never in fact described or conveyed the north 15.02 acres of the N. W. I of the N. W. I of this section 30. This disposes of this case, and the questiQn of the bfmcifide8 of the defendants becomes immaterial; but we are satisfied from the' evidence that, before either of the defendants obtained any conveyance of this land, at least four of the complainant's grantees were occupying houses standing upon this north 15.02 acres, c1aimingtitIe tinder the complainant and Hoyt. This was notice of complainant'srights and title. Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 429, (Gil. 325j) New v. WMaton, 24 Minn. 409. The proofs also establish the fact that this I5-acre tract was worth at least &50,000 in 1888j that defendant Charles ,J. Doolittle discovered the condition of the titJeto this tract by examining the title to the south 15 acres of the quarter quarter, as he was negotiating a loan upon it; that he examined all the general indexes in the register's' office under the letter S to see if Schellenbarger had conveyedthis northerly 15 aeres. And he testifies" he did not know how much interest he [Schellenbarger] might have there, but at any rate he th'ought'hewould go into it for a speculation, and risk a little money in it, and there might be somethipg in it.» He then obtained a quitclaim deed of and,wife j for which he paid $30. About a year afterwards, in August, 1889, he conveyed to his brother, Ormus, for $3,200, (&500 Cash arid mortgage on the land,) and then first recorded his deed fromSchellenbarger. Ormus never saw the land, although he lives within 75 miles of it,and knew nothing of its value, but bought it solely on his brother's representations to him. Under this proof the defendants have no better title in equity or at law than SchelleJlbarger had, in any event, and Schellenbarger's testimony shows that he had none in equity, and we have found he had none at law. The complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the bill. Let a decree be entered' accordingly.
NELSON, District Judge, concul'L
itHEA til aI.
N. & M. V. R. Co.
(OtrcuU Oourt, D. KtmtJutJk1J. April 7.1892.)
A railroad' company, elilpowered by its charter to erect and maintain. bridge across the Cumberland river, in Kentuoky, II so II.B not unreasonably to obstruot navigation," while rebuilding II. portion o:t tlle bridge whiCIl had been blown down, erected a temporary bridge, which interfered with naYigation, but with all tbe packet companies plY,ing the ,riv.er, :tor the transfer of all freili\'ht witboui extra charge to shippers. The amount of traffio of ij;le railroad largely exceeded tIlat on the river, and publiC) convenience WII.B in fact subserved by tbe plan pursued bV the railroad company. Held, that this was not an unreasonable obstruction o:t navigation, and a shipper who refused to send his grain by water the was entitled to reooverthe utra paid for traDsportinS l'
RHEA:V. NEWPORT N. &: X.V.
The commercial power of congress is exclusive of state authority only where the subjects upon which it ill exerted are national in their character,and admit and require uniformity of alike all the states; and when the subjects within that power' are local in thelr natu11l or operation, or constitute mere aids to commerce, the states may proVide for their regulation and management until congress intervenesaJ;ld their . action. Oardwell v. Bridge 00., I) Sup. Ct. Rep. 423, 118 U. S. 205, ' The erection of a bridge 'entirely within a state across a navigable river running partly within and partly without the state is not a,lllatter so intimately connected with interstate commerce as to be undet the exclusive control of congress; and, in the absence of congressional action, the state has authority to regulate the same. Railway 00. v. Backu8, 46 :red. Rep. 216, distinguished.
