Martin v. Lessee of Waddell
16 Pet. 367, 41 U.S. 367, 10 L. Ed. 997 (1842)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A grant of colonial territory by the English Crown, which included both land and governmental powers, conveyed the soil under navigable waters to the grantee as a public trust for the common use of all subjects, not as private property. Upon the American Revolution, this sovereignty and trusteeship over submerged lands passed to the individual states.
Facts:
- In 1664 and 1674, King Charles II of England granted a large territory, including the present-day state of New Jersey, to his brother, the Duke of York.
- The grant included all lands, soils, rivers, and fishings, along with the powers of government over the territory.
- The Duke of York subsequently conveyed the territory of East New Jersey to 24 individuals known as the proprietors, vesting in them the same rights of property and government he had received.
- In 1702, the proprietors surrendered all their powers of government over East New Jersey back to the English Crown (Queen Anne), while purporting to retain their rights to private property.
- The land in dispute consists of one hundred acres of soil under the navigable waters of the Raritan River and Bay, an area used for oyster fishing.
- In 1834, the proprietors of East New Jersey authorized a survey and grant of this underwater land to the predecessor in title of Waddell.
- Martin claimed an exclusive right to the same oyster fishery under a law passed by the State of New Jersey in 1824.
Procedural Posture:
- Waddell's Lessee, the plaintiff, instituted an action of ejectment against Martin, the defendant, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.
- At trial, the jury returned a special verdict setting forth the facts upon which the parties' competing claims of title were based.
- The Circuit Court entered a judgment in favor of Waddell's Lessee.
- Martin, as the plaintiff in error, brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a royal charter from King Charles II to the Duke of York, subsequently transferred to the proprietors of East New Jersey, convey title to the soil under navigable waters as private property that could be granted to individuals, separate from the sovereign powers of government?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taney
No, the royal charter did not convey the soil under navigable waters as private property. The land under navigable waters passed to the grantee as one of the royalties incident to the powers of government, to be held in trust for the common benefit of the new community. When the King held the territory, he did so in his public and regal character, in trust for the nation, not as private property. The grant's purpose was to establish a colony governed by English law, under which navigable waters and fisheries were considered a 'public common of piscary' for the benefit of all. The 1702 surrender of governmental powers back to the Crown included these public trust rights over navigable waters. Upon the Revolution, these sovereign rights and the title to the lands under navigable waters became vested in the State of New Jersey for the common use of its people.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Thompson
Yes, the royal charter conveyed absolute title to the soil under navigable waters as private property. The language of the grant was comprehensive, conveying 'all the lands, islands, soils, rivers,' which is sufficient to transfer ownership of the soil itself. By common law, the King had the power to grant the soil of a navigable river, and such a grant carries with it the right to a several (exclusive) fishery, subject only to the public's right of navigation, not a common right of fishery. The 1702 surrender was explicitly limited to the powers of government and did not affect the proprietors' vested rights in private property, which included the submerged lands. Therefore, the proprietors retained the right to grant the oyster beds to Waddell's predecessor.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the public trust doctrine as a cornerstone of American property and environmental law. By holding that states inherited the Crown's title to submerged lands in trust for the public, the Court fundamentally shaped the allocation of rights in coastal and riverine resources. The ruling prevents the privatization of vast areas of navigable waters based on colonial-era grants, securing public rights of access for navigation, commerce, and fishing. This doctrine continues to be a powerful tool for states to regulate and protect their water resources and limits the scope of private property rights in lands beneath navigable waters.
