The Neuse at the place under consideration is a navigable river. Any obstruction of a navigable river is a common or public nuisance. A common or public nuisance may be abated by any person who is annoyed thereby. The railroad bridge across the Neuse obstructed the navigation thereof by the defendants’ steamboat, and for that reason the defendants tore it down. It follows that the defendants are not guilty. It is not necessary to display the learning and decisions in support of these positions, although we have fully considered them, because they may be found collected in a *313well considered ease in our own Court, and we tbink it respectful and sufficient to support our decision in this case by that. State v. Dibble, 4 Jones 107.
It is insisted, however, that while an individual cannot obstruct a navigable stream, yet the State may do it on the inland streams unless Congress oppose; and here the State did authorize the railroad to build the bridge. It is true the Slate_ did authorize the railroad to build a bridge across the Neuse, but it did not authorize the bridge to be so built as to obstruct navigation, but required a draw to be in the bridge so as to/ permit navigation. This was not done.
It is further insisted that the defendants acted wantonly, for that the railroad was preparing a draw and would have completed it in a few days, about seven days. The facts are that defendants had given the railroad several months’ notice to prepare a draw. Prior to the day in controversy, as often as the defendants’ boat passed, the railroad removed a span of the bridge to permit the passage, detaining the boat but a few hours, but on the day in question the span was not removed and the boat was detained for thirty hours, when the defendants removed a portion of the bridge.
From these facts it appears that the obstruction was wanton and its removal necessary.
Let this be certified to the end that judgment may be entered discharging the defendants as upon a verdict of not guilty.
Per Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.