Statement of the Case.

James (M.) Marshall; and the claim made by the said heirs of James (M.) Marshall to such ownership under the patent to Lord Baltimore for the Province of Maryland, and the deed to them from Frederick Paul Harford as Lord Baltimore's successor in title.

II. The claims of ownership made to part of the reclaimed land by certain defendants, who assert title under a patent issued by the United States through the General Land Office to John L. Kidwell in the year 1869 for forty-seven and seventy-one one-hundreths (47%) acres and to one hundred and fifty (150) acres of alleged accretion thereto; and to another tract, the area of which is not stated, adjoining the Long Bridge and extending therefrom southwardly between the Washington and Georgetown channels, of which latter tract they claim to be the equitable owners under an application for a patent made by said Kidwell in 1871. ·

III. The claims made by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company and its lessee, Henry H. Dodge, to riparian rights from Easby's Point to Seventeenth street west.

IV. The claims to riparian rights, right of access to the channel of the river, and to accretions, natural and artificial, made by the owners of lots in squares along the river west of Seventeenth street west, namely, squares 148, 129, 89, 63, 22, and square south of square 12.

V. The claim made by certain of the descendants of Robert Peter, an original proprietor of lands in the city of Washington, to certain land near the public reservation known as the Observatory Grounds.

VI. The claims to riparian privileges and wharfing rights made by owners of lots in squares beginning with square 233 and extending to the line of the Arsenal Grounds.

VII. The claims made by certain persons occupying wharves below the Long Bridge.

The main determination by the court "of rights drawn in question" in the suit was by a decree passed October 17, 1895. The decree adjudicated nearly all the points in controversy in favor of the United States.

Certain lots and parts of lots in squares 63, 89, 129 and

Statement of the Case.

148, north of their boundaries on Water street and A street, which were subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, were included in the work of reclamation, and as to them the decree held the owners to be entitled to compensation for the taking and inclusion of the same in the improvements.

By the first paragraph of the decree, the claims under class 2, that is, those set forth in the answers of certain defendants founded upon a patent issued to John L. Kidwell in 1869, for a tract of forty-seven and seventy-one one-hundredths (47-76) acres in the Potomac River, and alleged accretion thereto, and also to a tract adjoining the Long Bridge, founded upon an application for a patent therefor made by said Kidwell in 1871, are held and declared to be "invalid, void and of none effect;" and the said patent is "vacated, annulled and set aside."

By the second paragraph, "the claims of each and all of the other parties defendants, set forth in their respective answers, to any rights, titles and interests, riparian or otherwise, in the said lands or water," are held and declared "to be invalid, void and of none effect," except as to the parties owning said lots and parts of lots in the squares last

mentioned.

By the third paragraph, it is held and declared "that there does not exist (except as aforesaid) any right, title or interest in any person or corporation, being a party to this cause, to or in any part of the said land or water," and "that the right and title of the said United States (except as aforesaid) to all the land and water included within the limits of the said improvements of the Potomac River and its flats, as the said limits are described in the said bill of complaint," is absolute as against all the defendants to this cause, and as against all persons whomsoever claiming any rights, titles or interests. therein who have failed to appear and set forth and maintain their said rights, titles or interests as required by said act of Congress."

By the fourth paragraph, it is held that the defendants who are owners of the lots or parts of lots in squares 63, 89, 129 and 148, "which are included between the north line or

Statement of the Case.

lines of the said improvements of the Potomac River and its flats, and the north line or lines of Water street and A street, are entitled to be indemnified for whatever impairment or injury may have been caused to their respective rights, titles or interests in said lots or parts of lots by the taking of the same by the United States; the value of such rights, titles, interests or claims to be ascertained by this court, exclusive of the value of any improvement of the said lots or parts of lots made by or under the authority of the said United States."

By the fifth and last paragraph of the decree, the taking of further testimony was authorized, on behalf of the owners and on behalf of the United States, as to the respective areas of the said lots and parts of lots, and of and concerning the true ownership and value of the said lots and parts of lots.

Such testimony as to ownership, areas and values having been taken and returned, the court upon consideration thereof, and on March 2, 1896, passed a further and supplementary decree, adjudging the values of the said lots and parts of lots so taken to be ten cents per square foot, and payment was directed to be made to sundry persons whom the court found to be the owners of certain of the parcels; the ownership of the remaining parcels not being, in the opinion of the court, sufficiently established, the taking of further testimony with respect thereto was ordered. The total amount of said values found by the court is $26,684.09.

The court having made a report of its action in the premises to Congress, agreeably to the requirements of the act of August 5, 1886, an appropriation was made for the payment of the sums so found to be due to the owners of the said lots and parts of lots in said squares; and with two exceptions, namely, Richard J. Beall and the trustees of the estate of William Easby, deceased, the several owners of the property applied, under said appropriation act, to the court for the payment to them of the respective sums found to be due to them, and the fund has been very largely disbursed under orders of the court passed on said applications.

From the main decree of October 17, 1895, appeals were taken as follows:

Statement of the Case.

1. By all the defendants embraced in class one (1), namely, the heirs of James (M.) Marshall and the heirs of his brother, Chief Justice Marshall.

2. By all the defendants embraced in class two (2), claiming under the Kidwell patent, etc., namely, Martin F. Morris, Henry Wells, Edward H. Wilson, Catherine A. Kidwell, Emma McCahill, John W. Kidwell, Francis L. Kidwell, Ida Hyde and George A. Hyde.

3. By one of the defendants embraced in class three (3), namely, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company and its

trustees.

4. By two of the defendants embraced in class four (4), namely, the trustees of the estate of William Easby, deceased, and Richard J. Beall.

5. By all of the defendants embraced in class five (5), namely, certain descendants of Robert Peter.

6. By certain of the defendants embraced in class six (6), namely: (a) Charles Chauncy Savage et al.; (b) The Washington Steamboat Company, limited; (c) Avarilla Lambert et al.; (d) William W. Rapley; (e) Mary A. S. Kimmell Gray; (f) James F. Barber et al.; (g) William G. Johnson, assignee of the American Ice Company; (h) Thomas W. Riley; (2) Edward M. Willis; (j) Annie E. Johnson, widow, sole executrix and devisee of E. Kurtz Johnson, deceased, et al.; (k) Elizabeth K. Riley, in her own right and as trustee and executrix of William R. Riley, deceased; () The Great Falls Ice Company; (m) Daniel S. Evans; (n) Margaret J. Stone; and (0) Charles B. Church et al.

7. By certain of the defendants embraced in class seven (7), namely, Annie E. Johnson, widow, sole executrix and devisee of E. Kurtz Johnson, deceased, et al.; Charles B. Church et al.; Daniel S. Evans, and William W. Rapley.

The following reduced copies of the plans will assist in applying the reasoning of the opinion:

No. 1 is the city before the conveyances.

No. 2 is the Ellicott plan.

No. 3 is a portion of the Dermott map, sufficient to indicate the river front in part.