Deddrick v. Wood
| Decision Date | 12 July 1850 |
| Citation | 15 Pa. 9 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | Deddrick <I>versus</I> Wood. |
The question here agitated is to be solved by the proper construction of the act of March 4, 1807. (4 Smith's Laws 369, 370.) It is entitled, "An act declaring part of Brush Creek, in the county of Bedford, and parts of Allegheny River, and Oswayo and Conondau Creeks, in the counties of Potter and McKean, and Bald Eagle Creek, in Centre county, public streams or highways." Its first section ordains that Brush Creek be, and the same is hereby declared a public stream or highway, for the passage of boats and rafts, and that it shall be lawful for persons desirous of using the navigation of said creek, to remove all obstructions therein. The second section declared Oswayo Creek a public stream or highway, for the same purposes and under the same provisions as are contained in the first section; and the third, using similar terms, confers on Conondau Creek and Allegheny River, south of the State line, the same character of public highway. The fifth section subjects all persons owning or possessing land on either of these streams, to all the provisions and restrictions of the act of 23d March, 1803. And that act, while it authorizes owners of land adjoining any navigable stream of water, declared by law to be a public highway, with certain exceptions, to erect dams necessary for mills or other waterworks, expressly prohibits them to impede or obstruct the navigation of the streams. Looking to the general direction and scope of these provisions, I think it is obvious enough that the leading object of the legislature, when enacting the law of 1807, was to invest the several watercourses named in it, with the character of public and common thoroughfares, to be used by the people for the purposes of transportation, in such manner as their lawful occasions might require. The preamble declares the purpose to be the creation of highways, and the body of the act authorizes every one, desirous of using the navigation, to remove all obstructions; while the act of 1803, which by reference is incorporated with and made part of the subsequent statute, prohibits all impediments of the general navigation. But it is said, the universality of these provisions is restricted by the introduction of the terms, "for the passage of boats and rafts," which, read in connection with the other portions of the act, indicate a determination to confine the use of streams to their navigation by boats and rafts only. Considering, however, the inconveniences that might attend this construction, in a country where its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. Maritime Management, Inc.
...Weston, Public Rights in Pennsylvania Waters, 49 Temple Law Quarterly 515, 527-35 (1976). Additionally, our Supreme Court in Deddrick v. Wood, 15 Pa. 9 (1850), held that an Act declaring a creek to be a public stream or highway for the passage of boats and rafts and prohibiting any obstruct......
-
State v. Gilletto
...v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574, 591; People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 59, 18 N. E. 692, 2 L. R. A. 255, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684; Deddrick v. Wood, 15 Pa. 9, It does not appear, however, that we are forced to rely upon the light thrown upon this provision by its title, nor by the provisions with which......
-
State v. Gilletto
......310, 313; People v. Davenport, 91 N.Y. 574, 591; People v. O'Brien, 111 N.Y. 1, 59, 18. N.E. 692, 2 L.R.A. 255, 7 Am.St.Rep. 684; Deddrick v. Wood, 15 Pa. 9, 12. . . It. does not appear, however, that we are forced to rely upon the. light thrown upon this provision by its ......