Packer v. Bird
Citations
- 137 U.S. 661
- 11 S. Ct. 210
- 34 L. Ed. 819
- 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2055
Syllabus
<p>The undoubted rule of the common law that the title of owners of land bordering on navigable rivers above the ebb and flow of the tide extends to the middle of the stream, having been adopted in some of the States, and not being recognized in other States, Federal Courts must construe grants of the general government without reference to the’ rules of construction adopted by the States for such grants by them.</p> <p>Whatever incidents or rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the United States bordering on navigable streams, will be determined by the States in which it is situated, subject to the limitation that their rules do not impair the efficacy of the grant, or the use and enjoyment of the property by the grantee.</p> <p>The legislation of Congress for the survey of the public lands recognizes the general rule as to the public interest in waters of navigable streams without reference to the existence or absence of the tide in them.</p> <p>The highest court of California having decided that the Sacramento river being navigable in fact, a title upon it extends no farther than to the edge of the stream, this court accepts that decision as expressing the law of the State.</p> <p>The plaintiff claimed land in California under a Mexican grant which was confirmed by a decree of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, in which the land was described as follows: “ Commencing at the northerly boundary of said rancho, at a point on the Sacramento River just two leagues northerly from the rancheria called Lojot, and running southerly on the margin of said river to a point,” etc. The survey under that decree was incorporated into the patent, and described the eastern boundary of the tract as commencing at a pertain oak post “ on the right bank of the Sacramento River,” .and thence “traversing the right bank of the Sacramento River down stream ” certain courses and distances. Held, that the title under this patent
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- onee the patent has issued, \whatever incidents or rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the government will be determined by the states\
- “[T]he right of the riparian owner ... [is] limited according to the law of the state.... ”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Field After Stating the Case as Above Reported
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
82 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1981-06-01· cited 1,034×
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of OneidaSupreme Court· 1974-01-21· cited 915×
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court· 1894-03-05· cited 734×
- Donnelly v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1913-04-07· cited 460×
- Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSupreme Court· 1912-03-04· cited 450×
- United States v. CressSupreme Court· 1917-03-12· cited 427×
- Hardin v. JordanSupreme Court· 1891-05-11· cited 381×
- Oregon Ex Rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court· 1977-01-12· cited 238×
- United States v. OregonSupreme Court· 1935-04-01· cited 207×
- United States v. UtahSupreme Court· 1931-04-13· cited 204×
- Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los AngelesSupreme Court· 1935-11-11· cited 194×
- Choctaw Nation v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1970-06-01· cited 184×
- Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1922-11-13· cited 142×
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1988-05-16· cited 117×
- United States v. AlaskaSupreme Court· 1997-06-19· cited 97×
- Joy v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court· 1906-04-02· cited 92×
- St. Anthony Falls Water Power Company v. St. Paul Water Commissioners; Minneapolis Mill Company v. SameSupreme Court· 1897-11-29· cited 88×
- Ppl Montana, LLC v. MontanaSupreme Court· 2012-02-22· cited 78×
- Eldridge v. TrezevantSupreme Court· 1896-01-06· cited 69×
- California Ex Rel. State Lands Commission v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1982-09-09· cited 67×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Packer v. Bird
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.