In a recent decision the supreme court of Michigan has considered anew, and with refreshing insight, the significance of a meander line as a boundary. The case arose on a bill to foreclose a land contract to which the defendant filed a cross-bill alleging fraud in the sale. The property which abutted on Lake Michigan was represented by plaintiff's agent as extending to a point about one hundred feet from the shore of the lake. The meander line was two hundred seventy-seven feet from the water's edge. On the theory that the plaintiff had no interest in the strip between the meander line and the boundary represented which he could convey, the defendant had damages on the cross-bill. On appeal the decree was reversed, the court holding that, since the meander line was not a boundary, the plaintiff had title to all the land which he purported to convey.