Packard v. Ryder
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Barry v. Grela (Mass. 1977)
- Pazolt v. Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries (Mass. 1994)
- Howes v. Town of Barnstable (Mass. 1934)
- Allen v. Allen (R.I. 1895)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is now well settled that there is a public right to take shell-fish on the shore and flats below high-watermark and within one hundred rods of the upland, until the flats are enclosed by the proprietors. Weston v. Sampson, 8 Cush. 347. Dunham v. Lamphere, 3 Gray, 268, 271. Lakeman v. Burnham, 7 Gray, 437. 9 Gray, 526, 527. Commonwealth v. Bailey, 13 Allen, 541, 542. Proctor v. Wells, 103 Mass. 216. Commonwealth v. Manimon, 136 Mass. 456, 458. But the right to take shell-fish is asserted on the single ground that the general right of fishing extends to and includes it. Weston v. Sampson, and Lakeman v. Burnham, ubi supra. The cases cited show too plainly for further discussion, that, if .there is a right to go upon flats and to disturb the soil for clams, a fortiori there is a right to pass over them for fishing, in the stricter sense of the word. The defendant did not set nets, or create any permanent obstruction, as in Duncan v. Sylvester, 24 Maine, 482.
Exceptions sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.