Axline v. Shaw

Citations

• 35 Fla. 305

Syllabus

<p>1. The land below high-water mark does not necessarily pass to °e. grantee of the upland as an incident and appurtenance of the latter, but the submerged land or any part thereof may be reserved upon a sale of the upland, or be made the subject of a separate sale, orbe sold with the upland, the question of the intent of the grantor, that the submerged land or any part thereof shall or shall not pass with the upland, being one, the solution of which is to be found in the terms of the deed of conveyance.</p> <p>2. Our riparian act of December 27th, 1856, is by its terms expressly limited to those persons and corporations “owning lands actually bounded by and extending to low-water mark on such navigable streams.” In order for one to have riparian rights there must be an actual water boundary of the land in connec- , tion with which such rights are claimed.</p> <p>3. As applied to inland waters, the word “shore” generally has application only to large bodies of water, as lakes and large rivers, and mean the land adjacent thereto.</p> <p>4. The deed under which riparian rights are claimed in this case ex-tf-nds the complainants’ lands “to the shore of Orange Lake.” Such a boundary upon “the shore” is not an equivalent term to a boundary upon the lake itself, or the waters thereof. Such a boundary is land and not water, and does not confer riparian rights under our statute.</p> <p>5. The submerged lands of Orange Lake, in Alachua county, which were private property at the time of the passage of the riparian act, being included in the grant of the Spanish government to F. M. Arredondo and son, before the cession of Florida to the United States, were not affected by the provisions of that act.</p>