Bay City Gas-Light Co. v. Industrial Works

• Decision Date: 21 October 1873
• Citation: 28 Mich. 182
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: The Bay City Gas-Light Company v. The Industrial Works

28 Mich. 182

The Bay City Gas-Light Company v. The Industrial Works

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 21, 1873

Heard October 10, 1873

Case made from Bay Circuit.

Ejectment. Defendant alleges error. Reversed and judgment entered in favor of defendant.

Judgment reversed, and Judgment rendered in favor of defendants.

Marston Hatch & Cooley, for plaintiff.

Luther Beckwith, for defendant.

Campbell J. Christiancy, Ch. J., and Graves, J., concurred. Cooley J., did not sit in this case.

OPINION

Campbell, J.

The present action is brought to determine the boundaries of certain water lots in Bay City, extending into the Saginaw River. They both belong to a series of lots extending from one of the city streets towards the river in such a direction that their side lines strike the shore at right angles with the middle thread of the river, but at a different angle with the shore at that point. The shore in front of the city curves inward somewhat. The corporation of Bay City, some years since, established a dock line, which, at the point in question, is nearly or quite parallel with the shore, but which approaches the shore so as to be at no considerable distance from it at a point below, where a bridge crosses the stream.

The question presented for decision is, whether the side lines of the lots in question, as they extend into the river, should run at right angles with the thread of the stream, or at right angles with the shore at the point of departure. The difference is such that within the line permitted for docking, the divergence is about eighty-seven feet.

This question was decided in Clark v. Campau, 19 Mich. 328, where it was held the lines were to be governed by the course of the stream, and the land bounded by lines drawn at right angles with the central thread. Any other rule would subject riparian owners to have their entire access to the stream and all their docking privileges cut off, whenever the local curve of the shore should be such that a line drawn at right angles with their neighbor's shore line would cross in front of them--a result which would be inevitable where the shore is not altogether straight and parallel with the middle of the stream, and which would also cause great confusion with every subdivision of ownership. It happened in that case that the shore line followed closely the course of the river, and lines drawn from the shore were practically identical with those drawn from the central line; but the decision was based upon the principle that the course of the river itself governed, and not the shore.

There is no distinction in this regard between streams which are subject to easements of passage, and those which are not. Even the beds of navigable tide waters are subject to the disposal of State laws, saving always any public rights that may exist in them; and it is the settled law of this State that any use of lands under rivers, which is compatible with the full enjoyment of the public easement, belongs with the upland to which it was originally appurtenant, unless sold or granted separately so as to sever it. Even in streams not susceptible of any public use, it can seldom happen that any riparian proprietor can occupy by erections any large portion of its bed, except where it is dammed. He cannot so use it as to destroy the benefits of the water to his neighbors. In each case the right of every owner is subject to some limitations; and he is compelled to use his own property so as not to injure the rights of others, whether public or individual.

The right of docking out, so as to secure the full benefit of the water front, is limited by the rule that it...