BOUNDARY. Any separation, natural or artificial, which marks the confines or line of two contiguous estates. 3 Toullier,. n. 171.
The term is applied to include the objects placed or existing at the angles of the bounding, lines, as well as those which extend along the lines of sepa ration.
A natural, boundary is a natural object re maining where it Was placed by nature.
A river or stream is a natural boundary, and the centre line of the stream is the line ; Jackson v. Louw, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 252 ; People v. Seymour, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 579; Haye's Ex'r v. Bowman, 1 Rand. (Va.) 417 ; Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N. J. L. 1, 10 Am. Dec. 356 ; Dunlap v. Stetson, 4 Mas. 349, Fed. Cas. No. 4,164; State v. Town of Gilmanton, 9 N. H. 461; 1 Tayl. 136; Morgan v. Reading, 3 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 366; Browne v. Ken nedy, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 195, 9 Am. Dec. 503; Hammond v. Ridgely's Lessee, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 245, 9 Am. Dec. 522 ; MacDonald v. Morrill, 154 Mass. 270, 28 N. E. 259. Where a natural pond is the boundary, the line is the natural shore; but where an ar tificial pond, the thread of the stream; Wa terman v. Johnson, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 261; State v. Town of Gilmanton, 9 N. H. 461; Mansur v. Blake, 62 Me. 38; Kirkpatrick v. Ice Co., 45 Mo. App. 335; Gouverneur v. Ice Co., 134 N. Y. 355, 31 N. E. 865, 18 L. R. A. 695, 30 Am. St. Rep. 669 ; Noyes v. Collins, 92 Ia. 566, 61 N. W. 250, 26 L. R. A. 609, 54 Am. St. Rep. 571; where a meandered lake, the middle thereof ; Olson v. Huntamer, 6 S. D. 364, 61 A. W. 479; where the seashore, the line is at low water mark ; Doane v. Willcutt, 5 Gray (Mass.) 335, 66 Am. Dec. 369 ; U. S. v. Pacheco, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 587, 17 L. Ed. 865; Oakes v. De Lan cey, 133 N. Y. 227, 30 N. E. 974, 28 Am. St. Rep. 628. So where one of the great lakes is the boundary ; Sloan v. Biemiller, 34 Ohio St. 492; or a navigable lake ; see Village of Wayzata v. Ry. Co., 50 Minn. 438, 52 N. W. 913. A grant of land bounded by navigable tide-water, carries no title to land below high water mark; De Lancey v. Piepgras, 63 Hun 169, 17 N. Y. Supp. 681.
Where land is bounded by the sea, and the latter suddenly recedes, leaving consid erable space uncovered, this new land, under the royal prerogative, becomes the proper ty of the king. But if the dereliction be gradual, and by imperceptible degrees, then the land gained belongs to the adjacent own er, for de inisiimis non curat lex; 3 Barn.
& C. 91, and cases cited. . Similarly, where a stream forming the boundary between two owners gradually changes its course, it con tinues to mark the line ; but if the change be sudden and immediate, the boundary re mains in the old channel ; 2 Bla. Com. 262; Collins v. State, 3 Tex. App. 323, 30 Am. Rep. 142 ; Niehaus v. Shepherd, 26 Ohio St. 40 ; Holbrook v. Moore, 4 Neb. 437; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 395, 20 L. Ed. 116.
Any artificial boundary is one erected by man.
The ownership, in case of such boundaries, must, of course, turn mainly upon circum stances peculiar to each case; 5 Taunt. 20; 8 B. & C. 259; generally extending to the centre; Child v. Starr, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 369; Warner v. Southworth, 6 Conn. 471. A tree standing directly on the line is the joint property of both proprietors; Griffin v. Bix by, 12 N. H. 454, 37 Am. Dec. 225; other wise, where it only stands so near that the roots penetrate ; 1 M. & M. 112; 2 Rolle 141. Land bounded on a highway extends to the centre-line, though a private street; New hall v. Ireson, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 595, 54 Am. Dec. 790; Paul v. Carver, 26 Pa. 223, 67 Am. Dec. 413 ; Railroad v. Bingham, 87 Tenn. 522, 11 S. W. 705; Schneider v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 101, 5 S. W. 350; Halloway v. South mayd, 64 Hun 632, 18 N. Y. Supp. 707; un less the description excludes the highway; Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 454, 8 Am. Dec. 263; Town of Chatham v. Brai nerd, 11 Conn. 60; Codman v. Evans, 1 Al len (Mass.) 443 ; 3 Washb. R. P. *635.
Boundaries are frequently denoted by mon uments fixed at the angleh. In such case the connecting lines are always presumed to be straight, unless described to be otherwise; Allen v. Kingsbury, .16 Pick. (il˘ass.) 235; Baker v. Talbott, 6 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 179; Burrows v. Vandevier, 3 Ohio, 382; Nelson v. Hall, 1 McLean 519, Fed. Cas. No. 10,107; 2 Washb. R. P. *632. A practical surveyor may testify whether, in his opinion, certain marks on trees, piles of stones, or other marks on the ground were intended as mon uments of boundaries; Northumberland Coal Co. v. Clement, 10 W. N. C. (Pa.) 321.