Rumsey v. New York and New England Railroad Co., 133 N.Y. 423 (1892)
An upland owner whose land borders a navigable waterway retains the right to access the water, and a grant of land under water to the upland owner is valid, even if a railroad lies between the upland and the channel, provided it doesn’t interfere with the railroad’s rights.
Summary
The plaintiffs, owning uplands bordering the Hudson River, received a grant from the state for land under water. The defendant railroad, operating on an embankment between the plaintiffs’ land and the river channel, argued that the grant to the plaintiffs was invalid because the railroad, not the plaintiffs, was the “adjacent landowner.” The court held that the plaintiffs, as upland owners, retained the right to access the water, and the grant to them was valid as long as it did not interfere with the railroad’s rights, thus affirming the importance of riparian rights and access to waterways for upland owners.
Facts
The plaintiffs owned land bordering the Hudson River.
In 1881, the defendant railroad constructed a portion of its tracks in the river, between the plaintiff’s uplands and the river channel.
In 1885, the Commissioners of the Land Office granted the plaintiffs land under the water, extending along their waterfront and beyond the railroad’s line.
The railroad argued that because its embankment was between the plaintiff’s land and the river, the railroad was the “adjacent landowner,” and the grant to the plaintiff was invalid.
Procedural History
The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the railroad company was the adjacent proprietor and the grant to the plaintiffs was void.
The General Term affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiffs, as upland owners whose land borders a navigable waterway, retain the right to access the water, even when a railroad embankment lies between their land and the main channel.
Whether the grant of land under water to the plaintiffs is valid, given the presence of the railroad, or if the railroad itself should be considered the “adjacent landowner” eligible for the grant.
Holding
Yes, because the plaintiffs, as upland owners, maintain their riparian rights, including access to the water, even with the railroad’s presence.
Yes, because the grant to the plaintiffs is valid as long as it doesn’t interfere with the railroad’s operations or rights. The railroad’s limited purpose does not make it an ‘adjacent owner’ within the meaning of the water grant statutes.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the state’s policy of granting lands under water to promote commerce, traditionally favoring upland owners with waterfront access. The court stated, “From the earliest history of the state its policy has been to grant the lands under water along the shores of the navigable rivers and lakes, for the purpose of promoting the commerce of the state.”
The court reasoned that the railroad, being a corporation with specific and limited purposes, couldn’t be considered an “adjacent owner” in the same way as an upland owner who could utilize the waterfront for commerce. The court noted, “A railroad corporation has no capacity to acquire lands for any purpose except such as is defined in its charter…Being a creature of law, it possesses those properties only which its charter confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its existence.”
The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, clarifying that the key issue was the validity of the water grant itself and the interpretation of statutes relating to such grants.
The court noted that the grant to the plaintiffs expressly reserved the rights of the Hudson River Railroad Company, thus complying with the statute intended to protect the railroad’s interests.
The court held that the legislature recognized the power of the commissioners of the land office to grant land under water lying outside of the railroad to the upland proprietor, solidifying the rights of upland owners to retain access to the waterway. The court emphasized the legislative intent to “protect the upland owners along the east shore of the river in their access to the water and maintain their rights in the river unimpaired by the construction of the railroad.”