Kregar v. Fogarty

Citations

• 78 Kan. 541
• 96 P. 845
• 1908 Kan. LEXIS 100

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT)</p> <p>1. Navigable Rivers — Evidence. The fact that a government surveyor meandered the banks of a river is evidence that the river was navigable, but is not conclusive of that fact.</p> <p>2. -Same. Chapter 97 of the Laws of 1864, declaring the Smoky Hill and other rivers not navigable, does not conclusively establish the fact that they were navigable before, although affording an implication that they had been theretofore so considered.</p> <p>8. - Same. Both upon the evidence in this case and as a matter of judicial knowledge the finding of the district court that the Smoky Hill river was not navigable is affirmed.</p> <p>4. Title and Ownership — Mill-dam Site — Evidence. The finding of the district court that the defendants’ ancestor owned the land on the banks of the river where he erected the dam in 1874 is sustained by the evidence reviewed in the opinion.</p> <p>5. Waters and Watercourses — Mill-dam—Abandonment—Forfeiture. The conclusions of the district court that the defendants’ mill-dam had been only partially destroyed, and that reasonable efforts were made to rebuild the same, the mill being intact, were supported by the findings; and the forfeiture provided by section 16 of the mill-dam act (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 4108) if the owner, “in case the said dam and mills connected therewith shall be destroyed, shall not begin to rebuild it one year after such destruction, and finish it in three years,” did not take effect.</p>