Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/350

"338 FEDERAL REPORTER. �after the original Mil was flled, even though it arose out of the same transac- tion that was the subject of the original bill." Daniell, Ch. PI. & Pr. (4th Ed.) 1515, note. �We are of the opinion that this new matter cannot be incorporated in the bill of revivor by amendment, nor introduced in a supple- mental bill, and that the proper course for the complainants to pur- sue is to bring a new bill of revivor. �(1) The defendants' motion to strike from the files complainants' replications to plea and demurrer is granted. (2) The defendants' motion to dismiss bill of revivor is denied. (3) The complainants' motion to amend bill of revivor is denied. ���EuTZ V. City op St. Louts,* (Oirmit Court, E. D. Missouri. February 13, 1882.) �1. RiPABIAN RiGHTS— DlKBS — DAMAGES. �Where a city, by authority of an act of the legislature of the state in which it is situated, builds a dike extending into a navigable river, owners of land on the opposite shore and in another state, who suiier no loss in consequence of the erection of the dike, cannot maintain actions against the city for damages. �Action for damages alleged to have been sustained in consequence oi the defendant building a dike extending into the Mississippi river. �Upon the trial of this case, withoutthe intervention of a' jury, the court finds the facts to be : �That prior to 1874, and for several preeeding years, the current of the Mis- sissippi river was constantly eroding the east river bank, owned by the plain- tifC. Between that bank and the Missouri shore was an island, kno wn as Arse- nal island, the mainchannelof the river in 1874 being between said island and the Missouri shore, and immediately along the latter. Under an act of the Mis. souri legislature, and pursuant to an ordinanee of the defendant city under^ said act, with the view of improving the harbor of said city, a dike was built by it in 1874 known as the Bryan-street dike, extending into the Mississippi river and the main channel thereof 700 feet towards said island from the Missouri shore. The distance from the Missouri shore to the island, the head of which wasabove the dike, was 2,400 feet. Several witnesses were of opinion that the tendency of said dike was to detlect the current of the river to the east of the island and erode the bant owned by plaintiiis, which, as the evidence showed, had been washed away to the extent of 37 acres or more, valued at $300 per acre. Other �*Reported by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar. ��� �