,In,Equ,ity., Bill byB. Rhea & Son4gainst the Newport ,Newe& Mis,sissippi, Valley Railroad Compll.ny to restrain the obstruction ofnavin the Cumberland river,and to recover damages alleged to have been sustained on accountot' the obstruction. Bill dismissed. lj'razie:r & Dickinson and Dodd & Dodd; for Holmes Cummins, Bullitt & Shield, and & Davie, for defendants. ,
JACKSON, Circuit Judge. This cause is now before the court upon exceptiotls on the part of both complainants and defendants to the report of the special master, filed herein February 15,1892, and for final hearing upon the merits. The conclusions reached by the court upon the whole case render it unnecessary to notice and consider the master's r&' port and the exceptions thereto in detail. The bill was filed April 9, 1890, to restrain the defendant from obstrncting the navigation of the Cumberland river, and to recover the special damage sustained by complainants because of sudh obstruction. The defendant is a Connecticut corporation, engaged in operating a line of railway from the city of Louisville, Ky., to and through the city of Paducah, :Ky., to the city of Memphis, Tenn. This line of railroad, originally chartered by the state of Kentucky under the name of the Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern 'Railroad Company. and to whose rights and franchises the defendant .has succeeded, crosses the Cumberland river at a point near Kuttawa, in Lyon county, Ky., on a bridge consisting of a draw-span and adjacent fixed spans. The original railroad company, to whose rigbtsand franchises the defendant has succeeded, was fully authorized by the legislature of Kentucky to erect and maintain a bridge at said point, "so as not unreasonably to obstruct the navigation of any navig'!tble stream." The bridge, the river, and both banks thereof, at the place of crossing,are situated wholly within the limits or territory of the state of Kentucky. The bridge over the river, as constructed and maintained prior to March 27, 1890, constituted no unlawful obstruction or interference with the free navigation of the Cumberland river, which rises in Kentucky, flows south,ward'into and thro\l!1:h Tennessee, and then back again into, Kentucky; and"after crossing the latter state, empties into the Ohio river. On March 27, 1890, the draw-span and one adjacent fixedsp&n of said bridge were blown down by a tornado of great violence. v.50F.no.1-2 .
.", J'EDERAL itEl!ORTER,VoL,
tooJr in doing so erectedjot,caused to be erected, ,temporary falsework,onpiles across the the draw-span, its line",dscontinued, while was being rebuilt or repaired, The piles and false work obinterrupted the ordinary navigation6f the. river from about the 8th to the 23d of April, 1890.00 and after the latter date, boats which had been cut down for the purpose could and did pass under the uninjured spa;n,of the bridge, and were of sufficient capaQityto carryall of complainants'Areight to Nashville, Tenn. Before closing the channel of the riYar, the defendant arranged with the captain and superintendent of only regular line of steamers or packet 'navigating 'the to 'place ofie or more boats below, and ll'tlotheror others abova;thebridge,soas to continue regular trips, and transfer !freight and passengel's'at' ,the point Of obstruction, by means of a barge anchored and method of transfer was continued during ,the entire time the' channel was closed. The between the defendant !and the said packet companies plying the river was to the effect that the former should pay the latter $600 per week, and that the latter should transfer all freight without extra charge to shipp.ers;ethe intent of the agreement ,being to protect shippers against any increased or rate of freights because of the temporary obstruc.. ordinary na.vigationof the river. Under and in pursuance of this! agreement with defendants i the steamers or packet companies maintained the. usual and ordinary' freight rate; and on the 23d of April, notifiedcomplainants.that they were prepared and ready to carry ol'!,transport alltheir freight (chiefly corn in sacks) from the lower Cumberland: ;and Ohio riv.er to Nashville, without even transferring the same at the bridge; but complainants declined to ship that way, as they had previously declined to. ship by boat, and allow this freight to be transferred- II-t the hridgeby means of the anchored barge. But from the 9th of' April to some time in May, 1890, they had their freight carried or brought to' Nashville by railroad, at an extra cost of 4 cents per 100 pounds. The additional freight rate thus paid by them on these ship-mentl'1 of grain, over and above the river rate, amounted to $1,800.41. Complainan:ts.Jurthermore: intimate that they had paid out $500 for traveling'expenses and extra labor, and sustained damage to grain in the Sum of 3242'.64, on account of said obstruction of the river by defenda.nt. The,sethree amounts,aggregating the sum of $2,543.05, thespecial master: has reported 'as the loss sustained by complainants, and which they.are entitled to: recover of the defendant, on account of its temporaryintetruption of the ordinary navigation of the river in rebuild' ing or repairing its bridge,as aforesaid. The special master finds and reports that"DefE'ndaritcould have its draw:I;lJlll,11 by erectit}g work up and dow.ri' the stream, thus leaving the open wllile work was in progress;' lbnt this would have severed its lirie m,uch more completely than the modeactuaHy pursued severed the line of navigation, inasmuch as its passengers an'd freight would have had to be ferried overthe river; an operation