109 U. S. 672-702, 27 L. 1070, POTOMAC STEAMBOAT CO. v. UPPER POT. S. CO.

District of Columbia.- Trust deed of land on Potomac river, to lay same out as city, with such streets, squares, etc., as president should approve, and convey these to use of United States forever, and of residue, to reconvey equal half to grantor, followed by division of lots, amounted to conveyance to United States of whole parcel in fee, and reconveyance of lot apportioned to grantor, bounded by strip along river designed as street, left fee absolute of such strip in United States, p. 680.

Approved in Columbia Commrs. v. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 114 U. S. 461, 29 L. 220, 5 S. Ct. 1103, denying right to use Washington street for unusual purpose, unless authorized by Congress; Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 266, 269, 19 S. Ct. 677, 678, construing similar Washington grant; London, etc., Bank v. Oakland, 90 Fed. 699, 61 U. S. App. 236, holding signing and filing of plat is dedication of street shown thereon; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 565, 42 L. 280, 17 S. Ct. 973, arguendo.

Evidence. Division and apportionment of realty by final instrument between parties concerned, cannot be modified or controlled in possessory action by proof of preliminary negotiations or agreement; e. g., unofficial list of such realty, describing certain lot as having water front, p. 681.

Approved in Hazleton Tripod, etc., Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry., 72 Fed. 323, where agreement to furnish boilers "at cost" was followed by written instrument designating amount.

Navigable waters.- Acquisition of fee in strip for street along river bank carries riparian rights, including right of wharfage, pp. 682-684.

Approved in St. Louis v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 114 Mo. 23, 21 S. W. 206, holding accretion to river shore bounded by street belongs to public.

Navigable waters.- Riparian proprietor is one whose land is bounded by navigable stream, and his rights as such include access to navigable part thereof, and right to make wharf, etc., subject to general legislative regulations, pp. 682, 683.

Approved in Clark v. Cambridge, etc., Imp. Co., 45 Neb. 807, 64 N. W. 241, holding vested riparian rights, property, unimpairable without compensation; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 24, 38 L. 340, 14 8. Ct. 556, reviewing various State laws as to riparian rights; Waite v. O'Neil, 72 Fed. 357, and, on appeal, S. C., 76 Fed. 415, 47 U. S. App. 19, 34 L. R. A. 555, holding riparian interest mere right of occupancy; dissenting opinion in Eisenbach v. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 282, 26 Pac. 553, 12 L. R. A. 651, and n., majority holding riparian owner has no rights of wharfage below high-water mark, as against

Municipal corporations.— Where street is acquired by United States in fee, it is, unlike dedicated street, subject to no trust in favor of adjacent owner, to be used as such, p. 684.

Approved in Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 287, 19 S. Ct. 685, reaffirming rule; London, etc., Bank v. Oakland, 86 Fed. 34, holding non-user of street does not impair public right therein.

Navigable waters.- Land cannot be appurtenant to land; hence, right of wharfage does not appertain to lots separated from stream by street, pp. 684-687.

Approved in Turner v. People's Ferry Co., 22 Blatchf. 278, 21 Fed. 95, where owner had filled up low land between lot and street or wharf; Waite v. O'Neil, 76 Fed. 414, 47 U. S. App. 19, 34 L. R. A. 655, holding washing away of landing exempts lessee of riparian rights from rent; Webb v. Demopolis, 95 Ala. 132, 13 So. 295, 21 L. R. A. 69, holding city has right to construct public landings along street adjacent to stream; Village of Pewaukee v. Savoy, 103 Wis. 278, 79 N. W. 438, holding riparian rights appertain to street bounding navigable lake; dissenting opinion in Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 358, 19 S. Ct. 711, where majority recognized right to compensation for seawall and improvements.

Municipal corporations.- Inference is almost irresistible that city laying out and acquiring street along navigable river does not leave riparian rights to private ownership, pp. 686, 687.

Approved in Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 250, 19 S. Ct. 671, holding founders of city of Washington intended to secure public access to river.

Courts.- District of Columbia Circuit Court decision, made without reference by court or counsel to prior controlling decision, held not evidence of law of District of Columbia, pp. 693, 694.

