Hardin v. Shedd

Background

This dispute involved two landowners around Wolf Lake, a non-navigable lake partly in Illinois and partly in Indiana. One landowner, Shedd, sought to confirm recorded title to land that adjoins and lies under parts of the lake using Illinois law. The other, Hardin (and a grantee), traced title to United States patents, including an 1841 patent to Holbrook, and claimed the patents covered land below the original water line. The Illinois courts ruled for Shedd, and Hardin appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether United States patents to border lots carried title to submerged land under a non-navigable lake. The Court explained that for non-navigable lakes the United States acts like a private owner and the effect of a grant depends on the law of the State where the land lies. Illinois law, as interpreted by its courts, holds that conveyances of upland do not carry adjoining submerged land. Applying that rule and the facts about where the water line and later accretions lay, the Supreme Court concluded Hardin’s claim failed and affirmed the state decree awarding the disputed land to Shedd.

Real world impact

The decision leaves title to this portion of Wolf Lake with the state-court findings and protects the record title that Shedd claimed. It means that people relying on old federal patents cannot assume those patents grant lakebed beyond the waterline when state law says they do not. The Court did not decide whether the State acquired title under the Swamp Land Act, so some questions about broader state ownership remain open.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing the opinion overlooks possible federal title retained by the United States and that the Swamp Land Act and Land Department findings could affect ownership. They warned this approach may disturb vested federal rights and questioned whether a federal question properly exists.