LAKE. A body of water surrounded by land, or not forming part of the ocean, and occupying a depression below the ordinary drainage level of the region. Cent. Dict.
The fact that there is a current from a higher to a lower level does not make that a river which would otherwise be a lake ; and the fact that a river swells out in broad pond-like sheets with a current does not make that a lake which would otherwise be a river ; State v. Town of Gilmanton, 14 N. H. 477.
The earlier decisions in this country tend ed to support the doctrine that no riparian owner could acquire title to the bed of any lake however small ; Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 261; Wood v; Kelley, 30 Me. 47; but they were based upon the Massa chusetts ordinance of 1647 (when the terri tory of Maine was a part of Massachusetts) which provided that all lakes more than ten acres in extent should be the property of the state for the benefit of the public. Watuppa Reservoir Co. v. City of Fall River, 147 Mass. 548, 18 N. E. 465, 1 L. R. A. 466. Other state courts followed these decisions, however, and while it is a recognized prin ciple in this country that the title to the soil below the waters of a navigable lake is in the state and not in the owner of the abutting soil ; Champlain & St. L. R. Co. v. Valentine, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 484 ; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 13, 14 Sup. Ct. 548, 38 L. Ed. 331; Morris v. U. S., 174 U. S. 196, 19 Sup. Ct. 649, 43 L. Ed. 946 ; Austin v. R. Co., 45 Vt. 215 ; it has been also held that this principle applies to the bed of a non-naviga ble lake; Edwards v. Ogle, 76 Ind. 302; Noyes v. Collins, 92 Ia. 566, 61 N. W. 250, 26 L. R. A. 609, 54 Am. St. Rep. 571; but see as to the last case, Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 Sup. Ct. 808, 838, 35 L. Ed. 428, which held that the Illinois case did not es tablish in that state the doctrine that the bed of small lakes does not belong to riparian owners, there being another ground on which the decision was also based ; therefore, al though it is the practice of the federal courts to follow the decisions of the state courts, they refused in this instance so to do, re versing Hardin v. Jordan, 16 Fed. 823.
In Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 23 Sup. Ct. 685, 47 L. Ed. 1156, it is said that the law of Illinois has been settled since Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 Sup. Ct. 808, 83$, 35 L. Ed. 428, that conveyances of the up land do not carry adjoining land below the water line, citing Fuller v. Shedd, 161 Ill. 462, 44 N. E. 286, 33 L. R. A. 146, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380; Hardin v. Shedd, 177 Ill. 123, 52 N. E. 380; Hammond v. Shepard, 186 Ill. 235, 57 N. E. 867, 78 Am. St. Rep. 274. Whether a patentee of the United States to land bounded on a non-navigable lake belonging to the United States takes title to the ad joining submerged land is determined by the law of the state where the land lies; Hardin Bo v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 23 Sup. Ct. 685, 47 L. Ed. 1156.
Later decisions in New York also over ruled the case of Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377; and hold that the bed of a non-navi gable inland lake belongs to the abutting riparian owner ; Gouverneur v. Ice Co., 134 N. Y. 355, 31 N. E. 865, 18 L. R. A. 695, 30 Am. St. Rep. 669, reversing 57 Hun 474, 11 N. Y. Supp. 87; and see in support of this doctrine, Webber v. Boom Co., 62 Mich. 626, 30 N. W. 469 ; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369 ; Ridgway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 248 ; Ol son v. Huntamer, 6 S. D. 364, 61 N. W. 479.
Adjacent owners of land on a lake own the land under water fronting their premises to the "thread of the lake"-which, where there is no outlet, passes through the center point of the lake on its longest diameter ; Calkins v. Hart, 64 Misc. 149, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1049.
Where a non-navigable inland lake is the subject of private ownership, neither the pub lic nor an adjacent land owner has a right to boat upon it or to fish in its waters; Lem beck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 24 N. E. 686, 8 L. R. A. 578, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828 ; and such an owner may lease his interest in the bed of the lake for a term of years, reserv ing to himself the right of fishing therein ; Bass Lake Co. v. Hallenbeck, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 508.