District of Columbia.- Resolution of council of city of Washington, adopting wharf regulation based on theory of private proprietorship of riparian rights, is not binding recognition thereof; council is not competent to determine such rights, pp. 697, 698.

109 U. S. 702-725, 27 L. 1081, CHICAGO, ETC., R. R. v. UNION ROLLING-MILL CO.

Equity.- Dismissal of original bill before final hearing, carries cross-bill, p. 713.

Approved in Detroit v. Detroit City Ry., 55 Fed. 575, arguendo. Distinguished in San Diego Flume Co. v. Souther, 90 Fed. 167, 61 U. S. App. 141, where cross-bill alleges new matter and asks affirmative relief equivalent to original bill.

Equity. Complainant may generally dismiss bill at any time on paying costs, but not without consent after decree, final or inter

109 U. S. 672-702, 27 L. 1070, POTOMAC STEAMBOAT CO. v. UPPER POT. S. CO.

District of Columbia.- Trust deed of land on Potomac river, to lay same out as city, with such streets, squares, etc., as president should approve, and convey these to use of United States forever, and of residue, to reconvey equal half to grantor, followed by division of lots, amounted to conveyance to United States of whole parcel in fee, and reconveyance of lot apportioned to grantor, bounded by strip along river designed as street, left fee absolute of such strip in United States, p. 680.

Approved in Columbia Commrs. v. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 114 U. S. 461, 29 L. 220, 5 S. Ct. 1103, denying right to use Washington street for unusual purpose, unless authorized by Congress; Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 266, 269, 19 S. Ct. 677, 678, construing similar Washington grant; London, etc., Bank v. Oakland, 90 Fed. 699, 61 U. S. App. 236, holding signing and filing of plat is dedication of street shown thereon; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 565, 42 L. 280, 17 S. Ct. 973, arguendo.

Evidence.- Division and apportionment of realty by final instrument between parties concerned, cannot be modified or controlled in possessory action by proof of preliminary negotiations or agree ment; e. g., unofficial list of such realty, describing certain lot as having water front, p. 681.

Approved in Hazleton Tripod, etc., Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry., 72 Fed. 323, where agreement to furnish boilers at cost' was followed by written instrument designating amount.

Navigable waters.- Acquisition of fee in strip for street along river bank carries riparian rights, including right of wharfage, pp. 682-684.

Approved in St. Louis v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 114 Mo. 23, 21 S. W. 206, holding accretion to river shore bounded by street belongs to public.

Navigable waters.- Riparian proprietor is one whose land is bounded by navigable stream, and his rights as such include access to navigable part thereof, and right to make wharf, etc., subject to general legislative regulations, pp. 682, 683.

Approved in Clark v. Cambridge, etc., Imp. Co., 45 Neb. 807, 64 N. W. 241, holding vested riparian rights, property, unimpairable without compensation; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 24, 38 L. 340, 14 8. Ct. 556, reviewing various State laws as to riparian rights; Waite v. O'Neil, 72 Fed. 357, and, on appeal, S. C., 76 Fed. 415, 47 U. S. App. 19, 34 L. R. A. 555, holding riparian interest mere right of occupancy; dissenting opinion in Eisenbach v. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 282, 26 Pac. 553, 12 L. R. A. 651, and n., majority holding riparian owner has no rights of wharfage below high-water mark, as against

Municipal corporations.— Where street is acquired by United States in fee, it is, unlike dedicated street, subject to no trust in favor of adjacent owner, to be used as such, p. 684.

Approved in Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 287, 19 S. Ct. 685, reaffirming rule; London, etc., Bank v. Oakland, 86 Fed. 34, holding non-user of street does not impair public right therein.

Navigable waters.- Land cannot be appurtenant to land; hence, right of wharfage does not appertain to lots separated from stream by street, pp. 684-687.

