Case Name: Chess against Manown
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1834-09
Citations: 3 Watts 219
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chess against Manown.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Volume: 3
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Chess against Manown.
The owner of a private ferry has no right to land boats and passengers at the terminus of a public highway, between high and low water mark, on the opposite margin of the river, without the consent of the owner of the soil.
ERROR to the common pleas of Alleghany county.
James Manown, the defendant in error, brought, an action of trespass guare clausum fregit against the plaintiffs in error, to prevent them from landing.with ferry boats and passengers on his land. A public road passes through Manown’s farm to the edge of the Monongahela river. Chess owns the land on the opposite side, and keeps a ferry. Manown contends that Chess has no right to land his passengers at the end of the road terminating at low water mark on Manown’s land.
The court below charged the jury as follows (Shaler, president):
“The landing complained of is admitted to have been on the shore between high and low water mark. To this point a public road has been laid out. The question submitted for the consideration of the court is, whether a ferry can be established from the land of A to the land of B on the opposite shore, to terminate at low water mark, and on a public road running down to low water line; and this is to be determined by the right of the party to the land adjoining on a navigable river and lying between high and low water mark. This question appears to have been already decided in Uberworth v. The Le-high and Schuylkill Navigation Company, in which Judge Huston, in reference to it, holds the following language ; ‘ along all rivers, &c.,’ and ending with ‘it. is better than that of any one else, but always subject to the superior right of the state.’ If this be the law it establishes the right of the plaintiff to your verdict.”
Error was assigned to this charge.
Kingston and Forward, for plaintiff in error.
Fetterman and Foster, for defendant in error,
cited Chambers v. Fury, 1 Yeates 167; Cooper v. Smith, 9 Serg. & Rawle 31; 7 Hazard's Reg. 192; Shrunk v. Schuylkill Navigation Company, 14 Serg. & Rawle 80; 3 Kent's Comm. 427.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The point in this case was decided in Cooper v. Smith, 9 Serg. & Rawle 31, where it was determined that the establishment of a ferry by law, gives the owner of it no right to land his passengers or boats on a public highway without the consent of the owner of the soil. The same principle was held in Chambers v. Fury, 1 Yeates 167, where it was determined that the dedication of ground to purposes of public use as a road, gives no right to use it for purposes of landing or receiving freight. Here the locus in quo was a terminus of a public highway on the margin of the river : and there was not even a public ferry to give colour to the pretence of a right to use the shore as 'a landing or wharf for the mooring of boats. The franchise of the public was to pass over the soil, and no more.
Judgment affirmed.