Marsh v. Colby
| Decision Date | 01 November 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 626 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joshua G. Marsh v. William Colby |
Submitted April 3, 1878
Error to Shiawassee.
Trespass for fishing in plaintiff's lake. Defendant brings error.
Judgment reversed with costs of this court.
Hugh McCurdy for plaintiff in error. Sailing over the waters of a lake owned by another is not a trespass, Merritt v. Walsh, 32 N. Y., 690; DePuy v. Strong, 37 N. Y., 372; 2 Waterman on Trespass, § 768; Phillips v. DeGroat, 2 Lans. 192; Campbell v. Arnold, 1 Johns. 511.
Gould & Lyon for defendant in error. The owner of the land beneath inland waters has the exclusive right of fishery in the water, Hudson v. MacRae, 4 B. & S., 584; Hargreaves v. Diddams, 10 Q. B., 582: 14 Eng. 382; Com. v. Chapin, 5 Pick. 199; Waters v. Lilley, 4 Pick. 145; and one who goes upon the water for the purpose of fishing commits a trespass even if no fish are caught, Woolrych's Law of Waters, 123, 231-2; 2 Waterman on Trespass, 275; Holford v. Bailey, 13 Jur. 278: 18 L. J., Q. B., 109: 13 Q. B., 426.
The small lake or pond on which the alleged trespass was committed was almost entirely enclosed within the lines of plaintiff's farm. Whatever question might arise respecting the right to exclusive fisheries in larger bodies of water, the right of the land-owner to the exclusive control of small bodies thus situated would seem clear.
It has always been customary, however, to permit the public to take fish in all the small lakes and ponds of the State, and in the absence of any notification to the contrary, we think any one may understand that he is licensed to do so. No such notification appears in this case, and we therefore hold that the defendant was not a trespasser in passing upon plaintiff's land with the intent to take fish, having no knowledge that objection existed to his doing so.
Judgment reversed with costs of this court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sterling v. Jackson
...the respective rights claimed to exist in this case, therefore, we have nothing to do with questions which arise in private waters. In Marsh Colby the lake was entirely owned by adjacent proprietors, and the real controversy was whether each of them had common rights of boating and angling ......
-
Collins v. Gerhardt
...tolerate these practices until they become annoying or injurious, and then put a stop to them.’ On this subject see Marsh v. Colby, 39 Mich. 626, 33 Am. Rep. 439. Counsel for defendant insists the right to fish is an easement incident to the right of navigation. In Albright v. Cortright, su......
-
Baker v. Normanoch Ass'n
...St. 336, 24 N.E. 686, 8 L.R.A. 579 (Sup.Ct.1890); Beckman v. Kreamer, 43 Ill. 447, 92 Am.Dec. 146 (Sup.Ct.1867); Marsh v. Colby, 39 Mich. 626, 33 Am.Rep. 439 (Sup.Ct.1878); Decker v. Baylor, 133 Pa. 168, 19 A. 351 (Sup.Ct.1890); Turner v. Selectmen of Hebron, 61 Conn. 175, 22 A. 951, 14 A.L......
-
Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Buccino
...336, 24 N.E. 686, 8 L.R.A. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1890); Beckman v. Kreamer, 43 111. 447, 92 Am. Dec. 146 (Sup. Ct. 1867); Marsh v. Colby, 39 Mich. 626, 33 Am. Rep. 439 (Sup. Ct. 1878); Decker v. Baylor, 133 Pa. St. 168, 19 A. 351 (Sup. Ct. 1890); Turner v. Selectmen of Hebron, 61 Conn. 175, 22 A. 9......