Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Water.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:47:41+00:00

Document:
19 Slosson, J., in Sherry v. Frecking, 4 Duer (N. Y.) 452, 457; Welles, J., in Aiken v. Benedict, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 401.
20 Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161, 11 Pac. 623; Smith, J., in Countryman v. Lighthill, 24 Hun, 406. But he has no right to the fruit on trees overhanging his land. Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115; Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177. When a tree standing on one man's land sends roots into the soil of an adjoining proprietor, the one on whose land the trunk stands owns all the tree and its fruit. Masters v. Pollle, 2 Rolle, 141; Holder v. Coates, 1 Moody & M. 112; Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177; Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y. 201; Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115. But, as holding that they are tenants in common, see Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Raym. 737. They are tenants In common when the tree stands on the line. Griffin v. Bixby. 12 N. H. 454; Dubois v. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 123.
21 Lillibridge v. Coal Co., 143 Pa. St. 293, 22 Atl. 1035; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Sanderson, 109 Pa. St. 583, 1 Atl. 394; Lee v. Bumgardner, So Va. 815. 10 S. E. 3.
22 2 Bl Comm. 17; Smith, C. J., in Johnson v. Richardson, 33 Miss. 462, 464; Ray, C. J., in State v. Pottmeyer, 33 lnd. 402, 403; Williamson v. Jones, 39 W. Va. 231, 19 S. E. 436.
23 See post, p. 368.
Bishop, 63 Hun, 624, 17 N. Y. Supp. 297; Walker v. Board, 16 Ohio, 540; People v. Platt, 17 Johns. 195.
25 Shrunk v. Navigation Co., 14 Serg. & R. 70; Reece v. Miller, 8 Q. B. Div. 626; Waters v. Lilley, 4 Pick. 145; Mcfarlin v. Essex Co., 10 Cush. 304; Com. v. Chapin, 5 Pick. 199; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. Law, 369; Heck-man v. Swett, 107 Cal. 276, 40 Pac. 420.
26 Carson v. Blazer, 2 Bin. 475; Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N. J. Law, 1; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Mccready v. Virginia, 94 U. S 391, Weston v. Sampson-8 Cush. 347; Chalker v. Dickinson, 1 Conn. 382; Attorney General v. Cham bers, 4 De Gex, M. & G. 206; Sollers v. Sollers (Md.) 26 Atl. 188. And see Bagott v. Orr, 2 Bos. & P. 472; Packard v Ryder, 144 Mass. 440, 11 N. E. 578. But cf. Anon., 1 Camp. 517, note; Blundell v. Catterall, 5 Barn. & Ald. 268; Fleet v. Hegeman, 14 Wend. 42.
27 Pacific Gas Imp. Co. v. Ellert, 64 Fed. 421; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct 548; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324; Poor v. Mcclure, 77 Pa. St. 214; Flannagan v. Philadelphia, 42 Pa. St. 219; Mcmanus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 1; Tomlin v. Railway Co., 32 Iowa, 106; Cooley v. Golden, 117 Mo. 33, 23 S. W. 100; Smith v. Levinus, 8 N. Y. 472; People v. Appraisers, 33 N. Y. 461; Rumsey v. Railway Co., 130 N. Y. 88, 28 N. E. 763; Saunders v. Railway Co., 144 N. Y. 75, 38 N. E. 992; State v. Pacific Guano Co., 22 S. C. 50; Bullock v. Wilson, 2 Port. 436; Goodwin v. Thompson, 83 Tenn. 209; Concord Manuf'g Co. v. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 25 Atl. 718; Illinois Cent R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 Sup. Ct. 110; Wainwright v. Mccullough, 63 Pa. St. 66. But cf. Wilson v. Welch, 12 Or. 353, 7 Pac. 341; Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396, 39 N. E. 400. That the title to the bed of such streams is not in the United States, see Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212. A riparian proprietor on a nonnavigable river owns the bed of the stream to the center. Ingraham v. Wilkinson, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 268; Wiggenhorn v. Kountz, 23 Neb. 690, 37 N. W. 603.
28 Norcross v. Griffiths, 65 Wis. 599, 27 N. W. 606; Olson v. Merrill, 42 Wis. 203; Ensminger v. People, 47 111. 384; Middleton v. Pritchard, 4 111. 510; Houck v. Yates, 82 111. 179; Trustees of Schools v. Schroh. 120 111. 509, 12 N. E. 243; Gavit v. Chambers, 3 Ohio, 496; Blanchard v. Porter. 11 Ohio, 139; Commissioners of Canal Fund v. Kempshall, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 404; Berry v.
29 See note 29 on following page.
Snyder, 3 Bush (Ky.) 266; Brown v. Chadboume, 31 Me. 9; Keyport, etc., Steamboat Co. v. Farmers' Transp. Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 13; Morgan v. Reading, 3 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 366; Steamboat Magnolia v. Marshall, 39 Miss. 109; Cates v. Wadlington, 1 Mccord (S. C.) 580; Mathis v. Board of Assessors, 46 La. Ann. 1370, 16 South. 464; Gibson v. Kelly (Mont.) 39 Pac. 517. Cf. But-tenutb v. Bridge Co., 123 111. 535, 17 N. E. 439; Ryan v. Brown, 18 Mich. 196; State v. Black River Phosphate Co., 32 Fla. 82, 13 South. 640; Wood v. Town of Edenton, 115 N. C. 10, 20 S. E. 165.
29 Weise v. Smith, 3 Or. 445; Rhodes v. Otis, 33 Ala. 578; Mcmanus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa, 1; Morgan v. King, 35 N. Y. 454; Spring v. Russell, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 273; American River Water Co. v. Amsden, 6 Cal 443; Jones v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 650; Commissioners of Homochitto River v. Withers, 29 Miss. 21; Bayzer v. Mill Co. (Ala.) 16 South. 923; The Daniel Bell, 10 Wall. 557; The Montello, 20 Wall. 430; Chisolm v. Caines, 67 Fed. 285; Stover v. Jack, 60 Pa. St. 339; Heyward v. Mining Co., 42 S. C. 138, 19 S. E. 963, and 20 S. E. 64; Falls Manufg Co. v. Oconto River Imp. Co., 87 Wis. 134, 58 N. W. 257. And see Volk v. Eldred, 23 Wis. 410; Lewis v. Coffee Co., 77 Ala. 190; Rowe v. Bridge Corp., 21 Pick. 344; State v. Gilman-ton, 14 N. H. 4G7; People v. Elk River Mill & Lumber Co. (Cal.) 40 Pac. 431; State v. Eason, 114 N. C. 787, 19 S. E. 88. That the stream must be navigable in its natural state, see Jeremy v. Elwell, 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 379; Ten Eyck v. Town of Warwick, 75 Hun, 562, 27 N. Y. Supp. 536.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.