Knickerbocker Ice Company v. Surprise

• Decision Date: 29 June 1912
• Docket Number: 7,482
• Parties: KNICKERBOCKER ICE COMPANY v. SURPRISE
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

99 N.E. 58

53 Ind.App. 286

KNICKERBOCKER ICE COMPANY v. SURPRISE

No. 7,482

Court of Appeals of Indiana

June 29, 1912

53 Ind.App. 286. At 298.

Original Opinion of February 2, 1912, Reported at: 53 Ind.App. 286.

OPINION

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

IBACH J.

Appellant urges that the court erred in holding that lot 2 of section 34 extended to the section line, and bases its contention upon the opinion in the case of Stoner v Rice (1889), 121 Ind. 51, 22 N.E. 968. In that case the court said, "The true doctrine to apply in the disposition of such land as is covered by the body of such lakes, we think, is that the government in making surveys included in such surveys all (our italics) the land within the district surveyed, and if there was a lake or large pond which covered a part of a subdivision it was meandered out, and the dry land in such subdivision designated as a fractional subdivision, or lot; that in the purchase of such fractional subdivision, or lot, the purchaser took title to it as a riparian owner, with the right to the land as the water receded within the boundary lines of the subdivision conveyed to the purchaser. In other words, the purchaser acquired title to all the land within the subdivision, though it was described as a fractional subdivision, or lot. The authorized survey divided all the land within the district into subdivisions."

In order to better present the questions involved in the discussion of the point raised by the petition for rehearing, we annex the following diagram, which fairly sets out the situation.

[SEE EXHIBIT IN ORIGINAL]

A, B, C and D, corners of Sec. 34; B, H, I and C, corners of W 1/2 Sec. 35; A, G, F and E, corners of Schutz lands partitioned M, G, L and K is lot 1, Sec. 34; L, F, J and K is lot 2, Sec 34; C, R, S and T is lot 4, Sec. 34; N, O, P and Q is lot 2, Sec. 35.

As appellant points out to the court, if it were held that all the lots extended to the section line, the east half of the northeast quarter of section 34 would belong both to the owners of lots 1 and 2, and to the owner of lot 4. Manifestly such a result would be incorrect. On the other hand, if we apply the rule insisted upon by appellant, that the lots extend under the water only to the nearest subdivision line, that is, in the case of lots 1 and 2, the quarter-quarter section line, then the east half of the northeast quarter of section 34 would not have been included in any portion of the survey. To reach this result would be as much an error as the former. There must be some rule which will allow us to escape this dilemma of adjudging that these lands were twice included in the survey, or were not included at all.

By the government system of land surveys, sections may be subdivided into subdivisions of various classes, namely-- half sections quarter sections, half-quarter sect...