Stoner v. Rice
| Decision Date | 08 November 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,408 |
| Citation | 22 N.E. 968,121 Ind. 51 |
| Parties | Stoner v. Rice, Auditor |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the LaPorte Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, at appellee's costs, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the answer.
W Niles, J. H. Bradley and L. A. Cole, for appellant.
L. T Michener, Attorney General, and F. T. Hord, Attorney General for appellee.
The question in this case involves the title to the bed of a fresh-water lake, situated in the north half of section 8, in township 36 north, of range 1 west, in LaPorte county. This question arises on demurrer to the appellee's answer to the complaint. The lake is not navigable. The principal part of the lake is situated in the northwest quarter of said section, a small portion extending into the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section, and a small portion extending into the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section. There are 39 72/100 acres of dry land in the south half of the northwest quarter of said section, situated lying to the west and south of said lake, and designated by the government survey as lot 4. There are 51 33/100 acres of dry land, situate in the north half of the northwest quarter of said section, lying to the north and west of said lake, and designated by the government survey as lot 3, and there are 34 45/100 acres of dry land in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section, lying east of said lake, designated by the government survey as lot 1.
The appellant owns these three lots, viz., lots 1, 3 and 4, deriving his title by mesne conveyances from the United States, prior to 1884, and by virtue of such conveyances and ownership claims to own and have the title to the land beneath the waters of the lake. On the contrary, it is contended by the appellee that by such conveyances the appellant only acquired title to the dry land; that the meandered line around the border of such lake constitutes the boundary line of appellant's land, and acting upon this theory the appellee, in the year 1884, procured a survey of the lake within the meandered line to be made by the general government, and platted as lots 5 and 6, and such survey and plat were made by the commissioner of the general land office, who is ex officio surveyor-general of Indiana, and the same were adopted and approved by the secretary of the interior, and the appellee also procured a patent to be issued by the United States to the State of Indiana for the same on March 17th, 1885.
The conclusion we have arrived at is, that the owner of lands bordering on non-navigable inland lakes, such as the one described in this case, when the subdivisions of the land are surveyed by running a meander line between the dry land and the water to ascertain the number of acres of dry land and designating such subdivision as a fractional quarter or a lot, giving the number of acres of dry land, takes the title to all the land contained within the subdivision, that is to say, he takes as a riparian owner and his title includes, and he owns, the land beneath the lake far enough beyond the meandered line and water's edge to make out the full subdivision in which his land is so situated. As in this case the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter is surveyed and designated as lot 1, the purchaser of lot 1 acquires title to all the land situate within the boundary line of the said northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section as the same is platted by the government; and by the survey all the land situate in the north half of the northwest quarter of said section was designated as lot 3, and the purchaser of lot 3 acquired title to all the land in said north half of said northwest quarter of said section, whether a part of it be covered with water and constitutes a part of an inland lake or part of it be swamp, and the same is true in regard to the south half of the northwest quarter, designated as lot 4. The survey included all the land, and when a portion of a subdivision was covered with water such portion was meandered to determine the amount of dry land, and the meandered line does not constitute a boundary line.
It is contended that the riparian owner bordering on a non-navigable lake, like a river, takes to the thread or center of the lake. This rule is impracticable when applied to lakes. Suppose the lake to be round or nearly so, with riparian owners, as there would be, on the north, south, east and west of it, this rule could not be applied; while the rule we have laid down is practicable, and we think the proper rule to be applied in cases of this character. To hold that the meandered line constitutes the boundary would be against the great weight of authority, indeed the authorities are almost unanimous against such a doctrine.
The weight of recent authorities is to the effect that the owner of the bank owns to the center of the body of non-navigable water, whether it be lake or river, and that if a lake gradually dry up the owners of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial