The
issue was whether or not the course of the creek had changed and if it had changed, whether the change was caused by erosion or avulsion (human interference). It was ruled human interference. The old creek bed that parallels the dike is the property line.
“But where there is avulsion or
sudden change from any
cause, natural or artificial, by which a stream leaves its old bed and cuts for itself a new channel, the rule is otherwise, for title cannot be made to depend upon the meanderings of vagrant streams. “
So you
cannot base title on stream that meanders. You need to be able to monument the location.
The
judge ruled that the old stream bed created by the building of the dike was and had been the property line, and that the new stream bed did not matter and even the old stream bed before the dike had been made did not matter. They had straightened out some curves but the old original bed was gone.