The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1855-01-26

Is adverse and adverse enjoyment Ter fcemfy-o"e
vearx gives indispntahie title 10 the eHJeyibeh'
Ana snrh endowment without other evidence as 10
ho,s II began, Is presumed TO be IN pursuance OF
grant. s. Harris Rep. 33l. right OF way over
nnenciosed woodland can be acquired By use iof WEN
tv-one years. s. Harris. Rep. 45s. IL "lii mol.
therefore be conened that The right TO nsr tbe road
and mass over the unenclosed woodland, would jnsti-
~ The sinking shaft and undermining The road, for
The purpose Of mining Goals or that II would justify
the cutting OF the timber. The night oil way Wonlc
be but an f8coyoyea one and b, the defendant IN The
present case, has no greater or other right, than a
mere right Of way equally IN common with the pub
lie.
The srantor TO A could not bring ihis action, for
he has parted with the possession and property 10 a.
The People could not bring tresspass or any other
action for there is disturbance OF th- easement,
or obstruction of the right OF way. The remedy
must be soue " here.
There are numerous anaosieal cases and decisions
bearing strongly upon the question before us "a
grant bv the United States, o land lylag upon The
Mississippi River. was held pass 10 the gtautee q
nile TO The middle of the river sii il is TO be
suE1ed that the United States, retains the jes simple
in the beds of rivers, who rs TO preserve them from
individual tresspasses all the beds Of nnr rivers,
supposed TO be navigable, are 10 be regarded as uaP-
pioprlated territory, door is open l0I ueacuiable
rnischieis. Ang. on W. C.. II. The mischief and
evil consequences, would be al least equally great,
if streets and roads unappropriated territory
B. if slch were the case could not only nine within
OT
continue until he left nothing bat superficial >HFi
for not only the entire breadth Of the street bot 10
the eXfrereties of It's entire length without subject
ng himself to a!.y action, until ne inriered with
the external right OF passage or way.
All granted lands having FOR ther boundaries water
courses, bear strong analogy 10 the case IN cohtro
veTsy. For water-courses are often highways as
we'll as inland roads. Water and water high
ways are nothing at last bur mnch Iu,d corerrd
,citd ~oter." And the aw regulating tie one Is e.
Gnaliy applicable 10 the other. Expedency, there
fore requires that the fre Hgpe freehold should be
onewhere. TO admit o. immediate Remedy.
The tile The lot III controversy Is surely not ~
Abpyance. The law has laudahie honor of he bare
idea that the fee should not be- any p"rson Here
il IN The Grantor 10 for he Sas divested hiir-
srif OF all tle BY ms deed to y. 1t IS certainly rot
in the peo1te, who have only iHcogporeaf right d
mere night OF passing over the sHriace. hr lee,
therefore, must be in A; and alone Is entitled 10
bring this suit.
The title is in A 10 the of the street; and
is limited TO the centre of the street for the obvious
reason that his going beyond that point would be All
infringement upon the rights of his neighhor the
way. And for the reason can only deive 10
the centre Of the earth: he TO 90 beyond that
point he might interfere with some Autlpodal risht
Some Con,equa TlaIons-apoo, Hoangho. or Ching
IN OF The Celestial Empire, equal latitude might
have his rights inlrinsed upon. Doubtless this wa.
the that induced the grave Lycufgus who FIRST
established the rule TO fix the centre oi the earth "a
the limit by which The owner of the soil IS bound.
far from heng shallow superficial (as might
be supposedly but of great drph, and, therefore
entitled 10 great FREIGHT. II i, thus limited 10 the
centre OF the street and prevented from lmpiHgins
the right OF B. cannot perceive any reason why
shoGld be entitled TO a different construction oi the
rule !
In Angel on water courses it is sa'd that the soil
of the bed OF a equally divided be
tween two opposite ripaTian owners, say aEd b
Cond sink a shaft upon his own land, funnel under
the stream, and carry away all the coal beyond the
thread OF the stream? grant of all the land stua
ed and north OF a certain stream, was held TO ex
tend to the mffaIe OF the stGeam and no matter whe
ther the grant is made by State an Individual
And il matters not what the intention Of the Grauto
was, il the land Is described a being bounded ty
water course the Grantor VIII hold the htTraa o! h'
river. reservation OF right OF way IN Il grant o
land bounded the bank OF stream does not pre-
venr the fee N the lard from vesting n be grantee
sAt DOES not Limit his riparian rights Aus on w {
II, -. A party having made ditch Sax feet wide
through his land aud conveyed part OF IT, bounding
the Grantee on the ditch, il was held that ih" gram
extended the middle ofthe ditch g Conn. Rep ~ l.
Chief Justice Kent IN his Commentaries f"Ii> g'
the established Inference in Law i that conveyance
Of land bounded public highway carries with il
The fee the of the road. The idea o' an IN
teutjon IN Gtantor 10 withhold his interest 10 ihf
middle OF II. after having parted with al his right
and title to the adjoining land is not TO be presumed
3 vol. 433.
Ii is SAID that this is u rerri question! II It IS so
il l. high time that it should be set at rest. If II u
without sgPt prrcrdent It is in precisely tn sam,
position that all other were III when first they
were agitatsd 1t being without precedent cit sucf
l. The case1 furnishes ab-o oiuie and moral Hecess
I ty for establishing precedent now. lbereioft
Judgment for the Plaintiff and writ OF enquiry awaF
ded.