In the case Muller V. Landa, what is significant when land is described by metes and bounds near a stream?

In the case of Muller V. Landa, when land is described using the metes and bounds system near a stream, the significance of mentioning the center of the stream as the boundary is essential for clarity in property lines. When no specific calls are made in the legal description to define the boundary relative to the stream, the law generally interprets the center of the stream as the boundary line. This means that if a property line is not explicitly defined, the river or stream helps determine where one property's rights end and another's begins.

This approach ensures that both parties have a clear understanding of property boundaries when dealing with natural features like streams, which can often shift location or change during events such as flooding. Confusion could arise without this delineation since metes and bounds typically rely on consistent, well-defined markers to clarify where land begins and ends. As a result, determining the center of the stream as a boundary serves to provide a reliable marker in the absence of more precise descriptions.

This principle holds particular relevance in regions where natural water bodies can significantly affect land ownership and use, thus illustrating the significance of natural features in property law and land surveying.