River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-10-23

| owned IL ana COuIQ use OF CIduSLGI
it. He contended this the more
strongly as he still owned the pro-
perty or the other. side of the
stream upon which the stream had
erroached thus leaving additional
land upon the other side. He in
sisted that the property lines should
remain as they were when he grant
ed the land and that the soil left by
the stream when shifting across
properly belonged to him. The court
refused to adopt his view and ruled
that the added soil which had come
to Arms gradually, year by year,
was his, and that Deerfeld could
not follow what had been lost to
him by the forces of nature.
John Halsey and Warren Nc
Cormick owned farms on opposite
sides of Mad River, the stream
forming the boundary between
them. One spring day when the
water was running at flood tide the
river broke through onto some low
land on Haisey's property cutting
it's way across a neck of land and
eventually establishing new chan
mel within Halsey's boundaries
leaving several acres on the other
side of the stream. Mccormick
claimed that as the river was the
boundary between their proper
ties he now held title to the new
channel, just as though the stream
had shifted gradually cutting away
ground from the inside of the bend
on Halsey's land and depositing
the soil on the outside of the bend
on his land. The differences be-
tween the men were taken to court
and it was ruled that the bound
cries of the farms remained those
of the original channel, the sud
den change not effecting the title
of either party. They had formerly
held to the thread of the old stream
and now their boundary was the
line that had marked the thread of
the old channel.
Thus distinction is drawn be-
tween gradual and sudden changes.
Sudden shifting of streams does
not work changes in the boundaries
of property, whereas the gradual
shifting means shifting of bound
aries. Thus to amount to accretion
which will give title to the owner
against whose property the new
soil is deposited the process must
be imperceptible. The rule laid
down by the law to determine
whether change has been imper-
ceptible is that to be imperceptible
it must be so gradual that the
observers cannot see the process
going on, and if they cannot it is
imperceptible even though obser-
vations at considerable intervals
disclose that change has taken
place.
In the case of property bordering
on non-navigable stream or small
lake the owner takes title to the
center of the body Of water. In
case of a stream the thread of the
siream-the center of the main
channels the boundary of tract
granted with the stream as a
boundary In such cases the own
er of the land adjoining the water
owns land under the water as we'll.
OF course, land may be granted
merely to the high water mark, the
ri lights to the land under water be-
iLg reserved, but this is unusual.
The owner of land bordering on a
stream who also owns the land IN
the water may extend his property
b. filling in so long as he does not
interfere with the course of the
stream, or interfere with any rights
OF the public or of private parties
If an island appears in a body OF
water it becomes the property OF
the person who owned the land IN.
der the water upon which it was
! formed. II the owner OF the land
, adjoining a stream owns TO the
center of the stream, islands form
ing on his side of the stream be
come his property. Islands form
ing in the center of the stream arr
DIVIDED according to the old bound
| airy line.
Cases have arisen where islands