## Facts

- Elisha Pitkin owned land bordering the Connecticut River, treated in the case as a public river.
- Nehemiah, Moses, and Samuel Olmstead owned adjoining riparian land immediately upstream from Pitkin.
- A fishing company had earlier cleared part of the riverbed to create a fishing place located opposite the Olmsteads’ land.
- In 1774, the Olmsteads leased rights to that fishing company to clear the fishing place and to draw seines (nets) onto the Olmsteads’ shore; the lease was renewed until 1787.
- In 1787, the Olmsteads ended the lease, cutting off the fishing company’s permission to use the Olmsteads’ shoreline.
- The fishing company sold its equipment to another operation, which sought and received Pitkin’s permission to use Pitkin’s land for drawing seines.
- Pitkin and the successor operation cleared the bed of the river opposite Pitkin’s land for fishing.
- During the 1787 season, Pitkin and the operation fished both (a) in the newly cleared area opposite Pitkin’s land and (b) in the earlier fishing area opposite the Olmsteads’ land, drawing the seine onto Pitkin’s land.
- The Olmsteads then built a barrier extending about 100 feet from their shore into the river, below the common low-water mark, which obstructed fishing in the area.
- Pitkin sued the Olmsteads in trespass, alleging that the barrier wrongfully interrupted his fishing operation.
- A jury found the material facts and referred to the Connecticut Superior Court the legal question whether the defendants were guilty on those facts.

## Issues

1. Whether riparian owners on the Connecticut River could lawfully build an obstruction extending below the common low-water mark that interfered with another riparian owner’s seining in the river.
2. Whether constructing such a barrier that interrupts another’s lawful fishing use supports liability in trespass on the facts found by the jury.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Superior Court treated the Connecticut River at the location in question as a public river subject to public use rights.
- Because the Olmsteads’ barrier extended into the river below the common low-water mark and obstructed Pitkin’s fishing use, the court treated the obstruction as unlawful.
- On the special finding of facts, the court resolved the case for Pitkin and sustained liability in trespass based on the interference caused by the barrier.

## Legal Principles

- Where a river is treated as public, riparian ownership does not include a right to appropriate or obstruct the riverbed below the common low-water mark in a way that interferes with lawful use of the water.
- A riparian owner’s shore-based construction that projects into a public river may be unlawful when it materially blocks another’s lawful fishing method (such as drawing a seine) in the river.
- Trespass may be supported where a defendant, without entering the plaintiff’s land, creates a physical obstruction in the public river that directly interrupts the plaintiff’s lawful fishing operation.

## Conclusion

Pitkin v. Olmstead holds that, on a public stretch of the Connecticut River, upstream riparian owners could not place a barrier below the common low-water mark to obstruct another riparian owner’s lawful seining; the court treated the obstruction as unlawful and sustained Pitkin’s trespass claim on the facts found by the jury.


Pitkin v. Olmstead, 1 Root 217 (1790)