Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Allegiance to And The Manner Of >> Alluvion

Alluvion

am, rep, dec, ed, st, lovingston, county and clair

ALLUVION. That increase of the earth on a bank of a river, or on the shore of the sea, by the force of the water, as by a cur rent or by waves, or from its recession in a navigable lake, which is so gradual that no one can judge how much is added at each moment of time. Inst. L 2, t. 1, § 20; 3 B. & C. 91; Ang. Watercourses 53 ; Trustees of Hopkins Academy v. Dickinson, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 551; Lovingston v. St. Clair County, 64 Ill. 58, 16 Am. Rep. 516; Gould, Waters § 155.

COnVersely, where land is submerged by the gradual advance of the sea, the sover eign acquires the title to the part thereby covered and it ceases to belong to the for mer owner; Wilson v. Shiveley, 11 Or. 217, 4 Pac. 324; 5 Mees & W. 327, 4 C. P. D. 438 ; Trustees, etc., • of Town of East Hampton v. Kirk, 84 N. Y. 218, 38 Am. Rep. 505.

The proprietor of the bank increased by alluvion is entitled to the addition, this be ing regarded as the equivalent for the loss he may sustain from the encroachment of the waters upon his land; Chapman v. Hos kins, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 485; Ingraham v. Wilk inson, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 273, 16 Am. Dec. 342; Murry v. Sermon, 8 N. C. 56; Lamb v. Rick ets, 11 Ohio, 311; 'Municipality No. 2 v. Cot ton Press, 18 La. 122, 36 Am. Dec. 624; Hand ly v. Anthony, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 380, 5 L. Ed.

113; Gerrish v. Clough, 48 N. H. 9, 97 Am. Dec. 561, 2 Am. Rep. 165; Lovingston v. County of St. Clair, 64 III. 56, 16 Am. Rep. 516; Niehaus v. Shepherd, 26 Ohio St. 40; Cook v. McClure, 58 N. Y. 437, 17 Am. Rep. 270; Kraut v. Crawford, 18 Ia. 549, 87 Am. Dec. 414; Jefferis v. Land Co., 134 U. S. 178, 10 Sup. Ct. 518, 33 L. Ed. 872; Freeland v. R. R. Co., 197 Pa. 529, 47 Atl. 745, 58 L. R. A. 206, 80 Am. St. Rep. 850; Rutz v. Seeger, 35 Fed. 188; Goodsell v. Lawson, 42 Md. 348. The increase is to be divided among riparian proprietors by the following rule: measure the whole extent of their ancient line on the river, and ascertain how many feet each proprietor owned on this line; divide the newly-formed river-line into equal parts, and appropriate to each proprietor as many of these parts as he owned feet on the old line, and then draw lines from the points at which the proprietors respectively bounded on the old to the points thus determined as the points of division on the newly-formed shore. In applying this rule, allowance must be made for projections and indenta tions in the old line ; Inhabitants of Deer field v. Pling Arms, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 41, 28

Am. Dec. 276; Emerson v. Taylor, 9 Greenl. (Me.) 44, 23 Am. Dec. 531; Batchelder v. Ken iston, 51 N. H. 496, 12 Am. Rep. 143; Wood bury v. Short, 17 Vt. 387, 44 Am. Dec. 344; see Clark v. Campau, 19 Mich. 325; John ston v. Jones, 1 Black. (U. S.) 209, 17 L. Ed. 117; Kehr v. Snyder, 114 Ill. 313, 2 N. E. 68, 55 Am. Rep. 866. Where the increase is in stantaneous, it belongs to the sovereign, up on the ground that it was a part of the bed of the river of which he was proprietor; Hagen v. Campbell, 8 Port (Ala.) 9, 33 Am. Dec. 267; 2 Bla. Com. 269; the character of alluvion depends upon the addition being imperceptible; 3 B. & C. 91; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 46, 23 L. Ed. 59 ; Municipality No. 2 v. Cotton Press, 18 La. 122, 36 Am. Dec. 624.

Sea-weed thrown upon a beach, as par taking of the nature of alluvion, belongs to the owner of the beach; Phillips v. Rhodes, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 322; Emans v. Turnbull, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 322, 3 Am. Dec. 427; 3 B. & Ad. 967; Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382, 16 Am. Rep. 46; Clement v. Burns, 43 N. H. 609 ; Trustees of East Hampton v. Kirk, 68 N. Y. 459 ; id., 84 N. Y. 215, 38 Am. Rep. 505. But sea-weed below low-water mark on the bed of a navigable river belongs to the pub lic ; Chapman v. Kimball, 9 Conn. 38, 21 Am. Dec. 707; Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382, 16 Am. Rep. 46; Nudd v. Hobbs, 17 N. H. 527; Peck v. Lockwood, 5 Day (Conn.) 22.

The doctrine as to alluvion is equally ap plicable to tide-waters, non-tidal rivers and lakes; Gould, Waters § 155; Barney v. Keo kuk, 94 U. S. 324, 24 L. Ed. 224 ; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 46, 23 L. Ed. 59 ; Lovingston v. County, 64 In. 56, 16 Am. Rep. 516 ; Benson v. Morrow, 61 Mo. 345; Ridgway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 248; 4 C. P. D. 438; 7 H. & N. 151.

Alluvion differs from avulsion in this, that the latter is sudden and perceptible ; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 46, 23 L. Ed. 59. See AVULSION. And see 2 Ld. Raym. 737 ; Cooper, Inst. 1. 2, t. 1; Ang. Waterc. § 53; Phill. Int. Law 255; Ang. Tide Waters 249; Inst. 2. '1. 20; Dig. 41. 1. 'T; id. 39. 2. 9 ; id. 6. 1. 23 ; id. 41. 1. 5. For an interesting English case involving the jue caluvion, see address of M. Crackanthorpe before Am. Bar Assn. Report 1896. See ACCRETION ; RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS.