Brignall v. Hannah

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CHRISTIANSON, J.
• Citation: Brignall v. Hannah, 34 N.D. 174, 157 N.W. 1042 (N.D. 1916)
• Decision Date: 01 May 1916
• Docket Number: 1915

157 N.W. 1042

34 N.D. 174

JOHN T. BRIGNALL v. DAVID HANNAH, William Turnbull, et al

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

May 1, 1916

From a judgment of the District Court of Cavalier County, Cooley Special Judge, defendants, William Turnbull, Levi Bell George Bell, and Samuel Connor, appeal.

Affirmed.

Joseph Cleary and Grimson & Johnson, for appellants.

The existence of a lake or fast dry land is a political question to be decided by the land department. Chapman & D. Land Co. v. Bigelow, 77 Ark. 338, 92 S.W. 534; Re California & O. Land Co. 21 Land Dec. 344; Re Goose Lake, 7 Land Dec 527.

These meandered lines form the boundary lines of the fractional section, and will not be considered as merely indicating the quantity of upland to be paid for, where the patents conveyed only the land surveyed and make the meander lines the boundary. Re Hemphill, 27 Land Dec. 119; Re McClennen, 29 Land Dec. 514; Horne v. Smith, 159 U.S. 40, 40 L.Ed 68, 15 S.Ct. 988; Lammers v. Nissen, 4 Neb. 245; Bissell v. Fletcher, 19 Neb. 725, 28 N.W. 303; Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 29 C. C. A. 5, 54 U. S. App. 668, 85 F. 45.

The government may subsequently survey such lands and grant them to another person. Smith v. Miller, 105 Iowa 688, 70 N.W. 123, 75 N.W. 499; Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U.S. 300, 44 L.Ed. 171, 20 S.Ct. 124; Security Land & Exploration Co. v. Burns, 193 U.S. 167, 48 L.Ed. 662, 24 S.Ct. 425; French-Glen Live Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U.S. 47, 46 L.Ed. 800, 22 S.Ct. 563; Horne v. Smith, 159 U.S. 40-45, 40 L.Ed. 68-70, 15 S.Ct. 988.

The lands occupied by these appellants were omitted islands,--were dry at the time of the survey and are not the result of accretions. They remained the property of the government and subject to disposal under its laws. Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 57 L.Ed. 490, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 107, 33 S.Ct. 242; United States v. Mission Rock, 189 U.S. 391, 47 L.Ed. 865, 23 S.Ct. 606; Kirwan v. Murphy, 189 U.S. 53, 47 L.Ed. 704, 23 S.Ct. 599.

The prevailing parties in the court below claim title to a large tract of land, and this in addition to their regular homesteads of 160 acres each. This is contrary to law. U. S. Rev. Stat. §§ 2259, 2298, 2465, 2476, Comp. Stat. 1913, §§ 4557, 4918; United States v. Mission Rock, supra; Whitney v. Detroit Lumber Co. 78 Wis. 240, 47 N.W. 425; Stoner v. Rice, 121 Ind. 51, 6 L.R.A. 389, 22 N.E. 968.

W. A. McIntyre and Watson & Young and Horace C. Young, for respondent.

"The meander lines run along or near the margin of such waters are run for the purpose of ascertaining the exact quantity of the upland to be charged for, and not for the purpose of limiting the title of the grantee to such meander lines. They are not boundary lines." Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 35 L.Ed. 428, 11 S.Ct. 808, 838; St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schurmeier, 7 Wall. 272, 19 L.Ed. 74; Kirwan v. Murphy, 28 C. C. A. 348, 49 U.S. App. 658, 83 F. 278; Sizor v. Logansport, 151 Ind. 628, 44 L.R.A. 815, 50 N.E. 377; Schlosser v. Cruickshank, 96 Iowa 418, 65 N.W. 345; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 192, 18 L.R.A. 670, 38 Am. St. Rep. 541, 53 N.W. 1140; Mendota Club v. Anderson, 101 Wis. 490, 78 N.W. 189; Poynter v. Chipman, 8 Utah, 448, 32 P. 691; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 407, 35 L.Ed. 443, 11 S.Ct. 819, 840; Ex parte Davidson, 57 F. 885; Coburn v. San Mateo County, 75 F. 530; Barringer v. Davis, 141 Iowa 419, 120 N.W. 65; Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 29 C. C. A. 5, 54 U.S. App. 668, 85 F. 45, affirmed in 175 U.S. 300, 44 L.Ed. 171, 20 S.Ct. 124; Horne v. Smith, 159 U.S. 40-43, 40 L.Ed. 68-70, 15 S.Ct. 988; Bernot v. Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 143 P. 104; Sherwin v. Bitzer, 97 Minn. 252, 106 N.W. 1046; Knudsen v. Omanson, 10 Utah 124, 37 P. 250; Hanson v. Rice, 88 Minn. 273, 92 N.W. 982; Cawlfield v. Smyth, 69 Ore. 41, 138 P. 227; Everson v. Waseca, 44 Minn. 247, 46 N.W. 405; Brown v. Dunn, 135 Wis. 374, 115 N.W. 1097; Johnson v. Brown, 33 Wash. 588, 74 P. 677; Tucker v. Mortenson, 126 Minn. 214, 148 N.W. 60; Pere Marquette Boom Co. v. Adams, 44 Mich. 403, 6 N.W. 857.

