Replies

"The problem is that the 1871 Order did not provide a map or, apparently, even a clear description of what was condemned. There was therefore nothing that could be used as a basis for a survey. The judge concluded, correctly in my view, that unless there was something that clearly defined the area condemned the defendant couldn't satisfy its burden to prove the location being used by the ferry company was permitted by the Order."

The important point is that some public right-of-way was taken in 1871. Unless Virginia law is drastically different from other jurisdictions, public property isn't lost to adverse possession like private property. That right-of-way still exists somewhere on the VA side of the river. The ferry company could sue a bunch of property owners for a declaratory judgment for a determination of where it is. Presumably it isn't far from the road. It seems to me that the ferry company just got arrogant and thought it could force a solution through the courts. The matter could still be appealed, but if there was a contract, that is an admission that the land wasn't public. However, the VA county could decide to just condemn the land to keep the ferry operating. That happens.

The important point is that some public right-of-way was taken in 1871.

That's important, but not dispositive. As a defense to a claim of trespass the company had to prove the precise location of the ROW. Because the 1871 order wasn't specific as to location, the judge concluded that the company was unable to prove that the ROW was in the precise location it was using. Accordingly, the claim of trespass prevailed. I don't know how a judge in a declaratory judgment action could order a ROW to be located in a certain location when the very order granting the ROW didn't precisely describe the location. A judge can't just make it up.

It seems to me that the ferry company just got arrogant and thought it could force a solution through the courts.

The landowner was the plaintiff in the case and sued in order to get control of its land. The company was arrogant in thinking it could continue to use the landowner's property in perpetuity without paying rent for it. The company also didn't do itself any favors by building a retaining wall without the landowner's consent in direct violation of the licensing agreement.

However, the VA county could decide to just condemn the land to keep the ferry operating.

Perhaps. Of course, the county would have to pay the landowner. The landowner would also have a good argument that the county can't use its power of eminent domain to protect the interests of a private company, namely the ferry company.