IBIDEM (Lat.). The same. The same book or place. The same subject.
IC E. Ice fOrmed in a stream not naviga ble is part of the realty, and belongs to the owner of the bed of the stream, who has a right to prevent its removal; State v. Pott meyer, 33 Ind. 402, 5 Am. Rep. 224; Mill River Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 34 Conn. 462 ; Allen v. Weber, 80 Wis. 531, 50 N. W. 514,. 14 L. R. A. 361, 27 Am. St. Rep. 51; Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall, 101 Ill. 46, 40 Am. Rep. 196; but see, contra, Higgins v. Kusterer, 41 Mich. 318, 2 N. W. 13, 32 Rep. 160, where it is said that the ephemeral character of ice renders it incapable of any permanent or beneficial use as part of the soil, and therefore a sale of ice already formed, as a distinct commodity, should be held a sale of personalty whether in the wa ter or out of the water. See, also, 32 Am. Rep. 160, note; 32 Am. L. Reg. 166. Ripari an owners on navigable streams have no title to the ice which forms on such streams, as an incident to their ownership of the bank ; Marsh v. McNIder, 88 Ia. 390, 55 N. W. 469, 20 L. R. A. 33g, 45 Am. St. Rep. 240 ; and if a statute gives them title to .the ice opposite their property, and prescribes a remedy for invasion of their rights therein, that remedy is exclusive ; Briggs v. Ice Co., 11 Misc. 197, 32 N. Y. Supp. 95. The right' of taking ice either for use or sale from a pond which is a pliblic water, is a public right which may be exercised' by any citizen who can obtain access to the pond without trespassing oti the lands of other persons, or unreasonably interfering with their rights; Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 7 Allen' (Mass.)
158 ; Hittinger v. Eames, 121 Mass. 539; Wood v. Fowler, 26 Kan. 682, 40 Am. Rep. 330.
This right is personal; to take a large amount for commercial purposes is an un reasonable exercise of it ; Sanborn v. Ice Co., 82 Minn. 43, 84 N. W. 641, 51 L. R. A. 829, 83 Am. St. Rep. 401.
A landowner cannot cut ice for sale from a pond situated on his land, where its re moval works an actual injury to one having a pondage right therein; Howe v. Andrews, 62 Conn. 398, 26 Atl. 394; but the owner of land abutting on a millpond may take ice from the pond if it does not interfere with the use of the mill ; Eidemiller Ice Co. v. Guthrie, 42 Neb. 238, 60 N. W. 717, 28 L. R. A. 581. Ice in an ice-house 'is a subject of larceny, but before being gathered it is not, being part of the pond or river ; Ward v. People, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 395; ' Ward T. People, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 144. See Bish. N. Cr: L. 765, n. 2.
The legislature may forbid the taking of ice from a stream the title to which is in the public in favor of a public use for skating, etc.; Board of Park Com'rs of Des Moines v. Ice Co., 130 Ia. 603, 105. N. W. 203, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1103, 8 Ann. Cas. 28.
See, generally, as to ice and the property therein, 32 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 66; 27 id, 231, 240; 30 Cent. L. J. 6 ; 37 id. 357; 3 Alb. L. J. 386 ; 48 id. 504.
As to ice on sidewalks, see SIDEWALK ;