Baer v. Moran Bros Co

Decision Date30 April 1894
Docket NumberNo. 683,683
Citation153 U.S. 287,38 L.Ed. 718,14 S.Ct. 823
PartiesBAER v. MORAN BROS. CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

T. H. N. McPherson, John H. Mitchell, and M. L. Baer, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph H. Parsons, W. C. Jones, Atty. Gen., John P. Fay, S. F. Phillips, and Frederick D. McKenney, filed briefs in behalf of interested parties by leave of court.

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on error to the supreme court of Washington. 27 Pac. 470. The questions are mainly similar to those in the case of Mann v. Land Co. (just decided) 14 Sup. Ct. 820.

The plaintiff described the land in his complaint as 'at the time of its selection by said plaintiff unoccupied and unappropriated public land of the United States not mineral, in this, that the said tract of land was situated in the territory of Washington, was a portion of the tide flats, covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide, was uncovered at ordinary low tide, and was covered with water at ordinary high tide, and had never been set apart by the United States for any particular use.' This shows that the land at the time of its entry was, strictly speaking, tide lands, and, with this as the sole description, there would be nothing to distinguish the case from the one just decided. There is, however, this further description: 'Beginning at a point 688 feet south and 660 feet west of the east one-fourth post of Sec. 6, Tp. 24 N., R. 4 E., W. M., thence west 150 feet, thence south 210 feet, thence east 150 feet, thence north 210 feet to place of beginning, being the premises covered by Moran Brothers Company's foundry and machine shops.'

Upon this, plaintiff contends that the premises are not to be taken as a part of the shore or tide lands bordering on navigable water, inasmuch as they are shown to be devoted to manufacturing uses; that this court will take judicial knowledge of what are known as 'mud flats,' lying on and adjacent to the waters of Puget sound, and that the land in dispute is a part of a large tract of over 3,000 acres of such 'mud flats,' extending for a distance of from two and one-half miles in length to three miles in width, on the outskirts of a bay on Puget sound, and near the city of Seattle, as shown by the official maps of the United States coast and geodetic survey. But the averment of the complaint is that the land was unoccupied at the time of its selection by the plaintiff, and its condition as a part of the shore or tide lands is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. City of Tampa
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1924
    ... ... tide lands, see Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U.S ... 273, 14 S.Ct. 820, 38 L.Ed. 714; Baer v. Moran Bros ... Co., 153 U.S. 287, 14 S.Ct. 823, 38 L.Ed. 718. See, ... also, Port of ... ...
  • State v. Byles
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1913
  • Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Campen
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1904
  • King Cnty. v. Abernathy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • July 26, 2021
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • § 12.2 - Lands Managed by the Department of Natural Resources
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 6: Land Use Development (WSBA) Chapter 12 State- Owned Public Lands
    • Invalid date
    ...608, 614-15, 27 P. 470(1891) (discussing, in dicta, a salt marsh in front of Mare Island in California as an "overflowed land"), aff'd, 153 U.S. 287, 14 S. Ct. 823, L. Ed. 718 (1894). Fourteen states (including Oregon and California, but mostly along the Mississippi River) received swamp an......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 6: Land Use Development (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 30 P.3d 1261 (2001): 17.4(1)(b) Baer v. Moran Bros. Co., 2 Wash. 608, 27 P. 470 (1891), aff'd, 153 U.S. 287, 14 S. Ct. 823, 38 L. Ed. 718 (1894): 12.2(5)(a)(i), 12.2(5)(c)(i), 12.2(5)(c)(i) Baker v. Tri-Mountain Res., Inc., 94 Wn. App. 849, 973 P.2d 10......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 5: Land Use Planning (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 5 L. Ed. 547 (1823): 6.3(2), 6.3(3)(b) Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 11 S. Ct. 808, 35 L. Ed. 428 (1891)), aff'd, 153 U.S. 287, 14 S. Ct. 823, 38 L. Ed. 718 (1894): 18.1, 18.4(1), 18.7(1) Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 58 S. Ct. ......
  • § 18.1 - Introduction
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 5: Land Use Planning (WSBA) Chapter 18 The Public Trust Doctrine
    • Invalid date
    ...Bros. Co., 2 Wash. 608, 613, 27 P. 470 (1891) (quoting Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 381, 11 S. Ct. 808, 35 L. Ed. 428 (1891)), aff'd, 153 U.S. 287, 14 S. Ct. 823, 38 L. Ed. 718 These three quotes excellently illustrate the competing forces at play in Washington law since statehood regard......

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