituting a narrow ravine, which at the distance of a few hundred yards, opens into a wide plain. When the waters of the Cumberland river are high, -this ravine and the plain above are filled with eddy-water, and form a very convenient and safe inlet from the river for rafts of timber and lumber, and it has for the last forty years been 'used, whenever occasion offered, for that purpose by the public.

• Over this ravine a bridge passes; and below this bridge the plaintiffs have built a fish trap, which constituted an obstruction to the use and navigation of this inlet by the public. The defendant in taking his raft up this inlet removed so much of the plaintiffs’ fish trap, as to permit the unobstructed passage of his raft. For this the plaintiffs brought this action. The Corporation of Nashville had given to plaintiffs a license to construct their fish trap.

The Circuit Court charged the jury, that the continued and undisturbed use, by the public, for twenty years or more, of this inlet, would operate as a dedication of it to the public use, and constitute it a public thoroughfare for purposes of navigation, and the obstruction of its use for that purpose, would make the obstruction a public nuisance, which any one might abate. This charge, upon reason and authority, is perfectly correct,- and the verdict which was responsive to it, altogether proper.

We affirm the judgment.