Mr. Justice SWAYNE.
The appellees filed their bill in equity in-the-Circuit Court of Campbell county, Kentucky, seeking thereby to enjoin the appellants from invading ¡the ferry rights claimed by them' as set forth in their bill, and also praying for an account and a decree against the appellants in respect of the moneys received by them in violation of the alleged rights of the complainants. The appellants answered, proofs were taken, and the case brought to hearing.
The Circ uit Court of Campbell county entered a decree against the appellants. They removed the cause to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. That court modified the decree of the court below, but also decreed against them. They thereupon brought the cause to this court by a writ of error under the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789. It is now presented here for adjudication.
The case made by the pleadings and proofs is substantially as follows:
On the 29th of April, 1787, James Taylor, of Virginia, received from' that State a patent for 1,500 acres of land lying upon the Ohio and Licking rivers, at the confluence of those Streams,* and above the mouth of the latter.
In 1792, James Taylor, tire patentee, by his agent, Hubbard Taylor, laid out the town of Newport, at the confluence of the two rivers, upon a part of the tract of fifteen hundred acres.
According, to the map of the town as surveyed and thus laid out, the lots and streets did not extend to either of the rivers. A strip of land extending to the water-line was left between the street, running parallel with and nearest to each river.
In July, 1793, John Bartle applied to the Mason county court for the grant of a ferry from his lot in Newport, on Front street, across the Ohio to Cincinnati. All order was made accordingly, but the appellate court of Kentucky reversed and revoked it on the 15th of May, 1798, upon the ground that it did not appear that his lot extended to the Ohio river.
On the 29th of January, 1794, a ferry was granted to James Taylor, of Virginia, by the Mason county court, from his landing in front of Newport, across the Ohio river, with authority to.receive the same fares which were allowed upon transportation from the opposite shore. A ferry across the Licking was also granted to him.
On the 20th August, 1795, a re-survey and plat of the town of Newport was made, by which the eastern limits of the town were extended to "Eastern Row," and the strip of ground between the Ohio river and the northern boundary of the town, and between Licking river and the western boundary of the town, were endorsed, "Common or esplanade, to remain common forever." This plat was made by Roberts.
Oii the 14th December, 1795, an act was passed bj^the Legislature of Kentucky incorporating the town of Newport, in conformity with the re-survey and plat of Roberts.
The preamble, and so much of the act as is deemed material in this case, are as follows: "Whereas it is represented to the present General Assembly, that one hundred and eighty acres of land, the property of James Taylor, in the county of Campbell, have been laid off into convenient lots and streets, by the said James Taylor, for the purpose of a town, and distinguished by the name of Newport, and it is judged expedient to vest the said land in trustees and establish the town:
" § 1. Be it- therefore enacted, by the General Assembly, That the land comprehending the said toion, agreeably to a plat made by John Roberts, be vested in Thomas Kennedy and others, 'who are hereby appointed trustees for the same, except such parts as are hereafter excepted.'
. "§ 7. Beit farther enacted, That such part of said town as lies between the lots and rivers Ohio aud Licking, as will appear by a reference to the said plat, shall forever remain for the use and benefit of said town for a common, reserving to the said James Taylor, and h:s heirs and assigns, every advantage and privilege which he has not disposed of, or which he would by law be entitled to."
The streets and lots exhibited by the Roberts's plat of 1795, as by that of 1792, did not extend to either the Ohio or Licking river.
The disputed ground between the northern boundary of Front street and the Ohio river varies in width according to the inflexions in the line bounding the margin of the river at high-water mark, from five to ten poles; and the distance from high to low-water mark varies from seventeen to two hundred yards, and was not included in the 180 acres laid out for the town. This area is denominated "the esplanade."
In 1799, James Taylor, of Virginia, the patentee, conveyed to his son, James Taylor, of Kentucky, this, strip of ground, between Front street and the Ohio river, together with the other land adjacent to the 180 acres laid out int-he-plat of the town in 1795, and also the ferry franchise.
James Taylor, of Kentucky, from the time of the conveyance by his father to him, in 1799, continued to run the ferry from the ground in front of Newport, on which it was originally established.
