The owner of lands bordering on navigable waters, even though not owner of any land below the water, has a right of access to the water, of which right, by the decided weight of authority, he cannot be deprived, even by legislative act, without adequate compensation,44 unless such deprivation is by the sovereign authority for the purpose of improving navigation.45 Occasionally, however, a contrary view

43f. Pittsburgh etc. Iron Co. v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 118 Mich. 119, 70 N. W. 395; Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 8 L. R. A. 578, 21 Am. St Rep. 828, 24 N. E. 686; Calkins v. Hart, 119 N. Y. 145. 113 N. E. 785.

43g. Grand Rapids Ice Co. v. Ice Co., 102 .Mich. 227, 25 L R. A. 815, 47 Am. St. Rep. 516, 60 N. W. 681; Scheifert v. Briegel, 90 Minn. 125, 63 L. R. A. 296, 101 Am. St. Rep. 399, 96 N. W. 44.

44. Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co., 1 App. Cas. 662; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 497, 19 L. Ed. 984; Mobile Transportation Co. v. City of Mobile. 153 Ala. 409, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 352, 127 Am. St. Rep. 22, 44 So. 976; San Francisco Sav. Union v. Petroleum & Min. Co., 144 Cal. 134, 77 Pac. 823, 66 L. R. A. 242, 103 Am. St. Rep. 721; Prior v. Swartz, 62 Conn. 132, 18 L. R. A. 668, 36 Am. St. Rep. 333, 25 Atl. 39S; Ferry Pass etc., Ass'n v. White's River etc., Ass'n, 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643; Cobb v. Commissioners of

Lincoln Park, 202 111. 427, 63 L. R. A. 264, 95 Am. St. Rep. 258, 67 N. E. 5; Home for Aged Women v. Comm., 202 Mass. 422, 89 X. E. 12 4; Hanford v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 104, 7 L. R. A. 722, 42 N. W. 596, 44 N. W. 1144; Concord Mfg. Co. v. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 20; Rumsey v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 79, 15 L. R. A. 618, 28 Am. St. Rep. 600, 30 N. E. 654, 136 N. Y. 543, 32 N. E. 979, overruling Gould v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 N. Y. 522. In re, City of New York, 168 N. Y. 134, 56 L. R. A. 500, 61 N. E. 158; Eagle Cliff Fishing Co. v. McGowan, (Ore.) 137 Pac. 766; Providence Steam Engine Co. v. Providence & S.

Steamship Co., 12 R. I. 348, 361; Grinels v. Daniel, 110 Va. 874. 67 S. E. 534; Delaplaine v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 214, 24 Am. Rep. 386.

45. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 57 L. Ed. 1063; Scranton has been asserted, that if the state owns the bed of the stream, it has such absolute control thereover as to be enabled absolutely to cut off the right of access, or to authorize others to cut it off, without any compensation to the riparian owner.45a

It is no doubt necessary, in order that there be a right of access, that the claimant of the right own land which is in contact with the water at some one of its ordinary stages.46 His land need not, however, be in contact with the water at all times, the right of access existing for instance in favor of the littoral owner although the land between high and low water mark belongs to the state or to another individual.47

The right of access for the purpose of navigation includes, it seems, the right to beach boats on the shore, and to pass over the intervening space on foot v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141, 45 L. Ed. 126; Henry DaIton & Sons Co v. Oakland, 168 Cal. 463, 143 Pac. 721; Home for Aged Women v. Comm., 202 Mass. 422. 89 N. E. 124; Gniadck v. Northwestern Imp. & Boom Co.. 73 Minn. 87. 75 N. W. 894; Fish v. Chicago Great Western R. Co, 125 Minn. 380, 147 N. W. 431; Sage v. New York, 154 N. Y. 61, 38 L. R. A. 606, 61 Am. St. Rep. 592, 47 N. E. 1096; McKeen v. Delaware Division Canal Co., 4!) Pa. 424; Black River Improvement Co. v. La Crosse Booming & Transportation Co., 54 Wis. 659, 41 Am. Rep. 66, 11 N. W. 443.

45a. Tomlin v. Dubuque, B. & M. R. Co., 32 Iowa. 106, 7 Am. Rep. 176; Stevens v. Paterson & N. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 532; State v. Sunapee Dam Co., 70 N. H. 458, 59 L. R. A. 55, 50 Atl. 108

(semble); Bowlby v. Shively, 22 Ore. 414. 30 Pac. 154; Grays Harbor Boom Co. v. Lownsdale, 54 Wash. S3, 102 Pac. 1041; 104 Pac. 267.

In Washington, while the state may, as owner of the shore, deprive the upland owner of access to the channel, it cannot, by reason of its ownership of land below low water mark, deprive an owner of the shore of the right of access. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. S. E. Slade Lumber Co., 61 Wash. 195, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 423, 112 Pac. 240.

46. Bolsa Land Co. v. Burdick, 151 Cal. 254, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 275, 90 Pac. 532; Clarke v. Providence, 16 R. I.337. l L. R. A. 725,. 15. Atl. 763.

47. Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co.. 1 App. Cas. 662; North Shore R. Co. v. Pion, 11 App. Cas. 012.

Real Property.

[Sec. 305 or otherwise, in so far as the shallowness of the water, or obstructions therein, render it impossible or inconvenient to bring a boat into contact with his land.48