FERRY. A liberty to have a boat upon a river for the transportation of men, horses, and carriages with their contents, for a rea sonable toll. State v. Wilson, 42 Me. 9; State v. Freeholders of Hudson County, 23 N. J. L. 206; Woolr. Ways 217. The term is also used to designate the place where such liberty is exercised ; Chapelle v. Wells, 4 Mart. La. (N. S.) 426. Ferry properly means a place of transit across a river or arm of the sea ; but in law it is treated as a fran chise, and defined as the exclusive right to carry passengers across a river, or arm of the sea, from one vill to another, or to con nect a continuous line of road leading from one township or vill to another. It is not a servitude or easement. It is wholly un connected with the ownership or occupation of land, so much so that the owner of the ferry need not have any property in the soil adjacent on either side. 12 C. B. N. S. 32.
In a strict sense a ferry is a continuation of a highway from one side of the water to the other and is for the transportation of passengers, vehicles and other property; Mayor, etc., of New York v. Starin, 106 N. Y. 11, 12 N. E. 631; Broadnax v. Baker, 94 N. C. 675, 55 Am. Rep. 633. A boat equipped with tracks for railroad cars and exclusively used for their transportation as a part of a through railroad line is not an ordinary fer ry, but is essentially a part of interstate commerce; St. Clair County v. Transfer Co., 192 U. S. 454, 24 Sup. Ct. 300, 48 L. Ed. 518.
The point of departure was held to be the home of the ferry where it crossed the river which was the boundary between Ohio and West Virginia, although the jurisdiction of West Virginia extended to low-water mark on the Ohio side ; State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122, 46 S. E. 269, 63 L. R. A. 877, 102 Am. St. Rep. 927, 1 Ann. Cas. 104.
An exclusive right of ferry exists where one acquires the sole and exclusive privilege of taking tolls for such service. The ele ment of receiving payment is essential, as one may lawfully transport his own goods in a boat, where an exclusive right of ferry is held by another ; Alexandria, W. & K. Ferry Co. v. Wisch, 73 Mo. 655, 39 Am. Rep. 535.
In England, ferries are established by royal grant or by prescription, which is an implied grant ; in the United States, by leg islative authority, exercised either directly or by a delegation of powers to courts, com missioners, or municipalities; Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of War
ren Bridge, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 344; id., 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773; Wethersfield v. Humphrey, 20 Conn. 218 ; Day v. Stetson, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 365; Cloyes v. Keatts, 18 Ark. 19. Without such authority no one, though he may be the owner of both banks of the river, has the right to keep a public ferry ; Stark v. Miller, 3 Mo. 470; Trustees of Schools v. Tatman, 13 111. 27 ; Young v. Har rison, 6 Ga. 130; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773 ; Willes 508 ; though after twenty years' uninterrupted use such authority will be presumed to have been granted ; Pipkin v. Wynns, 13 N. C. 402; Stark v. McGowen, 1 N. & McC. (S. C.) 389; Mills v. St. Clair County Com'rs, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 53; Williams v. Turner, 7 Ga. 348 ; but see Scott v. Wil son, 11 S. W. 303, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 940. The franchise of a ferry will, in preference, be granted to the owner of the soil, but may be granted to another ; and by virtue of the right of eminent domain the soil of another may be condemned to the use of the ferry, upon making just compensation ; 6 B. & C. 703; Allen v. Farnsworth, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 189; Sparks v. White, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 86; Pipkin v. Wynns, 13 N. C. 403 ; Harrison v. Young, 9 Ga. 359 ; Harvie v. Cammack, 6 Dana (Ky.) 242; Warner v. Mfg. Co., 123 Ky. 103, 93 S. W. 650, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 667; Day v. Stetson, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 365; In re Hanson, 2 Cal. 262. If the termini of the ferry be a highway, the owner of the fee will not be entitled to compensation; 3 Kent 421; Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County v. State, 24 N. J. L. 718; Somerville v. Wim bish-, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 205; though in Penn sylvania and other states a different doc trine prevails; Cooper v. Smith, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 31, 11 Am. Dec. 658; Chess v. Man own, 3 Watts (Pa.) 219; Pearsall v. Post, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) ; 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 520; Corporation of Memphis v. Overton, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 387. See EMINENT DOMAIN.