In consequence of the passage of the act of 1806, by the Legislature of Kentucky, concerning ferries, James Taylor, of Kentucky, applied to .the Campbell county court, in 1807 for the establishment of the ferry granted to his father; and the ferry was re-established in his name, and he executed a bond, and continued to run the ferry from- almost every part of the ground or esplanade, in' front of the town of Newport, from that period to the time of the filing of the bill in this case.
In 1830 the town of Newport applied to the Campbell county court for the grant to said town of a ferry, from the esplanade across the Ohio river to Cincinnati, which application was re fused. An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, and at the June term, 1831, the order of the Campbell county court vras affirmed.
This case is reported in 6 J. J. Marshall, 134.
James Taylor, of Virginia, and his grantee and son, James Taylor, of Kentucky, continued, therefore, uninterruptedly to run this ferry from 1794 until the commencement' of this sui . The proof shows, also, that he constantly exercised acts of ownership over the whole copimon in front of Newport, and did not permit even the quarrying of stone without his consent; that he was in the habit of landing his ferry-boats at various points on this common or esplanade from time to time, and that he acquiesced in its free use as a common for egress and ingress by the people of the town, but always claimed and exercised the exclusive ferry privilege.
" After the incorporation of the town of Newport as a city, the city of Newport applied, in 1850, at the February term of the Campbell county court, for the grant of a ferry across the-Ohio river, to the president and Common Council of the city of Newport. No notice was given of the application, and the ferry was granted."
At the time of this application, James Taylor, of Kentucky, had departed this life, leaving a will, and appointing his son, James Taylor, his executor, and making a particular devise of this ferry, and requiring his executor to rent it until the taking effect of the devise, as provided in the will.
As soon as the action of the Campbell county court granting a ferry to the city of Newport was known, a writ of error was sued out from the Circuit Court by the executor and devisees of James Taylor, of Kentucky, to reverse the order of the county court, whereby the ferry was granted. The order was .reversed. The city of Newport took the case to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. That court, in March, 1850, 'affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. This case is reported in 11 Ben. Monroe, 361.
It appears in the proofs, that the ferry boats-used by the appellees were duly enrolled, inspected, and licensed under the laws of the United States.
No claim is set up in the bill as to any ferry license from Ohio, or to any right of landing on the Ohio side.
In 1853 the appellants built the steamer Commodore, and constituted themselves "The Cincinnati and Newport Packet Company," for the purpose of running that steamer as a ferryboat from Cincinnati to Newport, and from Newport to Cincinnati. They rented, for five years, a portion of the esplanade in front -of Monmouth street, in the city of Newport, from the Common Council of that city.
The Commodore was a vessel of 128 tons burden, and in all respects well appointed and equipped.
The appellants caused her to be enrolled on the 4th of January, 1854, at the custom-house at' Cincinnati, under the act of Congress for enrolling and licensing vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisberiesj with Peter Conway as master, and obtained on the same day, from the surveyor of customs at the port of Cincinnati, a license for the employment and carrying of the coasting trade.
They commenced running her as a ferry-boat from Cincinnati to Newport, and from Newport to Cincinnati, on the 5th of January, 1854.
Her landings were at the wharves on each side of the river, opposite to each other, the landing in Newport being at the foot of Monmouth street.
The right of the Commodore to land there, for all lawful purposes, was not contested in the Court of Appeals, and was not questioned in the argument here.
In January, 1854, the appellees exhibited their hill in equity against the appellants.
In the same month a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining the appellants from running the Commodore as a ferry-boat between the cities of Cincinnati and Newport.
In the progress of the cause, proceedings were instituted against the appellants for contempt of the court in violating this injunction. It was then made to appear that the appellants had, on the 6th of March, 1854, obtained a ferry license under the laws of Ohio. This fact appears in the record, and is adverted to in the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Upon the final hearing, the Campbell Circuit Court decreed, that an account should be taken of the ferriages received by the appellants on account of the Commodore, and that they " be and they are, each and all of them, perpetually enjoined from landing the boat called in the pleadings and proof the ' Commodoi'e,' or any other boat or vessel, upon that part of the Kentucky shore of the Ohio river lying between the lots of the city» of Newport and the Ohio river, designated upon the plat of the town of Newport as the 'esplanade,' and including the whole open space so designated, for the purpose of receiving or landing either persons or property ferried from, or to be ferried to, the opposite shore of the Ohio river.
