Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-302-Non-navigable-streams.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:01:18+00:00

Document:
160; Reno Brewing Co. v. Packard, 31 Nev. 433, 103 Pac. 415, 104 Pac. 801; Arnold v. Bechtel, 174 Mich. 147, 140 N. W. 610; Producers' Oil Co. v. Hanszen, 132 La. 631, 61 So. 754; Olson v. Thorndike, 76 Minn. 399, 79 N. W. 399; Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N. Dak. 422, 75 N. W. 806; Sartori v. Denny-Renton Clay & Coal Co., 77 Wash. 166, 137 Pac. 944.
But the meander line is the boundary line if there was actually 'no stream or body of water to be meandered, or if the surveyor omitted to include a considerable tract of land lying between the meander line as run and the stream or body of water, Wright v. City of Council Bluffs, 130 Iowa 274, 114 Am. St. Rep. 412, 104 N. W. 492; Lamprey v. Mead, 54 Minn. 290, 40 Am. St. Rep. 328, 55 N. W. 1132; James v. Howell, 41 Ohio St. 696; Barnhart v. Ehrhart, 33 Ore. 274, 54 Pac. 195; Whitney v. Detroit Lumber Co., 78 Wis. 240, 47 N. W. 425; and the margin of the water, it has been stated, must be within the same quarter section as the meander line as run, in order that such line may be ignored as a boundary. Underwood v. Smith, 109 Wis. 334, 85 N. W. 384; Brown v. Dunn, 135 Wis. 374, 115 N. W. 1097.
29. Hopkins Academy v. Dickinson, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 544; Pratt v. Lamson, 2 Allen (Mass.) 275; Boscawen v. Carterbury, 23 N. H. 188; Micelli v. An 'rus, 16 Ore. 78, 120 Pac. 737: McCullougb v. Wall, 4 Rich. L. (S. C.) 68, 53 Am. Dec. 715; Farris v. Bentley, 141 Wis 671, 124 N. W. I00S.
30. Hopkins Academy v. Dickinson, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 544; Micelli v. Andrus, 61 Ore. 78, 120 Pac. 737; Post Sec.Sec. 445, 535.
31. Royal Fishery of the Ban-ne, Sir John Davies, 149; Mickle-thwait v. Newlay Bridge Co., 33 Ch. Div. 133; Kirby v. Potter, 138 Cal. 686, 72 Pac. 338; Welles v. Bailey, 55 Conn. 2.2, 3 Am. St. Rep. 48, 10 Atl. 565; Hubbard v. Bell, 54 111. 110, 5 Am Rep. 90; State v. Livingston, 164 Iowa, 31, 145 N. W. 91; Pike v. Munroe, 36 Me. 309, 58 Am. Dec. 751; Inhabitants of Deerfield v. Arms, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 41; People v. Grand-Rapids Muskegon Power Co., 164 Mich. 121, 129 N. W. 211; McBride v. Whitaker, 65 Neb. 137, TO N. W. 966; Seneca Nation of Indians v. Knight, 23 N. Y. 498; Ingram v. Threadgill, 14 N. C. 59; Barclay Railroad & Coal Co. v. Ingham, 36 Pa. St. 194; Southern Power Co. v. Cassels, 95 S. C. 465, 79 S. E. 453; Muller v. Landa, 31 Tex. 265, 98 Am. Dec. 529; Hayes' Ex'r v. Bowman. 1 Rand. (Va.) 417; Grinth v. Holman, 23 Wash. 347, 5. L. R. A. 178, 83 Am. St. Rep. 821, 63 Pac. 239.
32. See St. Paul, & P. R. R. Co. v. Schurmeier, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 272, 19 L. Ed. 74.
It is the rule in Iowa that, though a river is actually not navigable, the fact that it was meandered by the government surveyors is conclusive proof that it is navigable, for the purpose of restricting private ownership, under the Iowa rule, to the high water mark, the fede al statute authorizing navigable streams only to be meandered. Park Commissioners v. Taylor, 133 towa. 453, 108 N. W. 927; Watt v. Rob-bins, 160 Iowa, 587, 601, 142 N. W. 387. But in State v. Livingston, 164 Iowa, 31, 145 N. W. 91, there are dicta apparently that the riparian owner owns to the center of a meandered non navigable stream.
32a Steele v. Sanchez, 72 Iowa, 65, 2 Am. St. Rep. 233, 33 N. W. 366; Wood v. Fowle:, 26 Kan. 682. 40 Am. Rep. 330; Hurst v. Dana, 86 Kan. 947, 122 Pac. 1041; Coo-vert v. O'Conner, 8 Watts. (Pa.) 470; Allen v. Weber, 80 Wis. 531, 27 Am. St. Rep. 51, 14 L. R. A. 361, 50 N. W. 514. See Dana v. Hurst, SO Kau. 947, 122 Pac. 1041.

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.