438 FBDBBAL BEPOBTEB. �The motion to dismiss is overruled. If a plea of abatement were interposed, embodying the statement of facts contained in the motion to dismiss, a demurrer thereto would be sus- tained. ���EoTz and others v. Citi of St. Louis. (Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. January 3, 1881.) �1. RiPARIAN RiGHTS— LiMITS OF StATE AUTHOHITT. �The lirait of the autliority of statea bordering on a navigable river is to protect their own shores and harbors without interfering wiy» the opposite shores, or common rights of navigation. �2. Same— NuiB-iNCE. �Where snch a state authorizes a structure, which, but for such authorization, would be considered a nuisance, its own citizens must accept the legal consequences, though not without the recovery of damages ; but it cannot pass a law to govern a state bordering on the opposite shore, or its citizens, or the realty situated therein. �3. Pbacticb— Demukeeb. �The petition alleged that the plaintifl was the owner of real estate in Illinois, opposite the city of St. Louis, and bordering on the Missis- sippi river ; that said city had caused a dyke to be bullt on the Missouri shore urUavafully, which dyke had caused plaintiff 's land to be washed away. Hdd, that the defendant could not raise the question of the Jawfulness of the dyke under the Missouri statutes, by demurrer to the petition, but should inform the court by answer, oh trial, whether the dyke interfered with the navigability of the river, and transcended the power of the state. �4. ,8amh— Local Actions. �Held,furtheT, that the old rule as to local actions wa» not applica- ble tb a suit of this nature. �Demurrer to Petition. �Baker e Fletcher, for plaintiff. �Leverett Bell, for defendant. �Teeat, D, J. This is an action at law for the recovery of damages consequent upon the alleged injuries caused by de- fendant. The plaintiff was owner of real estate in Illinois, opposite the city of St. Louis. Said city built, it is averred, on its shore, unlawfully, a dyke, whereby 40 acres of plaintiff'? ��� �
