The soil under the public navigable waters of East New Jersey
belongs to the state and not to the proprietors. This Court so
decided in the case of
Martin v.
Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, and the principle covers a
case where land has been reclaimed from the water under an act of
the legislature.
This action of ejectment was brought to recover a tract of land
at Paulus Hook, now Jersey City, on the Jersey shore, formerly
under the tidewaters of the Hudson River, and below low water mark.
The
locus in quo has been reclaimed from the water by
artificial means, and was in the possession of the Jersey
Associates, and occupied by them as building lots.
Upon the trial in the circuit court, it was ruled that the
plaintiff had failed to make out a title, and the jury found for
the defendants.
The plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court, and the
cause came up on a writ of error.
Page 56 U. S. 432
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff in error
against the defendants in the Circuit Court for the District of New
Jersey to recover a parcel of land situate in Jersey City. The land
in question has been reclaimed from the water by the defendants
under the authority of the legislature, and is now in their
possession, and occupied by them as building lots.
The plaintiff claims the premises under sundry mesne conveyances
from the Proprietors of East New Jersey, and the title of the
proprietors is the point in question. And they claim that by virtue
of the various grants by which they became proprietors of East New
Jersey, the fee of the soil under the navigable waters of that part
of the state was conveyed to them as private property subject to
the public use, and as that use has ceased in the premises in
question, they are entitled to their exclusive possession.
It is not necessary to state particularly the charters and
grants under which they claim. They are all set out in the special
verdict in the case of
Martin v.
Waddell,, reported in 16 Pet. 367. The title
claimed on behalf of the proprietors in that case was the same with
the title upon which the plaintiff now relies. And upon very full
argument and consideration in the case referred to, the Court was
of opinion that the soil under the public navigable waters of East
New Jersey belonged to the state, and not to the proprietors, and
upon that ground gave judgment for the defendant. The decision in
that case must govern this.
The counsel for the plaintiff, however, endeavor to distinguish
the case before us from the former one upon the ground that nothing
but the right of fishery was decided in
Martin v. Waddell,
and not the right to the soil. But they would seem to have
overlooked the circumstance that it was an action of ejectment for
the land covered with water. It was not an action for disturbing
the plaintiff in a right of fishery, but an action to recover
possession of the soil itself. And in giving judgment for the
defendant the court necessarily decided upon the title to the
soil.
It is true the defendant claimed nothing more than the exclusive
right of planting and growing oysters on the soil for which the
ejectment was brought. The special verdict found that he was in
possession under a law of New Jersey which gave him the exclusive
privilege of planting and growing oysters on the premises in
question upon the payment of a certain rent to the state. The
principle question therefore in dispute between the parties in that
suit, and indeed the only one of any value, was the oyster fishery.
But the right to the fishery depended on the right to the soil upon
which the oysters were planted and grown,
Page 56 U. S. 433
and if the plaintiff could have shown that the proprietors under
whom he claimed were legally entitled to it, the judgment of the
court must have been in his favor.
Nor do we see anything in the opinion delivered on that occasion
in relation to the rights of fishery further than they contributed
to illustrate the character and objects of the charter to the Duke
of York, and to show that the soil, under public and navigable
waters, was granted to him, not as private property, to be parceled
out and sold for his own personal emolument; but as a part of the
jura regalia with which he was clothed, and as such was
surrendered by the proprietors to the English Crown when they
relinquished the powers of government, and consequently belonged to
the State of New Jersey when it became an independent
sovereignty.
There being nothing in the title now claimed for the proprietors
to distinguish this case from that of
Martin v. Waddell,
it is not necessary to examine the other and further grounds of
defense taken by the defendants.
The judgment of the circuit court must be
Affirmed with costs.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New
Jersey and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is
now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of
the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby
affirmed with costs.