Graham v. Knight

(after stating the facts as above). The appellants first insist that they were entitled to recover the accreted land lying east of the C. M. Collom survey, because the land conveyed by the Rochelles to J. Kos-minsky and his successors in title, now held by appellee, did not extend to the river so as to carry or acquire riparian rights and the right of alluvion along that part of the river. The contention is that there was conveyed to J. Kosminsky only the original highland along the water front, and there was not conveyed, but expressly and definitely excluded from his purchase, the beach or…