RIGHTS IN SUBMERGED LANDS

Authors

Abstract

Complainants, riparian property owners on Lime Lake, appealed from a judgment dismissing their bill for an injunction against the stare railroad commission to restrain it from acting under certain legislation in making contracts with certain persons to take marl from the bed of such lake. Held, the bill should have been entertained, because the commission exceeded its authority in making the contract, there being no provision for proper consideration to be paid to the state, as the legislation under which the commission acted required. Complainants also urged that the ruling of the lower court was erroneous because the legislation under which the commission, had sought to act was unconstitutional, in that the state held the title to submerged lands under navigable lakes under an inalienable trust for the people. The court, realizing the importance of this question, and desiring to make it clear that its reversal was not to be placed on this ground, said that this legislation was perfectly constitutional; because the inalienable trust, so often spoken of, applied only to the jus publicum and not to the jus privatum; that the jus privatum was alienable at the discretion of the legislature.

Recommended Citation

RIGHTS IN SUBMERGED LANDS, 27 Mich. L. Rev. 84 (1928).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol27/iss1/6