State of Nebraska v. State of Lowa
Citation | 36 L.Ed. 186,143 U.S. 359,12 S.Ct. 396 |
Parties | STATE OF NEBRASKA v. STATE OF LOWA |
Decision Date | 29 February 1892 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
J. Y. Stone, J. J. Stewart, and Smith McPherson, for defendant.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is settled law that when grants of land border on running water, and the banks are changed by that grandual process known as 'accretion,' the riparian owner's boundary line still remains the stream, although, during the years, by this accretion, the actual area of his possessions may vary. In New Orleans v. U. S., 10 Pet. 662, 717, this court said: See, also, Jones v. Soulard, 24 How. 41; Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57; Saulet v. Shepherd, 4 Wall. 502; St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46; Jefferis v. Land Co., 134 U. S. 178, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518.
It is equally well settled that where a stream, which is a boundary, from any cause suddenly abandons its old and seeks a new bed, such change of channel works no change of boundary; and that the boundary remains as it was, in the center of the old channel, although no water may be flowing therein. This sudden and rapid change of channel is termed, in the law, 'avulsion.' In Gould, Waters, § 159, it is said: 'But if the change is violent and visible, and arises from a known cause, such as a freshet, or a cut through which a new channel is formed, the original thread of the stream continues to mark the limits of the two estates.' 2 Bl. Comm. 262; Ang. Water-Courses, § 60; Trustees v. Dickinson, 9 Cush. 544; Buttenuth v. Bridge Co., 123 Ill. 535, 17 N. E. Rep. 439; Hagan v. Campbell, 8 Port. (Ala.) 9; Murry v. Sermon, 1 Hawks, 56.
These propositions, which are universally recognized as correct where the boundaries of private property touch on streams, are in like manner recognized where the boundaries between states or nations are, by prescription or treaty, found in running water. Accretion, no matter to which side it adds ground, leaves the boundary still the center of the channel. Avulsion has no effect on boundary, but leaves it in the center of the old channel. In volume 8, Op. Attys. Gen. U. S. 175, 177, this matter received exhaustive consideration. A dispute arose between our government and Mexico in consequence of changes in the Rio Bravo. The matter having been referred to Attorney General Cushing, he replied at length. We quote largely from that opinion. After stating the case, he proceeds:
Further reference is made in the opinion to the following authorities:
'Don Antonio Riquelme states the doctrine as follows:
Derecho Internacional, tom. i, p. 83.
'Don Andres Bello and Don Jose Maria de Pando both enunciate the doctrine in exactly the same words, namely:
Bello, Derecho International, p. 38; Pando, Derecho International, p. 99.
'Almeda refers to the same point briefly, but in decisive terms. He says:
Derecho Publico, tom. i, p. 199.
'Leaving authorities of this class, then, let us come to those which discuss the question in its relation to private rights, and as a doctrine of municipal jurisprudence.
Civil Law, c. 14.
'Such, beyond all possible controversy, is the public law of modern Europe and America; and such, also, is the municipal law both of the Mexican republic and the United States.'
Vattel states the rule thus at page 121, (book 1, c. 22, § 268:) 'If a territory which terminates on a river has no other boundary than that river, it is one of those territories that have natural or indeterminate bounds, (territoria arcifinia,) and it enjoys the right of alluvion; that is to say, every gradual increase of soil, every additon which the current of the river may make to its bank on that side, is an addition to that territory, stands in the same predicament with it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bonelli Cattle Company v. Arizona 8212 397
...were the accretion principle to be applied. As this Court, quoting from 8 Op.Atty.Gen. 175, observed in Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359, 362, 12 S.Ct. 396, 397, 36 L.Ed. 186 (1892): "(When in) deserting its original bed, the river forces for itself a new channel in another direction, then th......
-
Philadelphia Company v. Henry Stimson
...10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226, 245, 34 L. ed. 941, 949, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337; Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359, 36 L. ed. 186, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 35, 38 L. ed. 331, 344, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548; Hale, De Jure Maris, chaps. 1, 4, 6; Har......
-
New Jersey v. New York
...Second. Rather, under that era's common law, such filling was "avulsion,'' which has no effect on boundary, Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359, 361, 12 S.Ct. 396, 397, 36 L.Ed. 186. This rule fills the Compact's silence and leads to the conclusion that the lands surrounding the original Island ......
-
State of Iowa v. Carr
... ... river was made by the United States, the meander line of that ... bank was run and fixed, and the patents to the land on the ... Nebraska shore were based upon the latter survey. The ... complainants and their immediate and remote grantors had ... acquired the title, patented in part ... ...
-
Divvying Atlantis: who owns the land beneath navigable manmade reservoirs?
...279 F. Supp. 87, 91 n.5 (D. Ariz. 1967), aff'd, 416 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1969) (applying federal law). (125.) See Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359 (1892); Arizona v. Bonelli Cattle, 464 P.2d 999, 1005 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970); Peterson v. Morton, 465 F. Supp. 986 (D. Nev. (126.) 101 Ranch v. Unite......
-
The Cathedral Engulfed: Sea-Level Rise, Property Rights, and Time
...L. Sax, The Accretion/Avulsion Puzzle: Its Past Revealed, Its Future Proposed , 23 TUL. ENVTL. L.J. 305 (2010). 50. Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359, 366–67 (1892). 51. Coastline movement due to storms, even though sudden and, thus, avulsion, also moves property lines. As the Texas Supreme Co......
-
The accession insight and patent infringement remedies.
...(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805) (discussing ratione soli). (123.) Merrill, supra note 16, at 464-65. (124.) Id. at 465-66; cf. Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359 (1892) (holding that the law of accretion controls when the river boundary between two states (125.) Merrill, supra note 16, at 465. (126.) Id. ......