Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/238/325/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:31:07+00:00

Document:
The effect of riparian rights, attached to land conveyed by patent of the United States, depends upon the local law.
As a general rule, meanders are not to be treated as boundaries, and when the United States conveys a tract of land by patent referring to an official survey which shows the same bordering on a navigable river, the purchaser takes title up to the waterline.
Where the facts and circumstances, however, affirmatively disclose n intention to limit the grant to actual traverse lines, these must be treated as definite boundaries, and a patent to a fractional section does not necessarily confer riparian rights because of the presence of meanders.
Where, as in this case, the survey of improved lands was made at the express request of the occupant to whom they were subsequently patented, and the grant specified the number of acres, and other circumstances also indicated that only the lands conveyed were those within the traverse lines, the patent of the United States conferred no riparian rights, but simply conveyed the specified number of acres.
In a controversy between individuals as to the extent of the land conveyed by a patent of the United States, and to which the United States is not a party, nothing in the opinion or judgment should be taken to prejudice or impair any of the rights of the United States in the lands affected.
The facts, which involve the title to property conveyed by a United States patent and the construction of such patent and the amount of land conveyed thereby, are stated in the opinion.
Plaintiff in error, the Oil Company, instituted this action July 1, 1910, in the District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, for the purpose of establishing its right to possession of part of Lot No. 1, § 4, Township 20, North, Range 16, West, suddenly become very valuable through discovery of gas and oil. The petition alleges that the United States, in 1874, sold to one Pitts Lots 1 and 2, Section 4, forming a projection known as "Wilson's Point," surrounded on three sides by waters of James Bayou, a navigable stream; that he immediately entered, and, together with his successors, remained in peaceful, complete possession until April 2, 1910, when defendants in error, without knowledge of Noel, then owner, wrongfully entered upon part of lot No. 1, built a wire fence, and placed a keeper thereon; that April 15, 1910, by notarial act duly recorded, the Oil Company purchased both lots from Noel and became subrogated to his rights, and when it came to subject the whole property to actual possession, a portion was found occupied as above indicated.
A writ of sequestration, issued contemporaneously with filing of petition, was subsequently dissolved upon motion, a proper bond having been given conditioned not to commit waste and to make faithful restitution of fruits if so required.
"which said property your respondents located under the laws of the United States relative to the location of mining lands and upon which they have made a discovery of oil and gas, and are therefore entitled to the full use and enjoyment and to a patent from the United States."
"its ancestors in title ever had or claimed possession of any part of the property so located by your respondents, but that, on the contrary, your respondents aver that the said land was never in the possession of any person until the location by them."
"Thomas H. Pitts purchased from the United States, among other property, Lot 1 of § 4, Township 20 North of Range 16 West, containing 12.84 acres, and that he paid for the same with military land warrants, as containing that acreage; that the said Lot 1 of Section 4 is figured and described on the surveys of the United States by certain metes and bounds, shown on the said plat, the eastern boundary of said Lot, as well as the other boundaries thereof, being shown on the said map; that the east line of said lot, which is the boundary between the land of respondents and that of plaintiff, did not and does not denote the banks of any body of water, but that, on the contrary, the said line was run through the hills as the line of boundary of the said lot; that the land of which your respondents are in possession, and which they located under their mineral filing aforesaid, is high land, not subject to overflow at any time, and which never constituted any part of any lake or bayou, and was left out of the surveys of the United States, and which remained the property of the government until said location had been made thereon by your respondents."
"It is admitted by both parties that J. S. Noel was in possession, as owner, from the date of his purchase in 1880 , to the sale to the plaintiffs of the property known as the Wilson's Point place, his corporeal possession being limited on the East and North by the Bristol meander line, and said Noel never exercised any acts of corporeal possession, or was ever in occupancy of any land in Section Four, East of or outside of the said meander line, or of any of the land in controversy. This is not intended to apply to any other land West of the land in controversy. That Noel's possession was vested by act of purchase and continued by occupancy in the plaintiffs."
"It is further admitted that defendants on the second day of April, 1910, took actual possession of, and posted and filed notices of location under the placer mining laws of the United States of the tract of land on which they are now in possession, and concerning which this suit is brought, which tract of land is described by metes and bounds in defendants' answer."
"It is further admitted that, when defendants took possession of said land, they located the western boundary line of their location, as the Bristol meander line, as properly located, and the defendant does not claim the ownership or possession of any land west of the true location of said Bristol meander line."
the defendants have actually discovered oil and gas, and are now producing oil from said property."
"It is admitted by both parties that the land in controversy is high land, and was high land at the date that Bristol made his survey in 1871. "
"There being a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants as to the true location of the Bristol meander line referred to above, it is agreed that the said issue as to the true and exact location of said line is not to be passed upon in this case, said issue being relegated to a subsequent proceeding herein, should the court sustain the defendants' position that said line is the true boundary between the property, and the question of costs and damages are likewise relegated to further proceedings."
extends out North; S. 57 degrees W. 4.50; S. 33 1/4 degrees W. 4.50; S. 63 degrees W. 4.50; N. 81 degrees W. 2.80 at 1.10, enter Pitts' enclosure; N. 39 1/2 degrees W. 3.00, enter corn field;"
"The front land on James' Bayou is above the common average. The back land is thin and poor, post oak, flat. James' Bayou is navigable in ordinary seasons for large boats. The slough or water course near the original traverse in front of Sec. 10, is now dry, and can only be traced by the rotten driftwood."
