Certiorari to Jackson; Parkinson, J. Submitted October 13, 1909. (Docket No. 64.) Decided December 10, 1909.

Assumpsit by Thomas Green against the Michigan United Railways Company for the amount of a judgment. An order overruling a demurrer to the declaration is reviewed by defendant on writ of certiorari. Affirmed.

Thomas, Cummins & Nichols, for plaintiff.

Sanford W. Ladd, for defendant.

Plaintiff recovered a large judgment in one of the Federal courts of New York State against the Jackson & Suburban Traction Company. On May 8, 1908, he commenced a suit by summons in the circuit court for the county of Jackson against the Jackson Consolidated Traction Company, claiming that the Jackson & Suburban Traction Company had been consolidated with the Jackson Consolidated Traction Company. Plaintiff filed a petition in that case for an order to compel defendant in that suit to produce certain books and papers to enable him to declare. The circuit court granted the order. The defendant in that suit then applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the vacation of the order. Jackson Consolidated Traction Co. v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 155 Mich. 522 (119 N. W. 915). We there held that if there is " a general averment that the present relator is a consolidation of the various companies named, then the necessity for a discovery does not exist; but, if it is necessary to aver in detail the facts showing the incorporation, then a discovery is essential. We think that the general allegation is sufficient." While that suit was pending it is claimed that there was another consolidation between the Jackson Consolidated Traction Company and the defendant in this suit, and that by means of such consolidation the defendant was obligated to pay the debts of the former company.

The declaration contains four counts. To all of these

counts the defendant interposed a demurrer, which the court overruled. This order of the court is now before us for review by certiorari.

GRANT, J. (after stating the facts). The first and second counts, among other things, aver "that afterwards, to wit, on the 25th day of July, 1908, the said Jackson Consolidated Traction Company became and was merged, consolidated, and amalgamated with and into the defendant herein, the Michigan United Railways Company." If this count states a cause of action, it is not necessary to consider the validity of the other two counts.

The act, under which counsel for defendant assumes that this consolidation was effected, does not apply to the consolidation of street and electric railways organized under the laws of Michigan and lying wholly within its territorial limits. Act No. 143, Pub. Acts 1901. That act, both by its title and its body, refers to the consolidation of companies in this State with companies organized in adjoining States. In Shadford v. Railway, 130 Mich. 300 (89 N. W. 960), the defendant interposed the defense that no such consolidation was authorized by the laws of this State. To this contention this court replied that the defendant was not in a position to raise the question. The same rule applies here.

The two counts alleged generally a consolidation between the Jackson Consolidated Traction Company and the defendant. It is a general allegation, sufficient under the holding in Jackson Consolidated Traction Co. v. Jackson Circuit Judge, supra. If the plaintiff, upon the trial, can show a consolidation under which the law imposes upon the defendant the obligation to pay the debts of the former companies, the plaintiff will be entitled to recovery.

The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

BLAIR, C. J., and MOORE, MCALVAY, and BROOKE, JJ., concurred.

AINSWORTH v. MUNOSKONG HUNTING & FISHING CLUB.

1. BOUNDARIES - GREAT LAKES - REAL PROPERTY - RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

Riparian owners along the Great Lakes own to the meander line, outside of which the title is in the State in trust for its citi

zens.

2. SAME-RIVERS AND LAKES-NAMES.

The name by which a body of water is designated does not determine its character or its relation to the Great Lakes.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-TREATIES-COURTS OF STATES. Treaties between the United States and Canada, fixing the boundary lines between the countries, are the supreme law of the land, binding upon State courts.

4. SAME-TREATIES-ACTS OF CONGRESS.

Acts of congress affecting the terms of treaties are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts but relate to the political department of government.

5. SAME

STATUTES-EFFECT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTS. An act of congress (29 U. S. Stat. 54), for the regulation of anchorage in St. Mary's river, will not be held to effect a change by implication in the relation of Munoskong Bay to Lake Huron by making it a part of St. Mary's river, notwithstanding the terms of the statute affect the bay and include it within the regulations.

