Cited by

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

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 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 , ; Municipality v. Orleans, 18 La.

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

Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 53 .

819, 840;) and Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181 , ( 53 N. W. Rep.