The fact that the deed or patent contains a statement of the quantity of land conveyed is not controlling. Sherwin v. Bitzer, 97 Minn. 252, 106 N.W. 1046; Hanson v. Rice, 88 Minn. 273, 92 N.W. 982; Everson v. Waseca, 44 Minn. 247, 46 N.W. 405; Tucker v. Mortenson, 126 Minn. 214, 148 N.W. 60; Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N.D. 427, 75 N.W. 808; Olson v. Huntamer, 6 S.D. 372, 61 N.W. 481.

The presumption is that a grant of land thus bounded is intended to include the contiguous land covered by water,--that is, to point in the center, or equidistant from the land on either side. Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406, 35 L.Ed. 442, 11 S.Ct. 819, 840; St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schurmeier, 7 Wall. 272, 19 L.Ed. 74; Gouverneur v. National Ice Co. 134 N.Y. 355, 18 L.R.A. 695, 30 Am. St. Rep. 669, 31 N.E. 865; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 18 L.R.A. 670, 38 Am. St. Rep. 541, 53 N.W. 1139; Fuller v. Dauphin, 124 Ill. 542, 7 Am. St. Rep. 388, 16 N.E. 817; Ledyard v. Ten Eyck, 36 Barb. 102; Ridgway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 248; Warren v. Chambers, 25 Ark. 120, 4 Am. Rep. 23, 91 Am. Dec. 538; Cook v. McClure, 58 N.Y. 437, 17 Am. Rep. 270; Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 4752, 4930, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5295, 5473; Flisrand v. Madson, 35 S.D. 457, 152 N.W. 796.

The riparian shore owners of such non-navigable or non-public ponds or lakes have absolute ownership of the entire bed and shore of such lakes and ponds. Olson v. Huntamer, 6 S.D. 364, 61 N.W. 479; Shell v. Matteson, 81 Minn. 38, 83 N.W. 491; Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152, 97 Am. St. Rep. 292, 93 N.W. 52; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 35 L.Ed. 428, 11 S.Ct. 808, 838; Ledyard v. Ten Eyck, 26 Barb. 102; Smith v. Rochester, 92 N.Y. 463, 44 Am. Rep. 393; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N.J.L. 369, 33 N.J.L. 223, 97 Am. Dec. 718; Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 8 L.R.A. 578, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828, 24 N.E. 686; Clute v. Fisher, 65 Mich. 48, 31 N.W. 614; Ridgway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 252; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406, 35 L.Ed. 442, 11 S.Ct. 819, 840; Gouverneur v. National Ice Co. 134 N.Y. 355, 18 L.R.A. 695, 30 Am. St. Rep. 669, 31 N.E. 865; Smith v. Rochester, 92 N.Y. 463, 44 Am. Rep. 393; Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125; Clute v. Fisher, 65 Mich. 48, 31 N.E. 614; Indiana v. Milk, 11 Biss. 197, 11 F. 389; Luce v. Carley, 24 Wend. 451, 35 Am. Dec. 637; Ex parte Jennings, 6 Cow. 518, 16 Am. Dec. 447; Mott v. Mott, 68 N.Y. 247; Rhodes v. Cissel, 82 Ark. 367, 101 S.W. 758; Scheifert v. Briegel, 90 Minn. 125, 65 L.R.A. 296, 101 Am. St. Rep. 399, 96 N.W. 44; Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. v. South Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. 102 Mich. 227, 25 L.R.A. 815, 47 Am. St. Rep. 516, 60 N.W. 681; 3 Farnham, Waters, § 843, and cases cited; Little v. Williams, 88 Ark. 37, 113 S.W. 340; Johnson v. Elder, 92 Ark. 30, 121 S.W. 1066; Stoner v. Rice, 121 Ind. 51, 6 L.R.A. 389, 22 N.E. 968; Kean v. Calumet Canal & Improv. Co. 190 U.S. 452, 47 L.Ed. 1134, 23 S.Ct. 651; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 18 L.R.A. 670, 38 Am. St. Rep. 541, 53 N.W. 1139.

