Rowe v. Smith

48 Conn. 444
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedDecember 7, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 48 Conn. 444 (Rowe v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rowe v. Smith, 48 Conn. 444 (Colo. 1880).

Opinions

Pardee, J.

In 1875 the town of New Haven by virtue of Gen. Statutes, page 214, section two, had power to appoint a committee which could designate suitable places for planting or cultivating oysters in the navigable waters within the limits of the town. At the same time the selectmen of the town of East Haven had exclusive authority to designate for the like use the navigable waters included within a boundary line commencing upon the line of division in East Haven River between East Haven and Branford, opposite low water mark, and extending thence southerly along the line of division between the navigable waters of East Haven and Branford, to the intersection of a line so drawn as to cross the centers of Stony Island and Southwest Ledge; thence westerly along the last mentioned line to Southwest Ledge; thence northwesterly by a direct line to the line of division between the navigable waters of East Haven and Orange; thence northerly along the last mentioned line of division to a point west of the southerly limit of Morris Oove; thence easterly by the shortest line to low water mark.

[446]*446The plaintiff claimed title to the locus in quo from a designation from the selectmen of East Haven, dated June 12th, 1875, to E. G. Bates and others, and by them transferred to him.

In 1877 the legislature passed the following special resolution:—“Besolved by this Assembly, that that part of the boundary line between the towns of New Haven and East Haven which lies south of a line drawn due west from the south7west corner of the fortification on the east side of New Haven harbor, called Fort Hale, shall be and remain as follows:—a straight line commencing at a point four hundred and thirty yards due west from the western extremity of the shore at low water mark, west of the south-west corner of the fortification aforesaid and running southwesterly through, and three-fourths of a mile below, a point two hundred and thirty yards due west of the westerly extremity of Southwest Ledge, as shown upon the map of New Haven harbor made by the United States Coast Survey, and published in 1872. Nothing herein contained shall operate to affect in any manner any question of boundaries between the towns of New Haven and Orange.” Private Acts of 1877, page 107.

The plaintiff also claimed title from a designation dated June 22d, 1877, by the selectmen of East Haven, acting under this resolution and under a public act passed in 1877, (Session Laws of 1877, p. 200, ch. 95,) to George A. Cook and others, and by them transferred to him.

The defendants claimed title to it from a designation made on August 25th, 1875, by the committee of New Haven, to Sidney F. Smith and others, and by them transferred to the defendants.

By the charter of 1662 Charles II. granted lands to the corporate freemen of the colony of Connecticut. With these lands, under the name of “ royalties,” went the royal title to the shores of the sea. The grant in 1685 from the General Assembly to the proprietors of New Haven was in effect of land bounded upon the shore; it did not undertake to convey the title of the colony to the shores of the sea. Therefore, so far forth as territorial proprietorship is concerned, New [447]*447Haven terminated at high water mark, between Stony River on the east and Oyster River on the west, following the indentations of the coast, crossing the bay or harbor upon a line drawn between the points upon opposite shores, from one of which objects and actions can be discerned by the naked eye upon the other. At the revolution the title to the shores of the sea passed from the corporate freemen of the colony to the people of the state, and in them remains the proprietorship of fisheries, shell and floating, in its navigable waters. Towns have no ownership in or control over them. The legislature alone can create an individual proprietorship in them. This it can do directly, or through a committee, general or special, or by any other method satisfactory to itself.

The state enforces public and private justice over territory below high water mark by service of process there through the instrumentality of the town at whose front such service may become necessary, except in cases of special provision to the contrary. For this purpose lines called lines of division between towns and counties are considered as extending through navigable waters, being meridional lines drawn from the termini of lines separating territorial proprietorship in towns to the line between Connecticut and New York in Long Island Sound.

In the act cited and in others referring to the allotment of territory to individuals for oyster planting, the legislature, while recognizing the existence of boundary lines between towns in waters outside of territorial proprietorship, and making such lines of separation between private proprietorship existing by its grant, has omitted to locate them by fixed monuments. The line between East Haven and Bran-ford is described as extending from a point at low water mark “ southerly;” the line between East Haven and Orange as running “northerly.” We are not to presume that the legislature intended to have any element of uncertainty as to their course, but that it used these words as having a precise signification by reason of the rule of law which makes boundary lines thus described, there being no word or monu[448]*448ment deflecting them, due north and south lines. Thus, in Brandt ex dem. Walton v. Ogden, 1 Johns. R., 156, it was determined that “the term northerly in a grant, where there is no object to direct its inclination to the east or to the west, must be construed to mean north, and there being no object to control, it must be a due north line.'” See also Jackson ex dem. Woodworth v. Lindsay, 3 Johns. R., 86, and Jackson ex dem. Clark v. Reeves, 3 Caines R., 293.

And as it is a matter of common knowledge that since the passage of these acts the agents of the state making grants upon valuable consideration, and individuals taking them, have recognized this rule, we find no occasion for substituting another.

And we believe that prior to the passage of these acts this rule of a meridional line had been recognized whenever there had been occasion therefor in the administration of public and private justice. Moreover, as the shore line of this state may be said to be practically east and west in its general course, the meridional line alone gives to each town its due proportion of navigable waters; it alone can be extended without intersection and consequent confusion.

In 1785 East Haven was carved from New Haven and incorporated as a town; it borders upon Branford eastwardly, upon the Sound southwardly, and upon the bay and harbor of New Haven and E.ast River westwardly. In 1803 the legislature defined the separating line of territorial proprietorship between New Haven and East Haven as passing from the mouth of East River along the middle of the channel of the bay or harbor to an intersection with the line drawn from the shore of one town to that of the other, between points from one of which objects and actions can be seen by the naked eye from the other, which point of intersection as it existed in 1803 is to be fixed by the jury.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shoreline Shellfish, LLC v. Branford
336 Conn. 403 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2020)
Water Street Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Innopak Plastics Corp.
646 A.2d 790 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)
State v. Brennan
216 A.2d 294 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1965)
Delinks v. William McGowan
173 A.2d 488 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1961)
Rochester v. Barney
169 A. 45 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1933)
Darling v. City of Newport News
96 S.E. 307 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1918)
Keister's Appeal From Shell Fish Commissioners
92 A. 744 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1914)
Brower v. Wakeman
89 A. 913 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1914)
Town of Clinton v. Buell
11 A. 38 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1887)
Elphick v. Hoffman
49 Conn. 331 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 Conn. 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-smith-conn-1880.