Supreme Court, the owner of upland bounding on navigable water has no title in the adjoining lands below high water mark, and no right to build wharves thereon, except as expressly permitted by statutes of the State; but the State has the title in those lands, and, unless they have been so built upon with its permission, the right to sell and convey them to any one, free of …

—being an incorporeal hereditament, but the right to build a wharf on the land of the State below high water, is a franchise which attaches to the tide land, and it is appurtenant to it rather than to the adjacent land, for it can be severed from the adjacent land and enjoyed without it. The legislature has established the right of the adjacent owners to sell the right of wharfing on …

The right to build wharves on soil owned by the state or public is a franchise which the adjacent owner enjoys from the state, subject to the public right of navigation.

—not necessarily pass to a grantee of the upland as ao incident and appurtenance of the latter, but the submerged land, or any part thereof, may be reserved: upon a gale of the upland, or be made the subject of separate sale, or be sold with the upland, the question of the intent of the grantor that the submerged land, or any part thereof. shall or shall not pass with the …

—instead, it held the plaintiff had a riparian right to build a wharf over the land claimed by defendant: "*** This right of wharfage is a franchise appurtenant to the riparian owner, and if any person builds a structure which interferes with it, by intervening between the shore and the keep water where ships can come and ride in safety, the owner of the shore may have such …

The court distinguished the Coquille Mill case because it did not involve a question of obstruction to navigation, as did the Reeder case, and stated further: "The court in its opinion referred to wharves and booms and did not in any way indicate that a'wharf'is to be construed as including a'boom'. The boom was not located within any city or town having regulatory …

The court stated in what probably is dictum: "Too much importance, I apprehend, has been attached to the tide-land act before referred to. I seriously doubt whether that act confers any new right upon the shore-owner in such cases, although he has purchased the land in front of him in accordance with its terms. The title he obtains is subordinate to the public right of …

The defendant Rogers received a grant from Cyrus Olney to upland in Astoria, which grant reserved the wharfing privileges.

"It [the wharfage statute] constitutes a license revocable at the pleasure of the legislature until acted upon.... The statute is, however, declarative of the right or privilege which existed at common law, the exercise of which might be regulated by statute; but so long as it was not prohibited it existed as a private right derived from the passive or implied license by the public …

[CITATION] Survey of Oregon's water laws

[CITATION] Oregon Compiled Laws Annotated: Containing the General Laws of Oregon to and …

[CITATION] Examination of titles: a practical manual on the examination of abstracts to …

[BOOK] Oregon Laws: Showing All the Laws of a General Nature in Force in the State …

[BOOK] The Lawyers Reports Annotated