OCR Text |
Show It is true that this case ( 198 199 ) has been cited once , and so far as we have been able to discover once only , by the Supreme Court of the United States . In Oklahoma V . Texas , 258 U ( , . ) S . 574 , it is cited in a footnote at the bottom of page 591 for the proposition that to be navigable a stream must be either used or susceptible of being used as a highway for commerce and that if such use or susceptibility for such use is ( "exceptional exceptional ) , and confined to the irregular and short periods of temporary high ( water" water ) it is not navigable in law . In Harrison V . Fitc , supra , as in two or three other cases relied upon by Complainant , the fact that there was no ( "public" public ) terminus within the area in controversy was doubtless ( con- con ) sidered to be an additional reason for denying navigability . We find great conflict in state court decisions as to whether or not the existence of such public terminus is essential . We do not believe the Supreme Court of the United States has ever passed on that question and , so far as we have been able to find , Complainant has cited all federal court decisions , except one , in which the existence or ( non-existence nonexistence ) of a public terminus , as a factor in arriving at navigability in law , has been considered . In Harrison V . Fite complainant owned the riparian land . Judge Hook there says , ( "To To ) be navigable a water course must have a useful capacity as a public highway of transportation , " and that in order to subject water to a ( "public" public ) servitude mere depth of water or the fact that there might be pleasure boating thereon or that hunters or fishermen might float their skiffs or canoes thereon is not sufficient . In North ( American Anterican ) Dredging Co . v . Mintzer , 245 Fed . 297 , plaintiffs sought to restrain the Dredging Company from operating a dredge and removing dirt through their land . It appears that about 500 acres of salt marsh or tideland had been acquired by ( plaintiffs' plaintiffs ) grandfather by grant from those holding title under the state Tideland Act . When title to this marsh land was acquired and for years thereafter , it was used largely for farming and grazing . Years before , ( plaintiffs' plaintiffs ) grandfather had built a dike to keep out the tide and render the land more available for pasturage . After 1901 this dike was permitted to become out of repair and sea ( vater water ) flooded the land at high tide . However , there was a channel ( "varying varying ) with the tide from 2 feet or less at low tide in its shallowest ( parts" parts ) to 7 or 8 feet at flood . The Standard Oil Company acquired by grant a part of this |