A federal question was presented by the contentions of the
plaintiff in error, and this Court is of opinion that, while there
was a lake abutting on or to the north of the lots, the plaintiff
would take all land between the meander line and the water, and all
accretions, it was competent for the defendant to show that there
was not, at the time of the survey nor since, any such lake, and to
contend that, in such a state of facts, there could be no
intervening land, and no accretion by reliction.
This was an action brought in 1896 in the Circuit Court of
Harney County, State of Oregon, by the French-Glenn Live Stock
Company, a corporation of the State of California, against Alva
Springer, to recover possession of a certain tract of land situated
in said county. The action was tried in May, 1897, and resulted in
a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. The cause was
subsequently taken to the Supreme Court of Oregon, and by that
court, on August 11, 1899, the judgment of the circuit court was
affirmed, and thereupon a writ of error was allowed by the chief
justice of that court, and the cause was brought to this Court.
The facts of the case, as developed at the trial, were thus
stated by the supreme court:
Page 185 U. S. 48
"The plaintiff, to support its contention of ownership of the
fee, offered in evidence (1) the official plat of the United States
government survey of fractional township 26 south, range 31 east,
of the Willamette meridian, showing the township rendered
fractional by abutting upon the meander line along the south side
of Malheur Lake, which plat appears to have been approved by the
Land Department of the government and filed in the local office on
September 17, 1877; the plat showing said lots bounded on the north
by the meander line of Malheur Lake; (2) the field notes of the
survey of the exterior boundaries of said township and its
subdivisions, and the meander line of Malheur Lake, under the title
heading, 'Meanders of the south shore of Malheur Lake, through
fractional township 26,' etc., and indicating that it was run 'with
the meander of the lake;'(3) a list of selections of land, made by
the agent of the State of Oregon, claimed as swamp and overflowed,
with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, bearing date
September 19, 1889; (4) two patents from the United States, for
said lots 3 and 4, section 34, and 1 and 2, section 35, 'according
to the official plats of the survey of the said lands returned to
the General Land Office by the surveyor general,' such patents
bearing date March 10, 1890, and October 8, 1891, respectively, and
the lots containing in the aggregate, 158.53 acres; (5) two
conveyances from the state, comprising the above-described lots,
bearing date October 7, 1889, and April 30, 1890, respectively, and
other mesne conveyances to the plaintiff, and (6) oral evidence,
tending to prove that in 1877, and for some years thereafter,
Malheur Lake was a continuous body of water up to the meander line
of that year; that there was a narrow ridge or reef across the west
end thereof, some 12 or 15 miles west of the lands in dispute,
which separated its waters from those of Harney Lake; that its
waters were from 8 to 12 feet higher than those of Harney Lake;
that, in 1881, the waters of Malheur Lake, overflowing the ridge,
cut a channel through, which was enlarged from year to year for
some time; that, as a result, its surface was lowered, the water
receding from the flat, shelving shore, leaving the disputed land
bare, except in the spring time, from and after 1884. This
constituted the
Page 185 U. S. 49
plaintiff's case. On behalf of the defendant, evidence was
introduced tending to show that there never was a lake in front of
the said lots; that Malheur Lake is a well defined natural body of
water, but that, if the east and west exterior lines of said lots
were extended north indefinitely, they would not touch or intersect
the margin or border of said lake, but would leave it entirely to
the east thereof; that the water of the lake had been, from a time
prior to 1877, of about the same height as it was at the date of
trial; that the border of the lake never at any time extended to
the supposed meander line of 1877, and that there never had been
any recession of the water of the lake, and a consequent reliction
of land in front of the said lots."
MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The parties to this contest both claim under titles derived from
the United States, the plaintiff in error under patents granted to
the State of Oregon under the swamp land grant; the defendant in
error under the homestead laws.
