Through defendants' lands flowed a stream, a little over thirty feet in width and averaging in depth approximately one foot. It had a flow of less than fifty cubic feet per second. The stream was not capable of "commercial travel by any kind of boat" and it was doubtful whether it was "practical to use a boat on it in fishing." Some testimony indicated that in logging days some loose timber had been floated down the stream, but it was also testified by oldsters that it was "never possible to run logs down the stream without the use of dams." In an action by a private citizen and the Attorney General on relation of Hoffmaster (Director of Conservation) to compel defendants to restore the bed of the stream to its former condition by removing barriers and filling in holes dug in the bed at the entrance and exit of the stream, placed there to prevent waders from entering defendants' land, held, reversing the trial court, three judges sitting en banc, that defendants must make such restoration. Rushton, Hoffmaster et al v. Taggart et al, (Mich. 1943) 11 N.W. (2d) 193.
R. W. A.,
WATERS AND WATERCOURSES-FISHING-RIGHT OF PUBLIC IN FLOATABLE STREAMS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol42/iss4/12