Pere Marquette Boom Co. v. Adams

• Decision Date: 20 October 1880
• Citation: 44 Mich. 403,6 N.W. 857
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PERE MARQUETTE BOOM CO. v. ADAMS and another.

6 N.W. 857

44 Mich. 403

PERE MARQUETTE BOOM CO. v. ADAMS and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 20, 1880

The private ownership of lands, bounded by navigable fresh water is not restricted to the meander line. The charges of a log-driving and booming company are largely for labor and responsibility, but in estimating them the value of the property used in its business may be properly considered that is, its fair market value arrived at with such aid as the circumstances afford.

Error to Mason.

White &amp McMahon, for plaintiff in error.

C.G Wing, for defendant in error.

COOLEY J.

The substantial question involved in this case is, whether the plaintiff in error was entitled to make certain charges which were insisted upon for the running and booming of logs for the defendants in error. It seems that the company, having a boom on the Pere Marquette lake, and being engaged in running logs on Pere Marquette river, had run and boomed logs for defendants in error for several years. The most of the company's charges were paid, but some were disputed; and having at length refused to deliver certain logs until the charges were satisfied, the defendants in error replevied them. The replevin suit is the suit now before us. It seems to have been determined in the circuit court that all reasonable charges had been paid.

The statute under which plaintiff in error is organized (Comp.Laws, c. 88) empowers the company, "in all cases where no rate is fixed by contract, to charge and collect a uniform and reasonable sum for boomage," etc. Section 14. As bearing upon the question whether more than a reasonable sum had been charged, the company gave evidence tending to show that the real estate employed by them in their business was of the value of $90,000, and their personal estate of the value of $10,000. The real estate consisted of the booming ground in Muskegon lake and the adjacent shore, and this shore appears formerly to have been a marsh or perhaps was covered by the waters of the lake. In answer to this showing defendants in error gave evidence tending to show that the value of the boom company's personal property was merely nominal. They then offered to show that the land of the company, which was supposed to be so valuable, was in fact within the meander line of Pere Marquette lake, as surveyed under authority of the general government. This being objected to, the counsel offering it explained the object to be to show that the land, appearing by the survey to be a part of the lake, and having since become made land, it now belongs to the United States. After this explanation the court received the evidence.

The ruling was erroneous. It has been repeatedly decided in this state that private ownership of lands bounded on navigable fresh water is not restricted to the meander line. Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18; Bay City Gas-light Co. v Industrial Works, 28 Mich. 182; Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co. 41 Mich. 433. ...