Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/789

LONERGAN V. SIISSISSiPPl BIVER BEIDGB 00. 777 �LoNBeGAN V. Misfctssippi EivEii Beidgb Co. ■ (Oirmit Court, E.jy.Miesowi. Pebruary 6, 1881.) ; • �1. eeection OF DiKB lii Mississippi KiviBK — OvERFLoirtasa LiiiJDS — ' iNJuRiNfl Febet FhanchhIb. ■ • �Suit to recQver damages SQPiiJitiries allegei to haVe, Ueqn .dx)i»e ito �, certain Ia44s, aad to a certain, feia-yfraiwibise, by reasofi pf J.hecpn-' �struotion of a'certain dike jn t|ie Mississippi river % the defendant. �Held, (1) that piàintiffliad, uiieertiie laws bf iflinois, and ticcording �to ^he: evidenœe,;no!itItle tOj tha laiids, Jor injury tO iwhicb the iuit �was.hrouglit; (2) that the actpf t^egene/al assenibly :of, IlUj(ipwi �granting, a charter for a ferry across the Mississippi river, under �whicfi the piaintifE claims, did riot gfve the ^ranlSee ah/right to cori- �■ trol the chanriel of theriv^, or %o pt'ëvenj. its imprôvemiebt; Mihout �compensation toMmby the IJnit^Btates. ,. , li /'i,- �MmUsip^ I^if^ £ndge.Uo.Y. i/citeifi'«»,91IlL-508^fDllowed.-r[E^ �D. P. I)^eH forplailitiff. ' ' :- , ■ i <^ fu �R. H. eern,ioi àeienàaûi. ' . McCbaey, C. i.,(prally.) The plaintiffsuëà ihe' defendant lo recover damages foir injury alleged to have been done to certain lands àfad t6 a certain ferry franchise by reason of the cônatruistiôh of à cei-tain dike in the Mississippi river by defendant. By an act of congress approved March 3, 1871, the erection of a railwày bridge' àeross the MissisEsippi river at Louisiana, Missouri, was authorized, whieh bridge' was' to bë built tinder and accbrding to siich regulations ffcir the security of the navigation of the river as the secretary of war shouid prescribe. 16 St. at Large, 478. The secretary of war, in pûrsuance of the reconlniendation of a bbard of engiileers, required the erection of the dike in question for the 'better improvernent of the navigation of the river. The bridge con- nepted j,yfo great thoroughfafës by rail, terminating on *th'e opposite Danks of the river, ' . �The plaiutiff alleges that the couaeguehce of the erection of the dike was to injure lands belofti^ihg"to him àdjeliiiing the river, and also to impair the value of his ferry franchise, under which he was authorized to run a ferry across the Mis- sissippi river at Louisiana. The question is, can he recover ?• �This identical controversy has been before the courts of Illi- ����