In Muller V. Landa, how is land described that is near a stream but does not mention the stream?

In the case of Muller v. Landa, land that is adjacent to a stream is described with the understanding that the center of the stream serves as the boundary. This reflects a legal principle in property law where natural features, such as streams and rivers, are often used to delineate property lines. When a property is adjacent to a body of water, the boundary typically runs along the centerline of that waterbody, which means that ownership extends to the midpoint of the stream. This principle is based on the idea that water bodies are natural boundaries that can serve as clear demarcations of land ownership.

The approach taken in this case emphasizes that even if the stream itself is not explicitly mentioned in the description of the property, it is still integral to determining the legal boundaries of the land in question. This understanding is important for land surveyors and property owners when clarifying property lines, especially in situations where natural features play a significant role in determining ownership.