
    No. 7631.
    Robert Watson et al. vs. B. M. Turnbull et al.
    The bauks of the river are public, and within her corporate limits the City of New Orleans has the right to control, manage and administer their use for the public convenience and utility. Riparian proprietors have no right, by injunction, to restrain tbe exercise of this right.
    The discretion of the city iu determining what are proper and nee led facilities for commerce, and on what part of the river banks, within her limits, they should be established, is not a proper question for judicial control or interference.
    APPEAL from tbe Third District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
    
      Bolt. G. Dugué, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
    
      G. F. Bwelc, City Attorney, Wynne Boyers, for Defendants and Appellees:
    
      Both under general laws, and express authority of her charter, the City of New Orleans administers the use oi the river banks for the public convenience and utility, and has all the powers requisite to that object. She has the right to all advantages it may produce, and can make works to increase the revenues. City Charter, Sec. 12; 18 L. 278.
    The Council has the right to remove, or cause the removal, of works constructed on river bank, with or without permission, by private persons. 1 M. 187 j 4 M. 10 j Kendigvs. City, 20 An. 337, and other authorities cited in the brief.
    The “riparian proprietor,’* -within municipal limits, even conceding to Mm the right of acquiring ownership to batture, jure alluvionis, has no lightof ownership or possession and nse to the river bank, the use of which is primarily in the public, administered for it by the City Couucil. No part of the river bank or batture cau be reduced to private use and possession without the consent of the city government, or on a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, as provided by See. 318, B. S.'
   Tlie opinion of the Court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

The question involved in this case is, whether the owners of property bordering on the river, within the corporate limits of the City of New Orleans, can enjoin tbe city authorities from placing “hitching posts” or clusters of posts along the river hank, in front of their property, with the view of establishing a landing place and furnishing-facilities for the landing, fastening, etc., of coal boats and other water craft.

The grounds of the injunction sought, so far as in the least pertinent, are, that there is no necessity of commerce requiring the placing of such posts; that plaintiffs had already placed, at their own expense, all such posts as were required; that the design of the City is not to facilitate commerce,.but to exact a revenue from commerce; that said action would obstruct tbe free use of tbe banks of the river, and cause deterioration in value to the property of complainants. The banks of rivers are public.

Within the corporate limits, the City of New Orleans, under her charter and under the general law, lias the right to control, manage and administer the use of the river hanks for the public convenience and utility ; to establish wharves and landings; to erect works and provide facilities for the use of vessels and water craft; and to charge just compensation for the use thereof. Riparian proprietors have no right to appropriate to their exclusive use these banks, and they have no private property in the use thereof, which is public. Tbe discretion of tbe city authorities in determining wliat are proper and needed facilities for commerce, and on what part of the river hank, within her limits, they should he established, is manifestly not a proper subject for judicial control or interference. Whatever incidental damage may result to proprietors from the exercise of these unquestionable corporate rights, it is damnum, absgiic injuria.

These principles are elementary and established by numerous authorities. 1 M. 187; 4 M. 10; 3 L. 563; 18 L. 278; 6 R. 349; 2 An. 538; 5 An. 34; 15 An. 657; 26 An. 357; 27 An. 17; 10 An. 171 and 523; 30 An. 190.

This case raises no question as to right of the City to remove the hitching posts which had been established by plaintiffs.

Whether the facilities provided by the City will justify her in charging any, and if so, what wharfage dues from vessels using them, is a question not pertinent here.

Equally impertinent is the validity of the contract under which the employee of the City is doing the work; though it may be added, that there is no evidence supporting the allegation.

Judgment affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Levy, J., absent'.  