MILLEfi V. MAYOR, ETC., OF NEW IORK. 513 �Miller r. The Mayor, Etc., op the City op New York and others. {Oircuit Court, 8. D. New York. June 9, 1880.) �1. NuisAKCE— Bhidge oveb Navigable River. �A bridge constructed over a navigable river under the authority of congress and of the legislature of the state in which it is situated, iu the manner author- ized by law, is a legal structure, and caaaot be held to be a public nuisaace, or otherwise unlawful. �2. Regulation dp Com3Ierce — Power of Congrebs. �In the exercise of its power to regulate commerce, congress may authorize the construction of a bridge over a navigable river of the United States, and it may itself approve the design or plan of its construction, or devolve that duty upon the secretary of war. �3. Notification op ApprovaIj of Plan. �It is competent for the secretary of war to convey notification of his approval cf the design and plan of the bridge in any way which would be effectuai, and notice givtn through a subordinate is sufBcient. �In Equity. �Wm. H. Arnoux, for plaintiff. �Joseph H. Choate, for defendants. �Blatchford, C. J. The plaintiff brings this bill in equity "on behalf of himself and all others similarily situated with him." The defendants are the cities of New York and Brooklyn, as municipal corporations, and the persons composing the board of trustees of the suspension bridge over the East river between the cities of New York and Brooklyn. The plaintiff does business in the city of New York, as the lessee of certain United States bonded warehouses situated in the city of New York, on the East river, at the corner of Jefferson and South streets, and also as the lessee of certain other warehouses situated in said city on the East river, on South street, between Peck and Rutger's slips. He alleges, in the bill, that the bridge will be built without lawful authority; that it will be a nuisance, and will obstruct, impair, and injuriously modify the navigation of the East river, and may seriously and prejudioially affect the commerce of the port of New York ; and that the expense to vessels of striking parts of their masts, in passing under the bridge, with the detention and additional towage, would be so great as to destroy the warehouse business of the plaintiff in such locations, and be a private and irre- parable injury to him, for which an action at law would afford no adequate redress to him. The bill prays for a deoree that the bridge is being built without lawful authority; that it will be a nuisance in T.10,no.5— 33 ��� �
