Miller v. Mendenhall
Decision Date | 03 April 1890 |
Citation | 44 N.W. 1141,43 Minn. 95 |
Parties | Andreas M. Miller v. Luther Mendenhall |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for St Louis county, Ensign, J., presiding, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The substance of the complaint is stated in the opinion. The prayer for relief is (1) that the conveyance from the Duluth Improvement Co. to defendant be decreed to be invalid; (2) that the cloud cast by that conveyance on plaintiff's title to the westerly half of block 27 be removed, and (3) for general relief.
Order affirmed.
Mahon & Howard, for appellant.
Walter Ayers, for respondent.
This case involves the consideration of the riparian rights of the owners of lands abutting upon the Duluth harbor or Bay of Superior, in the shoals or land covered by water between low-water mark and the deep or navigable waters, and within the dock or harbor line established by the authority of the legislature. These waters are within the jurisdiction of the state and federal governments, and the state holds the title to low-water mark in its sovereign capacity, in trust for the people, for the purpose chiefly of protecting the rights of navigation. But, though the title is nominally in the state the common right of the people is limited to what is of public use for the purposes of navigation and fishery; and the riparian owners are permitted to enjoy the remaining rights and privileges in the soil under water beyond their strict boundary lines, after conceding to the state all the public rights. Gould, Waters, § 168. The right of access and communication with the navigable waters which pertain peculiarly to the ownership of the upland, in order to be available and of practicable use, necessarily includes the right to fill in and to build wharves and other structures in the shallow water in front of such land, and below low-water mark, and the exercise of such rights, though subject to state regulation, can only be interfered with for public purposes; and such improvements are encouraged because they are in the general interest of navigation and commerce and are a public as well as a private benefit. In Dutton v. Strong, 66 U.S. 23, 1 Black 23, 32, 17 L.Ed. 29, it is said that, "wherever the water is too shoal to be navigable, there is the same necessity for such erections for lake navigation as in the bays and arms of the sea; and where that necessity exists, it is difficult to see any reason for denying to the adjacent owner the right to supply it." And in Yates v. Milwaukee, 77 U.S. 497, 10 Wall. 497, 19 L.Ed. 984, it is held broadly that these riparian privileges are to be treated as valuable property rights, which cannot be taken or interfered with for public use without compensation. Union Depot, etc., Co. v. Brunswick, 31 Minn. 297, (17 N.W. 626.) And if a stranger makes a filling or an obstruction in the waters in front of his land, the owner of the adjacent upland may enjoin its continuance, or recover in trespass, if not in ejectment.
In the case before us the complaint shows that a corporation known as the "Duluth Improvement Company" was the owner of a large tract of land bordering upon the waters of Duluth harbor, which communicates with Lake Superior, and is navigable for large boats and vessels. In front of this land, and for a considerable distance into the bay, the water is shallow and not navigable; and, in pursuance of legislative authority, a dock or harbor line had been duly established by the city of Duluth, extending in front of, and at a distance of a thousand feet or more from, the low-water mark on the tract of land referred to. Thereafter the Improvement Company caused this land, together with the land in front thereof under water, out to the dock line, to be surveyed and platted into lots and blocks, piers, slips, avenues, and streets, and caused a plat thereof to be duly made and recorded, under the name of the "Bay Front Division of Duluth," and thereafter proceeded to convey divers lots and parcels of the platted land, as well land under water as the dry land, to divers persons, by reference to the recorded plat, and by conveyances of the form set out in the complaint, and containing special covenants and stipulations, as hereinafter mentioned.
The complaint further proceeds as follows:
Following the descriptions in the deeds to these parties, and to other grantees of the platted lands above referred to, we find the following clauses, covenants, and stipulations, viz ...
To continue reading
Request your trial