1948 ARTICLE 54.

and plats; and he shall in all things regulate his proceedings by the usages
and principles which have heretofore been established by the practice of
the land office, not inconsistent with this article or the principles of equity.

How the rules and practice of the land office must be proved. Hammond v.
Warfield, 2 H. & J. 151; Hall v. Gough, 1 H. & J. 127.

How escheat lands should be taken up, and practice of land office. Custom of
surveyors. Proprietary v. Jenings, 1 H. & McH. 92; The Railroad v. Hoye, 2 Bl.
259; Lee v. Hoye, 1 Gill, 188; Norwood v. Attorney-General, 2 H. & McH. 201.

See notes to secs. 23 and 40.

An. Code, sec 46. 1904, sec. 46. 1888, sec. 43. 1785, ch. 66, sec. 7.

45. Any person holding lands and being in actual possession thereof
in this State, under a warrant and survey or under a patent granted by
the government of Pennsylvania before the divisional line between the
two States was fixed, shall be entitled to receive a patent for such land
from the proper authorities of this State.

For a case dealing with an equitable interest held under a statute analogous to
this section, see Rowland v. Crawford, 7 H. & J. 52.

An. Code, sec. 47. 1904, sec. 47. 1888, sec. 44. 1862, ch. 129, sec. 37.

46. The proprietor of land bounding on any of the navigable waters
of this State shall be entitled to all accretions to said land by the reces-
sion of said water, whether heretofore or hereafter formed or made by
natural causes or otherwise, in like manner and to like extent as such
right may or can be claimed by the proprietor of land bounding on water
not navigable.

While it was not the intention of act of 1862, ch. 129, to give riparian owners
title to bed of stream, accretions to which such owners are entitled are not confined
to those which start at shore and extend to channel. A patent granted subsequent
to act of 1862 and in conflict with rights thereby conferred, should not have been
granted; specific performance refused. Melvin v. Schlessinger, 138 Md. 339.

A conveyance to water of a tidewater pond and " then running and bounding on
the water," etc., held to carry to middle of stream; rights of grantee are very similar
to those given by this and two following sections. Bowie v. W. Md. R. R. Terminal
Co., 133 Md. 10.

Hauling away of sand and gravel held to retard the formation of accretions;
injunction granted. King v. Land & Improvement Co., 143 Md. 698.

The leaseholder under a lease made in 1850, acquired by virtue of act of 1745,
ch. 9, the right to accretions, to exclusion of assignee of the reversion. Williams v.
Baker, 41 Md. 527.

This section held to have no application where a patent to land covered by water
was issued prior to its adoption. Dispute between such patentee and riparian owner
as to ownership of accretion. Linthicum v. Coan,' 64 Md. 452. Cf. Day v. Day,
22 Md. 539; Patterson v. Gelston, 23 Md. 445.

As long as the water covers the adjacent soil, there is no accretion, and hence
this section has no application. Hess v. Muir, 65 Md. 596; Hodson v. Nelson, 122
Md. 335.

For cases dealing with the subject of this section prior to its adoption, see Chap-
man v. Hoskins, 2 Md. Ch. 485. Ridgely v. Johnson, 1 Bl. 316, note (f); Giraud v.
Hughes, 1 G. & J. 264; B. & O. R. R. v. Chase, 43 Md. 23.

Cited but not construed in Spencer v. Patten, 84 Md. 426; Hill v. United States,
149 U. S. 593.

See notes to secs. 47 and 48.

An Code, sec. 48. 1904, sec. 48. 1888, sec. 45. 1862, ch. 129, sec. 38.

47. The proprietor of land bounding on any of the navigable waters
of this State shall be entitled to the exclusive right of making improve-