Riparian owners have the right, among others, to build private wharves out so as to reach the navigable waters of the stream ; Weems Steamboat Co. v. Steamboat Co., 214 U. S. 345, 29 Sup. Ct. 661, 53 L. Ed. 1024, 16 Ann. Cas. 1222.
The owner of a wharf is liable for damages caused to a vessel by concealed obstructions which he might have ascertained by reason able diligence ; Manhattan Transp. Co. v. New York, 37 Fed. 160. A railroad company which maintained a wharf was held bound to know whether obstructions existed thereat which would endanger a vessel assigned by it to berth at such wharf ; Verdon v. R. Co., 157 Fed. 481. A wharfinger is bound to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the con dition of the berths at his wharf and remove dangerous obstructions thereat, or to give notice thereof to vessels about to dock ; and the master is bound to use ordinary care; Smith v. Burnett, 173 U. S. 430, 19 Sup. Ct. 442, 43 L. Ed. 756 ; [1891] App. Cas. 11; Carleton v. Steel Co., 99 Mass. 216. The mas ter is not bound to take soundings before go ing into the berth ; and in an action for in juries sustained in grounding on a rock in the bottom of the dock, it is sufficient to show that the owner of the dock could have discovered the rock by reasonable diligence ; Garfield & Proctor Coal Co. v. Lime Co., 184 Mass. 60, 67 N. E. 863, 61 L. R. A. 946, 100 Am. St. Rep. 543.
• Such claims are within the jurisdiction of admiralty ; and a libel in personam will lie ; Ball v. Trenholm, 45 Fed. 588. The wharf= finger was also held liable for damages to vessels caused by the insufficiency of the wharf; The Francisco R. v. The Waterloo, 79 Fed. 113.
Owners of land abutting on a lake, the title to which is in the state, have the right to build wharves in aid of navigation, but not obstructing it, far enough to reach water navigable for such boats as are in use ; Mad ison v. Mayers, 97 Wis. 399, 73 N. W. 43, 65
Am. St. Rep. 127, 40 L. R. A. 635, with an ex tended note on the right of the riparian own er to erect wharves.
Where abutters on a navigable stream have grants from the state conveying land under water, conditioned upon their erecting docks and promoting commerce, the public has the incidental right to pass over the abutting lines to reach the docks ; . Thousand Island Steamboat Co. v. Visger, 179 N. Y. 206, 71 N. E. 764.
A wharf built by a railroad company by municipal authority on what might be the extension of a street is not a public wharf ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Naval Stores Co., 198 U. S. 483, 25 Sup. Ct. 745, 49 L. Ed. 1135; but one built on a navigable stream at the terminus of public highways in the country, which is the only means of reaching the river and was built for that purpose, and is being so used, is impressed with a public in terest; Weems Steamboat Co. v. Steamboat Co., 214 U. S. 345, 29 Sup. Ct. 661, 53 L. Ed. 1024, 16 Ann. Cas. 1222.
Long continued use of a wharf by the pub lic at large, without objection on the part of the town, will support a verdict finding it to be a public landing place ; Coolidge v. Learn ed, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 504. The title to a wharf may be obtained by prescription as against the commonwealth; Nichols v. Boston, 98 Mass. 39, 93 Am. Dec. 132.
See RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS; WATER-COURSE; RIVERS ; WATERS; 40 L. R. A. 635; 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506, for valuable notes.