Monroe v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | 6964 |
| Citation | 175 P.2d 759,111 Utah 1 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | MONROE et al. v. STATE et al |
Appeal from District Court, Fifth District, Millard County; Will L. Hoyt, Judge.
Suit by Ralph Monroe and others against the State and another to quiet title to the bed of a lake. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Elias Hansen, of Salt Lake City, for appellants.
Grover A. Giles, Atty. Gen., C. N. Ottosen, Asst Atty. Gen., and Milton A. Melville, of Fillmore, for respondents.
What is a navigable lake? This issue arises in a suit in which plaintiffs and defendants each seek to quiet title to the bed of Scipio Lake, in Millard County, this State. Plaintiffs own property on the shores of the lake and the defendant State of Utah has leased part of the bed of the lake to defendant George E. Brown, for grazing purposes. The grazing brought plaintiffs and Brown in conflict.
If the lake was navigable when this state was admitted to the Union plaintiffs should fail. Sec. 86-1-14, U. C. A. 1943; Poynter v. Chipman, 8 Utah 442, 32 P. 690; Knudsen v. Omanson, 10 Utah 124, 37 P. 250; State v. Rolio, 71 Utah 91, 262 P. 987; Robinson v. Thomas et al., 75 Utah 446, 286 P. 625; and annotation 23 A. L. R. 757.
If the lake was non-navigable at that time plaintiffs should prevail. In addition to the above authorities: Annotation 112 A. L. R. 1114; State v. Aucoin, 206 La. 786, 20 So.2d 136, at page 158; United States v. Appalachian Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 61 S.Ct. 291, 85 L.Ed. 243; United States v. State of Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 55 S.Ct. 610, 79 L.Ed. 1267; United States v. State of Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 51 S.Ct. 438, 75 L.Ed. 844; United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465; State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 258 U.S. 574, 42 S.Ct. 406, 66 L.Ed. 771; and Gratz v. McKee, 8 Cir., 270 F. 713, 23 A. L. R. 1393.
The lower court found in favor of defendants and plaintiffs have appealed.
Conveyances to plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest are by lot and section number so no claim can arise that plaintiffs' property rights are specifically limited by description to the meander line of the lake.
Among the facts found by the lower court are these: At the time Utah was settled, Scipio Lake was a natural lake; a 2 foot dam was, about that time (1867), built at the lower end of the lake; that the lake had an extreme length of about 1 1/2 miles, and a maximum width of about 5/8 of a mile; that it had an average depth of 4 to 5 feet and covered an area when filled to capacity of the natural basin of approximately 580 acres (plaintiffs contend 277 acres); that the Federal Government surveyed the lake in 1871, fixing its meander line, fixing the length of the lake at 1 3/4 miles and width of 3/4 mile; that it has maintained that size until the present time, except for dry years when irrigation lowered it considerably; that the meander line fixed the approximate size of the lake when this State was admitted to statehood (Jan. 4, 1896); that it has not been used for transportation of "goods of commerce"; that it has no connection with navigable streams or other navigable bodies of water; that it has been used for boating, fishing, and swimming; and that its surroundings are such it appears improbable the lake will ever be valuable as a highway for commerce. The court then makes this statement as a part of his findings of fact:
"* * * that in view of the trend of decisions in recent years to view similar shallow bodies of water as navigable, the Court finds that Scipio Lake at the time Utah was admitted to the Union was a navigable body of water * * *"
This is a conclusion of law supported by the court's explanation of why he believed it necessary. The conclusion of navigability is repeated as paragraph one of his conclusions of law. We are of the opinion that navigability should not be determined without regard to practical considerations. The fact that the lower court included the explanation impresses one with the thought that he thought the lake was not, as a matter of fact, navigable, but, due to the idiosyncrasies of the law, it must be so held.
Scipio Lake is comparatively small and so located that, as stated by one witness, it is easier to go around it than to cross it. The public left to itself, is not going to select the hard way of travel, and if it is a short cut to go around it, that short cut will be used. These facts considered in the light of the probability of the future of that lake developing as it has in the past, as a reservoir for irrigation, are ample support for the court's finding that it is improbable the lake will ever be valuable as a highway for commerce. Such a finding is inconsistent with the idea that
"The natural navigation of the river is such that it affords a channel for useful commerce." (Italics ours.) (Quoting Mr. Justice Hughes in United States v. State of Utah, supra [283 U.S. 64, 51 S.Ct. 445]).
The author of the cited opinion also uses the expression "To meet the needs of commerce." (Italics ours.) The factual differences between that case and this must not be lost to our sight. There the court was dealing with miles of river crossing state lines which might easily be broken up into navigable and non-navigable areas. There was value in the use of such long stretches of water -- they were useful -- the public had need for them. But Scipio Lake is so small it must be treated as a unit. It, as a unit, is either valuable for transportation or it is not valuable. There is no evidence justifying any conclusion that it is likely ever to develop as a valuable means of public commercial transportation. Obviously its navigability should not be governed by our powers of imagination to vision what we deem sufficient to make it such a public waterway.
In Harrison v. Fite, 8 Cir., 148 F. 781, 783, cited in the Louisiana case (dissenting opinion) of our list above, there is some discussion of the element of usefulness. We quote therefrom:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adams
...95 N.C. 331, 59 Am.Rep. 242; Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 24 N.E. 686, 8 A.L.R. 578; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N.J.L. 369; Monroe v. State, 111 Utah 1, 175 P.2d 759; McGahhey v. McCollum, 207 Ark. 180, 179 S.W.2d 661; Bernot v. Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 143 P. 104; Snively v. State, 167 Wash.......
-
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull
...as acknowledged by us twice previously, is not particularly convincing in the equal footing context. The other case, Monroe v. State, 111 Utah 1, 175 P.2d 759 (1946), involved a "comparatively small" lake that "is easier to go around than to cross it." 175 P.2d at 761. Because the court fou......
-
Hitchings v. Del Rio Woods Recreation & Park Dist.
...Logging Co. (1920), 100 Or. 731, 190 P. 349, 350; American Red Cross v. Hinson (1938) 173 Tenn. 667, 122 S.W.2d 433, 435; Monroe v. State, 111 Utah 1, 175 P.2d 759, 761; Kemp v. Putnam, 47 Wash.2d 530, 288 P.2d 837, 840; Munninghoff v. Wisconsin Conservation Commission, 255 Wis. 252, 38 N.W......
-
State v. Meyers
...at 1099–1101 ; White’s Mill Colony, Inc. v. Williams , 363 S.C. 117, 609 S.E.2d 811, 815–17, 820 (Ct. App. 2005) ; Monroe v. State , 111 Utah 1, 175 P.2d 759, 761–62 (1946) ; Wickouski v. Swift , 203 Va. 467, 124 S.E.2d 892, 895 (1962) ; Ours v. Grace Prop., Inc. , 186 W.Va. 296, 412 S.E.2d......