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.

55. Post Sec. 307.

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.

57. Post, this section, notes 74-80

58. Dutton v. Strong 1 Black.; Lane v. Harbor Commissioners, 70 Conn. 685, 40 Atl. 1058; State v. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 94 Ohio 61, 113 N. E. 677, L. R. A. 1917A, 1007; Coquille Mill & Merc. Co. v. Johnson, 52 Ore. 547, 98 Pac. 132,

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.

60.Union Depot St. Rwy. & Transfer Co. v. Brunswick, 31

Minn. 297, 47 Am. Rep. 789, 17 N. W. 626. See Prior v. Swartz, 62 Conn. 132, 18 L. R. A. 668, 36

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.

By some courts the right of reclamation and wharf ing out has been regarded as a property right of which one cannot be deprived, even by the state, without compensation,68 it thus being assimilated to the right Of access. In one state, on the other hand, it has been regarded as subject to the control of the legislature, to the extent at least to which it has not been exercised.69 Presumably, even in this state, the courts would tend to protect one who has made expenditures by way of exercise of the right.70

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.

413

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.

B. Ry. Co., 71 Fla 419, 71 So. 608; Western Md. Tidewater R. Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 561, 68 Atl. 6; Long Dock Co. v. State

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.

In some states the land over which the right has been actually exercised appears to be regarded as becoming the property of the upland owner who exercised the right.71 And a wharf constructed in the exercise of the right has been considered to be real property belonging to him.72

A right to reclaim land under water would seem to involve the right to make use of the land reclaimed, and it appears probable that the riparian owner can make any use thereof, provided it does not involve an interference with the public right of navigation.73 Possibly, however, the courts would be somewhat astute to find such interference when the use of the land reclaimed has no connection with the use of the water for purposes of navigation. In the exercise of the right of wharfing out over the shore the upland owner must, it has been decided, so construct the wharf as not unreasonably to interfere with the public right of passage on the shore.74

- Severance of rights. In most of the states in which the question has arisen, the owner of land bordering on the water has been regarded as entitled to sever the right of reclamation and wharfing out

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.

Sec. 305] exercise by another person of a right to flood such land,85 though he cannot remove the ice, it seems, if this would injuriously affect such other as regards the benefits resulting from the right of flowage.86

Rights of Enjoyment.

The right to reclaim has been regarded as being severed from the ownership of the upland when the owner of the latter undertook to convey to another a part or the whole of the submerged land in front of his land, the grantee acquiring the right to reclaim the land purporting to be conveyed to him,77 and so occasionally when such owner undertook to plat into lots the submerged land, the grantee of each lot acquired in effect the right to reclaim that particular lot,78 and no other.79 On the other hand, the fact that the owner has platted the upland and also land under the water in front thereof, and has conveyed to another a lot on the upland, has been regarded as showing an intention to convey the upland lot without any rights as to the reclamation of the submerged land.80

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.