Cited by

In doing so, it takes judicial notice “that the Mississippi River is a navigable stream within the requirements specified in Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , [(1893)].

This court, along with the majority of American jurisdictions, 2 has held that the rights of the riparian owner include the “right to accretions * * * formed or produced in front of his land by the action * * * of the water.” Lamprey v. Metcalf, 52 Minn. 181, 198

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 198 , and see Herschman v. State, 303 Minn. 50 , State v. Longyear Holding Co., 224 Minn. 451, 478

Nelson v. DeLong, 213 Minn. 425 , 7 N. W. (2d) 342 ; State v. *487 Korrer, 127 Minn. 60 , ; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , ; Miller v. Mendenhall, 43 Minn. 95 , .

The government surveyors had no power to determine navigability.” *468 The commissioner in argument before the district court referred to the statutory and case law prior to the enactment of L. 1909, c. 49, directing attention to Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 A. L. R. 670, which to some extent was incorporated in L. 1897, c. 257.

As to the true purpose of meander lines, see State v. Adams, 251 Minn. 521, 560 , 89 N. W. (2d) 661, 687 , certiorari denied, 358 U. S. 826 , 79 S. Ct. 45 , 3 L. ed. (2d) 67; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 192 , , 18 L. R. A. 670; Poch v. Urlaub, 357 Mich.

sailing vessels or flatboats — nor on an absence of occasional difficulties in navigation, but on the fact, if it be a fact, that the stream in its natural and ordinary condition affords a channel for useful commerce.” *117 Besides the federal test of navigability, Minnesota has a state test of navigability which originated in dicta of Mr. Justice Mitchell in Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 199 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, where this court said: “* * * Most of the definitions of ‘navigability’ in the de

In Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 198 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 A. S. R. 541, Mr. Justice Mitchell again stated: “* * * where the lake is navigable in fact, its waters and bed belong to the state, in its sovereign capacity, and * * * the riparian patentee takes the fee only to the water’s edge, but with all the rights incident to riparian ownership on n

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 A. S. R. 541; Madsen v. Larson, 117 Minn. 369 , ; State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60 , , L. R. A. 1916C, 139; Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 142 Minn. 37 , ; In re Petition of Schaller, supra; In re Petition of Krebs, 213 Minn. 344 , 6 N. W. (2d) 803

R. 73; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , ,.

Sanborn v. People’s Ice Co. 82 Minn. 43 , , 51 L. R. A. 829, 83 A. S. R. 401; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 A. S. R. 541; Doemel v. Jantz, 180 Wis.

& Supp. § 1070; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 A. S. R. 541; Shell v. Matteson, 81 Minn. 38 , ; Hanson v. Rice, 88 Minn. 273 , ; Tucker v. Mortenson, 126 Minn. 211 , .

Judicial notice can be taken that the Mississippi River is a navigable stream within the requirements specified in Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 A. S. R. 541.

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 A. S. R. 541; State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60 , , L. R. A. 1914C, 139.

In Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , 192 , , 1140 , 18 L.R.A.

Lamphrey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 Am.

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L.R.A.

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L.R.A.

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L.R.A.

To hand over all these lakes to private owner *64 ship, under any old or narrow test of navigability, would be a great wrong upon the public for all time, the extent of which cannot, perhaps, be now even anticipated.” Mitchell, J. in Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 199, 200 , , 18 L.R.A.

59 ; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L.R.A.

Hanson v. Rice, 88 Minn. 273 , ; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , .

This court has said, speaking of inland lakes: “AVe are satisfied that, so long as these lakes are capable of use for boating, even for pleasure, they are navigable, within the reason and spirit of the common-law rule.” Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L.R.A.

Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 104 , , , 7 L. R. A. 722; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. *444 181 , ,18 L. R. A. 670, 38 Am.

272 , 19 L. Ed. 74 ; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 Am.

We are very clear that this rule has been laid down in the case of Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , where the distinction between navigable and nonnavigable lakes is considered and defined, and-where it was held that the shore owner of a navigable stream or body of water is-entitled to the riparian right of accretions, even though larger than-the parent estate, which is an incident to all riparian ownership, and *

Davis v. How, 52 Minn. 157 , , is also distinguishable.

In Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , it was stated that shore owners take to the center of the lake, but in that case there was under consideration merely the question whether the shore owner was entitled to that portion of .the land exposed between the meander line and the water, which had perceptibly receded, as against a patentee of the land from th

The law in respect to the proper division of nonnavigable lakes was very fully and clearly discussed in the case of Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , and is in accord with the decisions of the supreme court of the United States.

The case of Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , was one involving a question of riparian rights only for the meander line, and the actual shore lines of the lake meandered were substantially the same at the time the survey was made.

The question is not one of riparian rights; hence the case of Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , is not here in point, except that argumentatively it suggests that unmeandered lakes are the absolute property of the person in whom the title of their beds is vested, free from any right of the state or the public therein.

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , , and Kray v. *106 Muggli, 77 Minn. 231 , , referred to by counsel, have no application here.