Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Mich. 565

Scranton v. Wheeler

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 1897

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1897-07-13

Ejectment by Gilmore G. Scranton against Eben S. Wheeler. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. This case originated in the circuit court of the county of Chippewa in May, 1891, to recover possession of the following-described parcel of land: “An undivided one-half interest or portion of, in, and to private land claim number 3, Whelply’s survey, in the village of Sault Ste.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is conceded that under the law of Michigan the title to submerged land is in the adjoining owner to the thread of the stream. It is insisted in behalf of the plaintiff that the Government possesses no right to so use his land, although submerged, and although necessary to so use it in aid of navigation, as to cut off his access to the open water. It is contended on the other hand that this title to submerged lands along navigable waters, and the right of access thereto, are subject to the paramount right of the United States to use this land in such manner as it shall determine to be necessary in aid of navigation. The court of appeals was unanimous in its opinion against the plaintiff’s claim. In a very able opinion delivered by Judge Lurton the facts are clearly stated, the authorities cited, and we think the conclusion there reached is the correct one.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including McMorran Milling Co. v. C. H. Little Co.

Relies on Stanley v. Schwalby · Tindal v. Wesley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1897-07-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1920

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

301897190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Geant, J.

¶1(after stating the facts). 1. The learned circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that the judgment against the defendant, Wheeler, would, in effect, be a judgment against the United States and its property. In this the court was in error. When one in the actual possession of property defends his right of possession upon the ground that the government, state or national, has placed him in possession, he must show that the right of the government is paramount to the right *567of the plaintiff, or judgment will go against him. This point has been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States rendered May 10,189?. Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204. In that case the authorities upon this point are reviewed at length, including the case of Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, upon which defendant mainly relies.

¶22. The United States government took possession of the submerged land of the plaintiff for the purpose of erecting thereon piers in aid of the immense navigation upon the Great Lakes and the rivers connecting them. That the improvements made were necessary to aid and protect this navigation is established beyond dispute. Had the government the right to make these improvements upon the submerged land without compensation to the adjoining owner ? It is conceded that under the law of Michigan the title to submerged land is in the adjoining owner to the thread of the stream. It is insisted in behalf of the plaintiff that the government possesses no right to so use his land, although submerged, and although necessary to so use it in aid of navigation, as to cut off his access to the open water. It is contended on the other hand that this title to submerged lands along navigable waters, and the right of access thereto, are subject to the paramount right of the United States to use this land in such manner as it shall determine to be necessary in aid of navigation. The court of appeals was unanimous in its opinion against the plaintiff’s claim. In a very able opinion delivered by Judge Lurton the facts are clearly stated, the authorities cited, and we think the conclusion there reached is the correct one. We therefore deem it unnecessary for us to enter into a long discussion of the law and the authorities. The case of Hawkins Point Lighthouse, 39 Fed. 77, appears .to be exactly in point, and to rule the present case.

¶3We think the conclusion reached by the court below was a correct one, although it gave a wrong reason.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
/113/mich/565 · .json · Public domain