ferry

A liberty to have a boat upon a river for the transportation of men, horses, and carriages, with their contents, for a reasonable toll. 42 Me. 9; 3 Zab. (N. J.) 206; Woolr. Ways, 217. The term is also used to designate the place where such liberty is exercised. 4 Mart. (La.; N. S.) 426; 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 311.

A liberty to have a boat upon a river for the transportation of men, horses, and carriages with their contents, for a reasonable toll. State V. Wilson, 42 Me. 9; State V. Freeholders of Hudson County, 23 N. J. L. 206; Woolr. Ways 217. The term is also used to designate the place where such liberty is exercised; Chapelle v. Wells, 4 Mart. La. (N. S.) 426. Ferry properly means a place of transit across a river or arm of the sea; but in law it is treated as a franchise, and defined as the exclusive right to carry passengers across a river, or arm of the sea, from one vill to another, or to connect a continuous line of road leading from one township or vill to another. It is not a servitude or easement. It is wholiy unconnected with the ownership or occupation of land, so much so that the owner of the ferry need not have any property in the soil adjacent on either side. 12 O. B. N. S. 32. In a strict sense a ferry is a continuation of a highway from one side of the water to the other and is for the transportation of passengers, vehicles and other property; Mayor, etc., of New York v. Starln, 106 N. Y. 11, 12 N. B. 631; Broadnax v. Baker, 94 N. C. 676, 55 Am. Rep. 633. A boat equipped with tracks for railroad cars and exclusively used for their transportation as a part of a through railroad line is not an ordinary ferry, but is essentially a part of interstate commerce; St. Clair County v. Transfer Co., 192 U. S. 454, 24 Sup. Ct. 300, 48 L. Ed. 518. The point of departure was held to be the home of the ferry where it crossed the river which was the boundary between Ohio and West Virginia, although the jurisdiction of West Virginia extended to low-water mark on the Ohio side; State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122, 46 S. E. 269, 63 L. R, A. 877, 102 Am. St. Rep. 927, 1 Ann, Cas. 104. An exclusive right of ferry exists where one acquires the sole and exclusive privilege of taking tolls for such service. The element of receiving payment is essential, as one may lawfully transport his own goods in a boat, where an exclusive right of ferry is held by another; Alexandria, W. & K. Ferry Co. v. Wisch, 73 Mo. 655, 39 Am, Rep. 535. In England, ferries are established by royal grant or by prescription, which is an implied grant; in the United States, by legislative authority, exercised either directly or by a delegation of powers to courts, commissioners, or municipalities; Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 344; id., 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773; Wethersfield v. Humphrey, 20 Conn. 218; Day v. Stetson, 8 Gree^. (Me.) 366; Cloyes v. Keatts, 18 Ark. 19. Without such authority no one, though Stark V. Miller, 8 Mo. 470; Trustees of Schools, V. Tatman, 13 111. 27; Young v. Harrison, 6 Ga. 130; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet (U. S.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773; Willes 508; though after twenty -years' uninterrupted use such authority will be presumed to have been granted; Pipkin v. Wynns, 13 N. C. 402; Stark v. Mc Gowen, 1 N. & McC. (S. 0.) 389; Mills v. St Clair Coimty Com’rs, 3 Scam. (111.) 53; Williams V. Turner, 7 Ga. 348; but see Scott v. Wilson, 11 S. W. 303, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 940. The franchise of a ferry will, in preference, be granted to the owner of the soil, but may be granted to another; and by virtue of. the right of eminent domain the soil of another may be condemned to the use of the ferry, upon making Just compensation; 6 B. & C. 703; Allen v. Farnsworth, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 189; Sparks v. White, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 86; Pipkin V. Wynns, 13 N. C. 403; Harrison v. Young, 9 Ga. 359; Harvie v. Cammack, 6 Dana (Ky.) 242; Warner v. Mfg. Co., 123 Ky. 103, 93 S. W. 650, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 667; Day v. Stetson, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 365; In re Hanson, 2 Cal. 262. If the termini of the ferry be a highway, the owner of the fee will not be entitled to compensation; 3 Kent 421; Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County V. State, 24 N. J. L. 718; Somerville v. Wlmbish, 7 Gratt (Va.) 205; though in Pennsylvania and other states a different doctrine prevails; Cooper v. Smith, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 31, 11 Am. Dec. 658; Chess v. Manown, 3 Watts (Pa.) 219; Pearsall v. Post, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) Hi; 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 520; Corporation of Memphis v. Overton, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 387. See Eminent Domain. One state has the right to establish ferries over a navigable river separating it from another state or from a foreign territory, though Its Jurisdiction may extend only to the middle of such river; and the exercise of this right does not conflict with the provision in the constitution of the United States conferring upon congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states,” nor with any law of congress upon that subject; Corporation of Memphis v. Overton, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 387; State v. Freeholders of Hudson County, 23 N. J. L. 206; Mills v. County of St. Clair, 2 Gilm. (111.) 197; Tugwell v. Ferry Co., 74 Tex. 480, 9 S. W. 120, 13 S. W. 654. In Conway V. Taylor, 1 Black (U. S.) 603, 17 L. Ed. 191, a ferry francuise on the Ohio was held to be grantable under the laws of Kentucky to a citizen of that state who was a riparian owner on the Kentucky side. It was said not to be necessary to the validity of the grant that the grantee should have the right of landing on the other side. In Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 366, 2 Sup. Ot. 267, 27 L. EJd. 419, a state was held to have the power to impose a license big from a landing in the state passengers and goods across a navigable river to another state, and this was not a regulation of commerce; but a tax upon persons owning and running tow boats from the Oulf of Mexico to New Orleans was held void as a regulation of commerce; iuoran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69, 6 Sup. Ot 38, 28 L. EdL 653. In Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 Sup. Ct. 826, 29 L. Ed. 168, Pennsylvania attempted to tax the capital stock of a corporation the business of which was the ferrying of passengers and freight across the Delaware river to New Jersey. The ferry boats were registered in New Jersey and were taxable there. The court held it to be an interference with interstate commerce. In Louisville & J. Ferry Co. V. Kentucky, 188 U. S. 385, 23 Sup. Ct. 463, 47 L. Ed. 513, a Kentucky corporation operating a ferry across the Ohio river was held to be deprived of Its property without due process of law by the action of Kentucky in including for purposes of taxation in the valuation of the franchise derived by the corporation from Kentucky the value of an Indiana franchise for a ferry from the Indiana to the Kentucky shore, which such corporation nad acquired. No portion of the business of a ferry which is part of an interstate railway is under the control of the state; the state authorities have no power to regulate the fares of passengers whether railroad passengers or not; New York Cent. & H. R. R. (JO. V. Board of Freeholders,.227 U. S. 248, 33 Sup. Ct. 269, 67 L. Ed., reversing New York Cent. & H. R. Co. v. Board of Freeholders, 76 N. J. L. 664, 74 Atl. 954, 16 Ann. Cas. 858. The granting of a temporary license to operate a ferry within the city limits, is valid; Carroll v. Campbell, 108 Mo. 550, 17 S. W. 884. A state may at its pleasure erect a new ferry so near an older ferry 'as to impair or destroy the value of the latter by drawing away its custom, unless the older franchise be protected by the terms of its grant; In re Fay, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 243; Carter v. Kalfus, 6 Dana (Ky.) 43; Shorter v. Smith, 9 Ga. 617; West River Bridge Co. v. Dlx, 6 How. (U. S.) 607, 12 L. Ed. 535; Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. (U. S.) 524, 14 L. Ed. 1043; Mills v. St Clair County, 2 Gil. (111.) 197; Green v. Ivey, 45 Fla. 338, 33 South. 711; Davis v. Police Jury, 1 La. Ann. 288; Mayor, etc., of City of Columbus V. Rodgers, 10 Ala. 37; Costar v. Brush, 25 Wend. (N. Y.J 628. See Bridgewater Ferry Co. v. Bridge Co., 145 Pa. 4(>4, 22 Atl. 1039; Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. v. Bridge Co., 138 U. S. 287, 11 Sup. Ct 301, 34 L. Ed. 967. A ferry franchise is not infringed by the grant of a bridge franchise, though the bridge diverts the travel from an ancient ferry; [1908] 1 Ch. 41. But If an individual, established, as to draw away the custom of the latter, such individual will be liable to an action on the case for damages, or to a suit In equity for an injunction in favor of the owner of the latter; 6 M. & W. 234; Nixon V. Reid, 8 S. D. 507, 67 N. W, 67, 32

