Linthicum v. Ray — 76 U.S. 241

76 U.S. 241 (____) 9 Wall. 241 LINTHICUM v. RAY. Supreme Court of United States. *242 Messrs. Bradley and Wills, for the plaintiff in error. Messrs. Cox and Davidge, contra. Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: We do not deem it important to consider whether the conveyance to Smith from Templeman, the trustee, was authorized by the power contained in the deed to the latter, or whether the subsequent conveyances under Smith operated *243 to vest a good title to the land upon which the present wharf is situated, or such a right of wharfage as to authorize the construction and exclusive use of the present wharf. The possession of the defendant under color and with claim of title is sufficient to put the plaintiff upon proof of a better title to the wharf, or, at least, of an equal right with the defendant to its use. And such proof he has not produced. The deed of the two Lowndes to the Johns in 1804, under which he derives all the claim he possesses, only conferred a right to the use of the wharf then in existence, and not any general right of wharfage, or any right to the land covered by the wharf. Its language is that it grants the right "of using the wharf built" by the Lowndes, referring clearly to the structure then erected. And the right to use the wharf is limited to that of mooring to it the ships and vessels of the grantees, for loading and unloading, and of passing over it goods imported or exported by them. The deed contains no provision for keeping the wharf in repair, or for building a new one in case of its destruction, or any clause indicating an intention to confer any right or privilege of greater duration than that of the structure then existing. Nor was the right to use the wharf made appurtenant to the twenty-feet lot, situated on the north side of Water Street, by being conveyed to the Johns in the same instrument. It was in no way connected with the enjoyment or use of the lot, and a right not thus connected cannot be annexed as an incident to land so as to become appurtenant to it. [*] The right was not attached as an incident to any estate; it passed by a grant in gross, and was necessarily limited in its duration by the existence of the structure with which it was connected. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. NOTES [*] Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 Com. Bench, 164.

Public-domain opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reproduced from the court record (U.S. Reports). Historical text may contain OCR artifacts. Provided for reference — not legal advice.