"Unless the contrary appears, a grant of land bounded by a water course conveys riparian rights, and the title of the riparian owner extends to the middle line of the lake or stream of the inland waters." Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. v. South Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. 102 Mich. 227, 25 L.R.A. 815, 47 Am. St. Rep. 516, 60 N.W. 681; 40 Cyc. 636, 637; Knudsen v. Omanson, 10 Utah 124, 37 P. 250; Tucker v. Mortensen, 126 Minn. 214, 148 N.W. 60; Bernot v. Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 143 P. 104; Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 8 L.R.A. 578, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828, 24 N.E. 686; Smith v. Robertson, 92 N.Y. 463, 44 Am. Rep. 393; Conneaut Ice Co. v. Quigley, 225 Pa. 605, 74 A. 648; Poynter v. Chipman, 8 Utah, 448, 32 P. 692; Bristow v. Cormican, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 641; Harrison v. Fite, 78 C. C. A. 447, 148 F. 781; Carr v. Moore, 119 Iowa 152, 97 Am. St. Rep. 292, 93 N.W. 52; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Butler, 159 U.S. 87, 40 L.Ed. 85, 15 S.Ct. 991; Gouverneur v. National Ice Co. 134 N.Y. 355, 18 L.R.A. 695, 30 Am. St. Rep. 669, 31 N.E. 865; Flisrand v. Madson, 35 S.D. 457, 152 N.W. 796; Scheifert v. Briegel, 90 Minn. 125, 65 L.R.A. 296, 101 Am. St. Rep. 399, 96 N.W. 44; Hanson v. Rice, 88 Minn. 273, 92 N.W. 982; Sherwin v. Bitzer, 97 Minn. 252, 106 N.W. 1046; Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21, 60 P. 1012; Stoner v. Rice, 121 Ind. 51, 6 L.R.A. 389, 22 N.E. 968; Boorman v. Sunnuchs, 42 Wis. 233; Fuller v. Shedd, 161 Ill. 462, 33 L.R.A. 146, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380, 44 N.E. 286; Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N.D. 422, 75 N.W. 807; Bigelow v. Draper, 6 N.D. 152, 69 N.W. 570; Gould, Waters, § 4; Angell, Watercourses, §§ 1-4; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Kaukauna Water Power Co. 90 Wis. 370, 28 L.R.A. 443, 48 Am. St. Rep. 937, 61 N.W. 1121, 63 N.W. 1019, and cases cited; Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 4707, 4798, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5250, 5341.

Lands so meandered are never reserved to the government to be afterwards granted out to other persons, to the injury of the original grantees. Their title is not limited by such lines run along or near the margin of such waters. Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406, 35 L.Ed. 442, 11 S.Ct. 819, 840; Bates v. Illinois C. R. Co. 1 Black, 204, 17 L.Ed. 158; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 554, 17 L.Ed. 265; St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schumeir, 7 Wall. 272, 19 L.Ed. 74; St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co. v. First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co. 26 Minn. 31, 49 N.W. 303; Knudsen v. Omanson, 10 Utah 124, 37 P. 250; Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21, 60 P. 1012; French-Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U.S. 47, 46 L.Ed. 800, 22 S.Ct. 563.

OPINION

CHRISTIANSON, J.

This is an action to quiet title to certain lands in Cavalier county which constituted a portion of the bed of a non-navigable body of water known as Rush lake. The land contiguous to Rush lake was surveyed by...