*1 TERM, 1902. - Error., for Plaintiffs in HARDIN v. SHEDD. TO THE SUPREME OF THE STATE OF
ERROR COURT ILLINOIS. Argued 12, 1903.
No. 56. January May 18,*1903. Decided qn conveys non-navigable States a "When United hounded lake it position, conveyances concerned, pri- assumes so far as such are of a owner, general to the in vate law of the State the land is situate. 371, Since Hardin v. of Illinois has been the law settled conveyances upland carry lakes do not adjoining on such lands below the water line. conveyed by non-navigable land is on a lake When States United affecting from conveyance affecting of law are different those a rules n conveyance navigable of land bounded on waters. by-this The and the local law of common Illinois law understood by navigable- are the bounded waters same. with the court. The case is stated in opinion in error. for Thomas Dent Mr. plaintiffs of title case involves I. The patents lands Illinois. United to John Holbrook. It was of such was- dated One and was based Mr. Holbrook 1841, 20, entry by May other at the land office The Chicago,-December B. and dated was to William Egan, patent August in the Thi’ee of the described Holbrook bor- patent tracts dered, was also for a tract lake. Egan patent The two tracts of the that bordered on the lake. defendant . (cid:127) All the in error also on the lake. tracts were fractional. were claimed the pleadings by plaintiffs error on the the tracts lake éxtended center bordering such lake, being non-navigable, having belonged at the time of the and not survey .States platting, in or in excluded from the been reserved any way grant. is an 1. That the lake was fact unquestioned in the It was so found in the decree to be reviewed.. case. was a like decree, which, There in the earlier finding
* rehearing Petition for filed June v. . . Plaintiffs Argument for Error. .Fuller agreed.
this particular, 462, 473.. Shedd, lands therein title to was. submerged 2.' the.lake *2 of such Act at the time States survey platting. the United the deed of there- 20, 1783, .cession of October of Virginia 1 Com. *258, 259; Kent’s Johnsons. 1784; 1, of March under President <&c. Commons v. 586; 543, 8 Wheat. McIntosh, 1 Jones, Wendell, *237, 35 ; Rogersv. Illinois, 167 McClure, N. Y. v. Roe 256; Strong, 107 to the United from thát State
3. The grant Virginia to Wil- broad as that as alike, land and water was, States Cooverty. 8Watts, O'Conner, was construed which Penn, liam 120 Schroll, Illinois, v. Schools Trustees 477; 470; v. Jor- which dQctrine recognized was therefore- 371,' applicable dan, form. . in the usual which were usuai common law In the nature principles, or work the 3 same result.. conveyances, grants applicable ; *428 Interpretation Deeds, 182; Com. Elphinstone Kent’s ’ Beckmam,v; 3 Pritchard, Scam. 510; v. Kreamer, Middleton v. 447; Bristol 95 County 43 Illinois, Carroll, Illinois, 84; 108 Massachusetts, 160-169 v. Woods, Beerman, Paine v. Hogg see Niles Point 81; Club, 41 Ohio St. Cedar 175 class of as to this waters 300, 308, fact, non-navigable being owners.” property riparian generally whether the state court II. should de- Upon title under clared the consideration done as was decree is review,,it submitted : the classification or 1. Such or finding ignored disregarded waters. The distinction between or navi- division of waters and those which are private gable and is established. When reasonable, well the State Illi- admitted into the Union entered nois was the same “upon ” all States, the same footing original respects; it is not denied that the State without thereupon acquired, any from the United States, other the dominion and- specific grant over and lands' under its ownership navigable sovereignty - in trust for the waters, being Martin ownership people. TERM, 1902. Argument for Plaintiffs in Error. 'Pollard Peters, 3 How. Waddell, Hagan, y. R. Gó. I. C. R. Genesee People, Chief 12 How. 443; Barney Keokuk, U. S. 324.
Fitzhugh, But such cases as St. Paul da R.R. Co.v. Shurmeier Pacific S, Wall. Packer H. Bird, make note of the distinction observed the acts of between Congress streams and those not navigable navigable.