"It being hereby adjudged against all the defendants to this action, that the entire privilege and franchise of ferrying persons and property to and from said part of the Kentucky shore of the Ohio river is in the plaintiffs alone; and it is hereby adjudged, that the receiving of persons, animals, carriages, wagons, carts, drays, or any other kind of vehicle, either loaded or empty, upon said, boat or any other vessel at said part bf the Kentucky shore, for- the purpose of being transported and landed upon the opposite shore of the Ohio river, and the landing of persons, animals,, and the kind of property above described, which had been received upon said boat or other vessel at or from the opposite shore of the Ohio river, and transported across said river, upon said part of the Kentucky shore, is an infringement of the ferry franchise of the plaintiffs, and is hereby perpetually enjoined; and this injunction shall extend to and embrace all persons claiming under the defendants to this action."
In reviewing this adjudication, the Court of Appeals held: "The judgment is erroneous in the extent to which it perpetuates the injunction, and to which it restrains the Commodore and the defendants in landing upon the slip in question, persons and property transported from the Ohio shore, and in adjudging, as it seems to do, the exclusive right of ferrying from both sides of the river to be in plaintiffs alone. The transportation as carried on was illegal and properly enjoined, and the injunction should have been perpetuated against future transportation of a like kind, either under color of any license obtained,, or to be obtained, from the authorities of the United States under the existing laws, or without such license, unless authorized to transport from the Ohio shore, from a ferry estaK lished on that side under the laws of that State; and they might have been restrained or prohibited, under all or any circumstances, from transporting persons or property from this to the other side, (within the interdicted distance above or below an established ferry on this side,) unless authorized under the laws of this State to do so; and the exclusive right of ferrying from the Kentucky side should have been declaimed to be in the plaintiffs.
"Wherefore the judgment perpetuating said injunction, and adjudging the exclusive right of ferrying from both sides of the river to be .in the plaintiffs, is revei'sed, and the cause as to that is remanded, with directions to perpetuate the injunction to the extent just indicated, and to adjudge the right as above dii'ected.
"And afterwards, to wit, on the 9th day of February, 1860, the following order was entered on the records of this court:
'"City of Newport vs. Taylor's'Executors et al. Judge Campbell.
"It is ordered that the mandate be amended as follows: That the judgment perpetuating the said injunction is reversed, and the cause as to that is remanded, with directions to perpetuate the injunction to the extent just indicated, and to adjudge the right, as above directed."
It is objected by the appellants, that no such ferry franchise exists as was sought to be protected by this decree, because it was granted under the laws of Kentucky, and did not embrace a lauding on the Ohio shore. It is insisted that such a franchise, when confined to one shore, is a nullity, and that the concurrent action of both States is necessary to give it validity.
Under the laws of Kentucky a ferry franchise is grantable only to riparian owners. The franchise in this instance was granted in pursuance of those laws. Any riparian ownership, or right of landing, or legal sanction of any kind beyond the jurisdiction of that State, is not required by her laws.
The riparian rights of James Taylor, deceased, and of his executor and devisees, in respect of the Kentucky shore, have been held sufficient to sustain a ferry license by the highest legal. tribunal of that State, whenever the subject has been presented. The question came uuder consideration, and was discussed and decided in the year 1831 in 6 J. J. Marshall, 134, Trustees of Newport vs. James Taylor; in 1850 in Ben. Monroe, 361, City of Newport vs. Taylor's heirs; in 1855 in this ease, 16 Ben. Monroe, 784; and, finally, in 1858, in the City of Newport vs. Air & Wallace. (Pamphlet copy of Record.)
These adjudications constitute a rule of property, and a rule of decision which this court is bound to recognise. Were the question an open one, and now presented for the first time for determination, we should have no hesitation in coming to the same conclusion. We do not see how it could have been decided otherwise. This point was not pressed by the counsel for the. appellants. The judgments referred to exhaust the subject. We deem it unnecessary to go again over the same ground.
The concurrent action of the two States was not necessary. "A ferry is in respect of the landing place, and not of the water. The water may be to one, and the ferry to another." 13 Viner's Ab., 208, A.
In 11 Wend., 590, The People vs. Babcock, this same objection was .urged, in respect of a license under the laws of New York, for a ferry across the Niagara river. The court said: "The privilege of the license may not be as valuable to the grantee, by not extending across the river; but as far as it does extend, he is entitled to all the provisions of the law, the object of which is to secure the exclusive privilege of maintaining a ferry at a designated place."
