United States v. 202.76 Acres of Land, More or Less, Civ. No. A1-76-65.

Decision Date06 October 1977
Docket NumberCiv. No. A1-76-65.
Citation439 F. Supp. 483
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. 202.76 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF MERCER, STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Duane Payton, et al., and Unknown Owners, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

J. C. Blaisdell, Hazen, N. D., for claimant Stanton Park Dist.

Alfred C. Schultz, Bismarck, N. D., for the claimant Estate of Rickey Schreiber.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VAN SICKLE, District Judge.

This matter arises out of the condemnation by the United States of lands lying near the confluence of the Knife and Missouri Rivers. The problem has to do with the claims of two competing landowners, the Rickey Schreiber Estate and the Stanton Park District, to portions of the lands lying between the rivers.

The lands are being taken in order to preserve extensive Mandan Village sites. The group of Mandan Villages was a well established trade center in 1804 and 1805, when Lewis and Clark wintered across the river and four miles downstream at Fort Mandan. This portion of Dakota Territory was surveyed under the Rectangular System of Governmental Land Surveys in 1882.

The original plat of Township 144, Range 84, Section 6, looked like this:

In 1882 the Knife River cut Lot 1 in two equal segments and cut off the northeast corner of Lot 4. The Schreibers claim that the Missouri River by accretion built out the east half of Lot 1, and then built south to encompass the addition to Lot 4. Thus, the Estate of Rickey Schreiber claims it is entitled to the accretion which lies east of Lot 4. The Stanton Park District claims that it is entitled to the accretion east of Lot 4, asserting that the Missouri did build accretion off of Lot 4, and that they hold the lands east of Lot 4 under doctrine of adverse possession.

The United States has, as part of its survey for taking purposes, surveyed the accretion, and given that accretion east of Lot 1, survey number 01-146, and that accretion east of Lot 4, survey number 01-147. Their survey looks like this:

Both lots went out of the public domain by homestead patent to Thomas McGrath on November 20, 1883. He had purchased his Receivers Receipt on February 15, 1883, and platted the town of Stanton on March 27, 1883, encompassing Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, of Section 6, all before he had proved up. First as to the matter of accretion:1

In 1891, the Missouri River was surveyed in considerable detail, and strip maps were published reflecting the survey. The relevant strip map series, charts numbered 107, 108 and 109 have been received as Court exhibits numbered 52, 53 and 54, respectively. Both the strip maps and the government taking map (Exhibit 4), are at the scale of 1" = 1,000', so comparison of them is simple. Also, both maps show the location of the line between Townships 145 and 144, and the location of the Mercer County Courthouse.

Mr. Borner, 87 years old and sound of mind, wind and limb, testified that he had lived his life in the Stanton area and on a rough map (Exhibit 38), marked where he had worked as a stevedore to unload steamboats at Stanton. In 1905 he unloaded west of Loy (Stanton) Island, at a point that would appear to be due east of the hotel (Exhibit 52). By 1908 the unloading point had moved up river on the Missouri from a quarter to a half mile north of the original unloading site (Exhibits 38 and 52). River steamboats of the era, for example, the Far West which figured in the Custer debacle, could move up to a five hundred ton payload in twenty-two inch shallows.2 From these facts and a study of Exhibit 30, it appears that the Missouri-Knife channel east of Stanton closed between 1891 and 1908, and river docks were then moved to about the township line.

It also is clear that substantial sandbars developed east of both Lots 1 and 4 as early as 1891. Since the parties stipulated that the Knife River is not a navigable stream, these sandbars accreted to Lot 1 east of the Knife River, and where Lot 2 did not extend east of the Knife, to those portions of Lot 2, west of the Knife River. In North Dakota the riparian owner owns the bed of a nonnavigable stream. State v. Brace, 76 N.D. 314, 36 N.W.2d 330, at page 332.

There remains only the question of whether the Estate of Rickey Schreiber has established its claim that the Missouri River built land from Lot 1 east and south to encompass all land east of Lot 4. I find it did not. The sandbars which became the foundation of the accreted land are east of both Lots 1 and 4. And the hydraulics of alluvial deposit are not consistent with Schreiber's concept. The fast waters of the Missouri, when joining the slower waters of the Knife would necessarily show down the waters of the Missouri and speed up the waters of the Knife. Thus, the pattern of deposit would be first east, then south. And the Missouri, of all streams, never has done anything in an orderly manner. That is, deposits could well gravitate east, then east, then south, then east, and so on. Therefore, I conclude that the accretion east of Lots 1 and 4 belongs to the owner of Lots 1 and 4 respectively. That is, tract 01-147 has accreted to Lot 4 and belongs to the owner of Lot 4, which is the Park District of the City of Stanton.

The best objective evidence available confirms this analysis. Paul K. Weiser,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 29 Mayo 1985
    ...69 Ill.App.3d 330, 25 Ill.Dec. 766, 387 N.E.2d 422; State, ex rel. Remy, v. Agar (Okla.1977), 559 P.2d 1235; United States v. 202.76 Acres of Land (D.N.D.1977), 439 F.Supp. 483. Ohio is in accord with this view. Smith v. Krites (1950), 90 Ohio App. 38, 43, 102 N.E.2d 903 (public alley); Wil......
  • Nagel v. Emmons County North Dakota Water Resource Dist.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 31 Julio 1991
    ...within the space of ten years."4 In support of his contention, Nagel cites United States v. 202.76 Acres of Land, More or Less, 439 F.Supp. 483 (D.N.D.1977). Insofar as the conclusion reached in that case might be read to support Nagel's contention that Section 28-01-01, NDCC, provides that......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT