The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-03-22
RIGHTS ! IN RIVER ' E
Law Affecting Shore Owners and
Mill Men.
ELUCIDATED BY JUDGE BROOKS
Against Backus-BrOOks
Company.

Judge Brooks has made decision in
the suit of Nelson H. Reeves against the
! Backus- Brooks Lumber company, which
| gives additional definition to the rights Of
| river shore owners as against companies
maintaining booms and piers for the
handling Of logs. The court holds that
| Mr.. Reeves is entitled to free commune
| cation from his land to the navigable
channel of the Mississippi river and that
| he is further entitled to permanent in
| junction restraining the lumber company
| from maintaining any piers, booms or
other distractions in the river in such a
way as to prevent his free access from
the shore to any part of the navigable
channel. This decision Is personal vic
tory for T. "A. Clarity, who represents
Mr.. Reeves in this and other similar
| proceedings - ~ -.. gr-'
Reeves owns about 1926 feet of frontage
| on the river just above the Backus
Brooks mill. His brother, former Alder
| man Vincent Reeves, owns an equal 'front.'
| age just south of his land In front of
this stretch the Backus Brooks company
| maintains booms and other work neces-
sary for its pockets, sorting gaps, with
piers and sheds for the rivermen, etc.
There is a clear space of from forty
three to seventy-one feet between the
shore and the first boom. The lumber
company has leased the land north of that
| owned by the Reeves for purpose of ia
cllltating its operations at the mill be-
| low Thus, though the Reeves have about
500 feet of clear space in which to pad
die around, they are debarred by the
booms and logs of the lumber company
from using the river for boating or other
purposes for which a navigable stream
may be used. These are the conditions
against which the Reeves complained in
their suit. The actual damages allowed
the plaintiff is only $50.
The present case is a sequel to one
tried a year or two ago as a result of
which the Backus- Brooks company re-
moved some piling in the river next to the
north end of the plaintiffs land. This did
not give Reeves all the relief he claimed,
however, and the present suit followed,
his brother also beginning a similar pro-
ceeding in his own name. ..a<s
The language of the conclusions of law
Is as follows:
First-That the plaintiff, as the owner OF
the premises described In the complaint, is
entitled to free communication therefrom to
the nayigable channel of the Mississippi river.
which is open to public use and not merely
to waters Of said river enclosed by the OBJ
structons placed by the defendants herein,
though the LATTER except for said obstruc-
tons, would be and constitute a part of the
nav1gable channel thereof -. ~ g..
#Second-That the plaintiff Is entitled to a
permanent writ of injunction, forever en-
joining and restraining the defendant it's
officers, agents and employees, and each and
all OF them, from maintaining any piers pill
lngs, booms, structures, or logs, in front OF
his said land, in such a manner as to deprive
the plaintiff of free and unobstructed COM
mun1catlon between the shores of his said
land and the navigable channel of said river
or any part thereof, which is or may be open
to public use for navigation for any purpose
for which such river is or may be ADAPTED
IN his memorandum attached Judge
Brooks. ampliies on his views as follows:
My conclusion that the plaintiffs right Of
access to the nayigable channel has been
cut off, although he has access to waters OF
a navigable. depth within the space inclosed,
is in harmony with the law as stated in Glib
son VS.. U. S. 166 U. S. 269, and Cohn v.
Warsaw Boom company, Al Wis ga.
The right to maintain any permanent struc-
lures DIN the river in front of this land be-
longs to the plaintiff and not to the defend
ant Moreover, this right Is private as against
the defendant and to alt persons other than
the state or general government. AS has
been said by the supreme court, this action
Is strictly one brought for a private injury
or wrong" The defendant is not the state
or the agent for the state. 1t is not even
empowered to exercise the right of eminent
domain; and the plaintiff has the same right
to cut off all access to defendants mill that
1t has to appropriate without his consent his
entire short frontage, as IT has undertaken
to do.
At the final argument of this case defend
ants counsel presented to the court writing
bearing his signature as it's attorney, stat
ing that sit does not claim adversely to the
plaintiff This in no manner meets the
plaintiffs contention that it now holds s'by
main. strength rights and privileges to
which it is no way entitled. In the same
way defendant "concedes and admits it's duty
not to Interfere unreasonabYy with the plain
TIN s, use OF the stream as a riparian owner,
but when it shall appear that he so desires
to use it,
AS already held in this case, the question
is not whether plaintiff has occasion to use
or to exercise his rights riparian owner"
The privileges Of which he is now deprived
belong to him exclusively until the state shall
elect for the public good to reclaim them. The
defendants acts are no less wrongful because
accompanied by words indicating it's good
faith or willingness at some future time to
abstain therefrom. And if, as I conclude the
privileges ~usurped by defendant belong in
fact to the plaintiff, no reason has been or
can be suggested why immediate restitution
should not be granted. II .:-
Previous decisions have clearly defined
the rights of shore owners as against
boom companies. This decision of Judge
Brooks no viewer, widens the scope of the
law under these decisions, bringing mill
owners and operators under practically
the same rules. @4
SHE WON'T AND SHE WILL.
London, March 22.-Mrs. Brown-PotterS this
az, ,1n,, T41,o,