The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-28
From the Jersey City Sentinel, May 2e.l

Archibald Russell, of the city OF New York. some
ment in the Circuit Court of the United States for
the district of West Jersey against the associates of
the Jersey Company to recover the possession OF
lands held by the associates and which had been re-
claimed by that corporation from the tide waters;
the land reclaimed having originally been below
high water mark. Mr. Russell claimed title under q
survey and conveyances from tile propret0rs of East
New Jersey. who were the former owners OF that
part of the Province Of New Jersey called East New
Jersey. The case was taken by the writ Of error to
the Supreme Court Of the United States, and was
there argued last winter, by A. o. Zabrskie and l.
therford Of the city Of New York, and Mr. Van SAINT
word, Of Utica N. Y, for Mr. Russell. The opinion
delivered by Mr.. Chief Justice fancy, establishes
the right of the associates Of the Jersey Company,
under the powers given in their charter to reclaim
lands under water and convert them Into building
lots. The following Is copy Of that opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
NO. sc. DECEMBER TERN, 1853
John Den. ex. dem. Archibald Russell, plaintiffs,
in error va. The Associates Of the Jersey Company
In error to the Circuit Court of the United States
for the District Of New Jersey.-Mr. Chief Justice
fancy delivered the opinion of the Court. This II
in error, against the defendants, In the Circuit
Court for the District Of New Jersey to recover
parcel Of land situate in Jersey City. The land in
question has been reclaimed from the water by the
Defendants under the authority Of the Legislature,
and ia now in their possession and occupied by
them as building lots The plaintiff claims the pre-
misses under Sndy nc the
proprietors is the point in question. And they claim
that by virtue of various grants by which they be-
came propretors Of East New Jersey the fee Of the
State was conveyed to them as private property,
subject to the public use and as that use has ceased
in the premises in question, they are entitled 70
their exclusive possession It is not necessary 70
state particularly the charters and grants under
which they claim. They are all set out in
the special verdict in the case Of Martin. vs..
Waddell reported in l6 Pet, 367. The title claimed
same as the title upon which the plaintiff now re-
lies. Anfup0n very full argument and considera-
ton in the case referred to, the Court were Of OPT
MON that the soil under the public navgable waters
Of East New Jersey belonged to the State, aud not
to the proprietors, and upon that ground gave
judgment for the defendant. The decision in that
case must govern this. The counsel for the
case before us from the former one, upon
the ground that nothing but the right of fishery
was decided in Martin vs.. Waddell, and not
the right to the soil. But they would seem to have
eectment for the land covered with water. II was
! not action for disturbing the plaintiff in o
right Of fishery, but an action to recover
ndeen hs for sSe denasn, a.. And
necessarily decided upon the title to the soil.
! 1t is true the defendants claimed nothing more
than the exclusive right Of planting and growing
oysters on the soil for which the ejectment was
brought. The special verdict found that he was in
possession under law of New Jersey, which gave
him the exclusive privilege Of planting and grow
ing oysters on the premises in question, upon
the payment Of q certain rent to the
State. The principal question, therefore, in
dispute between the parties in that suit, and, in
deed, the only one Of any value, the oyster fish,
cry. But the right to the fishery depended on the
right to the soil upon which the oysters we're plant
ed and grown; and If the plaintiff could have shown
that the proprietors under whom he claimed were
legally entitled to it, the Judgment Of the court must
have been in his favor. Nor do we see anything in
the opinion delivered on that OCCASION In relation
to the rights Of fishery further than they contributed
to illustrate the character and objects Of the charter
to the Duke Of York, and to show that the soil
under public and navigable waters was granted to
him, not as private property, to be parcelled out
and sold for his own personal emoument, but as q
part Of the juraregalia with which he was clothed
and as such, surrendered by the proprietors to
the English crown when they relin9ulshed the
powers of government, and consequently, belonged
to the State of New Jersey when it became an indie
pendent sovereignty. There being nothing in the
title now claimed for the propretors to distinguish
this from Martin Waddel IL is not necessary
to examine the other and further grounds for de-
fence taken by the defendants. The judgment OF
the Circuit Court must be affirmed, with costs.