Samuel Nelson

Name: Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate
Author: Samuel Nelson

Summary

“Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate”, is a work by Samuel Nelson. It explores elements such as boundary, the United States and bank.

Quotes from Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate (Samuel Nelson)

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ Undoubtedly the plaintiff has no right, under his grant from the United States, to erect a dam in the bed of the river within the boundary-line of Georgia, for the purpose of supplying his mill with water. But I am not prepared to admit, that he cannot supply it by diverting the water upon his own land, without crossing the boundary-line, as by sinking a trench or ditch, if by so doing he works no injury to the rights of others. Every proprietor of land on the banks of a river has naturally an equal right to the use of the water which flows in the stream adjacent to his lands. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ Where land adjoining a freshwater river, or above tide-water, is described as bounded by a monument, whether natural or artificial, such as a tree or a stake standing on the bank, and a course is given as running from it up or down the river to another monument standing upon the bank, these words necessarily imply, as a general rule, that the line is to follow the river, according to its meanderings and turnings, and the grantee takes to the middle of the river. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ It is always manifest to the eye of any observer upon a river, and is marked in a way not to be mistaken. The junction of bank and water at this stage of the river satisfies the words of the cession, and furnishes a line as fixed and certain as is practicable ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ Grants of land, bounded by the sea or by navigable rivers, where the tide ebbs and flows, extend to high-water mark, that is, to the margin of the periodical flow of the tide, unaffected by extraordinary causes, and the shores below common high-water mark belong to the State in which they are situated. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ Streams of water are intended for the use and comfort of man; and it would be unreasonable, and contrary to the universal sense of mankind, to debar a riparian proprietor from the application of the water to domestic, agricultural, and manufacturing purposes, provided the use works no substantial injury to others. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ No proprietor has a right to use the water to the prejudice of other proprietors, above or below, unless he has acquired a prior right to divert it. He has no property in the water itself, but a simple usufruct while it passes along. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ This river has high bluff banks in some parts of it on both sides, in others, the banks are low, and the adjacent lands subject to inundations in high water, extending for nearly a mile from the bank. At the plaintiff's land the banks are from fifteen to twenty feet high on both sides, and somewhat abrupt, and above and below for some distance. The abrupt and high banks, however, on the plaintiff's side of the river do not extend down to the water's edge at ordinary low water. Between the high bluff and the water at this stage, the distance varies from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate

“ These principles will be found stated more at large by Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, (3 Kent's Com. 439, 440, 441) ; and also by Parke, J., in a very recent case in the Court of Exchequer in England, (Embry and another v. Owen, 4 Eng. Law and Eq. R. 466, 476, 477.)
Mr. Justice GRIER.
I concur with my brother Nelson.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”

Samuel Nelson

Summary

Quotes from Howard v. Ingersoll — Separate (Samuel Nelson)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature