PROPERTY RIGHTS ON 
INLAND LAKES 
Dear Forest and Stream: 
T O the person buying or leasing 
propery which fronts upon an in¬ 
land lake the question of his or her 
riparian rights may be of considerable 
importance. In particular is this true 
of riparian owners upon the thousands 
of lakes in the northern states, dotted 
with summer cottages, so located for 
the express purpose of enjoying the 
fishing, boating and bathing. 
In situations of this kind the prop¬ 
erty owner may have but a small lake 
frontage, perhaps only fifty or one hun¬ 
dred feet. It follows that such an owner 
or his lessee might have but a small 
strip of the land under the lhke. But, 
as a general rule, such a buy or lease, 
regardless of the lake frontage, is made 
in contemplation of having the use of 
the entire surface of the lake fronted. 
This then raises the interesting ques¬ 
tion of the rights of each property 
owner, or lessee, in the use of the entiie 
lake, by virtue of his ownership or 
rental of perhaps but a small portion 
of the lake bed. 
This point was passed upon in Beach 
vs. Hayner, 207 Mich., 93, in an inter¬ 
esting manner. And when it is con¬ 
sidered that the holding in this decision 
defines the rights of thousands of vaca¬ 
tionists, summer resorters and sports¬ 
men, in situations of this kind, it ap¬ 
pears to be a case of wide general 
interest. The facts and circumstances 
which culminated in the action were, as 
gathered from the report, substantially 
as follows: 
Title to Lake Bed in Several Owners 
The plaintiff owned certain land bor¬ 
dering Silver Lake, an inland lake cov¬ 
ering about one hundred acres of land. 
This holding of the plaintiff also in¬ 
cluded the land under the lake, with¬ 
in the plaintiff’s portion of the land. 
There were, it appears, a number of 
other land owners who owned tracts of 
land of varying sizes which fronted 
upon the lake, and these owners owned 
the land within their respective subdivi¬ 
sions under the lake. All right. 
The owners of these various tracts 
of land built cottages upon them which 
they either occupied themselves, or 
rented to others, as suited their de¬ 
sires. These cottages were then oc¬ 
cupied by either their owners or the 
latters’ tenants during the summer 
months, and the occupants made use 
of the lake for boating and fishing. 
The plaintiff, it appears, objected 
to this use of the entire surface of 
the lake by the tenants, families, 
guests, etc., of the other riparian 
owners, and filed the instant bill to 
enjoin the defendants. The contention 
of the plaintiff being, it seems, that 
each owner of property fronting the 
lake was only entitled to use that por¬ 
tion of the lake to which he had the 
title to the land under the lake. 
Upon the trial of the cause in the 
lower court a decree was entered dis¬ 
missing the plaintiff’s bill. In giving 
his reasons for this action, and in re¬ 
plying to the plaintiff’s contentions, the 
circuit judge said: 
“The court, however, is of the opin¬ 
ion that where there are several ri¬ 
parian proprietors of an inland lake, 
that all such proprietors and their 
lessees may use the surface of the 
whole lake for boating, fishing and 
fowling purposes, if access is gained 
to the lake from their own or leased 
land; and that no one riparian pro¬ 
prietor can exclude another riparian 
proprietor from the exercise of these 
rights; and that neither can one ripa¬ 
rian proprietor exclude the lessess of 
another riparian proprietor from the 
exercise of these rights.” 
Cause Appealed to Michigan Supreme 
Court 
The plaintiff prosecuted an appeal 
from this decree of the lower court to 
the Michigan Supreme Court. Here 
the court, in stating the question be¬ 
fore it, quoted from the brief of coun¬ 
sel for the plaintiff as follows: 
“The important legal question in¬ 
volved in this case is whether or not, 
where more than one person owns the 
bed of an inland pond with neither 
outlet nor inlet, can one owner ex¬ 
clusively use and control his property 
against the trespass of the public who 
claim to have a license from the other 
owners of land in the lake, to go 
thereon?” 
After the foregoing statement of the 
question before it the court noted that 
the exact situation had not been passed 
upon by it before. Then after a re¬ 
view of a number of cases involv¬ 
ing somewhat analogous situations, it 
quoted from the dissenting opinion of 
Mr. Justice Campell in Sterling vs. 
Jackson, 69 Mich. 488, in part, as fol¬ 
lows: 
“ ‘Small and entirely private lakes 
are sometimes divided up for such pur¬ 
poses as require separate use; but for 
uses like boating, and similar surface 
privileges, the enjoyment is almost 
universally held to be in common. 
This was held by the House of Lords 
in Menzies v. Macdonald, 36 Eng. L. 
& Eq. Rep. 20. It was there held that 
for all purposes of boating and fishing, 
the whole lake was open to every ripa¬ 
rian owner; while for such fishing as 
required the use of the shore, each was 
confined to his own land for drawing 
seines ashore, and the like uses.’ ” 
The court then in approving the 
foregoing statement of the law upon 
the point discussed, and in summing 
up its conclusions upon the record be¬ 
fore it, in part, said: 
What the Court Decided 
“This reasoning seems to be appeal¬ 
ing. To hold with the plaintiff and 
appellant in this case would cause the 
establishment of a rule very difficult 
in its application. All riparian owners 
and their licensees would have a clear 
right to enter upon certain portions of 
the surface of the lake, and it certainly 
would be very difficult to establish defi- - 
nite lines of demarcation along the 
property lines of the various owners. 
A^ the question of fowling upon the 
waters is not presented by the bill and 
is not an issue here, it will be unneces¬ 
sary to determine that question, but we 
are of the opinion that the judge was 
right in holding that, where there are 
several riparian owners to an inland 
lake, such proprietors and their lessees 
and licensees may use the surface of 
the whole lake for boating and fishing, 
so far as they do not interfere with 
the reasonable use of the waters by the 
other riparian owners. . . .” 
In conclusion the Michigan Court 
affirmed the decree of the lower court 
in favor of the defendants. Holding, 
as outlined in the opinion, that each 
property owner owning a portion of 
the lake bed had the right, with his 
lessees, to the reasonable use of the 
whole lake surface. Leslie Childs. 
A DAY IN THE MIX RUN 
VALLEY 
Dear Forest and Stream: 
HREE of us traversed the Mix 
Run Valley late in January, 1923, 
and explored the mountains of Cam¬ 
eron and Elk Counties in Pennsylvania. 
We wished to see scenes viewed only 
by a few and we were willing to en¬ 
dure hardships to gain a glimpse of 
nature’s store of treasure. 
Our party left the early morning 
train at Grant Station, named after 
the great general, whose special train 
steamed out of Washington one May 
morning early in the ’70’s that he 
might forget his presidential duties 
and enjoy a few days’ fishing in the 
wilderness with his friend, Donald 
Cameron, Secretary of State. Several 
other members of his cabinet accom¬ 
panied President Grant on this trip. 
It was along a railroad that was being 
constructed through one of the primi¬ 
tive forests of western Pennsylvania. 
Today it is the Low Grade Branch of 
the Pennsylvania System. 
We slowly climbed the mountain 
side, which was covered with a heavy 
(Continued on page 386) 
Page 382 