6. BOUNDARIES-GREAT LAKES-BAYS-RIVERS.

A bay about six miles in length and breadth, known as Munoskong Bay, connected with Mud Lake, from the head of which to Lake Huron is a distance of 24 miles, navigable and practically level with Lake Huron, and having a similar current, is a part of it and not of St. Mary's river; the riparian owners having title to the meander line of the bay.

Appeal from Chippewa; Steere, J. Submitted October 13, 1909. (Docket No. 76.) Decided December 10, 1909.

Bill by Corydon E. Ainsworth and Frank Trempe against the Munoskong Hunting & Fishing Club to en

join the interference with hunting wild fowl on navigable waters. From a decree for complainants, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

E. S. B. Sutton, for complainants.

Sharpe & Handy (John H. Goff, of counsel), for defendant.

A complete statement of the averments in the bill of complaint is found in 153 Mich. 185 (116 N. W. 992, 17 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1236, 126 Am. St. Rep. 474), when the case was before us upon demurrer, and the court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the appeal. That decision was reversed, and the case remanded for answer by the defendant. The answer was duly filed, issue joined, proofs taken and decree rendered for complainants enjoining the defendant from interfering with the right of complainants to fish and hunt upon the water described in the bill of complaint. The answer denies that the subaqueous land of Munoskong Bay is held by the State of Michigan, and avers that the waters of said bay are a part

The following is the opinion referred to on page 71:

Is Munoskong Bay a part of the St. Mary's river, or of Lake Huron? Since the time of their discovery the varying characteristics of the connecting waters between Lake Superior and Lake Huron have led to more or less uncertainty and confusion in naming and classifying them. In the earliest accounts of them the Jesuit fathers, in their "Relations," describe those waters sometimes as a strait, and at other times as a river, and, following them, explorers, travelers, and experienced writers, as well as surveyors, geogra phers, and hydrographers have disagreed as to what those waters are and how they should be named and designated. Some insist that the entire stretch of water from Iroquois to Detour is a strait only; others, that it is a river the whole distance; others, that it is part strait and part river. Some consistently call it at all times a river, others a strait, and some speak of it interchangeably as a strait and a river. The testimony given in this case is also along somewhat conflicting lines. An examination of the charts and undisputed natural features of this waterway shows the reason of such confusion. Between Detour on Lake Huron and Point Iroquois on Lake Superior, we find, at different places, an endless diversity of

of the St. Mary's river, and the rights of defendant as riparian owner extend to the middle thread of that stream. The answer admits that the agents and servants of defendant interfered with the attempt of complainants to hunt as averred in the bill, but denies that such acts were done maliciously. The answer asserts ownership in defendant, and avers it has exclusive right to hunt and fish at the place named. The answer further avers that the defendant, has at great expense erected a clubhouse, purchased the land surrounding said bay, and has sown the bay with rice and other vegetables and grain suitable for the feeding of wild fowls; that it has prepared such waters as a game preserve, and owns the exclusive control over such waters and should be protected therein.

Munoskong Bay is connected with Mud Lake at its upper end. The dimensions of Munoskong Bay are not stated in the record. Applying the scale of miles found upon the map, we find it to be about 6 miles east and west and about 5 miles north and south. The defendant owns all the lands around this bay except a fraction of an acre. Two rivers enter into Munoskong Bay at its west side. shores, shapes, sizes, and courses of water, with varying depth, width, and flow. Kohl in his "Wandering Round Lake Superior" (page 302) thus well describes it:

"The outpour of water at the eastern end of the lake (Superior), called the St. Mary's river, is a combination of several variously formed waters. The river divides into several broad arms, which separate, unite, and then divide again. Repeatedly these arms collect in large pools, when they become calm, and then shoot in narrow passages from one lake to another, thus forming rapids."

Along this waterway, according to the point of observation, are found bays, straits, lakes, rivers, and rapids, well defined, and free from any doubt when considered individually. Conflicting property interests have brought the matter before our courts, from time to time, and it is now well settled that a part of these connecting waters constitute a river, giving to the shore owner all the riparian rights that name implies in Michigan. (Citing cases). It has also been held by our Supreme Court in Sherwood v. Commissioner of State Land Office, 113 Mich. 227 (71 N. W. 532), that the river does not extend to Detour Passage, and that Sweet's Island, lying above the passages, is in a part of Lake Huron. But