Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Company v. Marvin Briggs

Decision Date26 May 1913
Docket NumberNo. 272,272
Citation57 L.Ed. 1083,33 S.Ct. 679,229 U.S. 82
PartiesLEWIS BLUE POINT OYSTER CULTIVATION COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. J. MARVIN BRIGGS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Howard Taylor for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 82-84 intentionally omitted] Assistant Attorney General denison and Mr. Louis G. Bissell for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice lurton delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action to restrain the defendant in error from dredging upon certain lands under the waters of Great South bay, in the state of New York. The defense was that the lands upon which he was engaged in dredging were under the navigable waters of the bay, which was a navigable area of the sea, over which enrolled and registered vessels passed in interstate commerce; that Congress had provided for the dredging of a channel some 2,000 feet long and 200 feet wide across said bay, and that defendant was engaged as a contractor with the United States in dredging the channel so authorized. The plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, averred that this channel would pass diagonally across submerged land in said bay which it held as lessee under the owner of the fee in the bed of the bay. The land so held under lease had been planted with oysters and had been long used for the cultivation of that variety of oyster known as the 'Blue Point.' The claim was that the dredging of such a channel would destroy the oysters of the plaintiff, not only along the line of excavation, but for some distance on either side, and greatly impair the value of his leasehold for oyster cultivation.

The New York court of appeals held that the title of every owner of lands beneath navigable waters was a qualified one, and subject to the right of Congress to deepen the channel in the interest of navigation, and such a 'taking' was not a 'taking' of private property for which compensation could be required. The judgment of the courts below discharging the injunction and dismissing the action was therefore affirmed.

The case comes here upon the claim that the dredging of such a channel, although in the interest of navigation, is a taking of private property without just compensation, forbidden by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The foundation of the title to a large portion of the soil lying under the water of Great South bay is found in certain royal patents made when the state of New York was a colonial dependency of Great Britain. Through the patents referred to and certain mesne conveyances, the lessors of the oyster company have been adjudged to be seised of the legal title to a large part of the land which lies at the bottom of that bay. That determination of title under the local law is not complained of, and must, of course, be accepted and followed by this court. The single question, therefore, is whether the deepening of the channel across the bay, in the interest of navigation, with the incidental consequence to the oyster plantation of the lessee company, is a taking of private property which may be enjoined unless provision for compensation has been made.

The cultivation of oysters upon the beds of the shallow waters of bays and inlets of the sea, and of the rivers affected by the tides, has become an industry of great importance. In many localities the business is regulated by the laws of the states in which such waters are situated, and the beds of such waters are parceled out among those owning the bottom or holding licenses from the state, and marked off by stakes indicating the boundaries of each cultivator. The contention is that whether title to such an area at the bottom of navigable salt waters comes from the state, or, as in the case here, from royal patents antedating the state's right, such actual interest is thereby acquired that when such area so planted and cultivated is invaded for the purpose of deepening the water in aid of navigation, private property is taken. For this, counsel cite the cases of Brown v. United States, 81 Fed. 55, decided by Circuit Court Judge Simonton; and Richardson v. United States, 100 Fed. 714, also decided by the same eminent judge. They also cite and rely upon Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States 148 U. S. 312, 37 L. ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622. In the Brown Case, Judge Simonton, while recognizing that the navigable waters of the United States were within the jurisdiction of the United States, which has control over their improvement for navigation, was of opinion that, so long as the owner of the bed of such bodies of water did not use it 'for the erection of structures impeding or obstructing navigation,' his ownership of the bottom, and his right to put it to such use as did not obstruct navigation, was a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • United States v. Kansas City Life Ins Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1950
    ...60 L.Ed. 808; Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U.S. 251, 35 S.Ct. 551, 59 L.Ed. 939; Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs, 229 U.S. 82, 33 S.Ct. 679, 57 L.Ed. 1083. Loss of access to a navigable stream is not compensable. Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141, 21 S.Ct.......
  • United States v. Cress No 84 United States v. Achilles Kelly No 718
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1917
    ...Water Power Co. 229 U. S. 53, 62, 57 L. ed. 1063, 1075, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667; Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs, 229 U. S. 82, 85, 88, 57 L. ed. 1083-1085, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 679, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 232; Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U. S. 251, 268, 59 L. ed. 939......
  • James v. Dravo Contracting Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1937
    ...United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 61, 62, 33 S.Ct. 667, 57 L.Ed. 1063; Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 229 U.S. 82, 88, 33 S.Ct. 679, 680, 57 L.Ed. 1083, Ann.Cas.1915A, 232), or whether the tax lays a burden upon governmental operations; it is simply one ......
  • State v. City of Tampa
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1924
    ... ... point in Tampa Bay where the section lines between ... under tide waters are incapable of cultivation or improvement ... in the manner of lands above ... Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L ... Ed. 23; Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v ... Briggs, ... lands to a railroad company contained in section 6, c. 5595, ... Acts of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • THE FEDERAL PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE OF ILLINOIS CENTRAL: THE MISUNDERSTOOD LEGACY OF APPLEBY V. CITY OF NEW YORK.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 No. 2, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...at 391-97 (citing cases relied on in Appleby III, 139 N.E. 474, 475-76 (1923); e.g., Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs, 229 U.S. 82 (1913); Trustees, etc., of Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N.Y. 74 (1907); Barnes v. Midland R.R. Terminal Co., 193 N.Y. 378 (191) Appleby IV, 271 U.S......
  • Tradable emissions programs: implications under the takings clause.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 26 No. 1, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...estoppel); Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U.S. 251, 264-66 (1915) (same); Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivahon Co. v. Briggs, 229 U.S. 82, 89 (same). (86) General Motors, 323 U.S. at 383-84. (87) 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). (88) Id. at 1027-28. (89) 444 U.S. 51 (1979). (90) Id. at 67......
  • Requiem for Regulation
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 44-11, November 2014
    • November 1, 2014
    ...government was also empowered to regulate broader aspects of the nation’s economy. 20. Lewis v. Blue Point Oysters Cultivation Co., 229 U.S. 82, 85 (1913). 21. Id. at 89. 22. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 383-84 (1926). 23. Id. at 384. 24. Id. at 392. 25. Id. at 389.......
  • The World Is Their Oyster? Interpreting the Scope of Native American Off-reservation Shellfish Rights in Washington State
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 23-04, June 2000
    • Invalid date
    ...added). 121. Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S. 658, 678 n.23 (1979). 122. See, e.g., Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. J. Marvin Briggs, 229 U.S. 82, 86 (1913): "The cultivation of oysters . . . has become an industry of great importance . . . [oyster beds] are parceled out among those owni......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT