Allen v. Allen
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Defendant’s petition for a new trial. This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit¿ The plaintiff’s close was described, in the declaration as bounded by Narragansett Bay. The alleged trespass proven was the digging of clams below high water mark in a thatch bed which ran out from the upland, and thereby destroying the thatch.
1Per curiam
A riparian proprietor whose land borders upon tide water has, by the common law, certain private rights to the shore between high and low water mark. These do not amount to seizin in fee, but are in the nature of franchises or easements. East Haven v. Hemingway, 7 Conn. 186, 202; Simons v. French, 25 Conn. 346, 352; Lockwood v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 37 Conn. 387. The right to build wharves and to fill out the upland may be exercised, as against anyone but the State provided navigation is not impeded, or a nuisance created thereby. Engs v. Peckham, 11 R. I. 210 ; Bailey v. Burges, ib. 330.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Inhabitants of East-Haven v. HemingwaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
- Simons v. FrenchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
- Moulton v. LibbeySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
- Lockwood v. New York & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- Robert v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1811
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Newport Realty, Inc. v. LynchSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2005
- State v. IbbisonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1982
- Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce v. StateSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1995
- Hall v. NascimentoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1991
- Jackvony v. PowelSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.