A llberty to have a boat upon a river for the transportation of men. horses, and carriages with their contents, for a reasonable toll. The term is also used to designate the place where such liberty is exercised. See New York v. Starin, 8 N. Y. St. Rep. 655; Broadnax v. Baker, 94 N. C. 681, 55 Am, Rep. 633; Einstman v. Black, 14 I1L App. 381; Chapelle v. Wells, 4 Mart (La. N. St) 426. "Ferry" properly means a place of transit across a river or arm of the sea; but in law it is treated as a franchise, and defined as the exclusive right to carry passengers across & river, or arm of the sen. from one vill to another, or to connect a continuous line of road leading from one township or vill to another. It is not a servitude or easement. It is wholly unconnected with the ownership or occupation of land, so much so that the owner of the ferry need not have any property in the soil adjacent on either side. (12 C. B., N. S., 32.) Brown.

— Public and private. A public ferry is one to which ali the public have the right to resort, for which a regular fare is established, and the ferryman is a common carrier, bound to take over ali who apply, and bound to keep his ferry in operation and good repair. Hudspeth v. Hall, 111 Ga. 610, 36 S. E. 770; Broadnax v. Baker, 94 N. C. 681, 55 Am. Ren. 633. A private ferry is one mainly for the use of the owner, and though he may take pay for ferriage, he does not follow it as a business. His ferry is not open to the public at its demand, and he may or may not keep it in operation. Hudspeth v. Hall, supra.

