
    HENRY versus TURNER.
    One who crosses a river at a ferry in a boat not belonging to tiie owner of the ferry, and who lands by stepping from the ferryimtu’s boat, is not liable in aú action to recover the rate cf ferriage, allowed by late; however he would be re* sponsible for the invasion of the plaintiff’s franchise, or for trespass.
    This action was brought in the County Court of Bibb, to recover the rate of ferriage allowed by law to the plaintiff, Henry. The defendant, Turner, had, it appeared, crossed the river in a canoe, not belong-* ing to the owner of the ferry; and had landed, by stepping into the boat of the plaintiff. The Court be^ low, determined that the action was not sustainable \ Whereupon, the defendant took his writ of error to this Court.
    Freeman, for Plaintiff
    cited Aih. Dig. 396;
    Stewart, contra.
    
   By Mr. Justice Thornton :

This was an action brought by the plaintiff in etf* for, who was also plaintiff below, to recover of the' defendant an amount due for ferriage to the plaintiff, who appears to have been in possession of the ferry landing, and necessary water craft, at Center-ville, on the Cahawba river. The proof is, that the defendant, by means of a canoe, which is proven not to.have belonged to the plaintiff, nor to he one of the water craft, kept and provided for tire said ferry, crossed the river, and got out on the landing side into one of the plaintiff’s boats. The Judge who tried the cause below, decided that the plaintiff could not recover, in this action, for the ferriage; and in this, which is the only error assigned, we think he did not err. The reason which the Court below gave for this decision, adverse to the plaintiff, is not a matter 'which can be assigned, for error; and therefore, we cannot properly determine, whether that reason be a sound one or not. The restilt was correct,- for thé reason, that from the proof; however the defendant may be liable for invasion of the plaintiff’s franchise, of for trespass done by getting into his ferry boat, he was not responsible for the rate of ferriage allowed by law, as if he had been ferried over the stream in the craft of the plaintiff.

Let the judgment be affirmed.  