The effectivenessof from the United lands on waters not in fact was not intended to be im- navigable thereby but it was considered that if of the western paired, any States, like chose “to example, assign riparian pro- to them in their prietor sov- properly belong it is not for others to raise ereign Mr. capacity, objections.” Justice Field thus the latter case from quoting Barney Keokuk, supra.
But it would require express grant *3 of to the title to a water situated in body pass non-navigable the domain in of the Northwest any part Territory, R. R.Co., v. Joliet <& S. 191; Hubbard Ohieago Healy and when it was found, as a matter Bell, Illinois, 110; of in this case was not no that the lake fact, navigable, inference the States the from otherwise of a of same than grant in could be evidence, The fact of indulged. the put itself evidence .that the United was of non-navigabilitv or the lake while lands, itself, the border- held submerged remained unsold. lands ing which the was the
2. What then Court ground upon Supreme of this of Illinois ownership adjudged It was a in the State? that the law of to be upon supposition as rivers lakes; is.inapplicable boundary applied a be held to whether lake should be the property question made to turn whether it the State was was 161 Illinois, 489, in the survey,” “meandered original if in the' a in that' lake was survey was effect original saying, of the lake became State'. such meandered, property " of a evidence State.- meandered line is not grant attributed to of Illinois meander an effect different from- entirely its instance views the present v Sil Plaintiffs Error.' waters within its other oases all involving of a meander instance, in the first general govern- belonging, borders, the acts sale Congress. according ment, a rule to be noticed other cases maintaining such Among court in case maintained by result different Trus- Scam. Canal Pritchard, Middleton noted: may 49 Illi- 518 ; City Chicago lafiin, 5 Gilm. tees v. Raven, Illinois, Ice Co. Yates, Washington nois, 172; RoucJcv. Illinois, Fuller Shortall, Dauphin, in its court, first opinion true that the expressions not in the form of a w°ere Illinois, 481, disap- in this doctrine that a affirmance of those their cases, proval bounded a stream meander surveying government with reference ascertaining quan- water is body run- attributed to the the court fraction; of land yet tity in the effect, instance, the meander larger present ning a stream under consider- a labe and not because object in the ation, surveyed. territory an or au- title,
In
matter
examination
cases
will
cited to sustain
show
thorities
proposition
they
for nor follow common
did
search
law
the mat-
guidance
as this court
The real
held in
ter.
question,
“
had
of the beds of inland
ownership
supra,
not of such size as to be classed
lakes,
with the great navigable
”
lakes and rivers
it also
as to the dif-
held,
country;
doWe
not think that this
ficulty
titles,
ar-
determining
ab inconvenienti is
sufficient to
abandon-
gument
justify
ment
the rules
common
And
law.”
also
see
Gouver-
neur
Ice
It should further remarked that be observing history it will be of land titles different States borne mind that in the older the Atlantic borders the States on source primary of titles was from the and crown then passed TERM, 1902. for Plaintiffs in Error. But as
themselves. to lands in the public Northwest Ter- or in of the States ritory, any these therein, belonged States, were under the not of power control, but of the States, if Congress; hence simi- legislation lar to the Massachusetts ordinances, the effect of having chang- the common law as ing titles or the construction óf affecting or had conveyances, been to be re- thought desirable, sort to to declare or Congress, such would provide changes, have been necessary.
3. The influence of cases
on
based
ordinances
as
adopted
as 1741 Massachusetts'1
early
will
in. the deci
recognized
sion of the state
Court. These
ordinances became
“ the foundation of
local
a
common
law
in
Massachusetts,
to a
cluding Maine,
led
course
decisions with regard
to the title of labes and
at variance with the
ponds
common
and which
law,
have been followed in New
Hampshire
some other States.” Hardin v.
see
supra,
Shively
4. If the the state court had been in policy favored mind when had or government public domain, in the Northwest Territory, not any great part why memorialized enact laws to withdraw lakes a Congress certain lakes, sale, or’meandered size, reserved being or the for the the States benefit thereof? respectively, people while it was was, proprietor, course, government, with made, at full a reference re- liberty resurvey was made if the at unfavorable survey original platting, too of water if or time, stage being great, account much cause-left too subsidence from' dry any go and the books the fractions platted; originally, undoubtedly a number of of this been show instances dene. One instance is shown Bristol 95 Illi- County Carroll, such - nois, did the lake This is but lose its saying equivalent and did not character, pass proprietor-, or control of the United that was by anything ship done the surveyor general surveyor surveying fractional township embracing great platting part *5 v. for Plaintiffs in Argument Error. 190 U. effect of Iowa and such is the v. lake; Rood, again S. 87. over the lands, public
III.
plenary power Congress
is too
fractional
was
clear to be
which this
township
part,
.of
Art.
