Gatt v. Hurlburt

In his petition for rehearing plaintiff claims that the former decision is erroneous. In that decision we said:

“Now, it must be obvious to everyone that no person could acquire title by adverse possession to any submerged land lying between the low water mark of a navigable river and the navigable waters, for to do so would be to acquire title by adverse possession against the state.”

Plaintiff cites in support of Ms contention that this holding was in error Montgomery v. Shaver, 40 Or. 244 (66 P. 923), where this court, spealdng through Mr. Justice Wolverton, said:

“The right or privilege of…