Stevens v. King

Decision Date29 May 1884
Citation76 Me. 197
PartiesCYRUS STEVENS v. JOSEPH R. KING and others.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

ON REPORT.

Complaint for flowage under R. S., c. 92.

The description in plaintiff's deed of the land flowed was as follows:

" Also one other lot or parcel of land situated in Wayne, and bounded as follows, viz: Beginning on the easterly side of the aforesaid county road, leading from Orren M Blaisdell's dwelling house to Wayne village, at the northerly corner of my land on the line between me and Crosby Gordon; thence easterly on said line to Wilson pond; thence northerly by the shore of said pond to Hiram Norris' land; thence westerly on the line between me and said Norris to the aforesaid county road thence southerly by the east side of said road to the place of beginning; containing sixty acres, more or less, being the same land conveyed to me by Elijah Wood of Winthrop."

Other material facts are stated in the opinion.

By the terms of the report the law court was to determine the boundaries of the complainant's deed upon Wilson's pond, whether at high-water or low-water mark; also to determine if the complainant had made out a prima facie case; if so the action was to stand for trial, otherwise nonsuit to be entered.

J. H. Potter, for the plaintiff, upon the question as to the boundary of plaintiff's land, cited: Wood v. Kelley, 30 Me. 47.

Upon the question as to the defendants' title to the land on which the dam was maintained counsel cited: Davis v. Stevens, 57 Me. 593; Williamson v. Carlton, 51 Me. 449.

Bean and Beane, for the defendants, upon the first question, cited: Bradley v. Rice, 13 Me. 198; Nickerson v. Crawford, 16 Me. 245; Lowell v. Robinson, 16 Me. 357; Robinson v. White, 42 Me. 209; Bradford v. Cressey, 45 Me. 9.

Upon the second question: Jones v. Skinner, 61 Me. 25; Morton v. The Franklin Co. 62 Me. 455; Russell v. Turner, 62 Me. 496; Hill v. Baker, 28 Me. 9; Moor v. Shaw, 47 Me. 88; Turner v. Whitehouse, 68 Me. 221.

WALTON J.

This is a complaint for flowage, and the first question is whether the plaintiff's deed bounds him on Wilson pond at high or low-water mark. We think it bounds him at low-water mark.

Lands bounded upon rivers above the ebb and flow of the tide generally extend to the middle of the stream. But lands bounded on fresh-water lakes and ponds extend only to low-water mark.

Of course they may be bounded at high-water mark. But, in the absence of a clearly expressed intention to the contrary, the presumption is that they extend to low-water mark. Such is the settled law of this state.

In Bradley v. Rice, 13 Me. 198, the court held that lands bounded on a pond extend only to the margin of the pond, and not to the center of it. But the question was not raised or considered whether the boundary would be at high or low-water mark.

But in Wood v. Kelley, 30 Me. 47, this question was considered, and the court held that lands bounded on a fresh-water pond extend to low-water mark.

The language of the plaintiff's deed, after describing the point of beginning, is as follows:

" Thence easterly on said line to Wilson pond; thence northerly by the shore of said pond to Hiram Norris' land."

The defendants contend that when, as in this deed, land is bounded by the shore of a pond, it extends only to high-water mark.

The answer to this argument is that such is not the necessary result. The shore of a pond, being the space between high and low water, necessarily has two sides, a high water side and a low water side; and land bounded by the shore may be bounded by the high water side or the low water side. If the side lines of a parcel of land, starting back from the pond, run to the shore, and there stop, and the line between these two points runs along the shore, of course the land will be bounded by the high water side of it. But if the side lines are described as running to the pond, the result will be otherwise. The legal force and effect of such a description are to carry the land to the pond at all stages of the water, which is equivalent to saying that it extends to low water mark; and if the line between these two points is run along the shore, it must be along the low water side of it; and the land will be bounded at low-water mark.

And such is the effect of the description in the plaintiff's deed.

The first line is described as starting at a point back from Wilson pond, and thence running to the pond. The terminus of the line is not the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • In re Opinions of the Justices
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 6 Junio 1919
    ...state it would be available for his own use. He is entitled to the full enjoyment of his property in its natural state. Stevens v. King, 76 Me. 197, 49 Am. Rep. 609; Fernald v. Knox Woolen Co., 82 Me. 48, 19 Atl. 93, 7 L. R. A. 459. He cannot be deprived of that full enjoyment, except it be......
  • Richardson v. Sims
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 2 Diciembre 1918
    ... ... Co., 42 Wis. 248, 24 Am. Rep. 399; Ne-pee-nauk ... Club v. Wilson, 96 Wis. 290, 71 N.W. 661; ... Bradley v. Rice, 13 Me. 198; ... Stevens v. King, 76 Me. 197, 49 Am. Rep ... 609; State v. Gilmanton, 9 N.H. 461; ... Fletcher v. Phelps, 28 Vt. 257; ... Kanouse v. Stockbower, 48 ... ...
  • Welder v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 30 Mayo 1917
    ...92 Iowa, 566, 61 N. W. 250, 26 L. R. A. 609, 54 Am. St. Rep. 571), Massachusetts (Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160), Maine (Stevens v. King, 76 Me. 197, 49 Am. Rep. 609), North Carolina (Hodges v. Williams, 95 N. C. 331, 59 Am. Rep. 242), New Hampshire (Mfg. Co. v. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 At......
  • Dorey v. Estate of Spicer, Docket No. C
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 5 Agosto 1998
    ...upon which the dam is erected and maintained may be held liable for the damage caused by the flooding of upstream lands. See Stevens v. King, 76 Me. 197, 200 (1884); Nelson v. Butterfield, 21 Me. 220, 232 IV. Dorey's Claims ¶13 The flowage rights at issue here came into existence pursuant t......
  • 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