WHARF. A space of ground artificially prepared for the reception of merchandise from a ship or vessel, so as to promote the convenient loading and discharge of such vessel.
A wharf occupied by a ferry company, to which access can only be had through a gate controlled by the ferry company, or over pilvate property of another, is a private wharf ; Malloy v. R. Co., 78 Hun 166, 28 N. Y. Supp. 979; but a public quay in a city, dedicated to public use, does not cease to be locus publicus and become private property because it is leased by the public authorities for a purpose subservient to the public use ; New Orleans v. Const. Co., 140 U. S. 654, 11 Sup. Ct. 968, 35 L. Ed. 556.
At common law, the soil or all tide-waters below high-water mark being vested in the crown, the erection of a wharf thereon with out the consent of the crown is an encroach ment upon the royal domain of that kind which has been denominated a purpresture, and, as such, may be either abated, or, if more beneficial to the crown, the party ar rested, unless it be a public nuisance; 10 Price, 350, 378; 18 Ves. 214; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 920. But if it obstruct navigation to such a degree as to be a public nuisance, neither the crown nor its grantee has authority to erect or maintain it without the sanction of an act of parliament ; 8 Ad. & E. 336 ; 5 M. & W. 327; Phear, Rights of Water 54. It is not every wharf erected in navigable wa ter which is a nuisance, for it may be a bene fit rather than an injury to the navigation ; and it is for the jury to determine, in each. particular case, whether such a wharf is a nuisance or not ; 1 C. & M. 496; 4 Ad. & E. 384; 15 Q. B. 276.
In this country, the several states, being the owners of the soil of the tide waters within their respective territories, may by law authorize and regulate the erection of wharves thereon, at least until the general government shall have legislated upon the subject ; Savannah v. State, 4 Ga. 26; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 53; Wilson's Lessee v. Inloes, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 351; and may grant to a municipal corporation the exclu sive right to make and control wharves on the banks of a navigable river; Keokuk N. L. P. Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 24 L. Ed. 377.
The riparian proprietor is entitled to make a landing, wharf, or pier for his own use or for the use of the public, subject to such general rules and regulations as the legis lature may prescribe ; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 445, 13 Sup. Ct. 110, 36 L. Ed. 1018; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 WalL (U. S.) 504, 19 L. Ed. 984. In Massachusetts and Maine, by a colonial ordinance, the provi sions of which are still recognized as the law of those states, the property of the shores and flats between high and low water mark, for one hundred rods, subject to the rights of the public, was transferred to the owners of the upland, who may, therefore, build wharfs out to that distance, if by so doing they do not unreasonably interrupt naviga tion ; Drake v. Curtis, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 395 ; Partridge v. Luce, 36 Me. 16. If without legislative sanction they extend a wharf be yond that distance, such extension is prima facie a nuisance, and will be abated as such, unless it can be shown that it is no material detriment to navigation ; Gray v. Bartlett, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 186, 32 Am. Dec. 208; Thornton v. Grant, 10 R. I. 477, 14 Am. Rep. 701. It is said that a wharf may extend to the point of navigability ; Clifford v. U. S., 34 Ct. Cl. 223. In Connecticut, and probably in other states, by the law of the state founded upon immemorial usage, the proprietor of the up land has the right to wharf out to the chan nel,—subject to the rights of the public ; Chapman v. Kimball, 9 Conn. 38, 21 Am. Dec. 707 ; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 369, 10 L. Ed. 997 ; State v. Jersey City, 1 N. J. L. 525 ; Rippe v. R. Co., 23 Minn. 18 ; Paine L. Co. v. U. S., 55 Fed. 854. In Pennsylvania, the riparian proprietor is held to be the own er of the soil between high and low water mark, and to be entitled to erect wharves thereon; Hart v. Hill, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 131; but not without express authority from the state ; Tinicu.m F. Co. v. Carter, 61 Pa. 21, 100 Am. Dec. 597. In the same state it has been held that wharves are not the private property of him who erects them, and per sons who go upon and fasten vessels to them are not trespassers ; Degan v. Dunlap, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 69.