City of Chicago v. Laflin

Citations

• 49 Ill. 172

Syllabus

<p>1. Riparian proprietor—his title—how far it extends—and rights of defined. Where certain lots bordering on the Chicago River, were granted to a party by the government, and no reservation was made in such grant, whereby the grantee was confined to the water’s edge, in such case the title of the owner extends to the thread or central line of the stream, and he has the rigln to erect and maintain wharfs and docks on its bank, and use and enjoy it in every legal manner, provided, he does not obstruct navigation, or impair the rights of others.</p> <p>2. Nuisance. And in such case, where the owners of such lots had erected docks thereon, and enjoyed the use of the same for a period of over twenty-five years, without complaint or interruption from any source, even if they were not riparian proprietors, and their boundaries did not extend beyond the water’s edge ; after such long acquiescence, the corporate authorities of the city cannot declare them a nuisance, which, if they are a nuisance, have become so by the act of the city.</p> <p>3. Sams&emdash;compensation required. But even if the corporate authorities had the power to declare them a nuisance and require their removal, they having become a nuisance by the act of the city, before such exercise of power could be had, compensation to the owners must be made,</p> <p>4. Former decisions. The cases of Middleton v. Pritchard. 3 Scam. 570: The People v. The City of St. Louis, 5 Gilm. 351; Canal Trustee v. Havens, 11 Ill. 554, and Ensminger v. The People, 47 Ill. 384, cited and considered.</p>