The  judgment  is  largely  founded  on  and
approves  the  opinions  in  Lyon  v.  Fish-
mongers'Co.,  I..  II.  1  App.  Cas.  662.  As
to  power  of  the  legislature  in  respect  of
making  grants  of  lands  under  navigable
waters,  see  Hoboken  v.  Penn.  R.  R.  Co.,
124  U.  S.  656,  distinguishing  Hoboken
Land  and  Improvement  Co.  v.  Hoboken,
36  N.  J.  Law,  540,  and  other  cases  in
New  Jersey.  See  Yates  ■;;.  Milwaukee,  10
Wall.  497;  Weber  v.  Harbor  Comm'rs,  18
Wall.  57;  Railway  Co.  v.  Renwick,  102
U.  S.  180.  The  leading  case  in  New
York  as  to  construction  and  effect  of
grants  of  land  under  water  is  Langdon  v.
Mayor,  &c.  of  New  York,  93  X.  Y.  129.
Referring  to  the  conflicting  cases  as  to
tin-  nature  and  extent  of  the  rights  of  the
riparian  proprietor,  Cooley,  J.,  said:  "In
Railway  Co.  v.  Renwick,  102  F.  S.  180,
the  bi  iter  and  more  substantial  doctrine
is  laid  down,  that  the  land  under  the  water
in  front  of  a  riparian  proprietor,  though
beyond  the  line  of  private  ownership,  can-
not be  taken  and  appropriated  to  a  pub-
lic use  by  a  railway  company  under  its
right  of  eminent  domain  without  making
compensation  to  the  riparian  proprietor."
Backus  v.  Detroit,  49  Mich.  110,  114
(1882).  Contra,  Langdon  -■.  Mayor  of
New  York,  93  N.  Y.  12!',  and  New  York
cases  there  cited.  See  interesting  opinion
of  Finch,  J.,  in  Mayor  v.  Hart,  95  N.  Y.
443,  457  (1884).
In  the  Chicago  Lake  Front  Case,  33
Fed.  Rep.  730,  U.  S.  Cir.  Court,  Harlan
and  Blodgett,  JJ.  (Illinois  v.  Illinois  Cent.
172


MI'NICTPAL    CORPORATIONS.
