Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/451

 EUTZ V. CITY OF ST. LOUIS. e3S^, �land was washed away. A demurrer is interpoaed on two �grounds : �First, th^t the action is loccUi heng toi damages to the realty of the plaintifE in another jurisdiction. �This suit is brought in the United States circuit court here, of wbich the defendant, a corporation, is an inhabitant, within the meaning of the acts of congress pertaining thereto. Be^ , ing a municipal corporation it could not be an inhabitant of , or found within the jurisdiction of, Hlinois, or of the United States circuit court for said district; and hence, if the com- mon-iaw rule as to local actions must prevail, the plaintiff is remedilesB, practically, however great the wrong sustained, because no legal service could be there had. �It seems that the old rule as to local actions should not be �considered applicable to suits of this nature. Where there is �a wrong there. must be a remedy. The injury in this case �was caused by defendant acting within another jurisdiction. �Second. Defendant contends that the dyke built by it was under author- ity of Missouri statutes, and consequently was not unlawful, despite the avertnents in plaintifl's petition to the contrary. �Can such a proposition be raised by demurrer to the peti- tion ? If the United States courts are bound to take notice of public acts of every state, and the state of Missouri, by statuts, authorized the dyke to be erected, then it was a law- ful structure, intraterritorially, if properly erected, and does not fall within the rules concerning nuisances. Transporta- tion Co. V. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635; Weeks, Damnum Absque Injuria, § 8; Radcliff v. Mayor, 4 Comst. 195; and varions other cases cited, especially Imler v. Springfi^ld, 55 Mo. 125. �There are, however, other and graver considerations in- volved, to which the attention of counsel was directed in the course of the argument, with the request that they would examine the same, and the authorities to which the court referred. In the absence of any such aid, the court is asked to pass upon a grave question concerning the rights of riparian owners on opposite aides, of the river to that where dykes, etc., are constructed, provided such a question oa^,; in the present state of the pleadings, be raised by de. ��� �