Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Rights-of-reclamation-and-wharfing-out-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:04:02+00:00

Document:
The right of reclamation and of wharfing out has ment by one other than the riparian owner gives the latter the same rights therein as if made by himself. Baltimore v. St. Agnes Hospital, 48 Md. 419.
56. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co. v. Morris Canal Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 398, 1 L. R. A. 133, 15 Atl. 227. 47 N. J. Eq. 598, 22 Atl. 1076; Bailey v. Burgess, 11 R. I. 330.
132 Am. St. Rep. 716, Thornton v. Grant, 10 R. I. 477, 44 Am. Rep. 701; Diedrich v. Northwestern Union Rwy. Co., 42 Wis. 248.
59. Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497; Comm. v. Alger, 7 Cush 53; Ravenswood v. Fleming, 22 W. Va. 52, 46 Am. Rep. 485; Cohn v. Wasau Boom Co., 47 Wis. 314, 2 N. W. 546.
Am. St. Rep. 333, 25 Atl. 398.
61. Diedrich v. Northwestern Union Rwy. Co., 42 Wis. 248.
62. Illinois v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 184 U. S. 77, 46 L. Ed. 440.
63. Simons v. French, 25 Conn. 346; Musser v. Hershey, 42 Iowa, 356; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Chase, 43 Md. 23; Allen v. Allen. 19 R. I. 115, 32 Atl. 166. 30 L. R.
A. 497 1, 61 Am. St. Rep. 738.
64. Sullivan Timber Co. v. Mobile, 110 Fed. 186; Horner v. Pleasants, 66 Md. 475, 7 Atl. 691.
65. See Allen v. Allen, 19 R.
I. 115, 32 Atl. 166, 30 L. R. A. 497, 61 Am. St. Rep. 738. Editorial note 7 Columbia Law Rev. at p.
66. As in. Norfolk City v. Cooke, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 430; article in 4 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 22.
67. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 38 L. Ed. 331; Panama from the land to which it originally appertained, so as to vest it in a person having no interest in such land. This he may do either by a transfer of the land retaining the right, or by a transfer of the right retaining the land.74a The effect of such a severance is obviously to subject the land to the possibility of losing its right of access by reason of the exercise of the right of reclamation.75 The recognition of this possibility of severance of the right of reclamation from the land, it may be remarked, appears to be inconsistent with the view occasionally asserted,76 that the right is merely an incident-to that of access, since a right of access cannot well have any existence apart from some particular thing which is accessible thereby.
Ice & Fish Co. v. Atlanta & St. A.
Board of Assessors, 89 N. J. L. 108, 97 Atl. 900; Parker v. West Coast Packing Co., 17 Ore. 510, 21 Pac. 822; Dawson v. Broome. 24 R. I. 359, 53 Atl. 151; Austin v. Rutland R. Co, 45 Vt. 215.
68. Union Depot St. Rwy. & Transfer Co. v. Brunswick, 31 Minn. 297, 47 Am. Rep. 789, 17 N. W. 626; Bradshaw v. Duluth Imperial Mill Co., 52 Minn. 59; Clement v. Burns. 43 N. H. 609; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Chase, A'-'. Md. 23.
Statutes giving the right to wharf out have been regarded as ir-repealable. Bradford v. McQues-ten, 182 Mass. 80; Pacific Milling & Elevator Co. v. Portland, 65 Ore. 349, 133 Pac. 72, 46 L. R. A. N. S. 363.
69. Stevens v. Paterson & N. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 532.
70. See Sullivan Timber Co. v. Mobile, 110 Fed. 186; Horner v. Pleasants. 66 Md. 475, 7 Atl. 691; Lewis v. City of Portland, 25 Ore. 133, 22 L. R. A. 736, 42 Am. St. Rep. 772, 35 Pac. 256.
71. Nichols v. Lewis, 15 Conn. 137; Lakewood v. New York, etc. R. Co., 37 Conn. 387; Bell v. Cough, 23 N. J. L. 624; Heiney v. Nolan, 75 N. J. L. 397, 67 Atl. 1008; In Horner v. Pleasants, 66 Md. 475, 7 Atl. 691, he is said to obtain the "use of the land in perpetuity."
72. Clement v. Burns, 43 N. H. 609; Bedlow v. Stillwell, 158 N. Y. 292, 53 N. E. 26.
73. See Hanford v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co. 43 Minn. 104, 7 L. R. A. 722, 42 N. W. 596, 44 N. W. 1144; People v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 N. Y. 194, 107 N. E. 506. And compare Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389.
74. Barnes v. Midland R. Terminal Co., 193 N. Y. 378, 127 Am. St. Rep. 962, 85 N. E. 1093.
74a. Simons v. French, 25 Conn. 346; Hanford v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co., 43 Minn. 104, 7 L. R. A. 722, 42 N. W. 596, 44 N. W. 1144; Parker v. West Coast Packing Co., 17 Ore. 510, 21 Pac. 822; Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Ore. 244, 66 Pac. 923; Providence Steam Engine Co. v. Providence & S. Steamship Engine Co., 12 R. I. 348; Brown v. Goddard, 13 R. I. 76. Contra, Musser v. Hershey, 42 Iowa, 356.
75. Miller v. Mendenhall, 43 Minn. 95, 8 L. R. A. 89, 19 Am. St. Rep. 219, 44 N. W. 1141.
76. Lane v. Board of Harbor Com'rs, 70 Conn. 685, 40 Atl. 1058; Hanford v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co.. 43 Minn. 104, 7 L. R. A. 722, 42 N. W. 596, 44 N. W. 1144; Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 326, 11 Ann. Cas. 1, 80 N. E. 665.
77. Brown v. Goddard, 13 R. I. 76.
78. Rasmussen v. Walker Warehouse Co., 68 Ore. 316, 136 Pac. 661; Brown v. Goddard, 13 R. I. 76.
79. Grant v. Oregon Nav. Co., 49 Ore. 324, 90 Pac. 178, 1099.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.