Blatchford v. Voss

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ESCHWEILER
• Citation: Blatchford v. Voss, 197 Wis. 461, 219 N.W. 100 (Wis. 1928)
• Decision Date: 03 April 1928
• Parties: BLATCHFORD v. VOSS ET AL.

197 Wis. 461

219 N.W. 100

BLATCHFORD

v.VOSS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1928.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Vilas County; A. H. Reid, Circuit Judge.

Action by Carter Blatchford against Henry Voss and others in ejectment to recover land. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]

This action in ejectment was commenced in September, 1926, to recover land in said Vilas county. Trial by the court, a jury trial being waived, October, 1926, and judgment for defendants November 3, 1926.Jonas Radcliffe, of Eagle River (O'Melia & Kaye, of Rhinelander, of counsel), for appellant.

E. D. Minahan, of Rhinelander, for respondents.

ESCHWEILER, J.

The following sketch 1 reproduces the original plat from the government surveys in 1860 and 1862; and sketch 2 shows on a larger scale the conceded actual situation as to the water and land areas in section 13, township 42 north, range 5 east, in the above county:

IMAGE

Defendant Henry Voss owns lots 4 and 8. Plaintiff asserts title by reason of his ownership of lot 7 to the small tract of about one acre marked A on sketch 2, which lies south of lot 4, and extends westerly to the lake from the northwest corner of lot 7.

[1][2] Conceding that in this ejectment action plaintiff must succeed only by strength of his own title (Brown v. Baraboo, 98 Wis. 273, 282, 74 N. W. 223;Wilburn v. Land, 138 Wis. 36, 37, 119 N. W. 803;Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 379, 11 S. Ct. 808, 838, 35 L. Ed. 428), nevertheless plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the original government survey, supra, showed a meander line as part of the western boundary of lot 7, he is entitled to cross the short portion of the north and south sixteenth line extended as shown on sketch 2, and to continue west from the body of lot 7 until he reaches the actual water line, whatever may be the amount of intervening land. He bases this contention upon the undisputed general proposition that in such grants from the United States the water itself, and not an indicated meander line, is the true boundary line. Boorman v. Sunnuchs, 42 Wis. 233, 243;Mendota Club v. Anderson, 101 Wis. 479, 490, 78 N. W. 185;Underwood v. Smith, 109 Wis. 334, 340, 85 N. W. 384;Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 S. Ct. 808, 838, 35 L. Ed. 428;Kean v. Calumet Canal Co., 190 U. S. 452, 459, 23 S. Ct. 651, 47 L. Ed. 1134;Producers' Oil Co. v. Hanzen, 238 U. S. 325, 339, 35 S. Ct. 755, 59 L. Ed. 1330;United States v. Lane, 260 U. S. 662, 665, 43 S. Ct. 236, 67 L. Ed. 448.

[3][4] This general rule, however, is subject to well-recognized exceptions and limitations, such as where there was no actual body of water near the land in question (Security L. & Exp. Co. v. Burns, 193 U. S. 167, 179, 186, 24 S. Ct. 425, 48 L. Ed. 662;Jeems Bayou F. & H. Club v. U. S., 260 U. S. 561, 564, 43 S. Ct. 205, 67 L. Ed. 402), and that, as heretofore held by this court, in cases of conflict such meander lines must be held subordinate to government subdivision lines, either section lines; the quarter lines, dividing the sections midway; and the only other recognized subdividing lines, drawn between the section and quarter lines, which are, unfortunately for uniformity in nomenclature, referred to sometimes as the “eighth” sometimes as the “sixteenth” lines. This was held in Whitney v. Detroit Lumber Co., 78 Wis. 240, 47 N. W. 425;Lally v. Rossman, 82 Wis. 147, 149, 51 N. W. 1132;Mendota Club v. Anderson, 101 Wis. 479, 490, 78 N. W. 185;Wisconsin Realty Co. v. Lull, 177 Wis. 53, 62, 187 N. W. 978.

In considering the question here presented, it must be noted that both sketches 1 and 2 indicate that a part only of the western boundary of this lot was water, and show on both surveys divisional straight lines on all of the three sides and on a part of the west boundary; sketch 1 showing, however, a much deeper indentation of the arm of the lake into lot 7 to the south as well as to the north than actually exists.

It is conceded that, if the rule was correctly stated by this court in Whitney v. Detroit Lumber Co., 78 Wis. 240, 47 N. W. 425, holding that there cannot be a crossing of an eighth (sixteenth) line in order to reach a water boundary, and in Lally v. Rossman, 82 Wis. 147, 149, 51 N. W. 1132, holding that the patentee of a lot shown by the plat to be bounded by a river takes to the river itself, provided that such taking does not extend beyond the next eighth (sixteenth) line of the section, and as in Wisconsin Realty Co. v. Lull, 177 Wis. 53, 60, 187 N. W. 978, then the trial court was correct in holding that in this action plaintiff had shown no title to the strip of land in dispute here.

While it is true that questions as to the boundaries of lands adjoining waters and the rights of the state and of individuals in respect to such lands and waters shall be determined in conformity to the common law so far as applicable, section 30.01 (3) (c), Stats. (the substance whereof first appearing as section 3 of chapter 72, Laws of 1853, and thereafter as section 1597), and that in Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 S. Ct. 808, 838, 35 L. Ed. 428, and Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 11 S. Ct. 819, 840, 35 L. Ed. 442, followed in Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 23 S. Ct. 685, 47 L. Ed. 1156, and Kean v. Calumet Canal Co., 190 U. S. 452, 23 S. Ct. 651, 47 L. Ed. 1134 (although these decisions were accompanied by very vigorous and persuasive dissenting opinions), was held that, following common-law rules, riparian ownership on streams and generally on inland bodies of water carried title to the center, and that in the particular instances in those cases presented government fractional lines might be crossed in the reach for water, yet in those cases and many others the primary rule is recognized that it is the state decisions that control as to disputes in regard to such class of titles.

It is manifest that difficulties and hardships in particular cases will be presented whatever sort of formula be adopted. It is equally manifest that there should be recognized some logical and consistent halting place in the search for water boundaries by those claiming title from the government by grants with meander lines as indicated boundaries. It is also manifest that, when a formula has been once determined, titles given and taken in reliance thereupon, and many renewed recognitions thereof by the courts in any particular state, the adopted formula should be held as a rule of property to be consistently maintained unless grievous error.

[5] Whatever may be now said or thought of the former decisions of this court declaring the law of this state that in searching for a water boundary...