Classen v. Chesapeake Guano Co.

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants are the owners of a lot of ground fronting on the Patapsco River, in the city of Baltimore, and the appellee is the owner of the adjoining lot on the west, likewise fronting on the river. The shore line of the river is concave, so that if some of the riparian owners should build out wharves or piers in straight lines the full width of their lots to the Pierhead, or Port Warden’s Line, other riparian owners would be deprived of the privilege of building piers to the Pierhead Line, since the wáter front on the Pierhead Line is much less in extent than the shore line in the rear. In 1876, Joshua Horner, who then owned the appellee’s lot, and also the lot now adjoining on the west, was authorized by the Mayor and City Council, by Ordinance No. 114 of that year, to erect a bulkhead and piers in front of his lot.

By Ordinance No. 141 of 1880, approved October 6, 1880, the ordinance of 1876 was repealed and re-enacted, ²⁶⁵ to grant permission to the heirs of Joshua Horner to erect said bulkhead and piers. The heirs of Horner, in August, 1880, agreed to sell to the appellee a portion of the lot referred to in these ordinances, fronting 150 feet on Gould street, and running to the Port Warden’s Line, and, as a part of the consideration, agreed to build a solid bulkhead to the bulkhead line. And this bulkhead was constructed under the above-mentioned ordinance between October 6th, 1880, and January Cth, 1881, extending the whole width of the appellee’s lot, and running out in straight lines to the bulkhead line. Subsequently Ordinance No. 83 was passed and approved on May 17th, 1881, establishing certain pier and bulkhead lines in the harbor of Baltimore City.

It recites in its preamble that, “ Whereas it has become evident that further legislation is necessary to enable the Mayor and City Council, with equity to the riparian owners and to the public interest, to grant permits for pier or bulkhead extensions in such portions of the harbor as the shore line may be concave or hollow, or where it forms sharp re-entrant angles, so that the water front, measured on the pier or bulkhead lines, is much less in length than the shore line in the rear,” and then enacts as follows : “ That, from and after the passage of this ordinance the lines marked and shaded in ‘ red ’ in the maps numbered from x to 5, submitted this day by the Joint Standing Committee on Harbor, be and are hereby declared to be the pier and bulkhead lines, beyond which no extension of piers or bulkheads shall be made in the portions of the harbor to which said maps relate.” Now, it appears that the southeast part of the appellee’s solid bulkhead, or wharf, is within the lines of what would would be appellant’s lot if extended according to the ordinance of 1881, and that the piers authorized in front of the appellee’s lot by the ordinance of 1880, would be, if constructed almost wholly within the lines of the appellants’ lot extended to the Pierhead or Port Warden’s Line. And upon the case as thus stated the Court was asked to declare ²⁶⁶ the erection of the appellee’s bulkhead a trespass and to enjoin it from constructing piers to the pierhead line. There can be no question, it seems to us, that the appellee has the right to maintain its wharf or bulkhead in front of its lot to the bulkhead line. The Patapsco River in the city of Baltimore is a navigable stream, and the power of the Legislature, or of the municipality under its authority, to establish the lines within which wharves may be built or other improvements made into the water cannot be disputed.

Brown v. Kennedy, 5 H. & J. 195 ; Hess v. Muir, 65 Md. 586 . In the case of B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Chase, 43 Md. 23 , this Court said, that by the construction of the Act of 1745, chapter 9, sec. 10, as settled by the decisions of our predecessors, the right of the lot owner, fronting on the water, to extend his lot or improve out, to the limit prescribed by the authorities of the city, is a franchise, a vested right peculiar in its nature, but a quasi property of which the lot owner cannot be lawfully deprived without his consent. And if any other person without his authority make such extension, no interest or estate in the improvement vests in the improver, .but it becomes the property and estate of the owner of the franchise. And in Horner