— Ferry franchise. The public grant of a right to maintain a ferry at a particular place; a right conferred to land at a particular point and secure toll -for the transportation of persons and property from that point across the stream. Mills v. St. Clair County, 7 III. 208.

— Ferryman. One employed in taking persons across a river or other stream, in boats or other contrivances, at a ferry. State v. Clarke, 2 McCord (S. C.) 48, 13 Am. Dec. 701.

A franchise, consisting of a privilege, arising from grant or prescription, to have a boat or boats for carrying men and horses across a river for reasonable fare or toll.

A liberty to have a boat upon a river for the transportation of men, horses, and carriages with their contents, for a reasonable toll. The term is also used to designate the place where such liberty is exercised. See 42 Me, 9; 4 Mart. (N. S.) 426. “Ferry” properly means a place of transit acrosa a river or arm of the sea; but in law it is treated as a franchise, and defined as the exclusive right to carry passengers across a river, or arm of the sea, from one vill to another, or to connect a continuous line of road leading from one township or villto another. It is not aservitude or easement. It is wholly unconnected with the ownership or occupation of Jand, so much so that the owner of the ferry need not have any property in the soil adjacent on either side. (12 C. B., N. &., 32) Brown.

' A place where persons and things are taken across a stream or body of water, in boats, for hire.^ May refer to the water traversed or to the landingplace or places." Ferry frahc Mse. A right conferred to land at a particular point upon a stream, and to secure toll for the transportation of passengers and property from that point across the stream.* The essential element is the exclusive right to transport persons, their horses, vehicles, and personal goods, from one shore to the other, over the intervening water, for the toU.^ Ferriage. The price or fare to be paid for crossing a ferry; also, the transportation itself." Ferryman. At common law, one who had the exclusive right of transporting passengers over rivers or other water-coui'ses, for hire, at an established rate.' The grant of a ferry franchise in its nature implies the taking of toll. The only ferries known in some places, as in Massachusetts, are toll ferries.^ The ordinary feriy is a substitute for the ordinary bridge, for the accommodation of the public generally. The railroad ferry is a substitute for the railroad bridge, being the continuation of the railroad tracks across a stream of water; it is not a grant of an exclusive ferry franchise.* One may lawfully transport his own goods in his own boat where another has an exclusive right of ferry.'" A State may impose a license fee, directly or through a rhunicipal corporation, upon the ferry- ' A. S. ferian, to convey across, carry, go. ' [Akin V. Western K. Co., 30 Barb. 310 (1867); Same V. Same, 20 N. T. 376 (1859); Newton v. Cubitt, IS C. B. *58 (1802); 14 Bradw. 381. ' Schuylkill Bridge Co. v. Frailey, 13 S. & B. *424 (1825); State v. Hudson, S3 N. J. L. 209 (1851). * [Mississippi Bridge Co. v. Lonergan, 91 111. 518 (1879); aa id. 369; 2 GUm. 169. = [Broadnax v. Baker, 94 N. C. 078 (1880), cases. Smith, C. J.; s. 0. 55 Am. R. 633. Approved, Mayor of New York V. Starin, 106 N. Y. 11 (1387). • [People V. San Francisco, &c. E. Co., 35 Gal. 619 (1868). ' Clarke v. State, 3 Mc Cord, 48 (S. C, 1822). « Attorney-General v. Boston, 123 Mass. 468 (1877), cases. » Mayor of New Y'ork v. New England Transfer Co., 14 Blatch. 168 (1877), cases. '"Alexandria, &o. Ferry Co. v. Wisch, 73 Mo. 655 (1881); See also 3 Bl. Com. 219; 2 id. 37; 5 Cal. 470; 20 keepers living in the State, for boats whicli they use in conveying, from a landing in the State, passengers and goods across a navigable river to a landing in another State, i Any person who invades the rights of the owner of a ferry franchise by running a ferry himself, is liable for any damages he causes the owner, and may be restrained from a continuance. But, probably, the courts would not restrain the operation of a ferry demanded by public convenience simply because the rightful owner of the franchise neglects or refuses to use it. Such franchise does not include the carrying of merchandise without the presence of the owners; this is the business of a common carrier, and may be done without interference with such franchise. The grant of a fi'anchise may be perpetual.* See Bbidse; Carrier, Common; Commerce; Franchise, 1; License, 3; NnisANCE; Toll, 2; Tonnage; Vehicle.

[L. Lat. feria, q. v.] A species of franchise, being a liberty or privilege, arising from grant or prescription, to have a boat or boats for carrying men and horses across a river for reasonable fare or toll. Termeedelaley. Tomlins. S Kenfs Com. 468, 421, note.