Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-08-17
VOL. xIx.--.N O. 81.

necessary that that question should be now COM
sidered, as there hre other grounds taking in com
plainants' bill on which their rights can be de-;
termned without reference to the boundary ques-
tion 1t is seen that the complainants claim a
right of property in the bridge, and the land on
both sides of the river on which it is built, under
and by virtue of the conveyance from Gazaway
B. Lamar, set forth in the bill The conveyance
of Gazaway B. Lamar 10 the City Council Of
Augusta is certainly of fee simple in:t6e land
mentioned and his title appears to have been
derived through:a conveyance to Samuel Hale
by Baylis j. Earle, in behalf of the State of South
Carolina, by deed bearing date oath December,
A. D., lS30-the same containing statement
that it was understood /" that the last piece or
parcel (of land mentioned therein) is to be used,
held and enjoyed solely and exclusively for the:
purpose of the bridge, abutment and highway
Now whatever views. may be takenaas to the
effect which these words are to be considered as
having in relation TO the real estate conveyed,
there can be no doubt of Gazaway B. Lamar
having perfect right to convey to the complain
ants the bridge. And the acts of the Legislature
of the State of South Carolina, referred to in
the bill seem to recognize that right. Even the
act of 1863 on which the defendants rest their
| claims, appears to acknowledge that right in the
proviso that nothing therein contained shall in
any wise impair or prejudice any right or prop
erty claimed by the City Council Of Auusta, in
respect to the one half of the material structure
of The said bridge, within the territorial limits
of this State" And Iapprehend that this right
is not affected by any question which may be-
made as to the extent of the compliments title
to that part of the land on which the material
structure of the Gsidge, within the territorial
limits of this fte rests-for even admitting
that the compfainants have not an absolute
title to it, their right or property in the materials
Of bridge, may be regarded as unimpared there.
by. The ruling in the case of Hanison vs.. .Pars-
ker (6 East's Reports, p. 154) is an authority in
point. A:s -
The owner of certain land granted to the
plaintiff the privilege of building bridge on, it. I
The mlterIals were furnished by the plaintiff, I
whese property they were, and he neve. parted
with his property in them to any other, but only:
gave right to the public of passing over them
in the form of bridge. Held that the public
had only license to make use Of the materials,
while part of the bridge for the purpose of pas
sage; and whenthey ceased TO be part of the
bridge, the plaintiffs original property in them
reverted to him, discharged of the right Of use
by the public.
am aware that the late Chancellor Harper, in
the case of the Rail Road Company Us. Jones,
"a Richardson's Equity reports, p 647,) express
ed an opinion in direct opposition to the princi-
pies of the authority just cited. He there held
"that all the complainant Scbultz's right and in
terestn in the bridge, over the Savannah river
have passed away by the ion of his char:
ter" That F" the franchise or exclusive privilege
which constituted it his property, no longer
exists and the material structure is attached to
and part of the soil, and would be the property
of the States, the owner of that soil, if the
franchise had not been renewed to another"
Now. while entertain the highest respect for
the opinions expressed by that learned Judge,
who adorned and illustrated the Chancery bench
of his State, cannot regard an opinion express
ed on point which does not appear to have
been made and argued before the Court, as
binding authority sufficient 10 orerrule the deci-
sion of the English Court upon question direct
ly at issue before it.
Viewing therefore the motion before in the
aspect in which it has been considered, think
that the compainants are entitled to the injunc-
ton which they ask, and do accordingly order
and decree that the writ issue as prayed for, the
injunction to continue until further order
(Signed) RIB. GILCHTIST, d..
At Charleston, 81 July, 1854.
TRUE COPY
Attest. H. Y. GRAY, Clerk U. S. Cir. Court.