Case Name: Gertrude Stogsdill (Glenkenbeard), Appellee, v. Josephus Minor, Appellant, et al.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1918-12-07
Citations: 103 Kan. 790
Docket Number: No. 21,440
Parties: Gertrude Stogsdill (Glenkenbeard), Appellee, v. Josephus Minor, Appellant, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 790–790

Head Matter:
No. 21,440.
Gertrude Stogsdill (Glenkenbeard), Appellee, v. Josephus Minor, Appellant, et al.
SYLLABUS BY THE. COURT.
1. School Lands — Islands in Arkansas River. The evidence supports the verdict and findings that the land claimed is an island.
2. Same — Navigability of Arkansas River. The doctrine touching the Arkansas river, announced in Dana v. Hurst, 86 Kan. 947, 122 Pac. 1041, and The State, ex rel., v. Akers, 92 Kan. 169, 140 Pac. 637, followed.
Appeal from Gray district court; Littleton M. Day, judge.
Opinion filed December 7, 1918.
Affirmed’.
J. M. Kirkpatrick, of Dodge City, for the appellant.
Edgar Foster, of Dodge City, and Horace J. Foster, of Garden City, for the appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
West, J.:
The plaintiff claimed, and the jury found, that she had made settlement on the land in- controversy and was entitled to it as a school-land island. The defendant appeals, and denies the island character of the land, which he says is an accretion, and presents an able argument in support of his opinion that the Arkansas is not a navigable stream a$ decided by this court in Dana v. Hurst, 86 Kan. 947, 122 Pac. 1041, and The State, ex rel., v. Akers, 92 Kan. 169, 140 Pac. 637.
As to the first point, the evidence supports the verdict and findings made by the jury, guided by admirable instructions by the trial court, and the result must stand.
As to the second point, the .character of1 the Arkansas river as a highway of commerce set apart by the federal government and its navigability in law have been repeatedly declared by this court, and vigorous attempts to obtain from the national supreme court a contrary ruling have failed.
We cannot now entertain what is in effect a motion to rehear the Dana case.
The judgment is affirmed.