Canal

An artificial cut or trench In the earth, for conducting and confining water to be used for transportation.

An artificial cut or trench in the earth, for conducting and confining water to be used for transportation. See Bishop v. Seeley, 18 Conn. 394. Public canals originate under statutes and charters enacted to authorize their construction and to protect and regulate their use. They are in this country constructed and managed either by the state itself or by companies incorporated for the purpose. These commissioners and companies are armed with authority to appropriate private property for the construction of their canals, in exercising which they are bound to a strict compliance with the statutes by which it is conferred. Where private property is thus taken, it must be paid for in gold and silver; State v. Beackmo, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 246. Such payment need not precede or be cotemporaneous with the taking; Rogers v. Bradshaw, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 735; Hankins v. Lawrence, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 266; though, if postponed, the proprietor of the land taken is entitled to interest: People v. Canal Com'rs, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 401; Harness v. Canal Co., 1 Md. Ch. Dec. 248. A city through which a canal passes cannot construct levees along its banks and recover the cost thereof from the canal company; City of New Orleans v. Canal & Nav. Co., 42 La. Ann. 6, 7 South. 63. After the appropriation of land for a canal, duly made under statute authority, though the title remains in the original owner until he is paid therefor, he' cannot sustain an action against the party taking the same for any injury thereto; Turrell v, Norman, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 263; Ligat v. Com., 19 Pa. 456. But if there be a deviation from the statute authority, the statute is no protection against suits by persons injured by such deviation; Lynch v. Stone, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 356; Farnum v. Canal Corp., 1 Sumn. 46, Fed. Cas. No. 4,675; 2 Dow. 519. Though a special remedy for damages be given by a statute authorizing the construction of a New Haven & N. Co., 16 Conn. 98. But see, to the contrary, Stevens v. Canal, 12 Mass. 466; Town of Lebanon v. Olcott, 1 N. H. 339. The legislature has the exclusive power to determine when land may be taken for a canal or other public use, and the courts cannot review its determination in that respect; Harris v. Thompson, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 350; Hankins v. Lawrence, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 266. In navigating canals, it is the duty of the canal-boats to exercise due care in avoiding collisions, and in affording each other mutual accommodation; and for any injury resulting from the neglect of such care the proprietors of the boats are liable in damages; 1 Sher. & Redf. Neg. 404; Rathbun v. Payne, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 399; Sheerer v. Kissinger, 1 Pa. 44. The proprietors of the canal will be liable for any injury to canalboats occasioned by a neglect on their part to keep the canal in proper repair and free from obstructions; Riddle v. Proprietors, 7 Mass. 169, 5 Am. Dec. 35; James River & Kanawha Co. v. Early, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 541; Muir v. Canal Co., 8 Dana (Ky.) 161; Moore v. Canal, 7 Ind. 462; Griffith v. Follett, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 620; 11 A. & E. 223. Where a state exercises control over a canal, it is liable for injuries caused by an officer's negligence in failing to repair bridges over it; Woodman v. People, 127 N. Y. 397, 28 N. E. 20. In regard to the right of the proprietors of canals to tolls, the rule is that they are only entitled to take them as authorized by statute, and that any ambiguity in the terms of the statute must operate in favor of the public; 2 B. & Ad. 792; Perrine v. Canal Co., 9 How. (U. S.) 172, 13 L. Ed. 92; Myers v. Foster, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 567; Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Coal Co., 21 Pa. 131. A statutory authority to charge tolls upon boats, etc., used for transportation along it gives no authority to charge tolls on tugs while towing vessels through the canal or on the return trip; Sturgeon Bay Harbor Co. v. Leatham, 164 111. 239, 45 N. E. 422. A canal constructed and maintained at private expense is like a private highway over which the public is permitted to travel, but in which it obtains no vested right; Potter v. Jly. Co., 95 Mich. 3S9, 54 N. W. 956. An easement in the waters of state canals cannot be acquired by prescription; Burbank v. Fay, 65 N. Y. 57.

An artificial ditch or trench in the earth, for confining water to a defined channel, to be used for purposes of transportation. The meaning of this word, when applied to artificial passages for water, is a trench or excavation in the earth, for conducting water and confining it to narrow limits. It is unlike the words "river," "pond," "lake," and other words used to designate natural bodies of water, the ordinary meaning of which is confined to the water itself; but it includes also the banks, and has reference rather to the excavation or channel as a receptacle for the water; it is an artificial thing. 18 Conn. 394. See, also, 103 U.S. 604.

Applied to an artificial passage for water, includes the banks, and refers to the excavation or channel as a receptacle for the water.'' As used in an Internal Improvement Act, a navigable public highway, for the transportation of persons and property... There must be a canal fitted in all respects for navigation and open to public use before benefits can accrue to the owner to overcome his claim for damages.' The title of owners of land abutting on a canal extends to the line of the canal, subject to the use of the bank by the owners of the canal for purposes of commerce.* 1 Commonwealth v. Bearse, 132 Mass. 548, 551 ( » P. L. 63. s P. L. 9. ' Bishop V. Seeley, 18 Conn. *394 (1847). s Kennedy v. City of Indianapolis, 103 U. S. 604 (1880), Waite, C. J. A general grant of premises upon the bank of a liver, in -whicli is constructed a canal, conveys the grantor's right to the river's center. Where the canal company, as such, has the right only to use the bed and water, at dissolution such right reverts to the proper owners.^ Navigable water situated as is the Illinois and Lake Michigan canal, — a highway for commerce between ports and places in different States,— is public water of the United States, within admiralty jurisdiction, although the canal is wholly within the body of the State of Illinois." See Commerce; Toll, 2,