Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-18

a creek or river, or some part thereof,
Is comprised within the limits of a law
full survey" Code of Virginia, section
1899; l Revised Code of 1919, CHI. 81, d.
BAL: Groner VS.. Foster, 81 Virginia at p.
657.
Thus the limits or boundaries of the
several parcels of land under conside-
ration" as was said in the case Just
cited. were extended by operation OF
law. down to the ordinary low water
mark. and the right to the soil between
ordinary high and low water mark an
neXed as incident or appurtenant to
the adjacent land" French VS.. Bank
head. II Graft. 100.
French VS.. Bankhead is n very strong
case. 1t was decided in 1854 by n UNI
nnimous court and has never been ques-
toned to this day. The State of Vir-
cinia agreed to cede to the United
states its soil and jurisdiction to the
extent of 2o0 acres at Old Point Com
fort. for the purpose of fertilization and
other objects of national defence and
authorized the Governor to convey the
land by deed to the United States The
land In pcninsuar bounded by Chesa-
rcakc Bay. Hampton Roads and Mill
Creek. n survey of the land was or
dered by the Governor and the survey
or was directed TO lay off $50 acres as
the United States shall elect to talk
IT. The surveyor returned n plat and
states elected to take by high water
mark. and he gives the courses and dis
tahces commencing at 4 point at high
water mark. and running nearly coin
cldent with high water mark except
where it runs from Mill Creek to the
SAY ana III that course it stops on the
Bay at high water mark Upon this
state of facts 1t was held that under
the act. l Rev. Code of 1919. CHI 81. D.
5li which is 4 virtual re-cnactment Of
the colonial statute of 1879. the eon-
veyance by the high water mark boun-
dairy passed to the United States soil
and jurisdiction to the low water
mark"
AS we have seen, the act of 1879 was
in force when the deeds in question in
TINS case were executed, and upon the
authority of French vs. Banilhead.
supra. they vested in the grantees the
right to the soil between ordinary high
ana low water mark as incident or an
hurtenant ID The adjacent land. We do
not. of course. mean to SAY that thc
operation of the grant may not be so
limited to high water mark" as to OK
clude rights incident to it. but in order
10 control the operation of the statute
OIL 1913. substantially in force to this
uay' us construed by this court in
french VS.. Bankhcad. supra, the inten-
tion so TO do must be clear and mani
lest upon the face of the deed. The
presumption is that the right attached
as incident to the grant to high water
mark therefore, we hold, that as to
these lots. with respect to which the
decree of the Hastings Court is silent.
IL Is to be presumed. in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, that the ori :.
ginai deeds conveyed 10 high water
marx and consequently they will be
paced upon the same footing with
other lots upon the north side of the
city of Portsmouth and the south shore
OF Crawford's Bay
The apportionment of riparian rights
should be made in accordance with the
t,rihcipies established in the case of
Hroner VS.. Foster. supra, of which this
Is the converse. In that case the Port
Wardens Line was longer than the
shore line. while in this the two shore
lines are longer than the Port Mar
dens Line but the principle establish
ed IN that case applies with equal force
in this.
we are of opinion that the decree of
the court below should be reversed with
directions To proceed in conformity
with the views herein expressed