To support its contention the plaintiff in error put in evidence
at the trial, an official plat of the government survey of township
26 south, range 31 east, of the Willamette meridian, showing the
township rendered fractional by abutting upon the meander line
along the south side of Malheur Lake, which plat appears to have
been approved by the Land Department and filed in the local land
office on September 17, 1887. The plat shows lots 3 and 4, section
34, and lots 1 and 2, section 35, as bounded on the north by the
meander line of Malheur Lake; also, a list of selections of land,
made by the agent of the State of Oregon, claimed as swamp and
overflowed, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior,
bearing date September 19,
Page 185 U. S. 50
1889; also two patents from the United States for said lots,
dated, respectively, March 10, 1890, and October 8, 1891, said lots
containing in the aggregate 158.53 acres; also, two conveyances
from the State of Oregon, comprising the said lots, bearing date
October 7, 1889, and April 30, 1890, respectively, and certain
mesne conveyances of said lots, vesting title in the plaintiff in
error in 1894; also, oral evidence, tending to prove that in 1877,
and for some years thereafter, Malheur Lake was a continuous body
of water up to the meander line of that year; that there was a
narrow ridge or reef across the west end thereof, some 12 or 15
miles west of the lands in dispute, which separated its waters from
those of Harney Lake; that its waters were from 8 to 12 feet higher
than those of Harney Lake; that in 1881, the waters of Malheur
Lake, overflowing the ridge between the lakes, cut a channel
through, which was enlarged from year to year for some time; that,
as a result, the surface of Malheur Lake was lowered, the waters
receding from the flat, shelving shore, leaving the disputed land
bare, except in the spring time, from and after 1884.
On the part of the defendant, whose possession began in July,
1888, evidence was put in tending to show that there never was a
lake in front of the said lots; that Malheur Lake is a well defined
natural body of water, but that, if the east and west exterior
lines of said lots were extended north indefinitely, they would not
touch or intersect the margin or border of the lake, but would
leave it entirely to the east thereof; that the water of the lake
had been, from a time prior to 1877, of about the same height as it
was at the date of trial; that the border of the lake never at any
time extended to the supposed meander line of 1877, and that there
never had been any recession of the water of the lake, and a
consequent reliction of land in front of the said lots.
The question of fact raised by this contradictory evidence was
submitted to the whose verdict decided the issue in favor of the
defendant in error.
The land in dispute, in the possession of the defendant in
error, was not included within the lines of the original survey nor
in the description of the lots contained in the patents and
Page 185 U. S. 51
in the deeds of conveyance under which the plaintiff in error
holds, and to add the land in controversy to the lots so described
would more than double the area of the land claimed by the
plaintiff in error; but the contention of the plaintiff in error
was in the courts below, and now is in this Court, that, as the
plaintiff in error bought in reliance upon the plats and patents
which showed the meander line of the lake, such plats and patents
must be deemed to conclusively establish that the lake was the
northern boundary of the land so far as the rights of riparian
grantees are concerned.
Respecting this contention, the defendant in error advances two
propositions: first, that the grantee of swamps and overflowed
lands takes only such lands as are of that special character, and
that this land under the water, forming the bed of the lake, not
being of that character, could not pass, even under the facts as
claimed to exist under the evidence of the plaintiff in error, and
second, that there never existed a lake in front of or bordering on
the plaintiff in error's lots; that, if such was the fact, the rule
as respects accretion by reason of the alleged recession of the
water would not apply, and that, as this question was submitted to
the jury and found against the plaintiff in error, such finding
conclusively determines the controversy.
While it may be conceded that the descriptions of the lots
contained in the survey, plats, and patents are conclusive as
against the government and holders of homesteads, so far as the
lands actually described and granted are concerned, such conclusive
presumption cannot be held to extend to lands not included within
the lines of the survey, and which are only claimed because of the
alleged existence of a lake or body of water bounding said lots,
whose recession has left bare land accruing to the owners of the
abutting lots. We agree with the Supreme Court of Oregon in
thinking that the question whether the northern boundary of the
lots of the plaintiff in error was an existing lake, the recession
of whose waters would leave the bed of the lake, thus laid bare, to
accrue to the owner of the lots, was a question of fact which was
not concluded by a mere call for a meander line. If indeed there
had been a lake in front of these lots at the time of the survey,
which lake had
Page 185 U. S. 52
subsequently receded from the platted meander line, the claim of
the owner of the lots to the increment thus occasioned might be
conceded to be good if such were the law of the state in which the
lands were situated. But if there never was such a lake -- no water
forming an actual and visible boundary-on the north end of the
lots, it would seem unreasonable, either to prolong the side lines
of the survey indefinitely until a lake should be found, or to
change the situs of the lots laterally in order to adapt it to a
neighboring lake. The jury having found that the facts under this
issue were as claimed by the defendant in error, the conclusion
must be that the rights of the plaintiff in error must be regarded
as existing within the actual lines and distances laid down in the
survey and to the extent of the acreage called for in the patents,
and that the meander line was intended to be the boundary line of
the fractional section.
