Thomas v. Ashland

Citation100 N.W. 993,122 Wis. 519
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Decision Date27 September 1904
PartiesTHOMAS v. ASHLAND, SISKIWIT & IRON RIVER LOGGING RY.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bayfield County; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by George F. Thomas against the Ashland, Siskiwit & Iron River Logging Railway. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The following is the plat referred to in the opinion:

IMAGE

The plaintiff and defendant were coterminous owners of land fronting upon the head of Chequamegon Bay, at the extreme westerly end thereof. The larger of the accompanying diagrams, which is a modification of defendant's Exhibit B, discloses the general shore line at this place, and also, by a dotted line, the limit of 16-foot navigable water. Plaintiff's premises are lots 3 and 4 on said plan, and lots 5, 6, and 1 are the defendant's. The premises involved are upon a shallow bay, or cove a distance slightly more than a mile from the 16-foot depth of water. Defendant had constructed a pier or wharf approximately 3,000 feet long, and running nearly parallel to its shore line, the terminus of which was almost exactly east of the point of division between the plaintiff's and defendant's shore line. Plaintiff brought this action, alleging interruption of his access to navigable water, and praying abatement of this pier. The testimony of several surveyors was taken, and the location was shown of various lines drawn to apportion the navigable water line to the shore owners of this indentation or cove. Such lines differ according to the location of the limits of the cove. The several points discussed as possible limits are marked on the plat as A, B, C, D, and E, and the corresponding points on the navigable water line are indicated respectively by A, B, C, and D. The surveyors attempted to apportion space upon the navigable water line proportionately to the shore line, first, according to the theory that the cove extended from A to B; secondly, from A to D; thirdly, from A to E; fourthly, from C to D; and fifthly, from C to E. From such evidence it appeared that upon none of these theories did the wharf invade plaintiff's line, except upon the theory that the cove was bounded by the points A and E. The engineers further testified that, if that theory were adopted, it would be impossible, by reason of the confirmation of the shore, to give proportional access from all the shore line to the navigable water line. It also was made to appear that, if the cove were deemed to extend from A to B, the north line limiting defendant's access to navigability would run along plaintiff's shore for a distance of several hundred feet, and entirely prevent access therefrom to water at all. The smaller diagram is a section of the larger, and shows the courses of dotted lines dividing plaintiff's and defendant's rights over the shallows according as the different points above named may be adopted as the headlands or boundaries of the cove. The letters on each of these lines indicate the headlands from which it results. The court did not find specifically in favor of any of these lines, but contented itself with finding as a fact that the wharf occasioned plaintiff no damage, and, as a conclusion of law, that it was wholly within the lines of defendant's rights of access, and outside of plaintiff's lines. As a result of this finding, judgment was entered dismissing the complaint, from which plaintiff appeals.

Tomkins, Tomkins & Garvin, for appellant.

Lamoreux & Shea, for respondent.

DODGE, J. (after stating the facts).

Appellant's argument is apparently addressed not so much to anything which the court has adjudged as to the scheme of boundary lines contended for by certain surveyor witnesses. There is, however, nothing to indicate that the court adopted their views. Indeed, the court has made no finding of fact as to the location of lines separating plaintiff's rights of access to navigable water from those of defendant. The sole point adjudged is that defendant's pier, as now constructed, does not invade plaintiff's riparian rights. This may be true upon any of several theories as to where are the proper limits of this cove, or as to the proper manner of extending lines from shore boundaries to line of navigability. The rules of law governing delimitation of rights of shore owners to use of shallows intervening between them and practically navigable water--especially in case of a cove or irregularity in the shore, or marked variation of the course...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State ex rel. Cook v. Houser
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 20, 1904
  • Lawler v. Brennan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 20, 1912
    ...intervening shallows to construct piers or other structures connecting the shore with such navigable line. Thomas v. Railway Co., 122 Wis. 519, 100 N. W. 993, 106 Am. St. Rep. 1000. It would be illogical to hold that the riparian proprietor could build a dock from his land to navigable wate......
  • Schwab v. Timmons
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 12, 1999
    ...to the petitioners' original complaint with additions and deletions for illustrative purposes. Thomas v. Ashland, Siskiwit & Iron River Logging R., 122 Wis. 519, 520, 100 N.W. 993 (1904); Northern Pine Land Co. v. Bigelow, 84 Wis. 157, 162, 54 N.W. 496 ¶4 Prior to 1854, the property involve......
  • Walton v. Wilke
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • June 17, 2015
    ...to such modification as may be necessary to accomplish substantially this result.Thomas v. Ashland, Siskiwit & Iron River Logging Ry. Co., 122 Wis. 519, 524, 100 N.W. 993 (1904), quoted in Manlick, 337 Wis.2d 92, ¶ 16, 804 N.W.2d 712 ; Nosek, 103 Wis.2d at 639, 309 N.W.2d 868 ; Wis. Admin. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT