Court Opinion

ID: 9418215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:13:35.545224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.602910
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McKenna,
dissenting.
.1 cannot agree with the conclusion of the .court. It seems to be conceded that it is not necessarily determined by the authorities which are cited. I think the better deduction from them is that they only declare the com. stant integrity of the shore, and the dominion of the government over it whether it recede or advance. When it ceases to' be washed by the tides or the vseas it becomes part of the upland and belongs to the owner of the upland. And this is but the application of the principle, said to be of natural justice, that he who loses by the encroachments of the sea should gain by its recession. Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57, 67.