The Land That Wasn't: How Washington’s First Supreme Court Ruled on Who Owns the River
In a landmark 1891 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a fierce dispute over Puget Sound real estate, declaring that private property lines stop where the tide begins.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
WASHINGTON CITY, Jan. 19.—The Supreme Court has rendered an opinion affirming the judgment of the supreme court of California in the case of George F. Packer vs. Jake Bird and Frank Butler.
This suit was over the ownership of an island of eighty acres in the Sacramento river in Colusa county. Packer's claim rested on the ground that his grant extended to the middle of the stream, but the court decided against him on the ground that as the stream is navigable at this point title stops at high-water mark.
The decision establishes a critical precedent for land ownership along navigable waterways: the public retains rights to the water and the bed up to the high-tide line, regardless of private deeds claiming otherwise.
This 1891 ruling is the legal ancestor of every modern dispute over beach access, waterfront development, and tidal wetlands in Washington State. It established that 'ownership' does not grant dominion over the public trust—waterways remain common ground. Today, as developers push for more shoreline condos and environmentalists fight for public access, this century-old principle remains the bedrock of Pacific Northwest property law.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.