RIPARIAN OWNERS. While it may be true that raparian owners may wharf out to deep water, this right is in the nasure of a franchise or privilege to be exercised or not by him, but should he neglect to wharf out, he is not entitled to the possession of the land below high-water mark. He can maintain an action for damages, should he desire to wharf out and is unlawfully obstructed in the exercise of the right, and if the obstruction amounts to a public nuisance, it may be abated by appropriate proceedings; or if it be only a private nuisance, which obstructs the exercise of his rights to wharf out, he may possibly cause it to be abated; but he has no such right or title to the possession of the bed of the ocean as will enable him to maintain ejactment; the title to such lands is in the State. What the term "affixed" to the land means-Assuming that the land-end of a wharf rests upon and is embedded in the plaintiff's land, and that the portion of it which is below high-water mark is attached to the other by nails, bolts, and screws, and rests on piles driven into the bed of the ocean; it is to this land that the structure is affixed, and not to plaintiff's. A stranger to the title can not claim, under § 662 Civil Code; what is incidental or appurtenant must be "by right used with the land for its benefits." Coburn vs. Ames, 99. SATISFACTION. See EXECUTION. SEALED PROPOSALS. See RESOLUTION OF INTENTION. SEPARATE ESTATE. A Court of Equity has no power to enforce any claim arising prior to the adoption of the Codes as an incumbrance on the separate real estate of a married woman, unless such claim was a lien by virtue of a written contract. Meagher vs. Thompson, 167. SHERIFF. A surety on the official bond of a Sheriff is not liable for the penalty affixed by the statute; only actual damages sustained can be recovered against them. Glasscock vs. Ashman et al, 135. STATE LANDS. The Act of March 2, 1872, has a retroactive effect and was intended to relieve all purchasers of State lands. Hence, Baker, who was a County Surveyor and therefore prohibited from making application to purchase, was by this Act relieved; he having made payments, and holding a certificate of purchase issued before any other application was filed.-Yoakum vs. Brower, 209 The Act of March 2, 1872, has a retroactive effect and was intended to relieve all purchasers of State lands. Hence, one who has made application and holding a certificate of purchase, has a valid right to complete his pur chase, notwithstanding he failed to pay twenty per cent. of the purchase money and one year's interest within fifty days after approval of his application. Campbell vs. Heinlen, 328. See ROGERS VS. SHANNON, 404. STREET ASSESSMENT. Where the specifications and contract include more work than the resolution, recovery can be had for only such as is included in the resolution, and not the whole assessment. Note We do not understand that the plaintiff is barred from bringing an appropriate action for the extra work done. He can not claim it by an action under the resolution. Dyer vs. Chase, 153. When two or more lots are assessed for expenses of work on a street, each lot is chargeable only with the amount assessed upon it, and not for the amount assessed against another lot. In enforcing the lien of an assessment, the judgment should state the· amount for which each lot is liable, and should order a sale of each lot, or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy such amount and costs. Bardy vs. Kelly, 99. See RESOLUTION OF INVENTION. SUMMONS. Section 407 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the summons shall contain the cause and general nature of the action, and when it fails to do this it is defective, if made by publication, and no judgment can be properly entered under it. People vs. Green, 375. See PRACTICE AND PLEADINGS. SUPERVISORS. The Act of March 25, 1874, "to ratify and confirm certain ordinances," etc., is in violation of the Constitution of the State, and therefore void. The Legislature has no power to levy an assessment within a city, and where an act is passed confirming or ratifying ordinances that are fatally defective it is at best an attempt to levy an assessment, and is therefore void. There is no difference between fixing a lien without authority of law and taking property without legal process. Therefore the Act of the Legislature fixing a sum as due upon each lot, under a void assessment, was arbitrary and without due process of law. Brady vs. King et al. See CONSOLIDATION ACT; RESOLUTION OE INTENTION. SURETY. See SHERIFF; PROBATE COURT. SURVEYS. When descriptive calls are at variance with what seems the true boundary lines, they must be disregarded. An agreement for a survey, to ascertain true lines independent of other cirumstances, does not create an estoppel. Spring vs. Heuston, 152. TRESPASSER. See LAND. UNDUE INFLUENCE. See WILLS. VERDICT. If the verdict goes beyond the issues raised by the pleading, and passes WILLS. The will was executed when the testatrix was under the influence of liquor. See ADMINISTRATION. Other States. Jurisdiction of State Courts as to mortgage made by bankrupt, 231 Lawful Act made criminal-Limits of Federal Legislation, 396 State Courts and receivers appointed by Federal Courts, 247 251 Liability of Telegraph Companies, 255 Fraudulent mortgage of personal property, 74 Privileged Communications, 75 Contributory negligence, 58 Jurisdiction of U. S. Circuit Court-Stockholder's Bill, 122 Bank Deposits--Bankruptcy, 169 Municipal Negligence, 60 Municipal bond, 67 Appellate procedure, 72 Negligence causing fire, 137 Joint and several wrong doers, 181 Constitutional law-taxation, 220 Indorsement of notes, 185 Deed of Lunatic-Jurisdiction of Probate Court, 105 Bankruptcy-Composition, 108 Composition-Rights of Creditor, 218 Bankruptcy-Motion to dismiss, 117 Collision-Moderate speed, 320 Loss of baggage carried free, 125 Coercion in fact, 154 Liability of married women, 173 Libel-Evidence, 203 |