explaining that state holds title to public trust resources but title is held “not in a proprietary capacity, but in its sov- ereign capacity, that is to say, as trustee for the public”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that state holds title to public trust resources but title is held “not in a proprietary capacity, but in its sov- ereign capacity, that is to say, as trustee for the public”
- “[T]he state can make no sale or disposal of the soil underlying its navigable waters so as to prevent the use by the public of such waters for the purposes of navigation and fishing.”
- applying nullum tempus rule, the defense of laches is not available against “the government, state or national * * *”
- "These 'public rights' are the rights of navigation and fishery and the state has no authority to dispose of the submerged lands in such a manner as to interfere with these rights."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur solely upon the ground that laches is only a defense against a party seeking equitable relief and is not available as a defense to a law action of ejectment.