Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938 · Property

Propertyartificial lakeeasement in grossassignabilitydivisibilityprescriptionprofits in grossboating rights

Facts

Owners of land on Tunkhannoek Creek leased flooded land rights to the Pocono Spring Water Ice Company, which built a dam and created Lake Naomi. In 1899 the company deeded Frank C. Miller the exclusive right to fish and boat in the lake waters, and in 1900 Frank conveyed Rufus W. Miller a one-fourth interest in fishing, boating, and bathing rights, after which the brothers jointly operated boat and bath houses and licensed lake use for nearly thirty years. The deed to Frank expressly mentioned only fishing and boating, not bathing, but the brothers openly and continuously conducted a commercial bathing business without objection from those with knowledge. After Rufus died, his executors granted defendant a license to boat, bathe, and fish, and plaintiffs sought an injunction on the ground that the executors alone had no power to license those rights.

Issue

Whether Frank C. Miller held boating, fishing, and bathing rights in Lake Naomi, whether he could validly assign a one-fourth interest in those rights to Rufus W. Miller, and whether Rufus's executors alone could grant defendant a license to use those rights. The case also presented whether defendant could claim any such rights merely as the owner of land abutting the artificial lake.

Rule

On a non-navigable artificial lake where the bed under the water is owned by others, an abutting landowner has no riparian right to boat, bathe, or fish. A deed granting only fishing and boating rights does not include bathing rights absent express language. An easement or profit in gross may be acquired by prescription through open, uninterrupted, adverse use, and may be assignable if the creating instrument shows intent to make it assignable; however, if such rights are divided among multiple holders, they must be used and exercised as an entirety, as "one stock," and not severally.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Heron Reservoir is a small artificial, non-navigable lake near Erie, Pennsylvania. The submerged land beneath the water is owned by Pine Hollow Water Holdings, while Dana Ortiz owns a cabin lot that touches the shoreline and begins renting canoes to guests without any grant from Pine Hollow.

If Pine Hollow seeks to stop Dana's boating operation, what is the strongest legal conclusion?

Explanation. The majority held that on a non-navigable artificial lake, an abutting landowner has no riparian right to boat, bathe, or fish when the land under the water is owned by others. Unauthorized use is a trespass just like entry onto dry land. Dana's shoreline ownership alone therefore gives her no boating privilege.