In
Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U.
S. 300, a somewhat similar state of facts existed, and
it was claimed that the mere call for a meander line gave riparian
rights beyond that line. But this Court said:
"It is urged that the fact that a meandered line was run amounts
to a determination by the Land Department that the surveyed
fractional sections bordered on a body of water, navigable or
nonnavigable, and that therefore the purchaser of these fractional
sections was entitled to riparian rights, and this in face of the
express declaration of the field notes and plat, that that which
was lying beyond the surveyed sections was 'flag marsh,' or
'impassable marsh and water.' But there is no such magic in a
meandered line. All that can be said of it is that it is an
irregular line which bounds a body of land, and beyond that
boundary there may be found forest or prairie, land or water,
government or Indian reservation."
See likewise Horne v. Smith, 159 U. S.
40, where a similar ruling was made.
Whether, even if the meander line of the survey really ran along
and adjacent to Malheur Lake, the doctrine of
Hardin v.
Jordan, 140 U. S. 384,
and cognate cases is applicable is discussed at some length in the
briefs. According to that rule, the extent of the title of a
government grantee of lands bounded
Page 185 U. S. 53
on streams and waters, without any reservation or restriction of
terms, is to be construed, as to its effect, according to the law
of the state in which the lands lie, and the cases cited show that,
in some of the states, it is held that the title of a riparian
proprietor extends to the middle thread of the stream, while in
others it is held to extend only to the water's edge, and in
Massachusetts, and perhaps other states, a distinction is
recognized between lands bordering on lakes and ponds and those
bounded by running streams.
But we are not called upon to enter into that discussion in the
present case, for the Supreme Court of Oregon reached its
conclusion apart from any such question, and expressed itself as
follows:
"If there never was a lake in front of plaintiff's lots, or if
one did not exist there at the time of the survey, then there was
no natural object or monument marking the north boundary of said
lots; hence resort must be had to the secondary evidence,
viz., the courses and distances which are ascertainable
from the plats and surveys, and they must prevail. The result is
natural, and the land conveyed would be just what a mathematical
calculation would produce from the field notes of the survey of the
fractional sections and the supposed meander line. . . . The
plaintiff sought to sustain the fact of the actual existence of the
lake in front of its lots and upon which they abutted at the time
of the survey, and then to show a gradual subsidence of the water
of the lake due to the cutting of the channel from natural causes
through a narrow reef or ridge extending across between Malheur and
Harney Lakes by which the water of the former was drawn off into
the latter, and a consequent reliction of the land bordering said
lots, which constitute the land in dispute, and to which plaintiff
claims title. The defendant controverted this position and sought
and introduced evidence tending to show the nonexistence of such a
lake at the time of the survey, and at all times since; in short,
there was support for the whole of his contention. The fact of the
existence of Malheur Lake, a nonnavigable body of water, was
admitted, but there was evidence to show that it lies to the
northeast of the lots of plaintiff, and that no part of it now or
at the
Page 185 U. S. 54
time of the survey extended westward, in front or to the north
of them. . . . The issues of fact were clear and distinct, and,
having been submitted to the jury, there is no reason why their
verdict should not preclude the plaintiff, as in other cases when a
jury has passed upon a submitted question of fact."
As the case went off in the Oregon courts on this question of
fact, it may be questionable whether any matter of federal law is
left open for our revision. However, as the plaintiff in error
contended in the courts below and in this Court that a proper
construction of the survey and patents gave riparian rights
covering the land in dispute, and that it was not competent to
overcome such rights by evidence affecting the legal import of the
plats and patents, we think a federal question is thus
presented.
For the reasons already given, we think that, while the plats
are conclusive as to the meander line, and while, if there was a
lake abutting on or to the north of the lots, the plaintiff in
error would take all land between the meander line and the water
and all accretions, it was competent for the defendant to show that
there was not, at the time of the survey nor since, any such lake,
and to contend that, in such a state of facts, there could be no
intervening land and no accretion by reliction.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon is
Affirmed.
