Williams v. Baker
Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee is the owner of a leasehold interest for a term of ninety-nine years renewable forever, in a lot of ground situated in the city of Baltimore, and lying” on a branch of the Patapsco, known as Spring Gardens. Upon this lot there was at the date of the lease a wharf, extending to the Port Warden’s line, which formed its southern boundary. In 1858 the Messrs.
Boyd and the appellee’s firm, who then owned the entire leasehold interest in said lot, were authorized by an ordinance of the city of Baltimore, to extend the Port Warden’s line two hundred and thirty feet further out into the water, and also to extend their wharf and other improvements over this lot, which was accomplished by means of natural accretion and artificial deposits, and have continued ever since to use the improvements thus made for business purposes. In 1872 the appellant purchased the reversion in said lot subject to the leasehold interest of the appellee, and this suit is brought to try the question of title and possession of the accretion and of the artificial addition and embankment thus made. The appellant contends, 1st. That being the owner of the fee he alone is entitled to the accretion of land, whether formed by natural or artificial causes ; and that the appellee being the owner of a mere leasehold interest in a lot described by fixed bounda-ries, has no right to use the accretion thus formed during the term. 2nd.
That as owner of the fee he alone is entitled to make embankments or artificial improvements into the water. That a riparian owner is entitled to the increase of soil formed by waters gradually or imperceptibly receding, is well settled law, and it is equally clear, we think, that the use of the accretion thus formed, may be assigned by 528 the riparian owner to a lessee for and during the term. Whether the use would pass to a lessee of a water lot demised by fixed boundaries, as a right incident to the lot itself,' is a question not necessary to be decided in this case. Here the lessor not only assigned and conveyed to the lessees, for the term of ninety-nine years renewable forever, the lot in question; by fixed and ascertained boundaries, but also “ all the improvements thereon made, lanes, alleys, waters, privileges, appurtenances and advantages to the same belonging
This is a preview of Williams v. Baker. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.