SOUTH SHORlll,J;.UM.Q;ERiO,Q:cY. 0.0. THOMPSON
Circuit. 'June 6; 1899.)
BOUNDARIEfl-RIPARIAN OWNERS ONiCOVE OcR BAy-FRONTAGE ON NAVIGABLE W.ATER'. ' " ", . " "," "
, '." Under the rUle that the frontage of a riparian owner on the line of navigable w.&ter, withln'/It ,small ,blIlYi ,011 :COVll shan bear the same ratio to his lIhore frontage all :$l! entire len!rtlJ. i of the .IJne of ,navigable water within bears, to ,ltssl,lore lln,e" ,8, 'court cannot deClare the boundary between: two lidjoining owners 011' the 'nne of, navigable water as a matter 'of law; where theefldence as tO',the llmits of the cove isconfiicting; and In''suell case there is sufilcient ll.ncertai:nty, so, that tbe boundary may be fixed by the agreement oracq.u).escence, of, ,:the parities.
DIstrIct "qf WlsconSlD., ; , , r;- " ,. ., ' ; ',i. _ , W. ,,'1-. , C. A; Lamoreux and:,a:. H. aaYWm,f()';r<1efeJ;ldant in error. CifcuitiJudges. Before WOODS, JE:&E:INS,
; 11 Ji !.; !
' ,," :
'r,H¢:;pW;ntffi" in in the actIon. The complatnt the partIes' own severally <;'J?'E:rate, thE; land of each frontadjacent lands, on ingllPon and that for'use in connection 'with its
on .the of the plaintiff,"and the question for determination afthe't1'ial was of the proper location of the com,w.on boundary to the liJ;le ofnavigability.Thetrialwas by pn :the judgment was given. fQr the defenqaJ;lt.' " " ',' , ', Err()r Jl.pon the refllsal. of ,each of the following requests for '"
"(1) The cove or bay in which the properties of the parties are situated is the one bounded by the line,S 4,-B,anp c.D (Ill the map marked 'Plaintiff's Ex. :X;,', (2). ,The evIdence that the riJ,lilriaIl, boundary line between the propertie,?, over the the defendant ,at, points on. line F-Q in plaintiff's :IDx. X. (3)' The plaintiff is entitled to a verdIct in' its favor, the only question for the jury being what amount of damages plaintiff shailrecover. (4) There is no such uncertainty liS to the boundary)ine between the dock properties as to raise a can be settled by agreement or acquiescence,"
The #rst and second requests, it is evident, were in eff,ect the same as the third. It is agreed that the rule for fixing boundary lines in a small bay or cove, ,as declared in Inhabitants of Deerfield v. Arms, 17 Pick. 41, and approved in Joile$ v. Johnston, IS How. 150, Johnston v.'Jones, 1 Black, 209, and Land'Oo.:v.Bigelow;S4 Wis. 157,54 N. W. 49,6,19: , ,
"First, determine the outside boundaries of the cove or headlands. 'Run out lines from these headlands at equal angles to the shore to the line of navigable waters. Between these headlands draw a line upon the general course of the navigable waters. Then apportion this line of navigable water to the shore
TENNENT-STRIBU!fG IJHOEOO\ Y; ROPER.
urie in the same proportioD that the navigable waterUne bears to the shore, line."
The evidence touching the limits of the cove in question is not disputed, and the court could not rightfully have withdrawn the question from the jury. .It follows, necessarily, that the true location of the disputed line was,apropen subject of negotiation and agreement between the parties or their grantors, and, thec0urt did not err in refusing the fourth,request. 'below is affirmed. GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge, by reasdn of sickness, did not share in the final consideration of this case.
TENNENT-STRIBLING SHOE CO. T. ROPER.
(Clreriit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 743.
SUNDAY COlilTRACT-VALmrrYAB .to THIRD PABTIES-ElI'lI'IllCT OJ' RATIJ'ICATIOW.
A debtor cannot defeat the (,lOlleetioD or a val1d debt by an asaignee, on the ground that it, was sold and assIgned to him on Sunday, In violation of the laws of the state, ,where the transfp.r was subsequently ratified by the assignor, and became binding between the parties to it; and such ratification renders It valid from the date of the actual assignment for the purpose of an attachment. thereon p)."Ocured ,by the assignee, on that day.
JURISDICTION OJ' FlllDERAL COUR1:S-.A,MOUNT IN CON'TROVEIUIV.
Where an action in a federal court is baSed on several accounts, eXhibited with the deClaration., the amonnt of the accounts in the aggregate Is the amount in dispute;' and,' when It ,exceeds $2,000, the court Is .not deprived of jurisdictipn, though the defendant successfully attacks the validity of the transfer of one ,of the accounts to the plaintitr, reducing the amount remaining' below the jurisdictional limit. I
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern 'District of Mississippi. Rice T. Fant, for plaintiff in error. ,James Stone and C. L. Siveley, for defendant in error; Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges. SHELBY, Circuit Judge; 1. This is a suit for $2,336.64, begun by attachment by the TenneQt·Stribling Shoe Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of Missouri, against W. E. Roper, a citizen of Mississippi. Of this sum $920.90 is an account which the plaintiff in error holds against the defendant in error for goods sold to him. The remainder of the sum sued for, is composed of ,accounts which were held against the defendant in error by citizens of states, or by corporations organized and chartered in states, of which neither the plaintiff in error nor the defendant in error was a citizen. The assignee of such, claims, if in the aggregate they reach the jurisdictional amount, can sue on them in the United States courts. Chase v. Rollef:..MillsCo., 56 Fed. 625; Bowden v. Burnham, 8 C. C. A. 248, 59 Fed. 752; Bergman v. Inman, 91 Fed.