Wilcox v.
IT, 3,
2;
Jack-
Constitution,
par.
questioned.
§
sale the construction States, United including the laws of the is to be resolved United patents thereto the decisions of this-court should be held to regard on the state courts. Gilmore 100 Illinois, Sapp, binding Landers, Dillon, Peters, 70 Seymour Paige Wisconsin, 178.
The state court should therefore have followed the decision and Mitchell v. of this court in Hardin v. Smale, not have the same. disregarded common law when the
As the territory prevailed Virginia States followed was ceded, not within the even a State- legislature power it in to the lands bor- patentees change respect lakes. Shell v. Matteson, dering supra. law was what the common this court had
Upon a full too, authoritatively especially right speak, Yates v. therefor. lands, Milwaukee, 3 Biss. Madison, 10 Wall. 497Nelson City of has over the The fact that this court revisory power judg- ment of the because of the claimed under the state court, right Constitution laws of but the United States denied by. vol. cxc—S3 TERM, 1902. Plaintiffs in Error. state conclusion, also, leads court,
state *6 in of this court the followed the decisions have special should 6 Pet. 298; Lessee Neal, v. involved. Green matter ;659 River Richards, Bridge Republican Lower v. 92 IT. S. Pac. 317. Co., Co.'v. Kansas Ry. been court, reversed,
The first decree in the state the second decree is effect, force or when has no binding as to tbe effect of law, have been error of found to based upon is there manifest and State, the meander in in this court to the exercise eminent power propriety if or of error as effect the writ the same judgment give or been rendered a court had decree passed complained the United States. It correct ? should be the then, should "What, judgment wit: The declaration title fundamental error, in error to the title of
State, plaintiffs limiting line meander as if the water’s governed, edge, supposed of a fancied as ordinary stage.” the water’s edge taking in Hardin v. Jordan the decisions of this court should follow should as no error and Mitchell Smale. govern, plat therein is shown. bed:
IY. As to the the lake apportionment decisions in v. Jordan and Mitchell v. Smale should be should case. prevailed, applied The. in the state do not for those made bind; findings wrere final an erroneous view of the law. There upon decree. in the error fundamental the state being court, proposition of this limited court is not restricted or right judg the state of such ment of but the whole court, is sub judgment be reversed. into a The case is resolved of law ject title had —What error to the lake, plaintiffs respect lands originally submerged? question the —and whole record for revision this court. Ar open Lytle kansas, Howard, Richards, Lower Ri/oer Republican Co. Kansas Railway Co., Bridge Pacific 317. This is a title and not case involving boundaries in merely sense as was Moreland ordinary the. How. 523, cited Page, by appellees. Plaintiffs Error.