The point has been ruled in the same way in a large num ,her of other cases:
2 McLean, 377, Bowman's Devisees and others vs. Burnley and others; 3 Yerger, 390, Memphis vs. Overton; 1 Green's Iowa Rep., 498, Phelps vs. Bloomington; 4 Zabriskie, 723, Freeholders vs. The State; 8 How., 569, Wills et al. vs. St. Clair County et al.; 16 How., 564, Fanning vs. Gregoire.
In the case last cited, (Fanning vs. Gregoire, 16 How., 564,) the arguments on hie show that this objection was pressed with learning and ability. In the opinion delivered, the court seems to have assumed the validity of such a license, without in terms adverting to the question. Another question was fully discussed and expressly decided. This point does not appear in the report of the case.
Our attention has been earnestly invited to the following provisions of the ferry laws of Kentucky, under which the license of the appellees was granted:
"None but a resident of Kentucky can hold the grant of a ferry. Sec. 5, Stanton's Revised Statutes, p. 540.
"Ary sale or leasing of a ferry right, or contract not to use it, made with the owner of a ferry established on the other side of the Ohio or Mississippi, shall be deemed an abandonment, for which the right shall be revoked. Sec. 12.
"Any one who shall, for reward, transport any person or thing across a water-course from or to any point within one mile of an established ferry, unless it be the owner of an established ferry on the other side of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers so transporting to- such point on this side, and any owner or lessee, or servant, of the owner of a ferry on the other side of either of those rivers, who shall so transport front this side, without reward, shall forfeit and pay to the owner of the nearest ferry the sum of sixteen dollars for every such offence, recoverable before a justice of the peace. Sec. 14.
" No ferry shall be established on the Ohio river within less than a mile and a half, nor upon any other stream within less than a mile of the place in a straight line, where any existing ferry was pre-established, unless it be a town or city, or where an impassable stream intervenes.
"No new ferry shall be so granted within a city or town, unless those established therein cannot properly do all the business, or unless public convenience greatly requires a new ferry at a site not within four hundred yards of that of any other." See. 15.
We have considered these in connection with the other provisions of those laws. Whether they are wise and liberal, oi the opposite, are inquiries that lie beyond the si here óf oui powers and duties.
Considered all together, they have not seemed to us to de serve the character which has been ascribed to them. Whih they fence about with stringent safeguards the rights of the holder of the ferry franchise, they do not leave unprotected the rights of the public. If they give the franchise only to the riparian owner and citizen of the State, they surround him with sanctions designed to secure the fulfilment of his obligations.
The franchise is confined to the transit from the shore of the State. The same rights which she claims for herself she concedes to others. She has thrown ho obstacle in the way of the transit from the States lying upon the other side of the Ohio and Mississippi. She has left that to be wholly regulated by their ferry laws. We have heard of no hostile legislation, and of no complaints, by any of those States. It was shown in the argument at bar that similar laws exist in most, if not all, the States bordering upon those streams. They exist in othef States of the Union bounded by navigable waters.
Very few adjudged cases have been brought to our notice in which the ferry rights they authorize to be granted have been challenged; none in which they have been held to be invalid.
A ferry franchise is as much property as a rent or any other incorporeal hereditament, or chattels, or realty. It is clothed with the same sanctity and entitled to the same protection as other property.
"An estate in such a franchise and an estate in land rest upon the same principle." 3 Kent's Com., 459..
Lastly, it is urged that the Commodore, having been enrolled under the laws of the United States, and licensed nnder those laws for the coasting trade, the decree violates the rights which the enrolment and lice.nse gave to the appellants in respect of that trade by obstructing the free navigation of the Ohio.
Here it is necessary to consider the extent of the injunction which the decree directs to be entered by.the court below.
The counsel for the appellants insists that, " as respects transportation from the Kentucky side, and from the Commodore's wharf at the foot of Monmouth street, that vessel is enjoined, under ' all or any circumstances, from, transporting persons or property' to the opposite shore, unless under the authority of the State of Kentucky."
