Shively v. Bowlby - 152 U.S. 1, 14 S. Ct. 548 (1894)

Rule:

With regard to grants of the government for lands bordering on tide water, they only extend to high water mark, and the title to the shore and lands under water in front of lands so granted inures to the state within which they are situated, if a state has been organized and established there. Such title to the shore and lands under water is regarded as incidental to the sovereignty of the state and cannot be retained or granted out to individuals by the United States. Such title being in the state, the lands are subject to state regulation and control, under the condition, however, of not interfering with the regulations which may be made by congress with regard to public navigation and commerce. Beyond all dispute, the settled law of this court is that the question how far the title of a riparian owner extends is one of local law. For a determination of that question the statutes of the state and the decisions of its highest court furnished the best and the final authority.

Facts:

Defendant wharf builder filed his action to quiet the title to lands below high-water mark on the Columbia River. Defendant claimed that the grant held by plaintiff from the United States passed no title or right as against the subsequent deed from the state to defendant. The state court declared that the land belonged to the defendant. Plaintiff sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Did the state court err in declaring that the land belonged to the defendant? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the state court. The court held that navigable waters and the soils under them remained public highways. The court ruled that when Oregon became a state, all grants and laws applicable to that territory became null and void, and that all lands became the property of the state of Oregon. The court ruled that the grant of the deed from the state was effective to transfer usage of the land below the high-water mark to defendant because 9 Stat. 496, under which plaintiff claimed, did not have the effect of passing any title in lands below high-water mark. The court held that the law of Oregon controlled the controversy, and under that state's laws, the land in question was deeded to defendant.