Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

HardIn Vs. Jordan

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 11, 1891

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

65 entries 4 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Goodtitle Vs. Kibbe US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  2. Mccready Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  3. MartIn Vs. Waddell US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1842
  4. St. Louis Vs. Rutz US Supreme Court · Feb 02, 1891
  5. U.S. 371 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  6. U.S. 371 (1891) Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  7. in 1841, and is still the law of that state notwithstanding the opinion of its highest court in Trustees of Schools v. Schroll
    Search
  8. Ill. 509. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Illinois in its opinion in Trustees of Schools v. Schroll
    Search
  9. waters whose margins are thus meandered, and that the waters themselves constitute the real boundary. Railroad Co. v. Schurmeir
    Search
  10. Jefferis v. East
    Search
  11. Middleton v. Pritchard
    Search
  12. Canal Trustees v. Haven
    Search
  13. Houck v. Yates
    Search
  14. Fuller v. Dauphin
    Search
  15. Boorman v. Sunnuchs
    Search
  16. Boom Co. v. Adams
    Search
  17. Clute v. Fisher
    Search
  18. Ridgway v. Ludlow
    Search
  19. Kraut v. Crawford
    Search
  20. Forsyth v. Smale
    Search
  21. of navigation and fisher -- and cannot be retained or granted out to individuals by the United States. Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  22. Weber v. Commissioners
    Search
  23. in making regulations of commerce, and in subjecting the lands to the necessities and uses of commerce. See Manchester v. Massachusetts
    Search
  24. Smith v. Maryland
    Search
  25. Den v. Jersey
    Search
  26. and to what extent this prerogative of the state over the lands under water shall be exercised. In the case of Barney v. Keokuk
    Search
  27. was taken in quite a recent case with regard to titles on the Sacramento river under the law of California. Packer v. Bird
    Search
  28. the flow of the tide, whether actually navigable or not, belong to the proprietors of the adjoining lands. Middleton v. Pritchard
    Search
  29. Morgan v. Reading
    Search
  30. covered thereby which are inseparable from sovereignty. As was well said by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Middleton v. Pritchard
    Search
  31. If it were not for the decision of the Supreme Court of that state in the case of Trustees v. Schroll
    Search
  32. the law of Illinois in this regard is the common law, and nothing else, and that the opinion of the court in Trustees v. Schroll
    Search
  33. observed, and we believe that there was never any departure from this course of decision until the case of Trustees v. Schroll
    Search
  34. that the rule of the common law was the law of that state in regard to the rights of riparian owners. See Middleton v. Pritchard
    Search
  35. Trustees v. Haven
    Search
  36. Beckman v. Kreamer
    Search
  37. Chicago v. Laflin
    Search
  38. Chicago & Pac. Railroad Co. v. Stein
    Search
  39. Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall
    Search
  40. The last of the above cited cases was decided in May, 1888, and reaffirmed in all things the case of Middleton v. Pritchard
    Search
  41. slough, and that the title extended to its center, and included the island in question. The case of Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall
    Search
  42. is founded on the civil law, by which lakes and ponds are regularly of private ownership. Lord Selborne, in Mackenzie v. Bankes
    Search
  43. courts in recent times, and has been decided as from the reason of the thing we should anticipate it would be. Bristow v. Cormican
    Search
  44. Then, after taking notice of a hesitating remark on the subject made by Justice Wightman in Marshall v. Ulleswater
    Search
  45. Paine v. Woods
    Search
  46. Commonwealth v. Vincent
    Search
  47. In other states the rule of the common law has prevailed as enunciated in Bristow v. Cormican
    Search
  48. as in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, etc. See Ledyard v. Ten
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  50. Trustees of Schools v. Schroll
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial