UNCOVERED MEANDERED LAKES.

Small lakes that are not meandered when the surrounding lands are surveyed, are embraced in the legal subdivisions in which they are located respectively and are sold with them. Hence if these lakes "dry up," in whole or in part, the uncovered land belongs with the legal subdivisions in which it is located.

There are other lakes that are meandered and segregated from the public land in the progress of the government surveys, and the contents subtracted from the areas of the surrounding subdivisions. If from any cause such lakes subsequently become dry, the uncovered land belongs to the United States, and any person desiring to purchase such land may have it surveyed under the instructions and conditions on page 88 in regard to unsurveyed islands.

Where a "dried up" meandered lake lies wholly within one legal subdivision, or is properly connected with the section corners, no additional survey is required, but application may be made to the Surveyor-General, requesting that the necessary plats thereof, showing the fractional lots or subdivisions, be prepared and transmitted to the General Land Office and to the Register's office. The affidavits of two respectable persons acquainted with the facts, setting forth that said lake is entirely dry, must accompany the application. In such cases no money will be required to be advanced by the applicants for the plats.

Frequent applications are made to the General Land Office for permission to drain certain meandered lakes by artificial means, with the view to acquiring a title to the land so uncovered. No such permission can be granted under existing laws; the department deals only with the public lands.

ACCRETIONS.-RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

The question of ownership of accretions is a prolific subject of inquiry and correspondence with the General Land Office. Riparian proprietorship is a subject so nearly connected with it, that they may very properly be considered under one head.

It is a principle of the common law that alluvial accretions belong to the coterminous land. Much, however, depends upon the terms and conditions of the grant or conveyance of the original title. The following general rules enunciated by the highest judicial and legal authority in the land will throw some light upon the subject:

"Land gained from the sea, either by alluvian or dereliction, if the same be by little and little, by small and imperceptible degrees, belongs to the owner of the land adjoining."-2 Bl. Com. 261-2.

"The principle governing alluvial accretions gives them to the adjoining owner."-Gerard's Lessee v. Hughes et al., 1 Gil and Johnson, 249. “In other words, the description in the original grant gave, in legal effect, to the grantee, a water boundary, and if so, the boundary included the accretions."-18 Howard, 157.

"The rights of riparian proprietors on navigable rivers are limited to high-water mark.”—3 Kent Com., 7th ed. "On non-navigable rivers to the thread of the stream."-13 Howard, 397.

514.

"Grants of land bounded by the sea or by navigable rivers where the tide ebbs and flows, extend to high-water mark, that is, to the margin of the periodical flow of the tide, unaffected by extraordinary causes, and the shores below common high-water mark belong to the state in which they are situated. But grants of land bounded on rivers above tidewater, or where the tide does not ebb and flow, carry the grantee to the middle of the river, unless there are expressions in the terms of the grant, or some

thing in the terms taken in connection with the situation and condition of the lands granted that clearly indicate an intention to stop at the edge or margin of the river. There must be a reservation or restriction, express or necessarily implied, which controls the operation of the general presumption and makes the particular grant an exception."

"These are familiar principles of universal application governing the construction of grants of land bounded upon the sea or tide-water, or upon fresh-water rivers, navigable or unnavigable, and whether made by state or individuals, or in large or small tracts."

In the case of public lands, gradual and imperceptible alluvian deposits inure to the coterminous lots, the limits of which are determined by extending the side subdivisional or boundary lines to the water's edge. No additional survey by the government is required in such cases when the lots belong to private parties, but the side lines may be extended by a county surveyor the same as any other lot lines of private lands.

When a river suddenly changes its course, and leaves its original bed, the land so uncovered and lying between the meanders of said stream, inures to the lots which bounded on the river before such change occurred, the thread or center of said uncovered channel constituting the dividing line.

The following case in the Supreme Court of the United States affords a very clear illustration of the proper mode of dealing with accretions. Jones et al. v. Johnston, 18 Howard, 150-8. The annexed diagram will help to understand the case.

This suit was brought to recover a portion of alluvion or new-made land in the City of Chicago, formed in Lake Michigan, adjoining the north pier of Chicago harbor, claimed as an increment or accession to lot No. 34.

The plaintiff claimed that a part of its southern term

ination on the lake was north of the piers and contiguous to the new-formed land, and therefore entitled it to its share of the increment.

The defendant contended that no part of its boundary was on the lake north of the harbor, and therefore no part connected with or adjoining this land new formed.

In regard to the point in the case which we are consid ering, the court held that the inquiry should be made whether or not at the time of the deed to the plaintiff lot No. 34 had a water-line upon the lake north of the north pier of the harbor; if it did, then the question would probably arise in respect to its right to a share of the alluvial accretion formed since that time.

As to the manner of dividing the accretions, the court laid down the rule that each riparian proprietor was entitled to his proportional share of the entire line of the newlymade shore.

The case was again before the Supreme Court of the

United States, some six years later, on a bill of exceptions. One point, to which exception was taken, was, "that the court erred in laying down the rule for the partition of the alluvium."

Mr. Justice Swayne answers: "It would be sufficient to say, that the jury having found that lot 34, at the time referred to, had no water front north of the north pier, the question did not arise;" and adds: "But as the views of the court have been misapprehended, and that misapprehension may mislead in other cases, we prefer to deal with the subject as if it were properly before us." He then proceeds to enunciate the rule of the court as follows: "Upon that occasion it was intended to adopt the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 17 Pickering, 45, 46, Deerfield v. Arms. The court said (Black's Rep. p. 222):

"The rule is-1, to measure the whole extent of the ancient bank or line of the river, and compute how many rods, yards, or feet each riparian proprietor owned on the liver line; 2, the next step is, supposing the former line, for instance, to amount to 200 rods, to divide the newly-formed bank or river line into 200 equal parts, and appropriate to each proprietor as many portions of this new as he owned rods on the old. When, to complete the division, lines are to be drawn from the points at which the proprietors respectively bounded on the old, to the points thus determined, as the points of division on the newly-formed shore. The new lines thus formed, it is obvious, will be either parallel, or divergent, or convergent, according as the new shore line of the river equals, or exceeds, or falls short of the old." It is further said: "It may require modification, perhaps, under particular circumstances. For instance, in applying the rule to the ancient margin of the river, to ascertain the extent of such proprietor's title on that margin, the general line ought to be taken, and not the actual length of the line on that margin, if it happens to be elongated by deep indentations or sharp projections. In such case, it should be reduced by an equitable and judicious estimate, to the general available line of the land upon the river."