Case Name: MARGARET M. GIBSON v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1897-03-22
Citations: 32 Ct. Cl. 621
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARGARET M. GIBSON v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
MARGARET M. GIBSON v. THE UNITED STATES.
[29 C. Cls. R., 18; 166 U. S., 269.]
On the claimant’s Appeal.
Congress authorize an improvement in the Ohio River. A dike is constructed, not on the claimant’s land, but so as to impair the waterway between the channel of the river and her wharf, and, except in high water, render it inconvenient and almost impracticable for her to use her wharf as a shipping point. She sues for an appropriation of her riparian rights for public use.
The court below decides:
1. The Tucker Act, 3d March, 1837 (24 Stat. L., 505), regulates the general jurisdiction of this court, and excludes cases “sounding in tort.”
2. An action to recover damages for impairing a navigable waterway between the main channel of a river and a wharf by the erection of a dike in the stream, which, however, does not encroach upon the claimant’s property, is an .action for damages for injuries, without there being the element of contract, and is not within the jurisdiction of the court.
3. The owner of a wharf on the bank of a river has no right of property below low-water mark, and no property in the flow of water or in the approach to land.
4. The right of a riparian owner to the use of a navigable stream is, at most, a license,’ which the Government may revoke at any time.
5. A public improvement which does not encroach upon the property of a citizen, nor cause the overflow of his land, nor take away anything that was in his possession, is not a taking of private property for public use within the intent of the Constitution, though itmay lessen the navigable character of a river in front of his property. The difference between this case and that of PwmpeUy v. Green Bay Go. (113 Wall., 166) stated.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the third, fourth, and fifth grounds stated above.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 22, 1897.