"Lots numbered one, two, three and four of Section Nine and the Lots numbered one and two of Section Four in Township Twenty North, of Range Sixteen West, of Louisiana, Meridian, in the District of Lands subject to sale at Natchitoches, Louisiana, containing One Hundred and Twenty-three acres and eighty-eight hundredths of an acre, according to the Official Plat of the Survey of said Lands returned to the General Land Office by the Surveyor-General."
Pitts' title to 163.88 acres "with all buildings and improvements," described substantially as in his two patents -- one for forty acres, the other 123.88 acres -- was conveyed November 23, 1880, to Walsch for $250; February 15, 1884, Walsch conveyed to Noel for $300, and on April 15, 1910, Noel conveyed the 163.88 acres "more or less" to plaintiff company for recited consideration of $50,000.
It appears that north and northeast from the northernmost traverse line of Lot No. 1, designated in field notes "S. 86 1/2 degrees W. 2.50, spur of marsh extends out North," and between it and James Bayou, there is and was at time of Bristol survey a narrow ridge of high land 1,636.8 feet long and contiguous fast ground, amounting altogether to about forty acres (87 according to defendants' estimate), upon which is much large growing timber, including cypress, hickory, gum, and oak -- one oak 400 feet beyond the traverse lines being 14 feet in circumference. This is the land in dispute. To the south of the Bristol survey and outside its traverse lines lie 300 acres of fast land surveyed and platted by Barbour in 1896.
The Oil Company claimed traverse lines around Lot No. 1 must be treated as true meanders; that, being owner and in actual possession of the lot, it had constructive possession of land lying beyond such lines east and north to the bayou -- forty acres or more -- and that this was being trespassed upon. Defendants in error maintained the traverse lines were not intended as true meanders; that the grant was limited by courses and distances specified, and lands north and east of these were left unsurveyed, with title remaining in the government.
"and that the tongue of land on which defendants and their lessee have drilled an oil well, projecting north, and bounded north, east, and west by Jeems Bayou, is a constituent and component part of Lot No. 1, the boundary of said Lot No. 1 being the waterline of Jeems Bayou, it being the purpose of this judgment to fix Jeems Bayou as the boundary of said lot without regard to any arbitrary lines of survey."
meander line. . . . If the eastern and northern boundaries of Lot No. 1 were taken out and other boundaries substituted, so as to reach Jeems Bayou, plaintiff would get three- to seven-fold more land than was actually mentioned and described in the patent conveying this lot, or than its ancestor in title supposed he was purchasing, or than he actually paid for."
The cause is here by writ of error, and the Oil Company maintains that it was obligatory upon the supreme court to accept the government survey, plat, and patent as correct, to treat traverses about Lot No. 1 as true meanders of the Bayou, and to hold, in consequence, that boundaries of the grant extended to the stream, and include the locus in quo. The substantial federal question presented -- the only one for our determination -- is whether, properly construed, the original patent conveyed to Pitts land lying between platted traverse lines and waters of the navigable stream. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 212 U. S. 86, 212 U. S. 97. The effect of riparian rights, if established, would depend upon the local law. Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 190 U. S. 519; Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U. S. 510, 197 U. S. 512.
Chapman v. St. Francis, 232 U. S. 186, 232 U. S. 196; Gauthier v. Morrison, 232 U. S. 452, 232 U. S. 459; Forsyth v. Smale, 7 Biss. 201. A review and analysis of these cases would be tedious and unprofitable; thorough acquaintance with the varying and controlling facts is essential to a fair understanding of them. They unquestionably support the familiar rule relied on by counsel for the Oil Company that, in general, meanders are not to be treated as boundaries, and when the United States conveys a tract of land by patent referring to an official plat which shows the same bordering on a navigable river, the purchaser takes title up to the waterline. But they no less certainly establish the principle that facts and circumstances may be examined, and if they affirmatively disclose an intention to limit the grant to actual traverse lines, these must be treated as definite boundaries. It does not necessarily follow from the presence of meanders that a fractional section borders a body of water, and that a patent thereto confers riparian rights.
defendants in error, his corporeal possession (as expressly stipulated) was limited east and north by the Bristol traverse lines, and he never occupied or exercised any act of corporeal possession over the above-indicated forty acres or more without the same.
Considering all disclosures of the record, we are unable to conclude the court below erred in holding original patent from the United States to Pitts conveyed no title to lands in controversy, and its judgment must be affirmed.
It seems proper to add that nothing in this opinion or the judgment to be entered thereon shall be taken to prejudice or impair any right which the United States may have in respect to the lands in controversy.

References: § 4
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.