Hanson v. Rice

• Decision Date: 16 January 1903
• Citation: 88 Minn. 273,92 N.W. 982
• Parties: HANSON et al. v. RICE et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

88 Minn. 273

92 N.W. 982

HANSON et al.

v.RICE et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 16, 1903.

Appeal from district court, Kandiyohi county; Gorham Powers, Judge.

Action by John Hanson and others against Albert E. Rice and others. Judgment for plaintiffs. From an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where the meander line of an inland, meandered, navigable lake is not a boundary line of the fractional lots or tracts of land abutting thereon, the title of contiguous owners extends to all land between such line and the shore of the lake, precisely as though it were the result of accretions or relictions; and the boundaries of adjoining tracts, as to land beyond the meander line, are fixed by extending their side lines on a deflected course from their intersection with the meander line toward a point in the center of the lake.

2. Where there is a variance between the meander line established by the surveyors, as shown by the official plat of the survey and the field notes, the former controls. Lyndon A. Smith and John W. Arctander, for appellants.

A. J. Volstead, for respondents.

BROWN, J.

This action was brought under the provisions of chapter 68, Gen. Laws 1893, to determine the boundary line between tracts of land owned by the respective parties. Plaintiffs had judgment in the court below, and defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

The facts are as follows: Plaintiffs own fractional lot 7, section 4, township 121, range 35, Kandiyohi county, and defendants own fractional lots 2 and 4 in the same section. The boundary line sought to be established is that extending north and south between lot 7 and lots 2 and 4. Lot 7 lies immediately south of Swan Lake, and lots 2 and 4 to the west and southwest. In the survey of this land a meander line was run, presumably with reference to the lake, but at a considerable distance from its actual shore,-some 30 rods or more at one point,-and the lots in question abut thereon. Between the meander line and the shore of the lake there evidently was at the time of the survey, and still is, quite a body of high, dry land, on which is a heavy growth of timber. To the southwest of the lake, and between it and the meander line, is a large slough, and no doubt the meander line was run with reference to this slough as a part of the lake. The line between lots 2 and 4 running east and west would, if extended beyond the meander line, reach the lake shore, though the south line of lot 4, if so extended in a direct course, would not touch the lake at all. The lines of lot 7 running north and south would, if so extended, also reach the lake. The trial court held that the owners of lots 2 and 4 were entitled to go beyond the meander line in the direction of the lake to the quarter line of the section, and no further, thus taking enough land beyond the meander line to fill out their respective government subdivisions. The quarter line extending through the center of the section north and south was accordingly held the boundary line between those lots and lot 7, the former being on the west and the latter and the lake on the east of that line. By this, lot 4 and the greater part of lot 2 are entirely cut off from access to the lake. The position of appellants is that the land lying between the meander line and the lake belongs to and is a part of the lots abutting thereon; that, within the rule applicable to the division of such lands, as established by the decisions of this court, the boundaries of lots abutting thereon are fixed by extending the side lines of each abutting tract from their intersection with the meander line to a point in the center of the lake.

We are of opinion that the learned trial court adopted an erroneous view of the law applicable to cases of this kind. It was held in Schurmeier v. Railway Co., 10 Minn. 82 (Gil. 59), 83 Am. Dec. 59, that the owners of lands abutting upon a river or stream are the owners of all land between the meander line and the bed of the stream; that the lines of their tracts extend in a direct course to the thread of the stream. And in respect to lands bordering on navigable rivers this has always been the law in this state. The rule is not changed because of the fact that between the meander line and the river proper there may be high, dry land, which never formed part of the river bed, nor was the result of accretion or the recession of its waters. Such was the case of Olson v. Thorndike, 76 Minn. 399, 79 N. W. 399. In that case it appeared that between the meander line and the bed of the river there was at the time of the survey high dry land to the width of 26 rods, on which was a...