Olson v. Huntamer
| Decision Date | 15 December 1894 |
| Citation | 61 N.W. 479,6 S.D. 364 |
| Parties | OLSON v. HUNTAMER et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. For the purpose of determining the quantity of land for which a purchaser must pay, meander lines are run along the margin of nonnavigable lakes and ponds, and not for the purpose of limiting to such lines the title of a grantee or claimant under the United States land laws.
2. By the settled course of the common law and the latest decisions of the land department, a grantee of real property contiguous to such lake or pond takes to the center thereof, ratably with other riparian owners, if there be such; and a timber culture entryman, who has filed upon a lot bordering upon such a lake or pond, receives, upon a full compliance with the law, a patent from the government, which conveys to him a fee-simple title to such lot, together with any reliction to the center of the lake, occasioned by the gradual recession or imperceptible drying up of the water therein after the date of his filing.
3. Under the law of this state a settler upon public land previously unoccupied, who has placed a timber culture filing thereon, and is in good faith complying with the laws of congress in relation thereto, is entitled, as against third persons, to the possession of all the land that he will ultimately take by his patent; and under sufficient pleadings and proof he may recover damages for the wrongful occupation of the same, and as against trespassers who have forcibly ejected or excluded him therefrom he may recover three times such a sum as would compensate for the detriment thus caused. Comp. Laws, §§ 4601, 4610.
Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county; Frank R. Aikens, Judge.
Action by Ole Olson against Joe Huntamer and another to recover the value of crops. Judgment was rendered for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
David Winton and Davis, Lyon & Gates, for appellant. Murray & Porter and Stoddard & Wilson, for respondents.
This action, based upon the rights of an alleged riparian owner was instituted to recover the value of certain crops sown cultivated, and harvested by the defendants, during the year 1890, upon a portion of a meandered lake bed contiguous to a tract of land designated upon the recorded plat as "lot (1), of section (3), Twp. (104) north, of range (51) west of the 5th P. M.," which was covered by a timber culture entry made by plaintiff on the 4th day of October, 1889; and by virtue of section 4610 of the Compiled Laws, which relates to the measure of damages in case a person is forcibly ejected from real property to which he is entitled, the plaintiff seeks to recover three times the value of the crops grown thereon by and appropriated to the use of the defendants during the year 1891. After issue was joined by the answer of defendants the case was sent to a referee, who found in effect, as matters of fact: That plaintiff made the timber culture entry as alleged in his complaint, and had cultivated said lot 1 in full compliance with the law, at all times subsequent to the date of said entry and issuance from the United States land office of the receiver's receipt therefor on the 4th day of October, 1889. That the government survey of said township 104 was made in the year 1867, and "a correct copy of a plat [enlarged to double size] drawn from the official plat book of Minnehaha county, of section (3), township one hundred four (104) north, of range (51) west 5th P. M., with courses and distances noted thereon, taken from said plat and the official field notes of the United States survey of said section, showing lot number one, in addition thereto the accretion to said lot therein extending to the middle of the lake bed west of said lot one computed from said field notes, is as follows":
(image Omitted)
--That the lake included within said meandered lines was nonnavigable, and gradually dried up, and became tillable in the spring of 1890. That without objection on the part of plaintiff, defendants, in the spring of 1890, entered upon the accretion to said lot 1, and raised and secured to their own use a crop of flax, of the value of $135. That in the spring of 1891, while plaintiff was engaged in plowing said accretion, and after he had plowed about 25 acres thereof, defendants unlawfully and with force and violence ejected plaintiff therefrom, and forcibly took possession of the same, and without his consent, and against his will, sowed thereon and raised a crop of barley of the value of $684, and converted the same to their own use. The twelfth and last finding of fact is as follows: "That the accretion of said lot one, as claimed by plaintiff, extends to the middle of said lake bed, and bounded as follows: Commencing at a point where the south boundary of said lot intersects the eastern meander line of said lake bed; thence west along a straight extension of said south boundary sixteen and eighty one-hundredths chains (16.80 ch.); thence N., 26 degrees 20 minutes W., six and sixty one-hundredths chains (6.60 ch.); thence N., 35 degrees 35 minutes W., thirteen and thirty one-hundredths chains (13.30 ch.), to the county line; thence easterly along said county line twenty-seven chains and twenty-seven and fifty one-hundredths links (27 ch. 27.50 links), to its intersection with the east meander line; thence along said meander line to the place of beginning,--containing thirty-eight and ten one-hundredths acres." As conclusions of law the referee found: From a judgment accordingly entered in defendants' favor and against plaintiff for costs and disbursements, amounting to $75.27, and from an order overruling a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
No fault is found by appellant's counsel with the findings of fact, and their assignments of error relate to the conclusions of law and the judgment entered thereon, together with the rulings of the court in denying appellant's motion to strike out said conclusions of law made by the referee, and substitute in place thereof conclusions of law in plaintiff's favor, which were consistent with the theory of plaintiff's counsel, and which would justify a judgment in plaintiff's favor for the value of the crop of 1890, and three times the value of the crop of 1891, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $2,187, exclusive of costs and disbursements. We are therefore called upon to determine the riparian rights, if any exist, before the issuance of his patent, to a timber culture entryman, who has filed upon and is complying with the law in relation to land bordering upon and contiguous to a nonnavigable lake which has imperceptibly and gradually dried up and become tillable land since the date of his filing upon land adjacent thereto. As against every one but the government, the plainest principles of equity and public policy would suggest that one who...
To continue reading
Request your trial