The New York herald., 1875-11-20
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, Nov 10, 1875
On motion OF Mr T. Phillips Uri j. Baxter, of Grand
Rapids, Mich and William J. johnson, OF the District
OF Columbia admitted to practise attorneys and
counsellors OF this court
In the United States Supreme Court yesterday the
following argued
No. So Bressler vs. Maxon ct al-Error to the su-
preme Court OF Illinois. The defendants in error
claimed title az oNners OF the SOIL 10 certain stone
uuarried from the bed Of Rock River by the plaintiff
here The river in question tributary OF the Mis-
sssipp The evidence did not show whether the river
was navgable not at the point where the was
taken, but the Court held that though river may be
navgabe in fact II is not so al common law above the
point where the tide GIBBS and flows. Above this point
the bed OF the stream held TO belong the riparian
owners in so far eniite them protection against
n trespasscr Where the river s navigable, sald the
Court, the public have easement right OF passage
upon it as highway; but not the right to the
rock gravel or so except as necessary TO the enjoy
ment of the easement
This decision is assigned here and is con-
tended that while grants OF land bounded rivers or
upon their margins above tide water, carry
the exclusive right and title Of the
the terms OF the grant clearly denote the intention TO
stop at the margin Of the river STILL in this case the
grant being patent from the United States It's terms
clearly denote the intention to stop at the waters
edge, because the agents Of the govern nment had no
authority to sell more than included in the survey
4 and plot and grants of the government are TO be
strictly construed The United states have political
rights In the waters IN such and in the soil under
them, but no proprietary rights disposable TO ndi-
/ ia Burchard and Barton for defendants
/ No 81. Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company
I and Muscatne County vs Cromwell-Appea from tho
Circuit Court for Iowa. The appellee filed his bill
against the appellants to establish his title TO certain
shares OF the capital stock Of the company standing on
its books in the name OF the county. The right to
thus transfer s claimed under sale or the shares to
the appellee, in a proceeding IN which the company
and the county were defendants The defence in sub
stance, was that the levy and sale OF the stock to
tho appellee Intellectual. because the stock was
pledged or hypothecated TO the company as security
against Its guaranty OF the county bonds The decision
below for the appellee II is here insisted that
the hypothecaton OF the bonds before the sale pro
tectcd the company; that there no appraisement
before the SALE and that under the law or tile State no
goods and cbattes be sold for lessthan twothrds
Of their value. There being appraisemcnt there
fore the sale void, because there was no determ
nation OF value Beside 1t is said tho certificates
| we're In the possession OF the Union Trust Company
awaiting the disposition Of the partcs and under such
| circumstances equity has power TO compel tho
transfer The remedy, II any the appellee had was at
law. Wright and Lowe for appellants John A. Rogers
for appellee.
| No. 81 Rufus X sewalI administrator &c appel
| lant John Winslow Jones et aL-The argument Of
/ this cause was continued by Mr. H. u Dickcrson OF
counsel for the appellant, and by Mr.. W H. Clifford for
the appcilees, and concluded by Mr.. l.. T. Dickcrson
for the appellant,
i. No. SO The town OF Venice plaintiff In error vs
Evandcr Murdock.-fhc argument of this cause was
commenced by Dr. Warren r Wordcn, OF counsel for
plaintiff In error