190U. S. court could de- the state whether rightfully The question'is and make the be in the to the lake to the title clare there- the water’s edge, of the government grant boundary the seasons and the to the winds, fore chargeable, is whether from The question march improvement. withdraw from the should the court op- state policy supposed remaining submerged, continuing eration any grant of water covers as an be, withdrawal, may long ..inch and the field lake bed. The level surface plat the rather in the mat- with tbe considered, along patents, notes should be are and field notes .to construction. Such ter of plat legal is shown. O'Gilvie until the contrary to be correct presumed Kane Town Illinois', Farrelly, v. Copeland, case remains. No present objection thereto *7 to is therefore subject of the lake as there wan platted What Biss. Webber v. 201; 1 Smale, v.- Forsyth be apportioned. Houok v. Yates, 62Co., Boom Michigan, Fere Marquette Grand &e. v. Pritchard, Rapids Middleton supr'a; sufra", 85 Schultes bn 159U. S. Butler, Rights, R. R. Go.v. Aquatic 94. Boundaries, on 138; Tyler on subdivision situated the lake
Each.fractional should'be as of extension, the time when was made its allowed proper the United States. Jones v. Lee, for sale 11 by Michigan, ready would be the side, extension 42. laterally, by The Moore to the water v. The Willamette Trans- frontage. : portation Co., Oregon, Dictionary, definition Webster’s of “laterally.” run
The side lines should from the established corners. line 29 and 30 was run The between sections by surveyor the lake. The notes the remainder of the line was or say would be the lake. The what is sometimes title is not controlled by question
called state law.” It is one of law, applicable pat- general for was known ents lands in .the North- territory law when western or it a common is question Territory, applied to titles from the United and as to such emanating from titles free state of course from legislation, exempt the state domination courts. by TERM, 1902. n in Error U. S. for Defendant views in main harmony have in the
Those courts expressed court Hardin this announced with those by on common law the what is the as to Smale, supra, Mitchell waters is not reasonable apply subject. to accretions. They properly this class rules general waters which are more permanent. only navigablé pertain Y.- As to jurisdiction: question is Rev. Stat. Such II. S. 709. jurisdiction given § of Illinois first The given Court Supreme judgment a remand the Circuit was one of reversal but with part, without Court of Cook further spe- County proceedings, cific not reviewable here. Me Comb directions, hence was V: 1. Co. Knox 91 U. S. Co., Com.of
Until the later and decision Court Supreme final here for be. the case could not made, brought ' Crouch, Pams v. review. Fisher v. Perki/ns, error was claim of title presented plaintiffs in á to last, record of forms first plead- variety and at each and otherwise, hearing ings of the Státe. . .. of that court that the Chief
The certificate of the Justice in the state court evidence’of arose Federal'question of the record itself. v. Treas. fact, Armstrong corroborative t>f 16Co., Athens Pet. that, fact arose, pleadings show Ohio, How. observed.' Fuel Medberry fee may Ness,-8 Wheat. Yan *8 for defendant Mr. S. error. Mecartney Harry I. raised in Federal No state question, specially v; 131; Illinois, v. 121 U. S. courts. Maxwell Newbold, Spies v. 1 Black, 18 W. 511; 521; Columbia Hoyt Thompson, How. U; v. P. Elec. Str. S. Co., 476; Co. Columbia 172 By. Chap-- v. 128 S. v. 132; U. 166 S. Bradshaw, Zadig Baldwin, U. pell 485 v. ; U. S. 182; 170 v. But- Kipley Illinois, Stave Co. Oxley 166 Co., ler U. S. 649 ;' Telluride dbc.Co. v. Power Rio Grande B. Co., B. U. S. dec. v. 642; 175 179 U. S. Fye, Chapin v.
HARDIN SHEDD. 517 in Error. for Defendant S. 190 U. Justice of the Illinois of the Chief certificaté
The Supreme Powell v. this court jurisdiction. does give Super- Court 150 U. S. visors, Illinois Supreme decision Court complained
II. The of local law which its upon purely, of involved question n in this case is that question was final. pivotal judgment in which lands patented by law of the local to be construction given United States . governs lie whéther lands waters, navigable bordering upon or stream. stream, lake, navigable n 140 and see cases cited dis- Hardin v. U. S. 871, 138 226; Louis v. v. Ruts, Barney S. senting opinionSt. U.. S, 113 Louis v. U. 324; 566;' 94 U. S. St. Keolc.uk, Myers, S. 661. See also 137 U. Bird, Shively Bowlby, Packer Water Power .v. S. St. Falls Co. Board 1; Anthony 152 U. 168 S. 349. U. Commissioners, Water decided WHardin Jordan the shore owners It was the center of the and this was based lake, took to decision that it was in accordance with decision of the the theory Since then the Court. Supreme that shore owners do not" decided take Illinois has tq the but water’s Hammond v. edge. Shepard, center only is not bound however, 235. This court, 186 follow decisions under circumstances. Yates v. such Mil- latest 10 18 595 Wallace, 497; Peek, Pease waukee, Howard, ; Town, 101 IT.--S. Bolles, 119; Roberts v. v. Corte- Morgan, Howard,'!; Lyon, 439; Gibson Central nius, Wade 159 U. S. v. Travis Co., Land Co.v. Laidley, Lessee, . Peters, S. 499 Green v. NeaVs ; U. into the will not
III. This
errors of
inquire
alleged
if Federal
were
Even
involved would
question
practice.