Approved in Turner v. People's Ferry Co., 22 Blatchf. 278, 21 Fed. 95, where owner had filled up low land between lot and street or wharf; Waite v. O'Neil, 76 Fed. 414, 47 U. S. App. 19, 34 L. R. A. 655, holding washing away of landing exempts lessee of riparian rights from rent; Webb v. Demopolis, 95 Ala. 132, 13 So. 295, 21 L. R. A. 69, holding city has right to construct public landings along street adjacent to stream; Village of Pewaukee v. Savoy, 103 Wis. 278, 79 N. W. 438, holding riparian rights appertain to street bounding navigable lake; dissenting opinion in Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 358, 19 S. Ct. 711, where majority recognized right to compensation for seawall and improvements.

Municipal corporations. Inference is almost irresistible that city laying out and acquiring street along navigable river does not leave riparian rights to private ownership, pp. 686, 687.

Approved in Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 250, 19 S. Ct. 671, holding founders of city of Washington intended to secure public access to river.

Courts.- District of Columbia Circuit Court decision, made without reference by court or counsel to prior controlling decision, held not evidence of law of District of Columbia, pp. 693, 694.

District of Columbia.- Resolution of council of city of Washington, adopting wharf regulation based on theory of private proprietorship of riparian rights, is not binding recognition thereof; council is not competent to determine such rights, pp. 697, 698.

109 U. S. 702-725, 27 L. 1081, CHICAGO, ETC., R. R. v. UNION ROLLING-MILL CO.

Equity.- Dismissal of original bill before final hearing, carries cross-bill, p. 713.

Approved in Detroit v. Detroit City Ry., 55 Fed. 575, arguendo. Distinguished in San Diego Flume Co. v. Souther, 90 Fed. 167, 61 U. S. App. 141, where cross-bill alleges new matter and asks affirmative relief equivalent to original bill.

Equity. Complainant may generally dismiss bill at any time on paying costs, but not without consent after decree, final or inter

109 U. S. 672-702, 27 L. 1070, POTOMAC STEAMBOAT CO. v. UPPER POT. S. CO.

District of Columbia.- Trust deed of land on Potomac river, to lay same out as city, with such streets, squares, etc., as president should approve, and convey these to use of United States forever, and of residue, to reconvey equal half to grantor, followed by division of lots, amounted to conveyance to United States of whole parcel in fee, and reconveyance of lot apportioned to grantor, bounded by strip along river designed as street, left fee absolute of such strip in United States, p. 680.

Approved in Columbia Commrs. v. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 114 U. S. 461, 29 L. 220, 5 S. Ct. 1103, denying right to use Washington street for unusual purpose, unless authorized by Congress; Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 266, 269, 19 S. Ct. 677, 678, construing similar Washington grant; London, etc., Bank v. Oakland, 90 Fed. 699, 61 U. S. App. 236, holding signing and filing of plat is dedication of street shown thereon; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 565, 42 L. 280, 17 S. Ct. 973, arguendo.

Evidence.- Division and apportionment of realty by final instrument between parties concerned, cannot be modified or controlled in possessory action by proof of preliminary negotiations or agreement; e. g., unofficial list of such realty, describing certain lot as having water front, p. 681.

"

Approved in Hazleton Tripod, etc., Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry., 72 Fed. 323, where agreement to furnish boilers "at cost was followed by written instrument designating amount.

Navigable waters.- Acquisition of fee in strip for street along river bank carries riparian rights, including right of wharfage, pp. 682-684.

Approved in St. Louis v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 114 Mo. 23, 21 S. W. 206, holding accretion to river shore bounded by street belongs to public.

Navigable waters.- Riparian proprietor is one whose land is bounded by navigable stream, and his rights as such include access to navigable part thereof, and right to make wharf, etc., subject to general legislative regulations, pp. 682, 683.

Approved in Clark v. Cambridge, etc., Imp. Co., 45 Neb. 807, 64 N. W. 241, holding vested riparian rights, property, unimpairable without compensation; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 24, 38 L. 340, 14 8. Ct. 556, reviewing various State laws as to riparian rights; Waite v. O'Neil, 72 Fed. 357, and, on appeal, S. C., 76 Fed. 415, 47 U. S. App. 19, 34 L. R. A. 555, holding riparian interest mere right of occupancy; dissenting opinion in Eisenbach v. Hatfield, 2 Wash. 282, 26 Pac. 553, 12 L. R. A. 651, and n., majority holding riparian owner has no rights of wharfage below high-water mark, as against