Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile

Syllabus

<p>1. A motion to dismiss for want of a Federal question .cannot be sustained when the title involved depends upon a Spanish grant claimed to have been perfected under the treaty of 1819 with Spain, and a patent of the United States in alleged confirmation of such claim.</p> <p>2. It has been conclusively settled by this court that the State of Alabama, when admitted to the Union, hecaine entitled to the soil under the navigable waters below high water mark within the limits of the State, not previously granted. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212.</p> <p>The act of the legislature of Alabama of January 31,1867, conveying to the city of Mobile the shore and soil under Mobile River is not unconstitutional as impairing vested rights of owners of grants bordering on Mobile River, as the rule in Alabama that a grant by the United States of lands bordering on a navigable river includes the shore or bank of such river and extends to the water line at low 'water, does not relate to land bordering on tidal streams.</p> <p>. As the State held the lands under water below high water mark as trustee for the public it had the right to devolve the trust upon the city of Mobile. ■■</p> <p>3.-All the land below high water mark having passed to Alabama on her admission to the Union in 1819, there was nothing left upon which a patent of the United States dated in 1836, could operate, and-the person claiming to hpld land below high water mark under said patent has no vested interest in such land, which would require compensation or proceedings in eminent domain on the part of the State to take such lands.</p> <p>There is a difference between the legislature of a State granting land beneath navigable waters of the State, and below high water mark, to a private railroad corporation and granting, it to a municipal corporation Whose mayor; aldermen and common council are created and declared trustees to hold, possess, direct,, control and manage the shore and soil granted in such manner