Aborn v. Smith
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Bill in equity brought by the complainants against tbe respondents, who were coterminous riparian owners. The bill charged “ that each of said estates of your orators and said defendants consists partly of upland and partly of river flats, flowed by tide water, lying between the original high water line ■of said river and the harbor line thereof as there established, and that the dividing or boundary line of said estates between said original high water line and said harbor…
Read the full summary
Bill in equity brought by the complainants against tbe respondents, who were coterminous riparian owners. The bill charged “ that each of said estates of your orators and said defendants consists partly of upland and partly of river flats, flowed by tide water, lying between the original high water line ■of said river and the harbor line thereof as there established, and that the dividing or boundary line of said estates between said original high water line and said harbor line has become, and is, obscure and uncertain, the land on either side of the same having been already in part filled…
1Opinion of the CourtDubpee, C. J.
We do not think this bill is maintainable under Public Laws, cap. 453, April 1, 1875, for that act only confers jurisdiction where boundaries once existing have been lost or have become obscure and uncertain. West Hartford Ecclesiastical Society v. The First Baptist Church in West Hartford, 35 Conn. 117 ; Perry v. Pratt, 31 Conn. 433, 441; Washington Co. v. Matteson, ante, p. 550.
This is not a suit to reestablish a boundary which has been lost, but to determine one which has never before been defined.
Is the bill maintainable under the general chancery powers of the court ? Ordinarily a coui't…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Donnell v. . KelseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- West Hartford Ecclesiastical Society v. First Baptist ChurchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
- Perry v. PrattSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863