Wright v. City of Council Bluffs
| Citation | 104 N.W. 492,130 Iowa 274 |
| Parties | GEORGE S. WRIGHT and GEORGE N. MAYNE, Appellants, v. CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1905 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
REHEARING DENIED MARCH 20, 1906.
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.--HON. O. D. WHEELER Judge.
PLAINTIFFS are the owners of lots 1, 2, and 3 of fractional section 23 township 75, range 44, in Pottawattamie county. According to the government plat these lots abut upon a meandered lake or bayou now known as "Big Lake," the southern end of which is within the northern part of the city limits of Council Bluffs, and these lots together constitute what is spoken of by some of the witnesses as the "Island," although as a matter of fact not surrounded by water. The irregular tract in controversy is between the meander line and the median line of a portion of the territory platted as lake or bayou which is not permanently covered by water. The plaintiffs claim title to this tract as a part of the bed of the lake or bayou included between the meandered lines, and not covered by the descriptions of their lots. Defendant now in possession of this tract by a tenant, denies plaintiffs' title, and also asserts title in itself under an act of Congress passed in 1880 purporting to convey to defendant the title of the United States to the meander lake above referred to upon condition that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation. On the trial of the issues the court found that plaintiffs had no right title, or interest in or to the tract in question, and dismissed plaintiffs' petition as without merit or equity, and rendered judgment against plaintiffs for costs, from which plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Wright & Baldwin and Mayne & Hazelton, for appellants.
S. B. Snyder, City Solicitor, and Harl & Tinley, for appellee.
In their petition plaintiffs assert title to the tract in controversy on the theory that as riparian owners their title extends to the middle of the bed of the lake or bayou, which is conceded on both sides to be a nonnavigable body of water. This claim, however, is without legal foundation, for it has been held by this court that the owners of land bounded on non-navigable lakes have no title to the bed of such lakes covered by water. Noyes v. Collins, 92 Iowa 566, 61 N.W. 250; Noyes v. Harrison County, 104 Iowa 174; Rood v. Wallace, 109 Iowa 5, 79 N.W. 449. Nor is it claimed that this lake, or rather the portion of it which, as indicated by the government plat, extended over the tract in controversy and other land to a connection with the Missouri river, was ever a nonnavigable stream in such sense that the title of the adjoining owners would extend to the center thereof. That idea is precluded by the fact that the banks were meandered in the original survey, and the rule announced in the foregoing cases as to the title to the beds of nonnavigable lakes in Iowa is applicable, and excludes any ownership by plaintiffs to the tract in question as a part of the bed of the nonnavigable lake.
But the case appears to have been tried in the lower court and is now presented here in behalf of plaintiffs on the theory that the tract in question was at the time of the original survey a part of the bed of the lake covered by water, and was subsequently by gradual recession of the water added to plaintiffs' lots by accretion or reliction, and that theory of the case is therefore properly within our consideration. Inasmuch as defendant is in possession of the tract, and plaintiffs are seeking to have their title to such tract established, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show such accretion or reliction as to extend their title beyond the original meander line over this tract. On a close examination of the record we fail to find such evidence as would warrant us in holding that there had ever been such accretion or reliction as...
To continue reading
Request your trial