[Sampeyreac and Stewart v. The United States.] tion of the act, which directs the court to proceed on such bills of review, by such rules of practice and regulations as they may adopt for the execution of the powers vested or confirmed in them by the act. 4. The next inquiry is, whether the appellant, Stewart, has acquired a right to the land, by reason of his standing in the character of a bona fide purchaser. The record contains an [*241 admission on the part of the United States, that he purchased the claims of John J. Bowie, by deed, for a valuable consideration, in good faith, some time in November or December, 1828. But this gave him no right to be let in as a party in the bill of review; he was not a party to the original bill, nor could he connect himself with Sampeyreac, the only party to the bill, he being a fictitious person; and the interest of Stewart, whatever it might be, was acquired long after the original decree was entered. He was, therefore, a perfect stranger to that decree. The deed purporting to have been given by Sampeyreac to Bowie, is admitted to be a forgery. Bowie, of course, had no interest, legal or equitable, which he would convey to Stewart. But admitting Stewart to have been properly let in as a party in the bill of review, the only colourable equity which he showed, was the certificate of entry given by the register of the land office, December 13th, 1828; and this certificate, founded on a decree in favour of Sampeyreac, a fictitious person, obtained by fraud, and upon forged evidence of title. This certificate is entirely unavailable to Stewart. He can obtain no patent under it if the original decree should remain unreversed; for the act of 1830 forbids any patent thereafter to be issued, except in the name of the original party to the decree; and on proof to the satisfaction of the officers, that the party applying is such original party, or is duly authorized by such original party or his heirs to receive such patent. The original party to the decree being a fictitious person, no title would pass under the patent, if issued. It would still remain in the United States. But Stewart acquired no right whatever under the deed from Bowie, the latter having no interest, that he could convey. In the case of Polk's Lessee v. Wendall, 5 Wheat. 308, it is said by this court, that on general principles, it is incontestable that a grantee can convey no more than he possesses. Hence, those who come in under the holder of a void grant, can acquire nothing. [*242 Upon the whole, we think Stewart was improperly admitted to become a party; but considering him a proper party, he has shown no ground upon which he can sustain a right to the land in question. The decree of the court below is accordingly affirmed with costs. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the territory of Arkansas, and was argued by counsel on consideration whereof, it is decreed and ordered by this court, that the decree of the said superior court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed with costs. *JOHN BARRON, SURVIVOR OF JOHN CRAIG, for THE USE OF LUKE TIERNAN, EXECUTOR OF JOHN CRAIG, V. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. The provision in the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, de claring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States; and is not applicable to the legislation of the states. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States ON a writ of error to the court of appeals for the western shore of the state of Maryland. This case was instituted by the plaintiff in error against the city of Baltimore, under its corporate title of "The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore," to recover damages for injuries to the wharf-property of the plaintiff, arising from the acts of the corporation. Craig and Barron, of whom the plaintiff is survivor, were owners of an extensive and highly productive wharf in the eastern section of Baltimore, enjoying, at the period of their purchase of it, the deepest water in the harbour. The city, in the asserted exercise of its corporate authority over the harbour, the paving of streets, and regulating grades for paving, and over the health of Baltimore, directed from their accustomed and natural course, certain streams of water which flow from the range of hills bordering the city, and diverted them, partly by adopting new grades of streets, and partly by the necessary results of paving, and partly by mounds, embankments and other artificial means, *244] purposely adapted to bend the course of the water to the wharf in question. These streams becoming very full and violent in rains, carried down with them from the hills and the soil over which they ran, large masses of sand and earth, which they deposited along, and widely in front of the wharf of the plaintiff. The alleged consequence was, that the water was rendered so shallow that it ceased to be useful for vessels of any important burthen, lost its income, and became of, little or no value as a wharf. This injury was asserted to have been inflicted by a series of ordinances of the corporation, between the years 1815 and 1821; [Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.] and that the evil was progressive; and it was active and increasing even at the institution of this suit in 1822. At the trial of the cause in Baltimore county court, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove the original and natural course of the streams, the various works of the corporation from time to time to turn them in the direction of this wharf, and the ruinous consequences of these measures to the interests of the plaintiff. It was not asserted by the defendants that any compensation for the injury was ever made or proffered; but they justified under the authority they deduced from the charter of the city, granted by the legislature of Maryland, and under several acts of the legislature conferring powers on the corporation in regard to the grading and paving of streets, the regulation of the harbour and its waters, and to the health of the city. They also denied that the plaintiff had shown any cause of action in the declaration, asserting that the injury complained of was a matter of public