’
alone.
Ashley
examine such
Ryan,
Cleveland c&c. v.
Carolina,
Mallett North
Co.
n Backus,
Pac.
Central
c&c.Co.-v.
California,
.
mitted; Y. of Wolf Lake and State’s title character *9 TERM, 1902. M- co
Ox Opinion tlie Court. of 100 17. S. are and its thereover all within the bed thereof, jurisdiction of local and are the state court’s decision fore- law scope closed from here. inquiry
YI. The under of accretions the decree is ac- apportionment curate and For definition accretion thereto, just. right $ 1 Am. 2d 462, 474; see & ed. No. Ency. Municipality Eng. v. New 9 Louisiana, 437; Orleans Cotton Kelvr Press, 114 61 345 Morrow, Missouri, ; 313 Benson v. ; Snyder, Missouri, 33 Buse v. 86 Mis- Bussell, Cooly ; 117 Golden, Hoover, 85 souri, Iowa, Naylor Cox, Bigelow Missouri, Mr. the court. delivered Justice Holmes opinion Act of the under the Burnt Becords This is a proceeding error, Shedd, the defendant seeks Illinois, by which land record"'title_to and under establish certain his adjoining Wolf Lake, lake called partly lying Hardin, The alsoowns error, in Indiana. part-ly plaintiff a title land successionto under lake, the same pat adjoining under these makes ents from United States, conflict lake, which claims land now originally ' court. with the decree claim of Shedd with'the the. decree hav Hardin. The other error is grantee plaintiff Illi been affirmed by ing here the case Illinois, 462, brought nois, 123; C., 161 406, 410; Shively Smale, writ of error. Mitchell into It seems 1, 9, unnecessary go 152 U. S. Bowlby, main here as the difference, goes details of the are her on that.. and we against foundation Hardin’s in which lies territory disputed title and a Her plan out in Hardin found set land will be error The claim the below the plaintiffs orig- on its water line passed inal patent depends Holbrook, de- United States. they patent was dated title, of their 20, 1841, rive May important part At that time before the Land Act. the land under long Swamp as well lake, surrounding belonged V. Opinion tlie Court. *10 States should be construed the United and ii States, it be assumed that, laws, subject to state may without regard Hardin would lines, adjustment all proper questions the United States is land conveyed by When have prevailed. the it, grounds belonging bounded on a non-navigable different from the be must for the decision quit^ considera-^ land bounded on navigable a conveyance\df tions affecting not under the water does be the land case In the latter water. has to the State its but States, passed by to the United long has it become estab Nevertheless to the Union. admission former that the case as without lished almost argument sub the title on adjoining the latter the effect of grant of th the law where' State be determined will by A merged on a land bounded In the case of non-navigable land lies. States.,assumes of a owner private lake the United position far as law of the so its conveyances general 140 U. S. Jordan, are concerned. Shively Indiana R. R. & Co. 1, 45; Grand Rapids Bowlby, Water 93 St. Falls Power 90, Butler, Anthony Water 168 U. S. Commissioners, Co. St. Paul casesare not affected Rev. Stat. When (Such by 2476, 5251.) §§ land under water passes riparian proprietor, navigable it with the shore does by along grant alone, not force of the because United States grant pass by does it force the declaration of the not own but passes by it it which does own that is attached the shore. The lakes does not rule as to bounded conveyances such water also to the State mean that the land under passed on its admission or Land otherwise, Act, apart Swamp convenient, but the most a convenient, possihly way simply of a We the effect are grant. determining particular attention to this because we fear that there difference, calling has been some misapprehension point, has since Hardin v.
