Legal Opinion

Wyckoff v. Mayfield

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1929PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

It is the settled law of this state that a line running to the bank of a stream or to a stream which is non-navigable extends to the center or thread of the stream. There is no pretense that Rogue River is navigable at the place in dispute: Minto v. Delaney, 7 Or. 337; Micelli v. Andrus, 61 Or. 78, 85 et seq. (120 Pac. 737), and authorities therein cited,

The meander line is placed for the purpose of computing the acreage within the boundaries. The stream is the real boundary, not the meander line, whether the course is described as extending to the bank of the stream or to the stream itself:…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Nebraska v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. United States v. EllicottSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. Micelli v. AndrusOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Minto v. DelaneyOregon Supreme Court · 1879

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Woodland v. WoodlandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
  2. ROHNER ET UX v. NevilleOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Fitzstephens v. WATSONOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Kingsley v. JacobsOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Gubser v. TownOregon Supreme Court · 1954

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API