nuisance, and not of special or individual grievance in the eye of the law. This latter ground was taken in exception, and was also urged as a reason for motion in arrest of judgment. On all points, the decision of Baltimore county court was against the defendants, and a verdict for four thousand five hundred dollars was rendered for the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the court of appeals, which reversed the judgment of Baltimore county court, and did not remand the case to that court for a further trial. From this judgment the defendant in the court of appeals, prosecuted a writ of error to this court. *The counsel for the plaintiff presented the following points: The plaintiff in error will contend that apart from the legis[*245 lative sanctions of the state of Maryland and the acts of the corporation of Baltimore, holding out special encouragement and protection to interests in wharves constructed on the shores of the Patapsco river, and particularly of the wharf erected by Craig and the plaintiff, Barron; the right and profit of wharfage, and use of the water at the wharf for the objects of navigation, was a vested interest and incorporeal hereditament, inviolable even by the state, except upon just compensation for the privation; but the act of assembly and the ordinance of the city are relied on as enforcing the claim to the undisturbed enjoyment of the right. This right was interfered with, and the benefit of this property taken away from the plaintiff by the corporation, avowedly, as the defence showed, for public use; for an object of public interest-the benefit more immediately of the community of Baltimore, the individuals, part of the population of Maryland, known by the corporate title of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The "inhabitants" of Baltimore are thus incorporated by the acts of 1796, ch. 68. As a corporation they are made liable to be sued, and authorized to sue, to acquire and hold and dispose of property, and, within the scope of the powers conferred by the charter, are allowed to pass [Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.] ordinances and legislative acts, which it is declared by the charter shall have the same effect as acts of assembly, and be operative, provided they be not repugnant to the laws of the state, or the constitution of the state, or of the United States. The plaintiff will contend accordingly: 1. That the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, though viewed even as a municipal corporation, is liable for tort and actual misfeasance; and that it is a tort, and would be so even in the state acting in her immediate sovereignty, to deprive a citizen of his property, though for public uses, without indemnification: that regarding the corporation as acting with the delegated power of the state, the act complained of is not the less an actionable tort. 2. That this is the case of an authority exercised under a *246] state; the corporation appealing to the legislative acts of Maryland for the discretional power which it has exercised. 3. That this exercise of authority was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, contravening the fifth article of the amendments to the constitution, which declares that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation;" the plaintiff contending that this article declares principles which regulate the legislation of the states, for the protection of the people in each and all the states regarded as citizens of the United States, or as inhabitants subject to the laws of the union. 4. That under the evidence, prayers, and pleadings in the case, the constitutionality of this authority exercised under the state must have been drawn in question, and that this court has appellate jurisdiction of the point, from the judgment of the court of appeals of Maryland, the highest court of that state; that point being the essential ground of the plaintiff's pretension in opposition to the power and discretion of the corporation. 5. That this court in such appellate cognizance is not confined to the establishment of an abstract point of construction, but is empowered to pass upon the right or title of either party; and may, therefore, determine all points incidental or preliminary to the question of title, and necessarily in the course to that inquiry; that consequently the question is for this court's determination whether the declaration avers actionable matter, or whether the complaint is only of a public nuisance; and on that head the plaintiff will contend that special damage is fully shown here within the principle of the cases where an individual injury resulting from a public nuisance is deemed actionable; the wrong being merely public only so long as the law suffered in the particular case is no more than all members of the community suffer. Upon these views the plaintiff contends that the judgment of the court of appeals ought to be reversed. The counsel for the plaintiff in error, Mr. Mayer, on the suggestion of the court, confined the argument to the question whether, under the amendment to the constitution, the court had jurisdiction of the case. [Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.] *The counsel for the defendants in error Mr. Taney and Mr. Scott, were stopped by the court. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a state, this tribunal can exercise no jurisdiction over it, unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the twenty-fifth section of the judicial act. The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in the fifth amendment to the constitution, which inhibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. He insists that this amendment, being in favour of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a state, as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause. The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most [248 proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no farther than they are supposed to have a common interest. The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their general government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong if not a conclusive argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power |