Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 88, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 February 1911 — A SWEEPING DECISION. [ARTICLE]

A SWEEPING DECISION.

Meander Lands Belong to Abuting Landowners, Says Judge Vurpillat.

Starko County Democrat: The anxiously awaited opinion of the court in the Kankakee meander land case, better known on the court docket as the case of The State of Indiana vs. The Tuesburg Land Company, et al., was handed down by Judge Vurpillat Saturday forenoon, at an adjourned term of court. The case, because of its vast importance, has attracted unusual attention and nearly every member of the local bar and several outof town attorneys were present throughout the reading -of the voluminous and carefuHy-prer pared opinion. The opinion is undoubtedly the longest ever handed down by a judge of this circuit and covers 38 pages in a closely type-written manuscript. After reviewing the case from every possible angle and citing the law as laid down in numerous Supreme Court decisions, Judge Vurpillat holds that the State of Indiana is not the owner of any lands lying within the established meander lines of the Kankakee river, but that said lands belong to and are the property of the owners of the abutting shore lots or fractional subdivisions. As a basis for this conclusion Judge Vurpillat takes the position that the meander lines as established by the United States Government Survey are not boundry lines separating the lots and fractional subdivisions of lands bordering thereon from cither lands located within such meanders, but that such lines drawn upon the official plat are, in fact, the meander lines defining the banks of the Kankakee river, and that between such meander lines there is no land- except the bed of the Kankakee river. In other words, Judge Vurpillat holds that all of the territory within the meander lines must be recognized under the government survey as being the bed of the Kankakee river, and that under the law of riparian rights this territory becomes part of the abutting lots and subdivisions as the waters recede. The state, according to the court’s opinion, conveyed all of its rights, title and interest in and to this meandered territory when it sold the abutting lots and subdivisions to the present owners or their remote grantors. In case the state still owns any of the abutting lots or subdivisions it would, of course, be entitled to its proportionate share of the reclaimed river bed. The question of establishing the property lines in this meandered territory or reclaimed river bed \vas also, settled by the court in this cJecision. Judge Vurpillat’s position "on this important question is that the defendants in this action—and generally speaking this would also apply to all owners of lands along the meander line& in both Laporte and Starke counties—are the riparian, owners of all the land and river bed lying be-» tween two lines extended from the extreme ends of the shore line to their tracts to the center of the thread of the river at right angles. The decision is a signal victory for the principal defendant, the Tuesburg Land Company, and establishes its title to hundreds of acres in the old river bed vt’hich have been reclaimed in recent years by the straightening of the river and the digging of many dredge ditches. And what is true of the Tuesburg Land Company, in this connection, is also true of all other owners of lands along the meander lines in both counties. Under this decision the court also held that William E. Pinney and \ William B. Biddle, cross-complainants, are the riparian owners of 9.80 acres located in the north-west corner of Section 21, township 33 north, range 3 west, and as such owners are entitled to the land and river bed lying in front of their shore hold-

ings. These cross-complainants have been asserting title to the greater portion of Section 21 on both sides of the river, and this decision, therefore, is clearly adverse to their contention and position. Mr. Finney indicated Saturday, following the decision, that he would appeal the case to the Supreme court without asking so a new tial. Although Judge Vurpillat’s decision has a far-reaching effect it is in no sense revolutionary. Every feature of the decision appears to find strong support in many of the highest courts of the land, and the prevailing opinion seems to be that the Judge has once more “hit the nail on the head” in this important case. ,