The law of Illinois been settled it the decision in this clear, now is case do not later, carry adjoin conveyances upland land below water line. Fuller v. Shedd, Illinois, ing Hardin v. Hammond v. Shedd, Shepard, TERM,. 1902. dissenting. 190 IT. McKenna,
Justices White we must bold that decisions, these Illinois, Following fails. Even error title set accepting up by plaintiffs a of the common it be whether law, may principles in this case was not Overlooked Hardin v. consideration one was noted reference conveyance Jordan. that of th unlike to e official portion, plat. plat Indiana, lake.” It describes the'lake a navigable part a it that the mistake, this was but be is true that urged might must taken to the same effect as if were description we are effect of a true when determining conveyance adopt that if seem land bounded it. It would conveyance ing -would land below the water line, "water navigable pass to bound the land water purporting navigable conveyance *11 land the water line. does not to below The com pass purport this court and the local mon law as understood law Illi by bounded nois -with water are the by navigable 1, 43, 47, Seaman Bowlby, Shively same. 24 Illinois, Smith, it would result from Illinois that the course,
Of ruling in land in to Hardin v. referred 1874, submerged survey in been conveyances may Jordan, pursuance line, side of the unless the state on the good that date under Land before Act. Swamp had title got so or consider in this not, it did case. unnecessary Whether under the decree which Shedd the state gets not in but court he derogation foregoing gets, principles, fact as to what land was above water at the date on findings the United from of the patents 469, to that land of-.the to accretions gradual as drying üp Illinois, date. 494. We water at a later no perceive the decree detail. need for considering
Decree affirmed. concurs whom Mr. Mr. Justice Mr. White, Justice dissenting. Kenna, involves contentions
This some aspects, supposed this court Hardin have been decided finally (cid:127) dissenting. McKenna, White 190U. Justices 406. In those 140 U. S. Smale, Mitchell holding pat between was a persons there controversy cases on the lots abutting fractional the United States ents of those Illinois and holding Lake in line of Wolf meander to the bed issued of the United subsequently patents made a survey based were upon The latter the lake. patents in the Land Department. after bed, contest approved of the claimants the cases referred to was held the local law be determined by of the lake were to to the bed decided it was was, the local law of Illinois. what Ascertaining of the lake, center lot that the owners took abutting void. were to the bed hence subsequent patents record this originated The controversy presented claims made in two suits consolidated) (subsequently conflicting was the Wolf Mrs. Hardin (who the bed of between Lake, owners her one grantees, plaintiff Jordan) lots, Shedd, Mitchell, of the border plaintiff (grantee also as an and various owner border lots, Mitchell Smale,) sur of the United claimants States based below of the bed lake.. the judgment vey Although error. second patentees, they have against prosecuted Court of the rule laid Illinois declined to apply because it-held that this court had Hardin down by v. Jordan and Mitchell v. Smale misconceivedthe state law. By law it was held that the local the lot owners the conveyance to them lots line no title what meander took abutting *12 the ever to bed lake. that the was,' decided however, of the effect anee United States to the-con-Vey by private persons of the border lots was to transfer the title the bed lake to the State Illinois. The Court of doctrine of the Supreme on the is not in of that shown the only opinion case, Shedd, Fuller v. but also the Illinois, 462, this case of 235. In Hammond subsequent Shepard, .the first that the case, Shedd, Fuller v. after deciding expressly of Illinois did not un title to the bed'of the lake acquire .State “ der the the court declined to that the act,, hold swamp to the owner the bed of grant riparian conveys non-navigable its mere lake, waters;” make waters (meander) private TERM, \ dissenting. McKenna,
Justices White exist, so as such meander lakes that,. said and, further, long their and bed when covered the State water, over waters, in trust for holds the same all the exercises control, people,. benefit and the like.” thereof, fishing, boating, who.alike In the second Hammond the case, Shepard, of Illinois said 241): (p.