We do not so understand the decree. If we did, we should, without hesitation, reverse it. An examination of the context leaves no doubt, in our minds,' that the court intended only to enjoin the Commodore, under "all or any circumstances, from transporting persons or property" from the Kentucky shore in violation of the ferry rights of the appellees, which it was the purpose of the decree to protect. The bill made no case, and asked nothing, beyond this. The court could not have intended to go beyond the case before it. That the appellants had the right after as before the injunction, in the prosecution of the carrying and coasting trade, and of ordinary commercial navigation; to transport "persons and property" from the Kentucky shore, no one, we apprehend, will deny. The limitation is the line which protects the ferry rights of the appellees.
Those rights give them no monopoly, under "all circumstances," of all commercial transportation from the Kentucky shore. They have no right to exclude or restrain those there prosecuting the business of commerce in good faith, without the regularity or purposes of ferry trips, and seeking in nowise to interfere with the enjoyment of their franchise. To suppose that the Court of Appeals, in the language referred to, intended to lay down the converse of these propositions, would do that distinguished tribunal gross injustice.
The Commodore was run openly and avowedly as a ferryboat; that was her business. The injunction as to her and her business was correct.
The language of the court must be considered as limited to that subject. The zeal with which this point was pressed by the counsel for the appellants has led us thus fully to consider it.
The enrolment of the Commodore ascertained her ownership, and gave her a national character. .
The license gave her authority to carry on the coasting trade* Together they put the appellants in a position to make the question here to be considered.
The language of the Constitution to which this objection refers is as follows: " The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." Ai't. 1, § 8,'clause 4.
The character and extent of the power thus conferred, and the boundaries which separate that power from the powers of the States touching the same subject, came under discussion in this court, for the first time, in Gibbons vs. Ogden, (9 Wheat., 1.) It was argued on both sides with exhaustive learning and ability. The judgment of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall.. The court said: "They" (State inspection laws) "form a portion of the immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of á State not surrendered to the General .Government; all which can be most.advantageously exercised by-the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as. well as laws for regulating thé internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are parts of this mass.".
The proposition thus laid down has not since been questioned in any adjudicated cáse.
The same principle has been repeatedly affirmed in othej cases, both in this and the State courts.
In Fanning vs. Gregoire, (9 How., 534,) before referred to, this court held: .
"The argument that the free navigation of the Mississippi, guarantied by the ordinance of 1787, or any right which may be supposéd to arise from the exercise of the commercial power of Congress, does not apply in this case. Neither of these interfere with the police powers of a State in granting ferry licenses. When navigable rivers within the commercial powers of the Union may be obstructed, one or both of these powers may be invoked."
Rights of commerce give no authority to their possessor to invade the rights of property. He cannot use a bridge, a canal, or a railroad without paying the fixed rate of compensation. He cannot use a warehouse^ or vehicle of transportation belonging to another without the owner's consent. No more can he invade the ferry franchise of another without authority from the holder. The vitality.of such a franchise lies in its exclusiveness. The moment the right becomes common, the franchise ceases to ¿xist.
We have shown that it is property, and, as such, rests upon the same principle which lies at the foundation of all other property.
Undoubtedly, the States, in conferring ferry rights, may pass laws so infringing the commercial power of the nation that it would be the duty of this court to annul or control them. 13 How., 519, Wheeling Bridge case. The function is one of' extreme delicacy, and only to. be performed where the infraction is clear. The ferry laws in question in this case are not of that character. We find nothing in them transcending the legitimate exercise of the legislative power of the State. .
The authorities referred tc must be considered as putting the question at rest. The ordinance of 1787 was not partiou larly brought to our attention in the discussion at bar. Any argument drawn from that source is sufficiently met by what has- been already said.
The counsel for the appellees has invoked the authority of Cooley vs. The Board of Wardens of Philadelphia, (12 How., 299,) in which a majority of this court held that, upon certain subjects affecting commerce as placed under the guardianship of the Constitution of the United States, the States may pass laws which will be operative till Congress shall see fit to annul them.
In the view we have taken of this case, we have found it unnecessary to consider that subject.
There has been' now nearly three-quarters of a century of practical interpretation of the Constitution. During all that time, as before the Constitution had its birth, the States have exercised the power to establish and regulate ferries; Congress never. "We have sought in vain for any act of Congrens which involves the exercise of this power.
That the authority lies within the scope of " that immense mass" of undelegated powers which "are reserved to the States respectively," we think too clear to admit of doubt.
We place our judgment wholly upon that ground.
There is nó error in the decree of the Court of Appeals. It is therefore affirmed,, with costs.