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

| the opinion OF the Court of Appeals i'll
the Swimming Point or Portsmouth
Flats case decided by the Court of APP
peals sitting at Wythevlle Thursday,
| Judge James Keith reading:
| The Waverly Water Front and I'M
provement Company VS.. White ct.
ais. Hastings Court, City of
Portsmouth.
| 1t was held by this court in Groner
vs.. Foster. 81 Va. $50, that every
riparian owner has the right to the
water frontage belonging by nature 10
his land This right includes, among
| others. the right of access from the
front of his land to the naviSablc part
OF the water course. and also the right
to the soil under the water between his
land and the navigablc line ofthe wa ter
course. whereon he may erect wharves.
| piers or bulkheads for his own use or
| the use of the public. subject TO such
| rules and regulations as the Legislature
| may see proper to impose for the pro-
! lection of the public. In this State the
| enjoyment of the right is made subject
| by statute to the limitation that its ex-
ercise shall not result in the obstruc-
.ion OF navigation. nor in other injury
10 the private rights OF any person
| Code of Virginia, section 99S
| Each riparian proprietor is entitled
| IN conformity 10 such right, to have the
extent OF its enjoyment upon the line of
| naViSability of the water course deter
mined and marked. and his proper
Snare or the flats. or land under the
| water. for the purposes aforesaid So,
apart. and its boundaries defined.
court OF inquiry has jurisdiction and is
inc proper tribunal to make the an
portionment. and to determine and es-
tabiish the boundary lines of the CO.
terminous owners"
Upon the authority OF this case we
|
the demurrer to the plaintiffs bill, and
we are OF opinion that the objection
taken by one of the appellants to the
decree complained OF. that 1t was made
III me absence of certain necessary par
lies. should also be overruled.
me lots which are the subject mat
Ter IN this suit form the shore of Eliz.
hpeth river at that portion thereof
SHOWN as "Crawford's Bay" the lots
owned ny the appellants being on the
north side of the city of Portsmouth,
ana forming the south shore of the
gay while those of the appelces form
IT'S west shore. These two shore lines
run nearly ut right angles 70 nach
other SO that the shore line of the
pay may be said To form Il right angle
the hypotheneusc of which Is formed
10y the port warden's line running from
the northeastern corner of the CITY NJ
nortsinouth to the end OF the point Of
! 'iNc' states Naval HOSpjta1
grounds, and with the dividing line he.
tween the city of Portsmouth ana ,bo
| county running diaSonally through i,
Us SHOWN on map filed with the record
ne controversy here is rs to the OK
tInt Oh the riparian rights which il is
cl"iiled attached To the lots conveved
~ ~ "phe''eIS or those under whom they
ci'ih. All the property affected wns
embraced in the grant from rho cnn,
| mohwealth To William Crawford da,nd
OctoDer ii. ZIG. In 1852 the town of
| portsmouth. which had been laid out
ior Il portion of this grant. was es.ah.
iisned. the north boundary of said town
ur'ns .ne south shore of "Crawford's
Ray. After laying out the town Cav
ford sold lots on the north end tbara
o, l" sundry parties, privies in estate
oi the appellants, who are the nreeont
owners OF these lots, while the lots On
me west shore of this bay are tho nron.
ct'y oil the appellees, owned by Crow-
,uru NJ ms death. and which passed n,
49,, ~ IN 10 ms devisees. who are the
prINles In estate OF the present owners
the appelces
,Nlpellees claim that by virtue Of
lncir ownership Of the land on the west
n"vic 'iicN nave the right TO all of th,.
, ,,... or bottom of this bay to the port
"" WI 5 me, and TO fill in the same
ana buiid their structures Thereon to
sald port wardens line, to tho cxc,usio,
81 me owners on the south shore of tbn
n"!' Whlch assumption is based unou
thc boundaries given in the several
ueeus from William Crawford to his
, ,hn, ,i,' grantees. it being claimed
'lat These boundaries were to "high
Witcr marx, and. therefore. The lo,s
SO bounded had no rir,arian rights
Whie the lots OF the apnc!Iees We're
bounded by the river. and hence rip9r-
, ,t rishis were included therein. The
81 apre'lees and denied riparian rights
10 the appellants. III this there was or
ror. ""' u
The several deeds under which an.
rt'.'ntS cinIm' convey TO them 10 high
WAY 'hnrk. end in the deed 10 Page
iiiu me AVERY Water Front and Inn
proNencnt Company The lines called for.
are 10 high water mark chen cast
on the river side to Daniel Uales loi
with waters
water courses, otc" The deed TO the LOT
~ M"rN ~. Peters uses subst ntially
~ ~ Iaihe linsuagc. so also the decd 10
ne iet on Court street. now held bv
me NaVerlv Water Front ana I'M
pl"Nciher' company. while the convey
ahce 10 James Whitchurst of the lot
owned u Eastwood is not materially
variant from those quoted These deeds
were made prior 10 1860.
As early as 1879 il was ordered and
declared by the legislative assembly Of
virginia that every mans right. by
virtue OF his patent extends into tho
rivers or creeks SO far as low water
marx. ana the present statute pro
sIueS .hat subject 10 certain designated
provisions. "the limits or bounds Of tn .
several tracts of land lying on said
oays' rivers. creeks and shores. and the
rights and the privileges of the owners
OF such lands. shall extend to low wa
Ter marx put no further. unless. where