“The law. of this is that State, announced, repeatedly meandered or non- lakes, shore owners on whether navigable title, take the bed of the water’s navigable, only edge, .lake in the State. being can
“No shore owner take State its title to away former of the lake unless he can the bed establish by proof formed the water land was from his that dry receding line.” shore the doctrine thus treated the-bed of the stated;
Under as the court determined the lake property reference of accretion principles parties the bed deemed property applicable Kean State. Calumet Canal & Now, lake owned by'the ante, decided recently Company, p. quite Improvement was re announced v. Jordan the doctrine court, that held that whilst rec it was effect examined, and of the beds lakes that the ownership ognizing was in the United on the domain decided States, simply e when the States sold lots' on such a lak United' bordering or not bed of the whether lake by. passed determined, of the border lots was to principles grant local law of in force undér the where State conveyancing as the settled rule in lake situated. Now, Illinois.is under in that prevailing principles conveyancing to the bed no title passes patentees State I do not lots, sale border the United States by..the perceive of its title to how the United has been divested the bed. on the con that, of Wolf Lake. To say although principles'of did the local the bed neverthe law, veyancing pass, States sold border less, lots, because the United of the bed of of Illinois became the owner the lake, is, thereby *13 SHEDD.. McKenna, dissenting. White Justices 190U. is in that it of the .the power to declare it, understand
as I of the the United property Illinois appropriate of States. stated considerations are im just the
The suggestion the law, the local although by even because, material, the of border lots to the title did not patentees convey with its title lake, it of parted to the bed may involves a act, departure bed lands swamp act'to which attention of the lands settled construction swamp Canal & was the dissent Kean Calumet Improve called of the disturbance vested Besides ante, ment Company, p. must rise, it me such a give to which seems to suggestion it is conflict with it be remembered that must directly this of very case, Illinois opinion Supreme did the State not take it was declared that where expressly lands be act, the bed Wolf under the of Lake title swamp had been de as a matter of fact the converse cause explicitly in a contest before the Interior cided Secretary to which the State Illinois was Land Department party. as to the act then, lands The result suggestion swamp cause the State Illinois become owner see I bed under the lands actj swamp deroga the act of this court tion of Congress, contrary rulings n andof Court of the disregard the. of fact made Interior express findings Secretary when he the second and also when ren he approved survey, the decision the contest to which the State dered was a party. if, I fail to as a matter under the perceive conveyancing did local the title to of the lake law, the bed with the pass of the border has lost lots, sale how the United States its title. If it be conceded the view of the local announced law, Hardin v. a mistaken and that one, the local law must be lower court taken be what held in this then it me the be seems to foundation only title of the bed which the the United States to , be lake can has since in disputed disappeared, my opinion of accretion which the court below cannot theory applied TERM:, 1902.
Syllabus. reason, either I content with sustained authority. myself and do view, merits, which involves the merely stating if it the court elaborate, because, be—as now my opinion, decides —that whether thé title of .the United question States to the bed of Wolf the State passed to. is to determined local .the as con- law solely by strued I how courts do not a perceive Federal arises on this find it record, since 1 impos- to think sible a there be Federal can question depending for its solution or state law. non-Federal exclusively amI authorized to that Mr. Justice McKenna concurs say in this dissent.
COLOMBIA v. CAUCA COMPANY. FROM THE COURT OF THE APPEAL APPEALS FOR CIRCUIT FOURTH . CIRCUIT Argued April 23, 24, 1903. May 18,
No. 259. Decided foreign foreign a between citizens. Con- is distinction There power sovereign a mean to exclude sees fit to submit gress did not Which appeal right to the court of last its to our courts resort. case of 1891 the act decree of the Circuit Court of Under section Appeals parties foreign where one State. is not made final of. is a controversy 'parties to a to a have submitted com- Where the maitter power to, have tliat all mission three who and do resolve decisions awárd.by by majority vote, majority an a is sufficient effect- shall be (cid:127) ive. . sovereign a a company arbitration between State and railroad In concerns, affecting public might rules for ar- whatever be the technical dispute,- party dealing private a neither defeat the bitrators can thereunder, by operation receiving after with- benefits submission nominee, drawing, or Withdrawal its after discus- adopting (cid:127) been . 8ions closed. .,'] nnn foreign acoiicéssionto build railroad toan individual Where State pthiir corporation assigns to a contracts connected' therewith who it- agrees, but and thereafter Cancels the concession forfeits pay the. as far as a take over the ac- compromise,"tq built road r expense prop'er expenses construction, estimating tual such