Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/353

 BUTZ V. CITY OF BT. LOUIS. ���341 ���States authorities in constructing a dike across the "chute," -while destroying a navigable front there, bas tended to check erosion and give vast accretions to the benefit of the riparian owner. �It is admitted that no one bas a right to benefit himself to the injury of anotherj and that when a riparian owner on one side of the river seeks by dikes, or otherwise, to secure an improvement of his property, he must do so without obstrueting the navigability of the river, or destroying the property of the riparian owner on the opposite shore, The uncertainty of shore lines and of the shifting channels of the river, together with the formation of "tow-heads," sand-bars, and islands, are incidents to the possession of lands bordering on the river. Along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, for hundreds of miles, these changes oceur annually to a greater or less degree from natural causes. It might be difficult to determine in many cases •whether "rip-rapping" or other protection by a riparian owner of his own property did not cause, in saving his own property, a defiection of the current whereby an erosion might occur elsewhere. Must it be contended that he cannot legally provide against the destruction of his own property; that he must suiier his acres to be swept away in order that some other person may profit from his loss? Such an inquiry, however, is not pertinent to this case. It must suffice that the dike built by the defendant was lawful, and did not damage plain- tififs. �Many authorities are cited whieh have more or less bearing ou this case, notably : Athee v. Packet Co. 21 Wall. 389 ; Boom Co. v. Pat- terson, 98 U. S. 403; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 How. 518. See, also, Moffit v. Brewer, 1 Greene, (lowa,) 348; Hosherv. Railroad Co. 60 Mo. 333; Kailroad Co. v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 272; Benson v. Morrow, 61 Mo. 345; Croshy v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404; Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635 ; Lee v. Pembroke Iron Co. 57 Me. 481; Cogswell v. Esse.v Mill Co. 6 Pick. 94; Thacher v. Dart- vwuth, etc., 18 Pick. 501 ; Comins v. Bradbury, 1 Fairf. 447; Crittenden v. Wilsun, 5 Cow. 165; Rippe v. Railroad, 28 Minn. 18; Dutton v. Strong, 1 Black, 23; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497; Pumpelly y. Green Bay Co. 13 Wall. 166; Ten Eyck v. Canal Co. 18 N. Y. L. 200; Avery v. Fox, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 246; Hatch v. Railroad, 25 Vt. 49; Bowe V. Granite Bridge Co. 21 Pick. 344; Railroad v. Stein, 75 111. 45; Meyer v. City of St. Louis, 8 Mo. App. 266. �The last case cited lays down correct rules for the case then be- fore that court ; but the same are not applicable either to the law or facts now under consideration. Of course an improvement by a city ��� �