The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-07-24
Suit Of Taylor vs.. Common
Wealth First Heard Be- \
fore Judge Wexford. -
7ARTESIAN WELL With &.
HEALl I'M WATERS / FLOWING
This Was the Starting ST tfdA
Dispute, and the Lessees Obs
tained an Enac ctment " Which
Sent the Quarrel Into
HI the ictlnond Cir
I, III cult Court. 4 5i|S III ri & Il

"A case Of great interest to all tho 4
citizens Of the state, and more particu--ttS
iiarlys to those of ldewat ter, was decided
recently by The supre Court OF Ap-#
tpeals OF Virginia. / i was the ase,S Of
Mrs. Ellen y. i Taylor - ccmmon wealth.
and while At Involved directly only q !. boMuts Ut
SO yet the ecsst sion fixes the owner--sf
ship of hundreds Of ,ousand Is ofs 81 acres
OF shoals A brief sta tement Of the case la7l
follows \: rs A y
Mrs. Ellen Tay he &
Roosevelt, the old Page home IN Glo,l-
3cester county leased the shoalss ad Joins
Ing her fam to certain 4 persons, who
sank an artesan we'll + here eon. The water
OF this well was found to have valuable lt
medicinal properties. and q s;ss " company u
called the Colonial Water Comp y9s$ wa sS
formed to put 1t 4 on 7 he ma rk ket. N rs.$
Taylor attempted to- gain pos sion OF;
her land again. but tho coTpan got :sia.a ~
bill through the Lcgis sing it3teng
acres of land under wat 81, on " hichs ten
acres the well was 81 ituat ed, wi ith a pro-
vision that any parties W who thought tilelr8
rights infringed mig ht$ sue in he circuit
Court II OF the city Of Richmont and
shout d make the Common wealt th'a party
to the defonse. SgS
N: The case was decided w y agalnst Mrs -,
Taylor In the Circuit Court i' g
able opinion BY Jud sc ~ ell ford and
taken to tho Supreme Court q Ap ppe;aasls,
where the Judgment Of the 81 4
was affirmed. # ~ S Il Il; s,gF
Riparian Rights. VI
According to the ysn glish Law, ttle al \
RIPARIAN rights Of avn ers OF ad-s 'ads:s
S1oinin,g natv,igable streams al extends to-
3high,water mark ana no. further. B
Fyirginiaa these is were change e'y an
act Of the colonial islat ture. and aWerst5
made to extend to- low wa r mari ButS
1t has been the Gust tom f0r ma years
to exercise rights 5Sof Wners hip 70 the
point of}aIiayagabi,it ty. whiclls ts some-s$ 81
what indefinite, being usually assumed
lhe "a t a. dept OF three Or four feet
Thus tho den3 Of srightfu EoWnersht 81 ~
the shoals as their own had bcco ONE fixed
lin tho minds OF the sad jacent propr etors.Sg
a There had SbeentWo eclsions of the Su-S5s
2nren1e Court III cases OF y this cllarac cter.
one & which; was d directly contra ry 81 70
the other, so 1t was pract teal an open B
question. n II
\ NIessrs nIcGure and r Rlley and Ma lt jor5l
r obert stiles argued the case Tor y ne
plaintiff; Mr.. Isaac ID Diggs repres Cd e ne fs
Colonial Water Company, and ATT orneyr
General Anderson tho Stat OF Virginia .s9S5
s{{5 An extract fromstle opinion Of he su
lpreme Court, delivered by Chief; lust tee Il
Keith, follows: Il 5g S8s8 {8$s5
z -. We arc Of opinion that the
plaintiff has no title as riparian ow1le err!
to the water between low water mari
and the enamel Of the river, nor to a he
soil beneath IT; that as 'iparian prop Il
tor she has certain rights beyond low.
water mark, as the right to build swfaryesS
and or access to the water and Of n lghts
of way over it to tho channel, and others.
perhaps, which need not now be consid-#.
cred, Including n right to locate ~ half
acre of land as an oyster "a planting
ground sS III; "
4 Many millions Of acres of land, # for-H
merly thought to be owned by 4 he sripa-5
rlan proprietors the shoals of Chesa-
3peake Bay and OF the navigable creeks
and rivers OF the State, are by this opin-
ionsdeclded TO be the propertyGof the Com. va
nnonwealth. !, S 81 3ss s8 ri ii8s III lS