Lake

Fresh-water lakes are bodies of standing water distinguishable from rivers chiefly by the fact that they have no current. The fact that there is a current from a higher to a lower level does not make that a river which would otherwise be a lake, nor does a lake lose its distinctive character because there is a current in it for a certain distance tending towards a river which forms its outlet. Gould Waters, § 79.

A body of water surrounded by land, or not forming part of the ocean, and occupying a depression below the ordinary drainage level of the region. Cent. Diet. The fact that there is a current from a higher to a lower level does not make that a river which would otherwise be a lake; and the fact that a river swells out in broad pond-like sheets with a current does not make that a lake which would otherwise be a river; State v. Town of Gllmanton, 14 N. H. 477. The earlier decisions In this country tended to support the doctrine that no riparian owner could acquire title to the bed of any lake however small; Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 261; Wood v. Kelley, 30 Me. 47; but they were based upon the Massachusetts ordinance of 1647 (when the territory of Maine was a part of Massachusetts) which provided that all lakes more than ten acres in extent should be the property of the state for the benefit of the public. Watuppa Reservoir Co. v. City of Fall River, 147 Mass. 548, 18 N. E. 465, 1 L. R. A. 466. Other state courts foliowed these decisions, however, and whiie it is a recognized priuclpie in this country that the title to the soil below the waters of a navigable lake is in the state and not in the owner of the abutting soil; Champlain & St. L. R. Co. v. Valentine, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 484; Shively v. Rowlby, 152 U. S. 13, 14 Sup. Ct. 548, 38 L. Ed. 331; Morris v. U. S., 174 U. S. 196, 19 Sup. Ct. 649, 43 li. Ed. 946; Austin v. R. Co., 45 Vt. 215; it has been also held that this Ijrinciple applies to the bed of a non-navigable- lake; Edwards v. Ogle, 76 Ind. 302; Noyes V. Collins, 92 la. 566, 61 N. W. 250, 26 L. R. A. 609, 54 Am. St. Rep. 571; but see as to the last case, Hardin v..Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 Sup. Ct. 808, 838, 35 L. Ed. 428, which held that the Illinois case did not establish in that state the doctrine that the bed of small lakes does not belong to riparian owners, there being another ground on which the decision was also based; therefore, although it is the practice of the federal courts to follow the decisions of the state courts, they refused in this instance so to do, reversing Hardin v. Jordan, 16 Fed. 823. In Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 608, 23 Sup. Ct. 685, 47 L. Ed. 1156, it is said that the law of Illinois has been settled since Hardin V. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 Sup. Ct. 808, 838, 35 L. Ed. 428, that conveyances of the upland do not carry adjoining land below the water line, citing Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 44 N. E. 286, 33 L. R. A. 146, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380; Hardin v. Shedd, 177 111. 123, 52 N. E. 380; Hammond v. Shepard, 186 111. 235, 57 N. E. 867, 78 Am. St. Rep. 274. Whether a patentee of the United States to land bounded on a non-navigable lake belonging to the United States takes title to the adjoining submerged land is determined by the v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 23 Sup. Ct. 685, 47 L. Ed. 1156. Later decisions in New York also overruled the case of Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377; and hold that the bed of a non-navlgable inland lake belongs to the abutting riparian owner; Gouverneur v. Ice Co., 134 N. Y. 355, 31 N. E. 865, 18 L. R. A. 695, 30 Am. St. Rep. 669, reversing 57 Hun 474, 11 N. Y. Supp. 87; and see in support of this doctrine, Webber v. Boom Co., 62 Mich. 626, 30 N. W. 469; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369; Ridgway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 248; Olson V. Huntamer, 6 S. D. 364, 61 N. W. 479. Adjacent owners of land on a lake own the land under water fronting their premises to the “thread of the lake*’ — which, where there is no outlet, passes through the center point of the lake on its longest diameter; Calkins V. Hart, 64 Misc. 149, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1049. Where a non-navigable Inland lake is the subject of private ownership, neither the public nor an adjacent land owner has a right to boat upon it or to fish in its waters; Lembeck V. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 24 N. E. 686, 8 L. R. A. 578, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828; and such an owner may lease his interest in the bed of the lake for a term of years, reserving to himself the right of fishing therein; Bass Lake Co. v. Hollenbeck, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 508. It is held that riparian rights do not extend beyond access to navigable water and this is subject to a general right of navigation; Stuart v. Greanyea, 154 Mich. 132, 117 N. W. 655, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257. In North Carolina it has been held that the bed of a lake may be the subject of private ownership, but if the waters are navigable in their natural state, the public have an easement of navigation in them which cannot be obstructed; State v. Narrows Island Club, 100 N. C. 477, 5 S. E. 411, 6 Am. St. Rep. 618. The riparian proprietor upon a navigable lake has the exclusive right of access to ^ and from the lake in front of his land and of building wharves in aid of navigation not interfering with the public rights; Delaplaine v. Ry. Co., 42 Wis. 214, 24 Am. Rep. 386; Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125. See Austin v. R. Co., 45 Vt 215. In England, a non-tidal lake is the subject of private ownership; L. R. 3 App. Cas. 641. Where the ownership of the bed of the lake is in the state, it has no power arbitrarily to destroy the rights of the riparian owner on such lake without his consent and without due process of law, for the sole purpose of benefiting some other riparian owner or for any other merely private purpose; and an act authorizing the drainage of such a lake without the consent of a riparian owner is unconstitutional; Priewe v. Imp. Co., 93 Wis. 534, 67 N. W. 918, 83 L. R. A. 645; nor have a board of supervisors, in the absence of a statute directly conferring it, <1 lake; Snyder v. Foster, 77 la. 638, 42 N. W. 506. The water of a navigable lake cannot be withdrawn below the original low water mark for irrigation purposes, to the Injury of a riparian owner who acquired his rights prior to the adoption of the constitutional provision vesting title to the navigable waters In the state; Madson v. Water Co., 40 Wash. 414, 82 Pac. 718, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257. In the case of a meandered lake the riparian proprietor is held entitled to the middle thereof; Olson v. Hiintamer, 6 S. D. 364, 61 N. W. 479; but in Illinois the title to such waters and the land covered by them is held to be in the state in trust for the people; Fuller V. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 44 N. E. 286. 33

A large body of water, contained in a depression of the earth’s surface, and supplied from the drainage of a more or less extended area, Webster. The fact that there is a current from a the fact that a river swells out into b pond-like sheets, with a current, does make that a lake which would otherwise ba ariver. 14 N. H. 477,:

See Riparian; Tide. A grant of land to a natural pond or lake extends only to the water's edge... Mere proprietorship in the surrounding lands will not, in all cases, give ownership to the beds of natural non-navigable lakes, regardless of their size. Each ease depends largely upon its own facts. ^ Xiakes Ontario, Erie, Superior, etc., are inland seas. Different States border on thern on one side, and a foreign nation on the other. A great and growing commerce is carried on upon them, subject to all the incidents and hazards that attend commerce on the ocean. Hostile fleets have encountered on them, and prizes been made; and every reason which exists for the grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the general government on the Atlantic sea^ applies with equal force to the lakes... The lakes and the waters connecting them, although not tide-waters, are undoubtedly public^ waters, and within the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the Constitution.* See Admiralty; Sea, High.