Powell v. Wilson

Citations

• 85 Md. 347
• 37 A. 216
• 1897 Md. LEXIS 68

Syllabus

<p>Oyster Lots — Rights of Riparian Owner in Creeks Less Than 100 Yards Wide at the Mouth— Vacating a Location — Jurisdiction of Equity — Removal of Bedded Oysters.</p> <p>Equity has jurisdiction to protect and enforce the privilege or franchise conferred by statute upon riparian owners in the matter of bedding oysters in navigable waters adjoining their lands.</p> <p>The Act of 1886, chap. 296, sec. 44, provided that any citizen of the State should have the right to locate and appropriate one lot of not more than five acres in the navigable waters of the State for the purpose of planting oysters, after notice to the riparian owner, and that twelve months peaceable possession of the same should constitute a good title thereto. Section 45 of the Act provided that if any creek or inlet of greater width than 100 yards at low water mark should make into the land, then the riparian owners should have the exclusive right to the use of the creek for bedding oysters so soon as the mouth of the same should become less than 100 yards in width. These provisions were substantially re-enacted by the Act of 1894, chap. 380, secs. 46 and 47. In 1887 the defendants located an oyster lot in a creek or estuary opposite plaintiffs’ land. The mouth of the creek was then more than 100 yards wide, In 1896 the mouth of the creek became, in the course of nature, less than 100 yards wide. Plaintiffs thereupon notified defendants that they claimed the exclusive right, as riparian owners, to the use of the creek under the statute, and filed a bill praying that defendants’ location of the oyster lot be annulled and defendants enjoined from using the same for such purpose. Held,</p> <p>1st. That there is no conflict between the two sections of the statute, but that when defendants located the lot they did so subject to the contingency that the mouth of the creek might thereafter become less than 100 yards wide, and upon the happening of that contingency the rights of the defendants were superse